[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57469-57473]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20016]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0523; FRL-9950-84-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Shipbuilding Antifoulant Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), a submittal by
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated July
17, 2015. The submittal contains a new volatile organic compound (VOC)
limit for antifoulant coatings used in shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter counties. The
submittal also includes a demonstration that this revision satisfies
the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
submittal additionally removes obsolete dates and clarifies a citation.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 24, 2016,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 22, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0523 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of this SIP revision?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP revision?

    On July 17, 2015, IDEM submitted to EPA a request to incorporate
into Indiana's SIP a revised version of 326 Indiana Administrative Code
(IAC) 8-12-4, ``Volatile organic compound emissions limiting
requirements,'' with an effective date of June 21, 2015.
    Indiana's rulemaking adds, at 326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(D), a VOC limit
of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon for antifoulant coatings used in
shipbuilding and ship repair facilities located in Clark, Floyd, Lake,
and Porter counties. In 326 IAC 8-12-3(22)(C), an ``antifoulant
specialty coating'' is defined as any coating that is applied to the
underwater portion of a vessel to prevent or reduce the attachment of
biological organisms and that is registered with the EPA as a pesticide
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The same
definition is provided in EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR 44050,
August 27, 1996). Clark and Floyd counties are part of the Louisville,
KY-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), and Lake and Porter counties are part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
    Before IDEM added the revised VOC limit of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon
in 326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(D), antifoulant coatings were limited by the
specialty coating limit of 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon at 326 IAC 8-12-
4(a)(1)(E), which IDEM has moved to 326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(F) in this
revision. The revised limit of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon is consistent
with the limit in Table 1-1 of EPA's Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT) Document: Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair Facilities (EPA-453/R-94-032, April 1994). In addition, it is
consistent with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. EPA's CTG identifies the limit from the
ACT as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), and states that
the NESHAP can be used as a model rule for shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities.
    In Indiana's rulemaking, 326 IAC 8-12-4 is also revised to remove
obsolete dates and clarify a reference to EPA's NESHAP for Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) at 40 CFR 63, subpart II.
    This SIP revision relies on offsets generated by the Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings rule at 326 IAC 8-14 to
compensate for the increase in allowable VOC emissions.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of, among other statutory provisions, section 110(l) of
the CAA in order to be approved by EPA. Section 110(l), known as EPA's
anti-backsliding provision, states:
    ``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of this Act.''
    In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under
section 110(l), states may substitute equivalent emissions reductions
to compensate for any change to a SIP-approved program, as long as
actual emissions are not increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions
mean reductions which are equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure approved in the SIP. To show that

compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate
justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions
must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emissions in the
air. As described in EPA's memorandum ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs'' published in January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-
001), the equivalent emissions reductions must also be permanent,
enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus to be approved into the SIP.
    Indiana's revisions to 326 IAC 8-12-4 increase the allowable VOC
content of antifoulant coatings used in shipbuilding or ship repair
facilities from 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon to 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon.
VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. Thus, the
potential increase in VOC needs to be offset with equivalent (or
greater) emissions reductions from another VOC control measure in order
to demonstrate non-interference with the 1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Indiana's SIP submittal includes a 110(l) demonstration that
relies on equivalent emission reductions to compensate for allowable
emission increases resulting from the new VOC limit for antifoulant
coatings.
    326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(D) currently applies to only one source,
Jeffboat LLC, which operates a stationary shipbuilding and repair
facility at 1030 E. Market St., Jeffersonville, Indiana, and is
permitted under Title V Operating Permit T019-29304-0006. Jeffboat is
located within Clark County and the Louisville, KY-IN maintenance area
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. IDEM's 110(l) demonstration consists of a
calculation of the maximum possible increase in VOC emissions from this
source under the revised emission limit, followed by an identification
of available offsets from the AIM rule at 326 IAC 8-14.
    Indiana's submittal includes calculations illustrating the maximum
possible increase in VOC emissions resulting from revisions to 326 IAC
8-12-4. Based on the maximum number of barges requiring antifoulant
coatings, Jeffboat may use up to 2,580 gallons per year of coatings. At
the original limit of 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon coating, the source may
emit 3.65 tons VOC per year. In order to correctly determine the
difference in resulting emissions, the original and revised limits must
be compared on a solids basis; 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon coating equates
to 4.6 lbs VOC per gallon solids, and 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon coating
equates to 6.08 lbs VOC per gallon solids. From these figures, the
revised limit is 32% higher than the original limit. A 32% increase
from 3.65 tons VOC per year amounts to an increase in emissions of 1.17
tons VOC per year, or 0.004167 tons VOC per summer day. IDEM's section
110(l) demonstration states that offsets of this amount from Indiana's
AIM coatings rule are needed to compensate for the increase in
allowable emissions.
    IDEM's calculations are more conservative than the approach
recommended by EPA. Because Jeffboat operates six days per week, or 312
days per year, 1.17 tons VOC per year amounts to 0.00375 tons VOC per
summer day. However, in this rulemaking, IDEM has requested to offset
the revised limit in 326 IAC 8-12-4 with credits from Indiana's AIM
rule in the amount of 0.004167 tons VOC per summer day.
    Indiana's AIM rule goes above and beyond the Federal AIM rule by
adopting a rule that is similar to the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
model rule ``Architectural & Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings''
updated October 13, 2014. According to a 2006 Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO) white paper, the OTC model rule provides
an up to 60.5% reduction in VOC emissions compared to uncontrolled 2002
base case emissions, while the Federal AIM rule alone only provides a
20% reduction compared to base case.
    The Indiana AIM rule was approved into the SIP on August 30, 2012
(77 FR 52606). Indiana was not required to adopt an AIM coatings rule,
but did so as a multi-state effort to help reduce ozone levels at the
regional level. Indiana did not adopt the AIM rule to comply with any
Indiana SIP planning requirements and has not taken credit for it in
air quality plans, nor has it been included in maintenance year
horizons or rate of further progress (RFP) inventories. Therefore,
these SIP approved AIM limits can be used as offsets for other
purposes, such as this SIP revision.
    Table 1 shows additional reductions available due to the OTC model
rule and Indiana AIM rule. In the table, emission estimates are based
on 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI) data, which is the most
recent NEI data currently available. Total reductions, as well as
summer day calculations based on average daily emissions using a
multiplier of 1.3, are based on the LADCO white paper. Indiana's 110(l)
demonstration shows available offsets from the AIM rule of 0.292 tons
VOC per summer day.

                                                    Table 1--Clark and Floyd Counties Offset Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
              County                  Coating category       Tons/year      Ton/summday     reductions      Federal AIM     Additional        Offset
                                                                                (AIM and OTC)     reduction       reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark.............................  Architectural.......          128.97          0.4594           0.388             0.2            0.24           0.108
Clark.............................  Traffic Markings....            0.14          0.0005           0.564             0.2            0.46          0.0002
Clark.............................  Industrial                     33.24          0.1184           0.605             0.2            0.51           0.060
                                     Maintenance.
Clark.............................  Special Purpose.....            3.53          0.0126           0.605             0.2            0.51           0.006
Floyd.............................  Architectural.......           87.26          0.3108           0.388             0.2            0.24           0.073
Floyd.............................  Traffic Markings....            0.08          0.0003           0.564             0.2            0.46           0.000
Floyd.............................  Industrial                     22.49          0.0801           0.605             0.2            0.51           0.041
                                     Maintenance.
Floyd.............................  Special Purpose.....            2.39          0.0085           0.605             0.2            0.51           0.004
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.292
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM's section 110(l) demonstration identifies available offsets
from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC per summer day, and Indiana's
revisions to 326 IAC 8-12-4 require offsets of less than 0.004167 tons
VOC per summer day. Therefore, the VOC emissions increase associated
with the revisions of 326 IAC 8-12-4 are more than offset by the VOC
emission reductions attributed to reductions in AIM coatings emissions.
    In an earlier submittal, Indiana requested to use a separate
portion of available offsets from Indiana's AIM rule to offset removal
of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery requirements for the years 2014 and
2015. EPA finalized approval of that SIP submittal on June 9, 2016 (81
FR 37160). For the year 2014, EPA's final rulemaking relevant to the
Stage II rule uses offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.001829695 tons
VOC per summer day, and for 2015, that same rulemaking uses offsets
from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.002250149 tons VOC per summer day. That
rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses no offsets for 2016 or future
years.
    Indiana's revised version of 326 IAC 8-12-4 has an effective date
of June 21, 2015, so offsets are necessary for 2015 and future years.
For 2015, IDEM identifies available offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of
0.292 tons VOC per summer day, EPA's proposed rulemaking relevant to
Stage II uses offsets of 0.002250149 tons VOC per summer day, and this
rulemaking relevant to 326 IAC 8-12-4 uses offsets of 0.004167 tons VOC
per summer day. Therefore, offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of
0.285582851 tons VOC per summer day remain available for future use.
For 2016 and future years, IDEM identifies available offsets from
Indiana's AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC per summer day, EPA's proposed
rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses no offsets, and this rulemaking
relevant to 326 IAC 8-12-4 uses offsets of 0.004167 tons VOC per summer
day. Therefore, offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.287833 tons VOC
per summer day remain available for future use.
    Based on the use of permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous,
surplus emissions reductions achieved through the offsets from VOC
reductions in AIM coatings emissions in Clark and Floyd counties, EPA
has concluded that the revisions of 326 IAC 8-12-4 do not interfere
with southeast Indiana's ability to demonstrate compliance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA also examined whether the revisions of 326 IAC 8-12-4 will
interfere with attainment of any other air quality standards. Lake and
Porter counties are designated attainment for all standards other than
ozone, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Clark and Floyd
counties are designated attainment for all standards other than ozone
and particulate matter.\1\ For the reasons discussed above, EPA has no
reason to believe that the revisions will cause the areas to become
nonattainment for any of these pollutants. In addition, EPA believes
that the revisions will not interfere with the areas' ability to meet
any other CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Clark and Floyd counties are currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 Annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standard. While VOC is one of the precursors for
particulate matter (NAAQS) formation, studies have indicated that in
the southeast, which includes the Louisville, KY-IN maintenance area
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, emissions of direct PM2.5 and
the precursor sulfur oxides are more significant to ambient
summertime PM2.5 concentrations than emissions of
nitrogen oxides and anthropogenic VOC. See, e.g., Journal of
Environmental Engineering-Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine
particulate matter, and regional haze in the Southeastern United
States (June 24, 2009), available at: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-ofenvironmental-management.
Currently, Clark and Floyd counties are not designated nonattainment
for any of the other criteria pollutants (i.e. sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, lead or carbon monoxide) and those pollutants are
not affected by the removal of Stage II requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above discussion and the state's section 110(l)
demonstration, EPA has concluded that the revisions to 326 IAC 8-12-4
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance in the Louisville,
KY-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA, and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Also, as
stated in the previous section, the antifouling coating limit satisfies
RACT.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA finds that the revision will not interfere with any applicable
CAA requirement. For that reason, EPA is approving, as a revision to
the Indiana ozone SIP, a revised version of 326 IAC 8-12-4 submitted by
IDEM on July 17, 2015.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 24,
2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 22, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective
October 24, 2016.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\2\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not

impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 24, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 5, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for 8-12-4 under ``Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound
Rules'' ``Rule 12. Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations in Clark,
Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Indiana effective
        Indiana citation                Subject              date         EPA Approval date         Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Rule 12. Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-12-4..........................  Volatile organic           06/21/2015  08/23/2016,         ...................
                                   compound                               [insert Federal
                                   emissions                              Register
                                   limiting                               citation].
                                   requirements.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-20016 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18612-18615]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06856]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88501; File No. SR-IEX-2019-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Add a New Discretionary Limit Order Type Called
D-Limit

March 27, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On December 16, 2019, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt a new order type, the
Discretionary Limit or ``D-Limit.'' The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 30, 2019.\3\
On February 12, 2020, the Commission designated a longer period within
which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\4\ This order institutes proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \5\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87814 (December 20,
2019), 84 FR 71997 (``Notice''). Comments on the proposed rule
change can be found at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-iex-2019-15/sriex201915.htm.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88186 (February 19,
2020), 85 FR 9513.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    IEX proposes to establish a new order type, called a Discretionary
Limit order (``D-Limit''), which the Exchange explains ``is designed to
protect liquidity providers, institutional

investors as well as market makers, from potential adverse selection by
latency arbitrage trading strategies in a fair and nondiscriminatory
manner. . . .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Notice, supra note 3, at 71998. The Exchange uses the term
``latency arbitrage'' to refer to trading strategies used by market
participants with sophisticated low-latency technology, who can
rapidly aggregate market data feeds (including proprietary data
products obtained directly from the exchanges) to react faster than
other market participants, as well as the Exchange, when the
national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') changes. See id. at 71997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, the Exchange explains how it has designed its market
model around ``ways to counter or reduce speed advantages that can harm
investors by exposing them to execution at stale prices when their
orders are traded against by traders with more complete and timely
information about market prices.'' \7\ The primary feature of that
market model is the IEX ``speed bump,'' which employs physical path
latency to introduce an equivalent 350 microseconds of latency between
the network access point (the Point-of-Presence, or ``POP'') and the
Exchange's system at its primary data center.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id.
    \8\ See id. The IEX speed bump applies to all incoming and
outgoing messages except for inbound market data from other trading
centers and outbound transaction and quote information sent to the
applicable securities information processor. In addition, updates to
resting pegged orders on IEX are processed within the IEX trading
system and do not require separate messages to be transmitted from
outside the system. The speed bump provides time for IEX to update
resting pegged orders when the NBBO changes, so that the resting
pegged orders are accurately pegged to current market prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the speed bump works together with non-displayed order
types on IEX that are ``pegged'' to a given price, including the
Discretionary Peg (``DPeg'') and the primary peg (``PPeg'') orders.\9\
DPeg and PPeg orders can ``exercise discretion'' to trade at prices
more aggressive than their pegged prices.\10\ Specifically, IEX uses a
proprietary mathematical calculation, the crumbling quote indicator
(``CQI''), to determine when these pegged order types are eligible to
exercise discretion.\11\ As described in the Notice, the CQI is
designed to predict whether a particular quote is unstable or
``crumbling,'' meaning that the NBB is likely about to decline or the
NBO is likely about to increase.\12\ The Exchange utilizes real time
relative quoting activity of certain Protected Quotations and a
proprietary mathematical calculation (the ``quote instability
calculation'') to assess the probability of an imminent change to the
current Protected NBB to a lower price or Protected NBO to a higher
price for a particular security (``quote instability factor'').\13\
When the quoting activity meets predefined criteria and the quote
instability factor calculated is greater than the Exchange's defined
quote instability threshold, IEX treats the quote as ``unstable,'' and
the CQI is on at that price level for up to two milliseconds (hereafter
referred to as the ``quote instability determination price level'' or
the ``CQI Price'').\14\ During all other times, the quote is considered
stable, and the CQI is off. IEX assesses the stability of the Protected
NBB and Protected NBO for each security.\15\ When IEX determines,
pursuant to the CQI methodology, that the current market for a specific
security is unstable--meaning there is a heightened probability of an
imminent quote change at the NBB or NBO--IEX's system will prevent DPeg
and PPeg orders on that side of the market from exercising discretion
and trading at a price that is more aggressive than their default
resting prices.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10) and 11.190(b)(8), respectively.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 71998.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposal, IEX seeks to adopt the D-Limit order type, which
would work in conjunction with the CQI by adjusting its price when the
CQI is on.\17\ A D-Limit order could be a displayed or non-displayed
limit order that, upon entry and when posting to the Order Book, is
priced to be equal to and ranked at the order's limit price.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ IEX proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.190(b)(7), which is
currently reserved, to add the D-Limit order type.
    \18\ A non-displayed D-Limit order with a limit price more
aggressive than the Midpoint Price will be subject to the Midpoint
Price Constraint and be booked and ranked on the Order Book at a
price equal to the Midpoint Price pursuant to IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A D-Limit order would be adjusted to a less-aggressive price during
periods of quote instability. As proposed, if, upon entry of a D-Limit
buy (sell) order, the CQI is on and the order has a limit price equal
to or higher (lower) than the quote instability determination price
level (i.e., the CQI Price), the price of the D-Limit order will
automatically be adjusted by IEX to one MPV \19\ lower (higher) than
the CQI price. Similarly, when unexecuted shares of a D-Limit buy
(sell) order are posted to the Order Book, if a quote instability
determination is made and such shares are ranked and displayed (in the
case of a displayed order) by IEX at a price equal to or higher (lower)
than the CQI Price, the price of the order will automatically be
adjusted by IEX to one MPV lower (higher) than the CQI Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See IEX Rule 11.210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A D-Limit order whose price is adjusted by IEX will not revert back
to the price at which it was previously ranked and displayed (in the
case of a displayed order).\20\ Rather, the order will continue to be
ranked and displayed (in the case of a displayed order) at the new
price, unless the order becomes subject to another automatic adjustment
or if the order is subject to the price sliding provisions of IEX Rule
11.190(h). When the price of a D-Limit order is adjusted, the order
will receive a new time priority. If multiple D-Limit orders are
adjusted at the same time, their relative time priority will be
maintained. Further, when the price of a D-Limit order is adjusted, the
member that entered the order will receive an order message from the
Exchange notifying the member of the price adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ IEX Rule 11.190(h) provides for price sliding in the event
of a locked or crossed market, to enforce the Midpoint Price
Constraint, to comply with the display or execution requirements for
a short sale order not marked short exempt during a Short Sale
Period, or to comply with the Limit Up-Limit Down Price Constraint.
As set forth in IEX Rule 11.190(h), an order that has been subject
to price sliding will be repriced back to its more aggressive limit
price when the market condition changes such that the condition
necessitating the price sliding is no longer applicable. This is in
contrast to the normal operation of a D-Limit order when it adjusts
due to the CQI being triggered, at which point the D-Limit order's
adjusted price will not reprice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received a number of comment letters on the
proposed rule change.\21\ Many of those commenters support the
proposal, and recommend that the Commission approve it. Commenters in
support opine that the proposal is an innovative response to what some
categorize as aggressive and ``predatory'' trading behavior by a small
number of market participants that ``plague'' the displayed markets;
and they support the D-Limit order as a transparent, widely-accessible,
and not unfairly discriminatory means to counter those traders through
an order type that will protect and thus encourage additional long-term
investors and others to submit more displayed liquidity to exchanges,
and thereby potentially increase the depth of displayed liquidity and
narrow quoted spreads.\22\ Several other

commenters, however, urge the Commission to disapprove the proposed
rule change, arguing that it constitutes an unnecessary and
inappropriate burden on competition that is unfairly discriminatory,
circumvents the federal securities laws, would not be an automated and
protected quote, may negatively impact investors particularly for
larger orders, will lead to phantom liquidity/quote fading and
declining fill rates, and lacks sufficient data to support the
proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 3.
    \22\ See, e.g., Letters from Thomas M. Merritt, Deputy General
Counsel, Virtu Financial, LLC, dated, January 16, 2020; Marius-
Andrei Zoican, Assistant Professor of Finance, University of
Toronto-Mississauga, dated January 20, 2020; Daniel Aisen, Proof
Services LLC, dated December 24, 2019; Mehmet Kinak and Jonathan D.
Siegel, T Rowe Price, dated February 5, 2020; Jeffrey P. Mahoney,
General Counsel, Council of Institutional Investors, dated February
11, 2020; and OTPP, CDPQ, and the Office of the New York City
Comptroller, et al., dated February 24, 2020.
    \23\ See, e.g., Letters from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice
President & Corporate Secretary, NASDAQ, dated January 21, 2020;
Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, dated
January 21, 2020; Adam Nunes, Head of Business Development, Hudson
River Trading LLC, dated January 21, 2020; and Ellen Greene,
Managing Director, Equity and Options Market Structure, SIFMA, dated
February 5, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-IEX-
2019-15 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \24\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change and the comments received
thereon. Institution of Proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\25\ the
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval
under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow
for additional analysis and input concerning the proposed rule change's
consistency with the Exchange Act, including Sections 6(b)(5) and
6(b)(8) thereof,\26\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8), respectively.
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed, among other things, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to further consider the
proposal and the issues raised by the commenters on the proposal as it
determines whether the proposed D-Limit order type is consistent with
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Specifically, the Commission is providing notice of the following
grounds for possible disapproval under consideration:
     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\27\ which requires
the rules of IEX to not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act,\28\ which requires
that the rules of IEX not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
[Exchange Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is
on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \29\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\30\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\31\ Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's
representations in a proposed rule change would not be sufficient to
justify Commission approval of a proposed rule change.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (rejecting the
Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations without
sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes it is
appropriate to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Exchange Act to allow for additional consideration of the issues
raised by the proposal as it determines whether the proposal should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of
the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by April 23, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by May 7,
2020.
    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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2019-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-IEX-2019-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of these filings also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2019-15 and should be
submitted on or before April 23, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by May 7, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06856 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 55835-55836]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-47-000]

Geodyne Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

October 21, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Geodyne Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that

such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 10, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26058 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17541]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07510]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification
Procedures for Products and Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on December 4, 2014. 14 CFR part 21 prescribes certification
standards for aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers appliances and
parts. The information collected is used to determine compliance and
applicant eligibility. The respondents are aircraft parts designers,
manufacturers, and aircraft owners.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0018.
    Title: Certification Procedures for Products and Parts.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 8110-12, 8130-1, 8130-6, 8130-9, 8130-12.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of an information
collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on December 4, 2014 (79 FR 72055). 14 CFR part 21
prescribes certification standards for aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers appliances and parts. The information collected is used to
determine compliance and applicant eligibility. FAA Airworthiness
inspectors, designated inspectors, engineers, and designated engineers
review the required data submittals to determine that aviation products
and articles and their manufacturing facilities comply with the
applicable requirements, and that the products and articles have no
unsafe features.
    Respondents: Approximately 13,339 aircraft parts designers,
manufacturers, and aircraft owners.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 19,487 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2015.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-07510 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


257.71(a)(1);
    (B) Documentation supporting the certification required under
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section that includes all the following:
    (1) Documentation that the groundwater monitoring network meets all
the requirements of Sec.  257.91. This must include documentation that
the existing network of groundwater monitoring wells is sufficient to
ensure detection of any groundwater contamination resulting from the
impoundment, based on direction of flow, well location, screening depth
and other relevant factors. At a minimum, the documentation must
include all of the following:
    (i) Map(s) of groundwater monitoring well locations in relation to
the CCR unit(s) that depict the elevation of the potentiometric surface
and the direction(s) of groundwater flow across the site;
    (ii) Well construction diagrams and drilling logs for all
groundwater monitoring wells;
    (iii) Maps that characterize the direction of groundwater flow
accounting for temporal variations; and
    (iv) Any other data and analyses the owner or operator of the CCR
surface impoundment relied upon when determining the design and
location of the groundwater monitoring network.
    (2) Documentation that the CCR surface impoundment remains in
detection monitoring pursuant to Sec.  257.94 as a precondition for
submitting an application. This includes documentation that the
groundwater monitoring program meets the requirements of Sec. Sec.
257.93 and 257.94. Such documentation includes data of constituent
concentrations, summarized in table format, at each groundwater
monitoring well monitored during each sampling event, and documentation
of the most recent statistical tests conducted, analyses of the tests,
and the rationale for the methods used in these comparisons. As part of
this rationale, the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment
must provide all data and analyses relied upon to comply with each of
the requirements of this part;
    (3) Documentation that the unit meets all the location restrictions
under Sec. Sec.  257.60 through 257.64;
    (4) The most recent structural stability assessment required at
Sec.  257.73(d); and
    (5) The most recent safety factor assessment required at Sec.
257.73(e).
    (C) Documentation of the design specifications for any engineered
liner components, as well as all data and analyses the owner or
operator of the CCR surface impoundment relied on when determining that
the materials are suitable for use and that the construction of the
liner is of good quality and in-line with proven and accepted
engineering practices.
    (D) Facilities with CCR surface impoundments located on properties
adjacent to a water body must demonstrate that there is no reasonable
probability that a complete and direct transport pathway (i.e., not
mediated by groundwater) can exist between the impoundment and any
nearby water body. If the potential for such a pathway is identified,
then the unit would not be eligible to submit a demonstration. If
ongoing releases are identified, the owner or operator of the CCR unit
must address these releases in accordance with Sec.  257.96(a); and
    (E) Upon submission of the application and any supplemental
materials submitted in support of the application to the Administrator
or the Participating State Director, the owner or operator must place
the complete application in the facility's operating record as required
by Sec.  257.105(f)(14).
    (ii) Alternate Liner Demonstration Package. The completed alternate
liner demonstration package must be certified by a qualified
professional engineer. The package must present evidence to demonstrate
that, based on the construction of the unit and surrounding site
conditions, there is no reasonable probability that operation of the
surface impoundment will result in concentrations of constituents
listed in appendix IV to this part in the uppermost aquifer at levels
above a groundwater protection standard. For each line of evidence, as
well as any other data and assumptions incorporated into the
demonstration, the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment
must include documentation on how the data were collected and why these
data and assumptions adequately reflect potential contaminant transport
from that specific impoundment. The alternate liner demonstration at a
minimum must contain all of the following lines of evidence:
    (A) Characterization of site hydrogeology. A characterization of
the variability of site-specific soil and hydrogeology surrounding the
surface impoundment that will control the rate and direction of
contaminant transport from the impoundment. The owner or operator must
provide all of the following as part of this line of evidence:
    (1) Measurements of the hydraulic conductivity in the uppermost
aquifer from all monitoring wells associated with the impoundment(s)
and discussion of the methods used to obtain these measurements;
    (2) Measurements of the variability in subsurface soil
characteristics collected from around the perimeter of the CCR surface
impoundment to identify regions of substantially higher conductivity;
    (3) Documentation that all sampling methods used are in line with
recognized and generally accepted practices that can provide data at a
spatial resolution necessary to adequately characterize the variability

of subsurface conditions that will control contaminant transport;
    (4) Explanation of how the specific number and location of samples
collected are sufficient to capture subsurface variability if:
    (i) Samples are advanced to a depth less than the top of the
groundwater table or 20 feet beneath the bottom of the nearest water
body, whichever is greater, and/or
    (ii) Samples are spaced further apart than 200 feet around the
impoundment perimeter;
    (5) A narrative description of site geological history; and
    (6) Conceptual site models with cross-sectional depictions of the
site environmental sequence stratigraphy that include, at a minimum:
    (i) The relative location of the impoundment with depth of ponded
water noted;
    (ii) Monitoring wells with screening depth noted;
    (iii) Depiction of the location of other samples used in the
development of the model;
    (iv) The upper and lower limits of the uppermost aquifer across the
site;
    (v) The upper and lower limits of the depth to groundwater measured
from monitoring wells if the uppermost aquifer is confined; and
    (vi) Both the location and geometry of any nearby points of
groundwater discharge or recharge (e.g., surface water bodies) with
potential to influence groundwater depth and flow measured around the
unit.
    (B) Potential for infiltration. A characterization of the potential
for infiltration through any soil-based liner components and/or
naturally occurring soil that control release and transport of
leachate. All samples collected in the field for measurement of
saturated hydraulic conductivity must be sent to a certified laboratory
for analysis under controlled conditions and analyzed using recognized
and generally accepted methodology. Facilities must document how the
selected method is designed to simulate on-site conditions. The owner
or operator must also provide documentation of the following as part of
this line of evidence:
    (1) The location, number, depth, and spacing of samples relied upon
is supported by the data collected in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section and is sufficient to capture the variability of saturated
hydraulic conductivity for the soil-based liner components and/or
naturally occurring soil;
    (2) The liquid used to pre-hydrate the samples and measure long-
term hydraulic conductivity reflects the pH and major ion composition
of the CCR surface impoundment porewater;
    (3) That samples intended to represent the hydraulic conductivity
of naturally occurring soils (i.e., not mechanically compacted) are
handled in a manner that will ensure the macrostructure of the soil is
not disturbed during collection, transport, or analysis; and
    (4) Any test for hydraulic conductivity relied upon includes, in
addition to other relevant termination criteria specified by the
method, criteria that equilibrium has been achieved between the inflow
and outflow, within acceptable tolerance limits, for both electrical
conductivity and pH.
    (C) Mathematical model to estimate the potential for releases.
Owners or operators must incorporate the data collected for paragraphs
(d)(1)(ii)(A) and (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section into a mathematical
model to calculate the potential groundwater concentrations that may
result in downgradient wells as a result of the impoundment. Facilities
must also, where available, incorporate the national-scale data on
constituent concentrations and behavior provided by the existing risk
record. Application of the model must account for the full range of
site current and potential future conditions at and around the site to
ensure that high-end groundwater concentrations have been effectively
characterized. All of the data and assumptions incorporated into the
model must be documented and justified.
    (1) The models relied upon in this paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(C) must be
well-established and validated, with documentation that can be made
available for public review.
    (2) The owner or operator must use the models to demonstrate that,
for each constituent in appendix IV of this part, there is no
reasonable probability that the peak groundwater concentration that may
result from releases to groundwater from the CCR surface impoundment
throughout its active life will exceed the groundwater protection
standard at the waste boundary.
    (3) The demonstration must include the peak groundwater
concentrations modeled for all constituents in appendix IV of this part
attributed both to the impoundment in isolation and in addition to
background.
    (D) Upon submission of the alternative liner demonstration to the
Administrator or the Participating State Director, the owner or
operator must place the complete demonstration in the facility's
operating record as required by Sec.  257.105(f)(15).
    (2) Procedures for adjudicating requests--(i) Deadline for
application submission. The owner or operator must submit the
application under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section to EPA or the
Participating State Director for approval no later than November 30,
2020.
    (ii) Deadline for demonstration submission. If the application is
approved the owner or operator must submit the demonstration required
under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section to EPA or the Participating
State Director for approval no later than November 30, 2021.
    (A) Extension due to analytical limitations. If the owner or
operator cannot meet the demonstration deadline due to analytical
limitations related to the measurement of hydraulic conductivity, the
owner or operator must submit a request for an extension no later than
September 1, 2021 that includes a summary of the data that have been
analyzed to date for the samples responsible for the delay and an
alternate timeline for completion that has been certified by the
laboratory. The extension request must include all of the following:
    (1) A timeline of fieldwork to confirm that samples were collected
expeditiously;
    (2) A chain of custody documenting when samples were sent to the
laboratory;
    (3) Written certification from the lab identifying how long it is
projected for the tests to reach the relevant termination criteria
related to solution chemistry, and
    (4) Documentation of the progression towards all test termination
metrics to date.
    (B) Length of extension. If the extension is granted, the owner or
operator will have 45 days beyond the timeframe certified by the
laboratory to submit the completed demonstration.
    (C) Extension due to analytical limitations for chemical
equilibrium. If the measured hydraulic conductivity has not stabilized
to within acceptable tolerance limits by the time the termination
criteria for solution chemistry are met, the owner or operator must
submit a preliminary demonstration no later than September 1, 2021
(with or without the one-time extension for analytical limitations).
    (1) In this preliminary demonstration, the owner or operator must
submit a justification of how the bounds of uncertainty applied to the
available measurements of hydraulic conductivity ensure that the final
value is not underestimated.
    (2) EPA will review the preliminary demonstration to determine if
it is

complete and, if so, will propose to deny or to tentatively approve the
demonstration. The proposed determination will be posted in the docket
on www.regulations.gov and will be available for public comment for 30
days. After consideration of the comments, EPA will issue its decision
on the application within four months of receiving a complete
preliminary demonstration.
    (3) Once the final laboratory results are available, the owner or
operator must submit a final demonstration that updates only the
finalized hydraulic conductivity data to confirm that the model results
in the preliminary demonstration are accurate.
    (4) Until the time that EPA approves this final demonstration, the
surface impoundment must remain in detection monitoring or the
demonstration will be denied.
    (5) If EPA tentatively approved the preliminary demonstration, EPA
will then take action on the newly submitted final demonstration using
the procedures in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) through (vi) of this section.
    (6) The public will have 30 days to comment but may comment only on
the new information presented in the complete final demonstration or in
EPA's tentative decision on the newly submitted demonstration.
    (D) Upon submission of a request for an extension to the deadline
for the demonstration due to analytical limitations pursuant to
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, the owner or operator must
place the alternative liner demonstration extension request in the
facility's operating record as required by Sec.  257.105(f)(16).
    (E) Upon submission of a preliminary demonstration pursuant to
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(C) of this section, the owner or operator must
place the preliminary demonstration in the facility's operating record
as required by Sec.  257.105(f)(17).
    (iii) Application review--(A) EPA will evaluate the application and
may request additional information not required as part of the
application as necessary to complete its review. Submission of a
complete application will toll the facility's deadline to cease receipt
of waste until issuance of a final decision under paragraph
(d)(2)(iii)(C) of this section. Incomplete submissions will not toll
the facility's deadline and will be rejected without further process.
    (B) If the application is determined to be incomplete, EPA will
notify the facility. The owner or operator must place the notification
of an incomplete application in the facility's operating record as
required by Sec.  257.105(f)(18).
    (C) EPA will publish a proposed decision on complete applications
in a docket on www.regulations.gov for a 20-day comment period. After
consideration of the comments, EPA will issue its decision on the
application within sixty days of receiving a complete application.
    (D) If the application is approved, the deadline to cease receipt
of waste will be tolled until an alternate liner demonstration is
determined to be incomplete or a final decision under paragraph
(d)(2)(vi) of this section is issued.
    (E) If the surface impoundment is determined by EPA to be
ineligible to apply for an alternate liner demonstration, and the
facility lacks alternative capacity to manage its CCR and/or non-CCR
wastestreams, the owner or operator may apply for an alternative
closure deadline in accordance with the procedures in Sec.  257.103(f).
The owner or operator will be given four months from the date of the
ineligibility determination to apply for the alternative closure
provisions in either Sec.  257.103(f)(1) or (f)(2), during which time
the facility's deadline to cease receipt of waste will be tolled.
    (F) Upon receipt of a decision on the application pursuant to
paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, the owner or operator must
place the decision on the application in the facility's operating
record as required by Sec.  257.105(f)(19).
    (iv) Demonstration review. EPA will evaluate the demonstration
package and may request additional information not required as part of
the demonstration as necessary to complete its review. Submission of a
complete demonstration package will continue to toll the facility's
deadline to cease receipt of waste into that CCR surface impoundment
until issuance of a final decision under paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this
section. Upon a determination that a demonstration is incomplete the
tolling of the facility's deadline will cease and the submission will
be rejected without further process.
    (v) Proposed decision on demonstration. EPA will publish a proposed
decision on a complete demonstration package in a docket on
www.regulations.gov for a 30-day comment period.
    (vi) Final decision on demonstration. After consideration of the
comments, EPA will issue its decision on the alternate liner
demonstration package within four months of receiving a complete
demonstration package. Upon approval the facility may continue to
operate the impoundment as long as the impoundment remains in detection
monitoring. Upon detection of a statistically significant increase over
background of a constituent listed on appendix III to this part, the
facility must proceed in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(ix) of this section.
    (vii) Facility operating record requirements. Upon receipt of the
final decision on the alternate liner demonstration pursuant to
paragraph (vi) of this section, the owner or operator must place the
final decision in the facility's operating record as required by Sec.
257.105(f)(20).
    (viii) Effect of Demonstration Denial. If EPA determines that the
CCR surface impoundment's alternate liner does not meet the standard
for approval in this paragraph (d), the owner or operator must cease
receipt of waste and initiate closure as determined in EPA's decision.
If the owner or operator needs to obtain alternate capacity, they may
do so in accordance with the procedures in Sec.  257.103. The owner or
operator will have four months from the date of EPA's decision to apply
for an alternative closure deadline under either Sec.  257.103(f)(1) or
(f)(2), during which time the facility's deadline to cease receipt of
waste will be tolled.
    (ix) Loss of authorization-(A) The owner or operator of the CCR
unit must comply with all of the following upon determining that there
is a statistically significant increase over background levels for one
or more constituents listed in appendix III to this part pursuant to
Sec.  257.94(e):
    (1) In addition to the requirements specified in this paragraph
(d), comply with the groundwater monitoring and corrective action
procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  257.90 through 257.98;
    (2) Submit the notification required by Sec.  257.94(e)(3) to EPA
within 14 days of placing the notification in the facility's operating
record as required by Sec.  257.105(h)(5);
    (3) Conduct intra-well analysis on each downgradient well to
identify any trends of increasing concentrations as required by
paragraph (d)(2)(ix)(B) of this section. The owner and operator must
conduct the initial groundwater sampling and analysis for all
constituents listed in appendix IV to this part according to the
timeframes specified in Sec.  257.95(b);
    (4) The owner or operator may elect to pursue an alternative source
demonstration pursuant to Sec.  257.94(e)(2) that a source other than
the CCR unit caused the contamination, or that the statistically
significant increase resulted from error in sampling, analysis,
statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality,
provided that such alternative source

demonstration must be conducted simultaneously with the sampling and
analysis required by paragraph (d)(2)(ix)(A)(3) of this section. If the
owner or operator believes that a successful demonstration has been
made, the demonstration must be submitted to EPA for review and
approval. The owner or operator must place the demonstration in the
facility's operating record within the deadlines specified in Sec.
257.94(e)(2) and submit the demonstration to EPA within 14 days of
placing the demonstration in the facility's operating record.
    (5) The alternative source demonstration must be posted to the
facility's publicly accessible CCR internet site and submitted to EPA
within 14 days of completion. EPA will publish a proposed decision on
the alternative source determination on www.regulations.gov for a 20-
day comment period. After consideration of the comments, EPA will issue
its decision. If the alternative source demonstration is approved, the
owner or operator may cease conducting the trend analysis and return to
detection monitoring. If the alternative source demonstration is
denied, the owner or operator must either complete the trend analysis
or cease receipt of waste. Upon receipt of the final decision on the
alternative source demonstration, the owner or operator must place the
final decision in the facility's operating record as required by Sec.
257.105(f)(22).
    (B) Trend analysis. (1) Except as provided for in Sec.  257.95(c),
the owner or operator must collect a minimum of four independent
samples from each well (background and downgradient) on a quarterly
basis within the first year of triggering assessment monitoring and
analyze each sample for all constituents listed in appendix IV to this
part. Consistent with 257.95(b), the first samples must be collected
within 90 days of triggering assessment monitoring. After the initial
year of sampling, the owner or operator must then conduct sampling as
prescribed in Sec.  257.95(d)(1). After each sampling event, the owner
or operator must update the trend analysis with the new sampling
information.
    (2) The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must apply
an appropriate statistical test to identify any trends of increasing
concentrations within the monitoring data. For normally distributed
datasets, linear regression will be used to identify trends and
determine the associated magnitude. For non-normally distributed
datasets, the Mann-Kendall test will be used to identify trends and the
Theil-Sen trend line will be used to determine the associated
magnitude. If a trend is identified, the owner or operator of the CCR
surface impoundment will use the upper 95th percentile confidence limit
on the trend line to estimate future concentrations. The owner or
operator will project this trendline into the future for a duration set
to the maximum number of years established in Sec.  257.102 for closure
of the surface impoundment.
    (3) A report of the results of each sampling event, as well as the
final trend analysis, must be posted to the facility's publicly
accessible CCR internet site and submitted to EPA within 14 days of
completion. The trend analysis submitted to EPA must include all data
relied upon by the facility to support the analysis. EPA will publish a
proposed decision on the trend analysis on www.regulations.gov for a
30-day comment period. After consideration of the comments, EPA will
issue its decision. If the trend analysis shows the potential for a
future exceedance of a groundwater protection standard, before the
closure deadlines established in Sec.  257.102, the CCR surface
impoundment must cease receipt of waste by the date provided in the
notice.
    (C) If the trend analysis demonstrates the presence of a
statistically significant trend of increasing concentration for one or
more constituents listed in appendix IV of this part with potential to
result in an exceedance of any groundwater protection standard before
closure is complete, or if at any time one or more constituents listed
in appendix IV of this part are detected at a statistically significant
level above a groundwater protection standard, the authorization will
be withdrawn. The provisions at Sec.  257.96(g)(3) do not apply to CCR
surface impoundments operating under an alternate liner demonstration.
Upon receipt of a decision that the alternate liner demonstration has
been withdrawn, the owner or operator must place the decision in the
facility's operating record as required by Sec.  257.105(f)(24).
    (D) The onus remains on the owner or operator of the CCR surface
impoundment at all times to demonstrate that the CCR surface
impoundment meets the conditions for authorization under this section.
If at any point, any condition for qualification under this section has
not been met, EPA or the Participating State Director can without
further notice or process deny or revoke the owner or operator's
authorization under paragraph (d)(2)(ix) of this section.

0
3. Amend Sec.  257.101 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  257.101  Closure or retrofit of CCR units.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The timeframe specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
does not apply if the owner or operator complies with the alternate
liner demonstration provisions specified in Sec.  257.71(d) or the
alternative closure procedures specified in Sec.  257.103.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  257.102 by revising (d)(3)(ii) introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  257.102  Criteria for conducting the closure or retrofit of CCR
units.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator may select an alternative final cover
system design, provided the alternative final cover system is designed
and constructed to meet the criteria in paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A)
through (C) of this section. The design of the final cover system must
be included in the written closure plan required by paragraph (b) of
this section.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  257.103 by revising paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) introductory
text, (f)(3)(i)(A) and (f)(3)(i)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  257.103  Alternative closure requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) Maximum time frames. All CCR surface impoundments covered by
paragraph (f)(1) must cease receiving waste by the deadlines specified
in paragraphs (f)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section and close in
accordance with the timeframes in Sec.  257.102(e) and (f).
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Except as provided by Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(iii)(E) and (viii),
the owner or operator must submit the demonstration required under
paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section, for an alternative deadline to
cease receipt of waste pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section, to
the Administrator or the Participating State Director for approval no
later than November 30, 2020.
* * * * *
    (C) Except as provided by Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(iii)(E) and (viii),
the owner or operator must submit the demonstration required under

paragraph (f)(2)(v) of this section to the Administrator for approval
no later than November 30, 2020.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  257.105 by adding paragraphs (f)(14) through (23) to
read as follows:

Sec.  257.105  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (14) The application and any supplemental materials submitted in
support of the application as required by Sec.  257.71(d)(1)(i)(E).
    (15) The alternative liner demonstration as required by Sec.
257.71(d)(1)(ii)(D).
    (16) The alternative liner demonstration extension request as
required by Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(ii)(D).
    (17) The documentation prepared for the preliminary demonstration
as required by Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(ii)(E).
    (18) The notification of an incomplete application as required by
Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(iii)(B).
    (19) The decision on the application as required by Sec.
257.71(d)(2)(iii)(F).
    (20) The final decision on the alternative liner demonstration as
required by Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(vii).
    (21) The alternative source demonstration as required under Sec.
257.71(d)(2)(ix)(A)(4).
    (22) The final decision on the alternative source demonstration as
required under Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(ix)(A)(5).
    (23) The final decision on the trend analysis as required under
Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(ix)(B)(3).
    (24) The decision that the alternative source demonstration has
been withdrawn as required under Sec.  257.71(d)(2)(ix)(C).
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  257.106 by adding paragraphs (f)(13) through (23).

Sec.  257.106  Notification requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (13) Provide notification of the availability of the application
and any supplemental materials submitted in support of the application
specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(14).
    (14) Provide notification of the availability of the alternative
liner demonstration specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(15).
    (15) Provide notification of the availability of the alternative
liner demonstration extension request specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(16).
    (16) Provide notification of the availability of the documentation
prepared for the preliminary demonstration specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(17).
    (17) Provide notification of the availability of the notification
of an incomplete application specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(18).
    (18) Provide notification of the availability of the decision on
the application specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(19).
    (19) Provide notification of the availability of the final decision
on the alternative liner demonstration specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(20).
    (20) Provide notification of the availability of the alternative
source demonstration specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(21).
    (21) Provide notification of the availability of the final decision
on the alternative source demonstration specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(22).
    (22) Provide notification of the final decision on the trend
analysis specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(23).
    (23) Provide notification of the decision that the alternative
source demonstration has been withdrawn specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(24).
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  257.107 by adding paragraphs (f)(13) through (23).

Sec.  257.107  Publicly accessible internet site requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (13) The application and any supplemental materials submitted in
support of the application specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(14).
    (14) The alternative liner demonstration specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(15).
    (15) The alternative liner demonstration specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(16).
    (16) The documentation prepared for the preliminary demonstration
specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(17).
    (17) The notification of an incomplete application specified under
Sec.  257.105(f)(18).
    (18) The decision on the application specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(19).
    (19) The final decision on the alternative liner demonstration
specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(20).
    (20) The alternative source demonstration specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(21).
    (21) The final decision on the alternative source demonstration
specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(22).
    (22) The final decision on the trend analysis specified under Sec.
257.105(f)(23).
    (23) The decision that the alternative source demonstration has
been withdrawn specified under Sec.  257.105(f)(24).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-23327 Filed 11-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16481-16482]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2934-029]

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural
Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2934-029.
    c. Date Filed: April 1, 2019.
    d. Applicant: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG).
    e. Name of Project: Upper Mechanicville Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Hudson River,
in Saratoga and Rensselaer Counties, New York. The project does not
occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Hugh J. Ives, Manager, NYSEG Hydro
Operations, 89 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14649;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Jody Callihan,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Project Description: The existing Upper Mechanicville
Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A 700-foot-long concrete gravity
dam with a crest elevation of 66.6 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929 (NGVD29); (2) 3 spillway bays each extending 222 feet
across the length of the dam and separated by a 7.5-foot to 10.5-foot-
wide concrete pier, with each spillway bay containing 12 pneumatic
Obermeyer crest gates that are 6 feet high; (3) a 1.8-mile-long
impoundment with a 380-acre surface area and gross storage capacity of
10,735 acre-feet at a normal pool elevation of 72.6 feet NGVD29; (4) an
intake channel with two reinforced guide walls and three 35-foot-
diameter cofferdam walls constructed of sheet piling; (5) a 20-foot-
wide and 7.5-foot-high intake bypass sluice gate; (6) a 105.5-foot-long
by 122-foot-wide powerhouse containing two 12,780 horsepower Kaplan
turbines and two Siemens-Allis generators each having a rated capacity
of 8,265 kilowatts; (7) a tailrace approximately 1,200 feet long and
120 feet wide with a bi-level bottom designed to minimize cross-
currents; (8) one 1.10-mile-long, 34.5-kilovolt transmission line; and
(9) appurtenant facilities.
    During the non-navigation season (typically from December 1 through
April 30), NYSEG operates the project in a run-of-river (ROR) mode and
maintains the impoundment at an elevation of 72.6 feet NGVD29. During
the navigation season (typically May 1 through November 30), NYSEG
periodically spills water to lower the impoundment up to 3 feet below
full pool, as directed by the New York State Canal Corporation, to
accommodate navigation at lock C-3, and uses all available remaining
inflow (that is not used to support navigation) for generation
purposes. NYSEG proposes to continue operating the project as it does
currently, to support both generation and navigation. In addition,
NYSEG proposes to enhance fish passage at the project by: (1)
Installing upstream passage for American eel (4 years post-license);
(2) developing an agreement with the New York State Canal Corporation
to modify lock operations to accommodate the upstream passage of
blueback herring and American shad (commencing 2 years post-license);
and (3) modifying the project's intake bypass sluice gate to provide an
additional route of downstream fish passage from April 1 through
November 30. The project currently generates an annual average of
88,537 megawatt-hours.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected]
or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the Mechanicville
District Public Library located at 190 North Main Street,
Mechanicville, NY 12118 and the A.E. Diver Memorial Library located at
136 Main Street, Schaghticoke, NY 12154.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for      June 2019.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms  August 2019.
 and conditions, and fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Environmental Assessment    December 2019.
 (EA).
Comments on EA..............................  February 2020.

Modified Terms and Conditions...............  April 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: April 15, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07949 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P