[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22586-22587]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08556]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0677; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-61
and Amendment of Area Navigation Route T-286 Due to the Decommissioning
of the Robinson, KS, VOR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, delay of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date of a final rule
published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2020, removing VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-61 and extending area
navigation (RNAV) route T-286 in its place due to the planned
decommissioning of the Robinson, KS,

VOR navigation aid (NAVAID). The FAA is delaying the effective date to
coincide with the slipped decommissioning date of the Robinson VOR to
September 10, 2020, and the anticipated completion of pre-requisite air
traffic control (ATC) training necessary to safely implement new air
traffic procedures necessary to adopt the rule amendments.

DATES: The effective date of the final rule published on March 9, 2020
(85 FR 13481) is delayed until September 10, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket
No. FAA-2019-0677 (85 FR 13481, March 9, 2020), removing VOR Federal
airway V-61 in its entirety and extending RNAV route T-286 in its place
due to the planned decommissioning of the Robinson, KS, VOR NAVAID. The
effective date for that final rule is May 21, 2020. Subsequent to the
final rule, due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns and response
considerations, ATC facilities across the National Airspace System
(NAS) have adjusted controller scheduling and reduced staffing to
reduce pandemic impacts. This has resulted in controller training and
briefing challenges while they perform essential ATC duties supporting
the NAS. As a result, some ATC facilities affected by the rule
amendments were unable to complete the required pre-requisite
controller training necessary to safely implement new air traffic
procedures necessary to adopt the regulatory air traffic service (ATS)
route amendments, and accompanying arrival procedure actions, to
support the May 21, 2020, effective date.
    To facilitate the safe and continuous use of existing air traffic
procedures, and allow sufficient time for ATC facilities to complete
the required prerequisite training necessary to safely implement the
new air traffic procedures, the planned decommissioning of the
Robinson, KS, VOR has been slipped to September 10, 2020. Therefore,
the rule removing V-61 and amending T-286 is delayed to coincide with
that date.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-
routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11D dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-route
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Good Cause for No Notice and Comment

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of Title 5, United States Code, (the
Administrative Procedure Act) authorizes agencies to dispense with
notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for ``good
cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary,
or contrary to the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency,
upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment
prior to the rulemaking. The FAA finds that prior notice and public
comment to this final rule is unnecessary due to the brief length of
the extension of the effective date and the fact that there is no
substantive change to the rule.''

Delay of Effective Date

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective
date of the final rule, Airspace Docket 19-ACE-5, as published in the
Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13481), FR Doc. 2020-04657, is
hereby delayed until September 10, 2020.

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., P. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-08556 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


5 1 September 19, 2005 CHAPTER FIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE ON REPORTING In enacting the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA) of 1990, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing information on the presence, releases, and waste management of toxic chemicals. The Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the federal government, state and local governments, industry, environmental groups and the general public to fully participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. TRI's publicly available database provides quantitative information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities. With the collection of this information starting in 1987 came the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI enables all interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these goals over time. As such, the TRI system has become a neutral yardstick by which progress can be measured by all stakeholders.

EPA believes that the changes included in this rulemaking will reduce reporting burden and save resources for regulated entities without compromising the usefulness of TRI information to the public. As a consequence of this rulemaking, a number of TRI reporting forms will change from Form R to Form A. For PBT chemicals this will be limited to regulated entities that have no releases to air, land or water onsite and no transfers offsite for disposal for both production and non production related waste. These same forms will be limited to 500 lbs for recycling, energy recovery or treatment for destruction in order to qualify for the new Form A eligibility. For non PBT chemicals, expanded Form A eligibility will be extended to reports with total releases less than 5000 lbs per chemical resulting in a reduction of total release pounds reported of less than 0.33 percent and a reduction of total production related waste pounds of less than 0.11 percent.

For both PBT and non PBT chemical reporting forms, use of Form A will result in the information not reported on the maximum amount of the chemical reported onsite at any one time and also the production ratio of the chemical. Form A retains facility specific information such as location, technical contact as well as the chemical reported and its upper bound mass for eligibility. The impacts of not collecting these data fields were not evaluated and will not be discussed further in this analysis The likely impacts of the New and Expanded Eligibility for Form A Options are discussed below.

5.1 NEW ELIGIBILITY FOR FORM A: PBT CHEMICALS This option allows facilities reporting on PBT chemicals, except dioxin and dioxin like compounds, with zero disposal or other releases to use Form A, provided they meet the 5 2 September 19, 2005 1,000,000 pound alternate reporting threshold and have 500 pounds or less of total other waste management quantities ( i. e., PBT ARA or PRA). Under this option, 2,064 facilities could convert 2,703 Form Rs to Form As. Eligible facilities would have zero disposal or other release quantities for a PBT chemical, therefore no data on releases is not reported. Information would be not reported, however, regarding the use( s) of the chemical ( i. e. was the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used), the maximum amount of the chemical on site at any time during the calendar year, and the production ratio. With regard to the maximum amount of the chemical on site, information would be not reported that, in the past, has been useful in:

° emergency planning and response ( equivalent data may also be available on Tier II reports required under EPCRA section 312); ° environmental data analyses ( e. g. as a proxy for throughput); and ° compliance targeting analyses ( e. g. identifying facilities that are not compliant with other EPA regulatory programs).

Based on an analysis of the RY2002 data, EPA determined that the majority of the forms eligible under this option would be for lead and lead compounds, mercury and mercury compounds, and polycyclic aromatic compounds ( PACs). Information not reported would, therefore, also include:

° information on recycling small amounts of lead and lead compounds and mercury and mercury compounds  eligible facilities would not be reporting other waste management quantities for lead and lead compounds or mercury and mercury compounds since most metals cannot be combusted for energy recovery or treated for destruction. Using RY2002 TRI data, EPA conducted an analysis of lead and mercury reporters that suggested that the amount recycled by eligible facilities is less than 0.5% of total lead or mercury recycled. Moreover, based on the Form A certification statement, data users will know that an eligible facility is recycling 500 pounds or less of lead and lead compounds or mercury and mercury compounds. ° information on recycling, energy recovery, or treatment of PACs, including benzo( g, h, i) perylene, and other organic chemicals  eligible facilities would be reporting recycling, energy recovery ( typically via burning in a boiler or industrial furnace), or treatment for destruction ( typically via incineration). Using RY2002 TRI data, EPA conducted an analysis of PACs, including benzo( g, h, i) perylene, reporters that suggested that the amount recycled, recovered for energy or treated by eligible facilities is less than 1% of total PACs, including benzo( g, h, i) perylene, recycled, recovered for energy or treated. Moreover, based on the Form A certification statement, data users will know that the facility is recycling, treating, or recovering for energy 500 pounds or less of PACs.

For this information, however, the Form A serves as a range report or zero to 500 lbs. In total, less than 2 percent of Total Production Related Waste ( Table 5 1) would no longer be reported on Form R as a result of this option, even if all eligible facilities used Form A. Since it is unlikely that this will happen, the actual impacts will likely be even smaller.

Beyond burden reduction, an additional benefit of this option is its potential to provide an incentive to eliminate releases and reduce the need for waste management. 5 3 September 19, 2005 5.2 EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY FOR FORM A: NON PBT CHEMICALS The Expanded Eligibility for Form A: Non PBT chemicals option extends the alternate reporting threshold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds. Under this option, 6,461 facilities could convert 12,201 Form Rs to Form As. For forms qualifying under this option, specific release and other waste management information will no longer be reported to TRI as well as information regarding the use( s) of the chemical ( i. e. was the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used), the maximum amount of the chemical on site at any time during the calendar year, and the production ratio. However, data users will know that an eligible facility has no more than 5,000 pounds of total production related waste for each eligible Non PBT chemical.

To evaluate the extent of data not reported, EPA examined the volume of total releases and total production related waste that would no longer be reported. In total, less than 0.5% of total releases and less than 0.2% of total production related waste would no longer be reported to TRI. At the chemical specific level, Table 5 2 shows that for the majority of chemicals ( 79%), less than 10% of their total releases would no longer be reported. However, for 7% of chemicals, between 50% and 99% of their releases pounds would no longer be reported and for 6% of chemicals, 100% of their release pounds would no longer be reported. Table 5 2 shows similar results for total production related waste. Specifically, for 93% of chemicals, less than 10% of their total production related waste would no longer be reported. However, for 6% of chemicals, 100% of their total production related waste pounds would no longer be reported. A complete listing of the pounds of total releases and total production related waste that would no longer be reported by chemical is presented in Table A 1 in Appendix A. Data not reported associated with alternate Form A thresholds of 500, 1,000, and 2,000 pounds are presented in Tables B 16 through B 18 in Appendix B.

Extending the alternate reporting threshold will also affect the distribution of TRI reporting at the community level. EPA evaluated the impact of this option to local communities using a postal zip code analysis. As shown in Table 5 3 if the alternate reporting threshold is extended to 5,000 lbs, 7% of all zip codes containing TRI reporters would not have TRI information reported for TRI chemicals on Form R; 22% of all zip codes containing TRI reporters would not have TRI information reported on Form R for at least one facility; and 45% of all zip codes containing TRI reporters would not have TRI information reported on the Form R on at least one TRI chemical. The results of this analysis at the 500, 1,000 pound, and 2,000 pound alternate thresholds can be found in Table B 19 in Appendix B. 5 4 September 19, 2005 TABLE 5 1 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RELEASE AND TOTAL PRODUCTION RELATED WASTE POUNDS NOT REPORTED DUE TO NEW AND EXPANDED FORM A ELIGIBILITY TOTAL RELEASE LBS NOT REPORTED PERCENTAGE OF ALL TOTAL RELEASE LBS TOTAL PRODUCTION RELATED WASTE LBS NOT REPORTED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PRODUCTION RELATED WASTE NEW ELIGIBILITY FOR FORM A: PBT CHEMICALS OPTION ( SECTIONS 8.2 8.8) 0 0% 12,855,836 1.0%

EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY FOR FORM A: NON PBT CHEMICALS OPTION ( SECTIONS 8.1 8.7) 14,164,380 0.32% 25,369,199 0.10%

TABLE 5 2 PERCENT OF CHEMICALS WITHIN VARIOUS RANGES OF RELEASES AND PRODUCTION RELATED WASTE THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR FORM A REPORTING Percent of Pounds Eligible for Form A Reporting Total Releases ( Section 8.1) Total Production Related Waste ( Sections 8.1 8.7)

100% of pounds 6% 6%

99  50% of pounds 7% 0%

49  10% of pounds 9% 4%

9  > 0% of pounds 44% 58%

0% of pounds 35% 31%

TABLE 5 3 ZIP CODES ELIGIBLE FOR FORM A REPORTING Number of Zip Codes Percent of Total Zip Codes Containing Form Rs Average Number of Form Rs per Zip Code Zip codes with at least one Form R newly eligible for Form A 4,063 45% 9.1 Zip codes with all form R's newly eligible for Form A 665 7%

Note: Based on the RY2002 Frozen TRI data, there are 8,960 five digit zip codes with TRI Form R data.

Source: Frozen RY2002 TRI data. 5 5 September 19, 2005


[Federal Register: November 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 66012-66013]
[DOCID:fr26no07-82]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56812; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Allow Issuers Voluntarily
Delisting Index-Linked Securities To Submit to the Exchange a Letter
From an Authorized Officer of the Issuer Rather Than a Board Resolution

November 19, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 31, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule changes from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend section 806.02 of the Exchange's
Listed Company Manual (``Manual'') to provide that index-linked notes
currently listed on the Exchange and voluntarily withdrawing from
listing to transfer to another national securities exchange, need not
provide the Exchange with a board resolution authorizing such action
but, in lieu thereof, must provide a letter signed by an authorized
executive officer of the issuer setting forth the reasons for the
proposed withdrawal. The Exchange is also deleting the rule text that
applied prior to April 24, 2006. On that date, the revised text of
section 806.02 became effective. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com
, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend section 806.02 of the Manual to
provide that index-linked notes currently listed on the Exchange and
voluntarily withdrawing from listing to transfer to another national
securities exchange, need not provide the Exchange with a board
resolution authorizing such action but, in lieu thereof, must provide a
letter signed by an authorized executive officer of the issuer setting
forth the reasons for the proposed withdrawal.
    There are currently nine series of index-linked notes listed on the
Exchange. Four of these securities were listed under section 703.19 of
the Manual pursuant to individual rule filings under section 19(b)(2)
of the Act.\3\ The other five securities were listed under section
703.22 of the Manual, the Exchange's recently adopted generic listing
standard for index-linked notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its strategic business planning, NYSE Euronext, the
parent company of the Exchange, is seeking to move the listing and
trading of index-linked notes from the Exchange to NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), a separate self-regulatory organization owned by NYSE
Euronext. As such, the Exchange does not currently plan to list any
further index-linked notes on NYSE in the future. In addition, the
Exchange has asked the issuers of index-linked notes currently listed
on NYSE to voluntarily transfer the listing of those securities to NYSE
Arca and such issuers have agreed to do so. As this transfer will
require the delisting of the securities from the Exchange and there is
no basis under Exchange rules for a delisting initiated by the Exchange
itself, the issuers are required to voluntarily withdraw their
securities from listing pursuant to section 806.02 of the Manual.
Section 806.02 requires companies voluntarily withdrawing securities
from listing to provide a resolution of the board of directors of the
issuer authorizing such action. Each of the issuers involved has
informed the Exchange that no such board

authorization is required by their constitutive documents or the laws
of their jurisdictions of incorporation. As such, they would need to
obtain the resolution solely to comply with section 806.02.
    As obtaining these resolutions would be burdensome for the issuers
involved and the transfers of the securities to NYSE Arca are being
effectuated at the request of the Exchange, NYSE believes it is
appropriate to waive this requirement specifically for the nine
affected securities. NYSE proposes a waiver of this requirement
applicable only to the voluntary withdrawal from listing of index-
linked notes that are being transferred to another national securities
exchange. In lieu of the board resolution, the issuer will be required
to provide a letter signed by an authorized executive officer setting
forth the reasons for the proposed withdrawal. The Exchange believes
that this narrowly tailored exception to the requirements of section
806.02 is justified because of the unique circumstance that the
withdrawal from listing is occurring at the Exchange's request to
further an NYSE Euronext business objective.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend section 806.02 to delete the
rule text that applied prior to April 24, 2006. On that date, the
revised text of section 806.02 became effective to comply with the
requirements of Rule 12d2-2 under the Act.\4\ On July 14, 2005, the
Commission adopted amendments to Rule 12d2-2 under the Act. Rule 12d2-2
under the Act, as amended, required all national securities exchanges,
including the Exchange, to amend their delisting rules to conform with
certain requirements set forth in new Rule 12d2-2. The Exchange amended
section 806.02 in light of these requirements and its new delisting
procedures superseded the old procedures on April 24, 2006. As such,
the old procedures have no further application and, to avoid confusion,
the Exchange proposes to delete them from section 806.02 in their
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-99 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-99. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-99 and should be
submitted on or before December 17, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22944 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 90 (Friday, May 8, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27348-27351]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09241]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0568; FRL-10007-02-Region 9]

Tentative Determination To Approve Site Specific Flexibility for
the Cocopah Landfill

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a
tentative determination to approve two Site Specific Flexibility
Requests (SSFRs) from Cocopah Landfill, Inc. (CLI), a Republic Services
(Republic) company, to close and monitor the Cocopah Landfill. The
Cocopah Landfill is located within Indian Country on the Cocopah Indian
Reservation near Somerton, Arizona and was operated by Republic and its
predecessors from the 1960's to the present. Republic is seeking
approval from EPA for an alternative final cover and an alternative
location for the storage of facility records. EPA is now seeking public
comment on EPA's tentative determination to approve the SSFRs. EPA will
consider timely comments before making a final determination.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2020. If
sufficient public interest is expressed by May 26, 2020, EPA will hold
a virtual public hearing on June 8, 2020 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If
by May 26, 2020 EPA does not receive information indicating sufficient
public interest for a public hearing, EPA will cancel the public
hearing and provide notice of the cancelled public hearing on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0568. If
there is sufficient public interest for a public meeting EPA will
announce further details on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0568 in advance of the hearing. If you are
interested in attending the public hearing, contact Steve Wall at (415)
972-3381 to verify that a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
RCRA-2018-0568 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Due to COVID-19, we are not providing facsimile
or regular mail options, because those are not viable at this time. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Wall, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3381<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority for This Proposal
II. Background
III. Basis for Proposal
    A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR: Alternative Final Cover System
    B. Records Storage SSFR: Alternative Location for the Storage of
Facility Records
IV. Additional Findings

I. Legal Authority for This Proposal

    Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq., Congress required EPA to establish revised minimum federal
criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs), including
landfill location restrictions, operating standards, design standards,
and requirements for ground water monitoring, corrective action,
closure and post-closure care, and financial assurance. Under RCRA
section 4005, states are to develop permit programs for facilities that
may receive household hazardous waste or waste from conditionally
exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste, and EPA is to
determine whether the state's program is adequate to ensure that
facilities will comply with the revised federal criteria.
    The MSWLF criteria are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR
part 258. These regulations are prescriptive, self-implementing and
apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs. Many of these
criteria include a flexible performance standard as an alternative to
the prescriptive, self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard
is not self-implementing and requires approval by the Director of an
EPA-approved state MSWLF permitting program.
    However, EPA's approval of a state program generally does not
extend to Indian Country because states generally do not have authority
over Indian Country. For this reason, owners and operators of MSWLF
units located in Indian Country cannot take advantage of the
flexibilities available to those facilities that are within the
jurisdiction of an EPA-approved state program.

However, the EPA has the authority under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010
of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules to enable such owners and
operators to use the flexible standards. See Yankton Sioux Tribe v.
EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against Dumps v. EPA,
100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1996). EPA refers to such rules as ``Site
Specific Flexibility Determinations'' and has developed draft guidance
for owners and operators on preparing a request for such a site-
specific rule, entitled ``Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country Draft Guidance,''
EPA530-R-97-016 (August 1997) (Draft Guidance).

II. Background

    The Cocopah Landfill is located on the Cocopah Indian Reservation
on property owned by the Cocopah Indian Tribe (Tribe) and is located
near Somerton, Arizona. The Cocopah Landfill is a commercial MSWLF
operated by Republic and its predecessors from the 1960's to the
present. Waste was last received at the Site on June 30, 2000 and
interim closure construction was completed in 2003 with an interim 3-
foot-thick monolithic soil cover. The Cocopah Landfill property
encompasses an area of 192 acres of which approximately 138 acres were
used for placement of waste materials. Disposal operations were
restricted to two separate units of 105 acres and 33 acres each,
designated as the North Fill Area and the South Fill Area,
respectively. A combined total of approximately 2.5 million tons of
waste are known to have been deposited in the two disposal units.
    Between 2010 and 2016, EPA worked with the Tribe and Republic to
develop and reach agreement on an overall landfill closure plan. During
this time, EPA also reviewed the SSFRs to determine whether they met
technical and regulatory requirements. On September 5, 2017, the Tribe
submitted Republic's ``Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan
and Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for the Cocopah Landfill''
(Final Closure Plan) to EPA, requesting that EPA take appropriate
action to ensure that the Final Closure Plan and accompanying SSFRs
satisfy U.S. EPA's requirements. EPA provided final comments on the
Plan on April 26, 2019, which Republic addressed in an updated Final
Closure Plan dated November 2019. The Final Closure Plan submitted to
EPA includes two SSFRs. The requests seek EPA approval to use an
alternative final cover meeting the performance requirements of 40 CFR
258.60(a), and approval to use an alternative location for the storage
of facility records pursuant to 40 CFR 258.29(a).

III. Basis for Proposal

    EPA is basing its tentative determination to approve the SSFRs on
the Tribe's concurrence, dated September 5, 2017, on the SSFRs as
included in the Closure Plan, as well as EPA's determination that the
SSFRs meet the requirements in 40 CFR part 258, and on EPA's
independent review of the Final Closure Plan.

A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR: Alternative Final Cover System

    The regulations require the installation of a final cover system
specified in 40 CFR 258.60(a), which consists of an infiltration layer
with a minimum of 18 inches of compacted clay with a permeability of 1
x 10-5 cm/sec, covered by an erosion layer with a minimum
six inches of topsoil. Republic seeks approval for an alternative final
cover designed to satisfy the performance criteria specified in 40 CFR
258.60(b); Republic proposes an alternative cover, called an
evapotranspiration cover, which would consist of two and a half feet of
native soil to control infiltration covered by six inches of a soil
gravel mixture to control erosion.
    EPA is basing its tentative determination on a number of factors,
including: (1) Research showing that the prescriptive, self-
implementing requirements for final covers, comprised of low
permeability compacted clay, do not perform well in the arid west. The
clay dries out and cracks, which allows increased infiltration along
the cracks; (2) Research showing that in arid environments thick soil
covers comprised of native soil can perform as well or better than the
prescriptive cover; and (3) Republic's analysis demonstrating, based on
site-specific climatic conditions and soil properties, that the
proposed alternative soil final cover will achieve equivalent reduction
in infiltration as the prescriptive cover design and that the proposed
erosion layer provides equivalent protection from wind and water
erosion. This analysis is provided in Appendix A, B, C and M of the
Final Closure Plan for the Cocopah Landfill dated November 2019.

B. Records Storage SSFR: Alternative Location for the Storage of
Facility Records

    The regulations at 40 CFR 258.29(a) require that the owner or
operator of a MSWLF unit must record and retain operating records at or
near the facility or at an approved alternative location. Republic does
not have administrative facilities at the Cocopah Landfill where
records can be maintained. As a result, Republic requested approval to
store all required documentation relating to the operating record of
the Cocopah Landfill at the Copper Mountain Landfill (CML), which is
Republic's closest operating facility to the Cocopah Landfill. The
address of Copper Mountain Landfill is 34853 East County 12th Street,
Wellton, Arizona 85356, which is 36 miles from the Cocopah Landfill.
    EPA is basing its tentative determination on factors including: (1)
The Cocopah Landfill is no longer operational, and Republic does not
have administrative facilities there; and (2) Republic's proposed
alternative records storage location, the Copper Mountain Landfill, is
only 36 miles away.

IV. Additional Findings

    In order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, 54
U.S.C. 100101 et seq., Republic will coordinate with the Tribe to
arrange for a qualified Native American monitor to be present during
any work. If buried or previously unidentified cultural resources are
encountered during project activities, all work within the vicinity of
the find will cease, and the provisions pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b)
will be implemented. If, during the Landfill closure activities,
previously undocumented archaeological material or human remains are
encountered, all work shall cease in the immediate area and a qualified
archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the
find and recommend further management actions.
    Though no known threatened or endangered species or their habitat
exist on the site, a preconstruction survey will be conducted prior to
cover installation to ensure no threatened or endangered species are
present. Following closure and vegetation restoration activities, the
Site may become suitable for threatened and endangered species. This
would be a beneficial effect.
    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only.

    Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in Section 203 of UMRA.
    Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this
proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.
    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The basis for this belief is EPA's conservative analysis of
the potential risks posed by Republic's proposal and the controls and
standards set forth in the application.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    As required by section three of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct.
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
calls for EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' See also ``EPA Policy for the
Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations,''
(November 8, 1984) and ``EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes,'' (May 4, 2011). EPA consulted with the Tribe
throughout Republic's development of its Final Closure Plan for the
Cocopah Landfill. EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on
this tentative determination from officials of the Tribe.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Final cover, Post-
closure care, Groundwater monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: April 23, 2020.
Jeffrey Scott
Director,Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division,Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258, is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

0
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907,
6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).

Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care

0
2. Section 258.62 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  258.62  Approval of Site-specific flexibility requests in Indian
Country.

* * * * *
    (d) Cocopah Municipal Solid Waste Landfill--Alternative final cover
and alternative location for the storage of facility records. This
paragraph (d) applies to the Cocopah Landfill, a Municipal Solid Waste
landfill operated by Republic on the Cocopah Indian Reservation near
Somerton, Arizona.
    (1) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.60(b), the owner or operator may
replace the prescriptive final cover set forth in 40 CFR 258.60(a),
with an alternative final cover as follows:
    (i) The owner or operator may install an evapotranspiration cover
system as an alternative final cover for the 135-acre site.
    (ii) The alternative final cover system shall be constructed to
achieve an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration
layer specified in Sec.  258.60(a)(1) and (2) and provide an equivalent
protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer specified
in Sec.  258.60(a)(3). Top-deck cover slopes shall have a minimum slope
of 2%. All side slopes in the South Fill Area shall be regraded to a
maximum 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V). The existing side slope of
2.5H:1V in the North Fill Area will remain; however, drainage benches
shall be installed on portions of the slope where the vertical height
exceeds 50 feet.
    (iii) The final cover system shall consist of a minimum three-feet-
thick multi-layer cover system comprised, from bottom to top, of:
    (A) A minimum 30-inch thick infiltration layer consisting of:
    (1) Existing intermediate cover; and
    (2) Additional cover soil from on-site sources, which, prior to
placement, shall be wetted to optimal moisture and thoroughly mixed to
near uniform condition, and the material shall then be placed in lifts
with an uncompacted thickness of six to eight inches, spread evenly and
compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density, and shall:
    (i) Exhibit a grain size distribution that excludes particles in
excess of three inches in diameter;
    (ii) Have a minimum fines content (percent by weight passing U.S.
No. 200 Sieve) of 12 percent for the average of ten consecutive tests;
and
    (iii) Have a grain size distribution with a minimum of six percent
finer than five microns for the average of ten consecutive tests; and
    (B) A surface erosion layer comprised of a rock/soil admixture for
top deck slopes and rock armoring for side slopes. The surface erosion
layer requirements for top-deck slopes and side slopes are detailed
below:
    (1) Top deck slope surface erosion layer requirements: The top deck
slope surface erosion layer shall be a minimum six-inch surface erosion
layer comprised of a rock/soil admixture. The top deck surface erosion
layer shall achieve the following gradation specification:
    (i) Exclude particles in excess of three inches in diameter;
    (ii) 40% to 75% passing No. 4 sieve
    (iii) 10% to 50% passing No. 40 sieve
    (iv) Less than or equal to 15% passing No. 200 sieve
    (2) Side slope surface erosion layer: The side slope surfaces
erosion layer shall consist of a 4-inch thick rock armor underlain by
an 8 ounce per square yard (oz/sy) non-woven geotextile filter fabric.
The side slope surface erosion rock armor layer shall achieve the
following gradation specification:
    (i) Exclude particles in excess of three inches in diameter;
    (ii) 10% to 40% passing No. 4 sieve
    (iii) 0% to 10% passing No. 40 sieve
    (2) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.29(a), the owner operator may
retain

all required documentation relating to the operating record of the
Cocopah Landfill at the administrative offices of Copper Mountain
Landfill. The address of Copper Mountain Landfill is 34853 East County
12th Street, Wellton, Arizona 85356.
    (3) The owner or operator shall place documentation demonstrating
compliance with the provisions of this Section in the operating record.
    (4) All other applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 258 remain in
effect.

[FR Doc. 2020-09241 Filed 5-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P