The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2609.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
      The information collection includes mandatory reporting by facilities with respect to the closure of their units. It also includes documentation that must be submitted to EPA to take advantage of the alternate liner demonstration provision and the use of CCR in closure provision.
      Respondents/affected entities: Coal-fired electric utility plants that will be affected by the rule.
      Respondent's obligation to respond: The recordkeeping, notification, and posting are mandatory as part of the minimum national criteria being promulgated under Sections 1008, 4004, and 4005(a) of RCRA.
      Estimated number of respondents: 300.
      Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies.
      Total estimated burden: 17,301 hours (per year with Co-Proposed Option 1 of Provision Two) and 20,170 hours (per year with Co-Proposed Option 2 of Provision Two). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
      Total estimated cost: $5.06 million (per year with Co-Proposed Option 1 of Provision Two), includes $4.01 million annualized operation & maintenance costs. $5.86 million (per year with Co-Proposed Option 2 of Provision Two), includes annualized 4.64 million operation and maintenance costs.
      An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
      I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action is expected impact 6 affected small entities' annual revenue by more than 1%; and just 1 entity by more than 3%. This results in a total of 7 of 81 (8.64%) of affected small entities to be significantly affected. We have determined that 8.4% of affected small entities is not a substantial number small entities, and have therefore concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
 E.	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
      This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The costs involved in this action are imposed only by participation in a voluntary federal program. UMRA generally excludes from the definition of "federal intergovernmental mandate" duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program.
 F.	Executive Order 13132: Federalism
      This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
 G.	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
      This action has tribal implications because it would impose requirements on facilities located in Indian country. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
      The EPA will engage with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes concurrent with the public comment process for this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.
      EPA has identified that three of the 414 coal-fired electric utility plants (in operation as of 2012) are located on tribal lands. The three facilities are: (1) the Navajo Generating Station in Coconino County, Arizona, which is operated by the Arizona Salt River Project and owned by the Navajo Nation; (2) the Bonanza Power Plant in Uintah County, Utah, which is operated by the Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative and owned by the Ute Indian Tribe; and (3) the Four Corners Power Plant in San Juan County, New Mexico, which is operated by the Arizona Public Service Company and owned by the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant are on tribal trust lands belonging to the Navajo Nation, while the Bonanza Power Plant is located on tribal trust lands within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. Because CCR units are land-based units, the fact that these CCR facilities are located on tribal trust land means that the facility owners within the meaning of the CCR Rule are the tribal trust beneficial landowner tribes. The Agency continues to believe that the facility operators will bear all direct compliance costs associated with the above-mentioned rules and proposed rules.  However, to the extent that an operator fails to comply with a federal CCR requirement, CCR facility owners may also be held liable.
 H.	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risk and Safety Risks
      This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the document titled "Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Residuals" which is available in the docket for the final rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-11993.
      As ordered by EO 13045 Section 1-101(a), for the "Final Rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities" published on April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21302), EPA identified and assessed environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children in the revised risk assessment. The results of the screening assessment found that risks fell below the criteria when wetting and run-on/runoff controls required by the rule are considered. Under the full probabilistic analysis, composite liners required by the rule for new waste management units showed the ability to reduce the 90th percentile child cancer and non-cancer risks for the groundwater to drinking water pathway to well below EPA's criteria. Additionally, the groundwater monitoring and corrective action required by the rule reduced risks from current waste management units.
 I.	Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
      This action is not a "significant energy action" because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. For the 2015 CCR rule, EPA analyzed the potential impact on electricity prices relative to the "in excess of one percent" threshold. Using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), EPA concluded that the 2015 CCR Rule may increase the weighted average nationwide wholesale price of electricity between 0.18 percent and 0.19 percent in the years 2020 and 2030, respectively. As the final rule represents a cost savings rule relative to the 2015 CCR rule, this analysis concludes that any potential impact on wholesale electricity prices will be lower than the potential impact estimated of the 2015 CCR rule; therefore, this final rule is not expected to meet the criteria of a "significant adverse effect" on the electricity markets as defined by Executive Order 13211.
 J.	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
      This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
 K.	Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
      The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
	The documentation for this decision is contained in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the CCR rule which is available in the docket for the 2015 CCR rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-12034.
	EPA's risk assessment did not separately evaluate either minority or low-income populations. However, to evaluate the demographic characteristics of communities that may be affected by the CCR rule, the RIA compares the demographic characteristics of populations surrounding coal-fired electric utility plants with broader population data for two geographic areas: (1) one-mile radius from CCR management units (i.e., landfills and impoundments) likely to be affected by groundwater releases from both landfills and impoundments; and (2) watershed catchment areas downstream of surface impoundments that receive surface water run-off and releases from CCR impoundments and are at risk of being contaminated from CCR impoundment discharges (e.g., unintentional overflows, structural failures, and intentional periodic discharges).
	For the population as a whole 24.8 percent belong to a minority group and 11.3 percent falls below the Federal Poverty Level. For the population living within one mile of plants with surface impoundments 16.1 percent belong to a minority group and 13.2 percent live below the Federal Poverty Level. These minority and low-income populations are not disproportionately high compared to the general population. However, the percentage of minority residents of the entire population living within the catchment areas downstream of surface impoundments is disproportionately high relative to the general population, i.e., 28.7 percent, versus 24.8 percent for the national population. Also, the percentage of the population within the catchment areas of surface impoundments that is below the Federal Poverty Level is disproportionately high compared with the general population, i.e., 18.6 percent versus 11.3 percent nationally.
	Comparing the population percentages of minority and low income residents within one mile of landfills to those percentages in the general population, EPA found that minority and low-income residents make up a smaller percentage of the populations near landfills than they do in the general population, i.e., minorities comprised 16.6 percent of the population near landfills versus 24.8 percent nationwide and low-income residents comprised 8.6 percent of the population near landfills versus 11.3 percent nationwide. In summary, although populations within the catchment areas of plants with surface impoundments appear to have disproportionately high percentages of minority and low-income residents relative to the nationwide average, populations surrounding plants with landfills do not. Because landfills are less likely than impoundments to experience surface water run-off and releases, catchment areas were not considered for landfills.
	The CCR rule is risk-reducing with reductions in risk occurring largely within the surface water catchment zones around, and groundwater beneath, coal-fired electric utility plants. Since the CCR rule is risk-reducing and this action does not add to risks, this action will not result in new disproportionate risks to minority or low-income populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 257
Environmental protection, Beneficial use, Coal combustion products, Coal combustion residuals, Coal combustion waste, Disposal, Hazardous waste, Landfill, Surface impoundment.

Dated:

__________________________________________
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

      For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 257 as follows:
 PART 257 -- CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES
      1. The authority citation for part 257 continues to read as follows:
      Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3), 6912(a)(1), 6944(a), 6945(d); 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e).
      2.  Amend § 257.53 by adding the definition of "Borrow material" to read as follows:
§ 257.53 Definitions.
*	*	*	*	*
      Borrow material means materials that are dug from a pit or area for use as fill and include such materials as soil, sand, silt, clay, and gravel.
*	*	*	*	*
      3. Amend § 257.71 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 257.71 Liner design criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments.
*	*	*	*	*
      (d) Alternate Liner Demonstration. An owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment constructed without a composite liner or alternate composite liner as defined in  § 257.70(b) or (c), may submit an Alternate Liner Demonstration to the Administrator or the Participating State Director to demonstrate that the design of the current liner system or the naturally occurring media present performs equivalent to a composite liner as defined in § 257.70(b). To be granted, the owner or operator must demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that based on the construction of the unit and surrounding site conditions, operation of the surface impoundment will not result in groundwater concentrations above the relevant groundwater protection standard at the unit boundary. Prior to the submission of the alternate liner demonstration, the facility must submit an alternate liner demonstration application documenting the unit's eligibility to submit a demonstration. The application and demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator or the Participating State Director no later than the relevant deadline in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. The Administrator or the Participating State Director will act on the submissions in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
      (1) To obtain approval under this paragraph, the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must submit the following:
      (i) Application. The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must submit a letter to the Administrator or the Participating State Director, announcing their intention to submit a demonstration under this paragraph. The application must include the location of the facility and identify the specific CCR surface impoundment for which the demonstration will be made. The written demonstration must include information proving all of the following:
      (A) The unit is in full compliance with this subpart except for § 257.71 (a)(1)(ii) and (iii),
      (B) That the existing network of monitoring wells is sufficient to capture any releases, based on direction of flow, well location, screening depth and other relevant factors, including well construction logs and a sufficient number of diagrams to depict depth to groundwater, the potentiometric surface, and the anticipated direction(s) of groundwater flow across the site (multiple diagrams may be necessary if the direction of flow is affected by seasonal, tidal or other influences);
      (C) That there is no indication from groundwater monitoring data that the unit has or will adversely affect groundwater (i.e., no statistically significant increases (SSI) of Appendix IV to this part constituents above relevant GWPS), including documentation of the most recent statistical tests conducted and the rationale for the methods used in these comparisons, and
      (D) That the unit meets the location restrictions under §§ 257.60 through 257.64.
      (ii) Alternate Liner Demonstration Package. The completed alternate liner demonstration package must be certified by a professional engineer. The package must present evidence to demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that based on the construction of the unit and surrounding site conditions, operation of the surface impoundment will not result in groundwater concentrations above the relevant groundwater protection standard at the unit boundary. For each line of evidence, as well as any other data and assumptions incorporated into the determination, the facility must include documentation on how the data were collected and why these data and assumptions are believed to adequately reflect potential contaminant transport at and around 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 site-specific hydrogeology that surrounds the surface impoundment that defines the variability of the soil around the impoundment. The characterization must include all of the following:
      (1) Measurements of the hydraulic conductivity in the uppermost aquifer measured from existing monitoring wells and discussion of the methods used to obtain these measurements.
      (2) Subsurface samples collected to characterize site hydrogeology must be located around the perimeter of the impoundment at a spatial resolution sufficient to ensure that any regions of substantially higher conductivity have been identified;
      (3) Conceptual site models with cross-sectional depictions of site stratigraphy that include the relative location of the impoundment (with depth of ponded water noted), monitoring wells (with screening depths noted), and all other subsurface samples used in the development of the models;
      (4) A narrative description of site geological history; and
      (5) All of the data used in the conceptual site model summarized into easily readable graphs or tables.
      (B) Potential for infiltration. This report must evaluate the potential for infiltration through any liners and underlying soils that control release and transport of leachate by either in-situ sampling, or by conducting an analysis of the soil-based liner and underlying soil of the unit through laboratory testing.
      (2) Procedures for Adjudicating Requests. (i) Deadlines for Submission. The owner or operator must submit the application under paragraph (d)(1)(A) of this section to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval no later than [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The owner or operator must submit the demonstration required under paragraph (d)(1)(B) of this section to EPA for approval no later than one year after the deadline for the initial application. If the owner or operator cannot meet this second deadline due to analytical limitations, the owner or operator must submit a request for an extension no later than 90 days prior to the deadline for submission of the demonstration that includes a summary of the data that have been analyzed for the samples responsible for the delay and an alternate timeline for completion that has been certified by the laboratory.
      (ii) Application Review.  EPA or the Participating State Director will evaluate the application and may request additional information as necessary to complete its review. Submission of a complete application will toll the facility's deadline to cease receipt of waste into that unit until issuance of a final decision on the unit's eligibility. Incomplete submissions will not toll the facility's deadline. Within sixty days of receiving a complete application, EPA or the Participating State Director will notify the owner or operator of its determination on the eligibility of their surface impoundment.
      (iii) Demonstration Review.  EPA or the Participating State Director will evaluate the demonstration package and may request additional information as necessary to complete its review. Submission of a complete demonstration package will toll the facility's deadline to cease receipt of waste into that unit until issuance of a final decision under paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section. Incomplete submissions will not toll the facility's deadline.
      (iv) EPA or the Participating State Director will publish a proposed decision on the alternate liner demonstration package on EPA's or the Participating State Director's website for a 30-day comment period.
      (v) After consideration of the comments, EPA or the Participating State Director will issue its decision on the alternate liner demonstration package within 4 months of receiving a complete alternate liner demonstration package. If no substantive comments are received, the proposed decision will become effective 5 days from the close of the comment period.
      (vi) Effect of Denial. If EPA or the Participating State Director determines that the unit is not eligible under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, the owner or operator must cease receipt of waste and initiate closure within six months of the denial or by the deadline in § 257.101(a), whichever is later. If EPA or the Participating State Director determines that the unit's alternate liner does not meet the standard for approval in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner or operator must cease receipt of waste and initiate closure within six months of the denial. If a facility needs to obtain alternate capacity, they may do so in accordance with the procedures in § 257.103.
      (vii) Loss of authorization. (A) If at any time assessment monitoring pursuant to § 257.95 is triggered for the unit, the facility must conduct intra-well analyses on each well as part of subsequent groundwater monitoring reports to identify any trends of increasing concentrations. If there is evidence that the unit may exceed the groundwater protection standard for any constituent within the operational life of the unit, EPA or the Participating State Director will reevaluate the authorization, and may revoke it if source control measures cannot be put in place while the unit continues to operate.
      (B)  The onus remains on the facility at all times to demonstrate that the unit 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)(vii).
      4. Amend § 257.102 by:
      a. Revising paragraphs (c) and introductory text (d)(3)(ii);
      b. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
      c. Revising paragraphs (g) and (i)(4);
      d. Adding paragraph (l).
      The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 257.102 Criteria for conducting the closure or retrofit of CCR units.
*	*	*	*	*
      (c) Closure by removal of CCR. An owner or operator closing a CCR unit by removal of CCR must follow the procedures specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section. Closure by removal activities include removing or decontaminating all CCR and CCR residues, containment system components such as the unit liner, contaminated subsoils, contaminated groundwater, and CCR unit structures and ancillary equipment.
      (1) Complete all removal and decontamination activities during the active life of the CCR unit. Within the timeframes specified in paragraph (f) of this section the owner or operator must do all of the following:
      (i) Complete removal and decontamination of all areas affected by releases from the CCR unit;
      (ii) Document that constituent concentrations throughout the CCR unit and any areas affected by releases from the CCR unit have been removed and groundwater monitoring concentrations do not exceed the groundwater protection standards established pursuant to § 257.95(h) for constituents listed in appendix IV to this part; and
      (iii) Obtain the completion of closure certification or approval required by paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
      (2) Complete removal and decontamination activities during the active life and post-closure care period of the CCR unit. The owner or operator may close the CCR unit by completing all removal and decontamination activities, except for groundwater corrective action, during the active life of the CCR unit and by completing groundwater corrective action during the post-closure care period pursuant to the following procedures:
      (i) Within the timeframes specified in paragraph (f) of this section, complete all removal and decontamination activities except for groundwater corrective action;
      (ii) Within the timeframes specified in paragraph (f) of this section, begin implementation of the remedy selected under § 257.97 such that all components of the remedy are in place and operating as intended;
      (iii) Complete groundwater corrective action as a post-closure care requirement as specified in § 257.104(g);
      (iv) Amend the written closure plan required by paragraph (b) of this section and the written post-closure care plan required by § 257.104(d), if necessary;
      (v) Within the timeframes specified in paragraph (f) of this section, obtain the completion of closure certification or approval required by paragraph (f)(3) of this section; and
      (vi) Within the timeframes specified in paragraph (f) of this section, record the notation on the deed to the property required by paragraph (i) of this section.
      (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.
*	*	*	*	*
      (4) Exemption for the use of CCR in a CCR surface impoundment closing for cause. (i) This paragraph specifies the conditions under which CCR may be used in the closure of CCR surface impoundments closing pursuant to § 257.101. Notwithstanding the prohibition on further placement in § 257.101, CCR may be used in a CCR unit provided the written closure plan is approved by the Administrator or a Participating State Director. The approved closure plan must demonstrate that the use of CCR during closure would pose no reasonable risk of adverse effects during the closure and post-closure care periods by showing that the placed CCR will remain contained (i.e., isolated) in the unit closed in accordance with the closure performance standards under § 257.102(d) so as to limit contact of the CCR in the unit with water and to prevent releases to the environment, including releases through surface transport by precipitation runoff, releases to soil and groundwater, wind-blown dust, and catastrophic unit failures. The following analyses and documentation must be included in the written closure plan:
      (A) The volume of CCR that would be placed during closure would not exceed the volume of borrow material that otherwise would be used to achieve the subgrade elevations necessary to support the final cover system;
	(B) The time needed to complete closure of the unit when using CCR would not exceed the time needed to close with soil or borrow material;
	(C) The CCR unit meets the requirements of §257.64;
	(D) The CCR unit is and will remain in compliance with the closure performance standards and requirements specified in § 257.102, even after the further placement of CCR;
      (E) In addition to the requirements specified in § 257.102(d)(3), the design and construction of the final cover system must ensure the final cover system is no more permeable than the CCR placed in the unit as part of closure; and
	(F) If the owner or operator of the unit has determined that any constituent listed in appendix IV to this part has been detected at a statistically significant level exceeding a groundwater detection standard defined under § 257.95(h), the additional placement of CCR will not adversely affect compliance with the corrective action remedy requirements under § 257.97(b).
	(ii) Review and approval. (A) The owner or operator must submit the closure plan for the unit that includes the demonstrations specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section to the Administrator or Participating State Director for review and approval in advance of the anticipated date of CCR use. The owner or operator must not make use of the exemption under this paragraph (d) until EPA or the Participating State Director has approved the closure plan.
	(B) The approving authority should notify the owner or operator of approval or intent to disapprove the use of CCR in closure within 3 months after receipt of the initial closure plan or within 2 months after receipt of any supplemental information submitted.
      *	*	*	*	*
      (g)(1) Except as provided by paragraph (g)(2) of this section, no later than two weeks from the date the owner or operator initiates closure of a CCR unit, the owner or operator must prepare a notification of intent to close a CCR unit. The notification must include the date that closure of the CCR unit was initiated. The notification must also include the certification by a qualified professional engineer or the approval from the Participating State Director or the approval from EPA where EPA is the permitting authority for the design of the final cover system as required by § 257.102(d)(3)(iii), if applicable. The owner or operator has completed the notification when it has been placed in the facility's operating record as required by § 257.105(i)(7).
      (2) If the owner or operator previously completed a notification of intent to close a CCR unit prior to the effective date of a rule finalizing this proposal that does not contain the date that closure of the unit was initiated, and if the owner or operator has not yet completed closure of the CCR unit by completing the completion of closure notification in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section, then no later than two months following the effective date of a rule finalizing this proposal, the owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility's operating record an updated notification of intent to close that includes the of date on which the owner or operator commenced closure of the unit.
*	*	*	*	*
      (i)	*	*	*
	(4) An owner or operator that closes a CCR unit in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
*	*	*	*	*
      (l) Annual Closure Progress Reports. Owners and operators of any CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion of a CCR unit that is closed in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section must complete the notices and progress reports specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (2) of this section.
      (1) The owner or operator must prepare annual closure progress reports summarizing the progress of closure implementation. The report must include the following information:
      (i) Discussion on which stage of closure the unit is currently undergoing;
      (ii) Discussion of the closure schedule; and
      (iii) Discussion of any problems that were experienced.
      (2) The owner or operator of a CCR unit must prepare the initial closure progress report no later than the first January 31 following the effective date of a rule finalizing this proposal or the first January 31 following the year that closure activities for the unit were commenced, whichever date is later. An annual closure progress report must be completed for the unit until closure of the unit is completed in accordance with paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section.
      5.  Amend § 257.104 by:
      a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(2); and
      b. Adding paragraphs (c)(3), (g) and (h).
      The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 257.104 Post-closure care requirements.
	(a)	*	*	*
	(2) An owner or operator of a CCR unit that elects to close a CCR unit by removing CCR as provided by § 257.102(c)(1) is not subject to the post-closure care criteria under this section.
*	*	*	*	*
	(c) 	*	*	* (1) Except as provided by paragraph (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must conduct post-closure care for 30 years.
*	*	*	*	*
	(3) An owner or operator closing a unit pursuant to § 257.102(c)(2) must conduct post-closure care pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section.
*	*	*	*	*
	(g) Completion of removal and decontamination activities. For a CCR unit closing pursuant to § 257.102(c)(2), the owner or operator must complete groundwater corrective action by demonstrating that any areas affected by releases from the CCR unit do not exceed the groundwater protection standards established pursuant to § 257.95(h) for constituents listed in appendix IV to this part.
      (h) Removal of a deed notation. The owner or operator of a CCR unit closed pursuant to §§ 257.102(c)(2) and 257.104 may remove the notation from the deed specified in § 257.102(i) upon:
      (1) Completion of groundwater corrective action demonstrating that any areas affected by releases from the CCR unit do not exceed the groundwater protection standards established pursuant to § 257.95(h) for constituents listed in appendix IV to this part; and
      (2) Completion of the notification of completion of post-closure care period required by paragraph (e) of this section.
      6.  Amend § 257.105 by:
      a. Revising paragraph (i)(1);
      b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3); and
      c. Adding paragraph (i)(14).
      The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 257.105 Recordkeeping requirements.
*	*	*	*	*
	(i)	*	*	*
	(1) The notification of intent to initiate closure of the CCR unit as required by § 257.100(e)(1)(i).
*	*	*	*	*
      (14) The annual progress reports of closure implementation as required by § 257.102(l)(2) and (3).
*	*	*	*	*
      7.  Amend § 257.106 by:
      a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3); and
      b. Adding paragraph (i)(14).
      The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 257.106 Notification requirements.
*	*	*	*	*
	(i)	*	*	*
	(14) The annual progress reports of closure implementation as required by § 257.105(i)(14).
*	*	*	*	*
      8.  Amend § 257.107 by:
      a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3); and
      b. Adding paragraph (i)(14).
      The additions and revisions read as follows:
§ 257.107 Publicly accessible Internet site requirements.
*	*	*	*	*
	(i)	*	*	*
	(14) The annual progress reports of closure implementation as required by § 257.105(i)(14).
*	*	*	*	*


Questions for Commenters regarding docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944
(January 15,2007)

Based on stakeholder requests, the Agency has decided to extend the
comment period for docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944 titled “Petition
Requesting EPA to Issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel the Registrations
of M-44 Sodium Cyanide Capsules and Sodium Fluoroacetate” until March
5, 2008.  Information addressing the questions below would be especially
useful to the Agency in responding to this petition.

Incident data:

Are you aware of any incidents in which non-target animals were killed
or injured from the use of M-44 or 1080 Livestock Protection Collar?  If
so, please provide any specific information available on the incident.

Alternatives:

What products or techniques are available as alternatives to M-44 and
1080?  How effective are these alternatives at controlling predators?

Are there any data available regarding the efficacy and cost of these
alternatives?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using M-44 and 1080
Livestock Protection Collar relative to these alternatives?

Usage:

Where are M-44 and 1080 Livestock Protection Collars being used?

How much sodium cyanide and sodium fluroacetate is being used annually
per State in M-44 devices and in 1080 Livestock Protection Collars?

What is the annual cost to the Government (Federal, State, local) for
M-44 and 1080 Livestock Protection Collar use?

How has the use of M-44 and 1080 Livestock Protection Collars changed in
the last 20 years (increased?  decreased?  changed in regional pattern
of use?)

Economic Benefit:

What industries do the use of 1080 Livestock Protection Collars and M-44
economically benefit?  What is the economic benefit to these industries?

How have these industries changed in the last 20 years?


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 24471]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14111-000; 14112-000; 14113-000]

Qualified Hydro 26, LLC; Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund VII; Western
Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Notice of Competing Preliminary
Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 15, 2011, Qualified Hydro 26, LLC (Qualified Hydro), Lock+
Hydro Friends Fund VII (Hydro Friends) and Western Minnesota Municipal
Power Agency (WMMPA) filed preliminary permit applications, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of a hydropower project at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (Corps) Mississippi River Lock and Dam 11
structure, located on the Mississippi River near the Township of
Dubuque, Dubuque County, Iowa. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owner's express permission.
    Qualified Hydro's Mississippi Lock and Dam 11 Project No.
14111 would consist of: (1) A 400-foot-long by 350-foot-wide intake
channel; (2) a 600-foot-long by 350-foot-wide tailrace channel; (3) a
new 750-foot-long by 6-foot-diameter buried steel penstock; (4) a new
250-foot by 325-foot concrete powerhouse containing six new turbine-
generators and associated switchgear, controls and ancillary systems;
the turbine-generator units have individual unit capacities of 3.0
megawatts (MW) and a combined capacity of 18 MW; (5) a new concrete 40-
foot by 50-foot control building constructed on the east side of the
powerhouse; (6) a 80-foot-long by 60-foot-wide, 20 megavolt-amperes
(MVA) substation; (7) a 20,000-foot-long transmission line extending
east from the substation to an interconnection point with an existing
transmission line on the Illinois side of the river; and (8)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed operating voltage would be between
115 and 161 kilovolt (kV). The project would have annual energy
production of 90 gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/yr), utilize Corps-
designated flows from the Mississippi Lock and Dam 11
structure, and operate as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; (978)
283-2822.
    Hydro Friends' proposed Lock and Dam 11 Hydropower Project
No. 14112 would consist of: (1) Two 109-foot-wide by 40-foot-high lock
frame modules--one installed in the inactive auxiliary lock itself and
the other east of the movable section of the dam; each consisting of 10
hydropower turbines rated at 900 kilowatts (kW) and giving the project
a total rated capacity of 18 MW; (2) two new 150-foot-long by 110-foot-
wide tailrace channels; (3) a new 50-foot-long by 25-foot-wide
switchyard; (4) a 2-mile-long, 115- kV transmission line extending from
the switchyard to an existing nearby transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual
generation of 120 GWh/yr, and utilize Corps-designated flows from the
Mississippi Lock and Dam 11 structure.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, Chairman, Hydro Green
Energy, LLC, 5090 Richmond Avenue, 390, Houston, TX 77056;
(877) 556-6566 x709.
    WMMPA's Mississippi Lock and Dam 11 Project No. 1411 would
consist of: (1) A 318-foot-long by 300-foot-wide intake channel; (2) a
265-foot-long by 300-foot-wide tailrace channel; (3) a new 190-foot-
long by 260-foot-wide by 40-foot-high concrete powerhouse containing
six new pit type axial flow turbine-generators and associated
transformers and switchgear; the turbine-generator units would have
individual unit capacities of 4.6 MW and a combined capacity of 27.6
MW; (4) a new 9.4-mile-long, 69 kV transmission line extending from the
switchyard near the proposed powerhouse to an interconnection point
with an existing substation on the Wisconsin side of the river; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have annual energy production
of 190 GWh/yr, utilize Corps designated flows from the Mississippi Lock
and Dam 11 structure, and operate as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Raymond J. Wahle, P.E., Missouri River
Energy Services 3724 W. Avera Drive, Sioux Falls, SD 57109; (605) 330-
6963.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone A. Williams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6331.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14111, P-14112, or P-14113-000) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 26, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10540 Filed 4-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82114-82115]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1014; Airspace Docket No. 11-AAL-19]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-320 and V-440; Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends two VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airways in Alaska, V-320 and V-440, due to the relocation of the
Anchorage VOR navigation aid. The FAA is taking this action to ensure
the continued safe and efficient management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, February 9, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulation and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Monday, November 7, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend VOR Federal airways
V-320 and V-440 in Alaska, due to the relocation of the Anchorage VOR
navigation aid (76 FR 68674). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Alaskan VOR Federal airways V-320 and V-440. The
airway descriptions reflect the Anchorage VOR relocation from Fire
Island, AK, to Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage,
AK. Specifically, the descriptions incorporate the new navigation aid
location and updated radials used to describe the airway intersections
to be used by air traffic control for instrument flight rules aircraft
in the vicinity of Anchorage, AK.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Federal airways in Alaska.
    Alaskan VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) of
FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Alaskan
VOR Federal Airways listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9V,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and
effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010b Alaskan VOR Federal airways.

* * * * *

V-320 [Amended]

    From McGrath, AK; INT McGrath 121[deg] and Kenai, AK 350[deg]
radials; INT Kenai 350[deg] and Anchorage, AK 291[deg] radials;
Anchorage; INT

Anchorage 147[deg] and Johnstone Point, AK, 271[deg] radials; to
Johnstone Point.
* * * * *

V-440 [Amended]

    From Nome, AK; Unalakleet, AK; McGrath, AK; Anchorage, AK; INT
Anchorage 147[deg] and Middleton Island, AK 309[deg] radials;
Middleton Island; Yakutat, AK; Biorka Island, AK; to Sandspit, BC.
The airspace within Canada is excluded.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 23, 2011.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulation and ATC Procedure Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-33463 Filed 12-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P