Discharges avoided. Our method of calculating benefits for the 1991 proposal involved an attempt to quantify the value of avoided oil spilled and associated clean up costs that would result from the proposal. While some commenters believe that we may have overestimated the unit cost of clean up for some types of facilities, we believe that our overall estimate was fairly reliable because we most likely underestimated clean up unit costs for other types of facilities. As we noted in the analysis, "the cost to clean up oil spills may vary substantially, depending on a number of parameters including: the environmental medium that is contaminated; the sensitivity of the environment to spills (spills to wetlands); the size of the spill; the type of oil; and the length of time it takes for a response action to begin, among others." Since we initially performed this analysis, there has been substantial development in this area as a result of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).

Facility notification. We have withdrawn the facility notification proposal. Therefore, there are no costs associated with it in the final rule.

Human health and the environment. We disagree that the rule will have little if any benefit in protecting human health or the environment and does not justify the standards we are requiring for facilities subject to the part 112 requirements. We believe that the final rule will reduce the overall compliance costs to industry without sacrificing any protection to the environment. As previously noted, the measurable benefits attributable to the final rule are related to the estimated reduction in associated burden for SPCCregulated facilities. We believe this burden reduction will be approximately 40 percent for the regulated universe. This reduction is principally associated with our decision to incorporate many industry standards and practices into the rule, along with the decision to extend the length of time in which a facility owner or operator must review and evaluate the Plan. We also have adopted a number of revisions designed to increase the flexibility a facility needs to comply with the requirements of the rule. We have not adopted the notification provision and the 72 hour impermeability standard for secondary containment, 322 which many commenters opposed based on associated costs. Further, we have decided to no longer regulate small facilities storing less than 1, 320 gallons in a single aboveground container.

We note that while we did not describe how we monetized the estimated benefits of the proposed rulemaking in the preamble, we did provide a cite to the Supplemental Cost and Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Revisions, which was available to the public throughout the rulemaking process. 323 Category XVII: General comments XVII 1 Support or opposition to the proposed rule Comments: Support for proposed rule. The proposed revisions clarify and strengthen the SPCC program and protect the navigable waters of the United States. (4, 27, 54, 64, 67, 81, 82, 105, 107, 115, 135, 136, 142, 147, 153, 158, 161, 164, 181, 184) The proposed amendments would "enhance the safety of the SPCC program." (54) The revisions would make the regulation clearer and facilitate compliance. (136) The revisions would make the SPCC program enforceable. (184) The proposed changes would help prevent major problems with aboveground storage tanks and piping systems. (L1) There would be "no dual regulation in offshore areas." (L12)

Opposition to proposed rule.

Burdensome or costly. Implementing the proposed rule would be burdensome. (83, 91, 102) The proposed requirements would force the regulated community to ignore the rule, or go out of business. (122) The proposed requirements would impose expensive and unnecessary administrative burdens, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other excessive compliance costs on a facility. (35, 86, 111, 113, 131, 184, 189, 192, L35) We must consider drafting regulations that protect the environment, and are affordable to this country's businesses. (139)

Current rule adequate. Current SPCC regulations are adequate to assure the protection mandated by the CWA and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). (35, 71, 101, 192, L30) Existing regulations are adequate, and further regulatory measures are not necessary. (110, 149)

Decreased flexibility. Adopting the proposed requirements would limit or curtail the flexibility in the current regulation. (35, 91, L30) Adopting our proposals would not benefit the environment. (35, 86, 148, L35) The proposed rule is "highly inflexible." (184)

Interpretation. The proposed revisions have been "subject to incorrect and unnecessary interpretation." (100, 103)

OPA. We should not promulgate the proposed revisions. (101) The proposed rulemaking did not implement the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). (31, 34, 35)

Production facilities. Oil and gas exploration and production and gas processing industries have been "highly effective in implementing the SPCC program and in controlling releases of oils to the waters of the United States." Our "substantial" proposed revisions were unjustified given the record of losses in the production sector, and the relatively small size and isolated location of most production facilities. (86) 324 Reduced environmental protection. In some cases, the proposed rule could "decrease the protection afforded under the current rule." Many operators prepare SPCC Plans for all storage facilities  regardless of how close the facility is to navigable waters. Overly burdensome SPCC Plan requirements such as we proposed, could discourage owners or operators from continuing that practice. (86)

Substantial risk. Supports the proposed rule only insofar as it addresses the standards applicable to facilities that pose a substantial risk to navigable waters of the U. S. because they store or handle large bulk quantities of oil. (156)

Technically ill conceived. The proposed regulation is technically ill conceived. (110)

Unnecessary. The proposed regulations are unnecessary. (35, 71, 113) The proposed requirements would result in a considerable burden and expense for facilities, with no commensurate environmental benefit. (88, 153, 167) The proposed changes would not improve the overall effectiveness of oil pollution program regulations. (103)

Vague. Certain proposed provisions are unclear and technically impractical. (67, 83, 91, 100, 102, 103, 131)

Response: Support for proposed rule. We appreciate commenter support.

Opposition to proposed rule. We disagree with the general opposition to the proposed changes. We proposed the changes largely to make part 112 clearer and simpler, to reflect expanded jurisdiction under the CWA, and to respond to recommendations of the SPCC Task Force and General Accounting Office report. We have considered comments on the technical viability of the proposed requirements and made many changes in the rule based on those comments.

Further, the final rule contains a number of provisions designed to decrease regulatory burdens on an owner or operator. It gives him greater flexibility than the current rule by allowing him to choose methods that best protect the environment. We maintain the good engineering practice standard which encourages an owner or operator to use industry consensus or other appropriate standards, rather than prescribing particular procedures, or monitoring or inspection schedules. For most of the substantive requirements, when a facility owner or operator can demonstrate that a particular provision is infeasible based on facility specific circumstances, an owner or operator may substitute alternative measures that provide environmental protection equivalent to part 112 requirements.

In 1991, we prepared two preliminary economic analyses to support the proposed rule, including an initial economic impact analysis under Executive Order (EO) 12291 and a supplemental cost and benefit analysis. For the final rule, we have assessed the economic effects as required by EO 12866 and relevant statutes. We think that we have 325 considered costs and burdens adequately, and invite the interested reader to review the Regulatory Analyses at the end of the preamble to the rule we adopted and the docket for this rulemaking.

XVII 2 Editorial changes and clarifications Comments: ANPRM. Asks us to use an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for discussing issues on which we simply asked for comments. (121)

Plain language, "countermeasure." We should use the active voice and simple English. Part 112 is unnecessarily wordy. (121) We should drop the "s" from countermeasures in the proposed rule. (7, 9, 121) We should make the same change in 40 CFR part 264. (7)

Recommendations. Asks us to simplify the regulation by omitting recommendations or discretionary provisions. Suggests that we develop a separate "Code of Good Practice" for recommendations. We would have difficulty enforcing provisions where we did not use an imperative statement. (44, 121)

Syntax and grammar. Several commenters made suggestions regarding syntax and grammar. (27, 54, 76, 79, 100, 121, L26) .

Response: ANPRM. We believe that it would have been redundant to use an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for discussing issues on which we simply asked for comments in 1991. The 1991 preamble was an appropriate mechanism for the comment request.

Plain language, "countermeasure." We have made changes to correct grammar and typographical errors, to promote consistency, and used a plain English format to make part 112 clearer and easier to use. A plain English format includes maximum use of the active voice; short, clear sentences; and, in this rule, a summary of the major regulatory changes. Using this format is part of our continuing regulatory reinvention efforts. We have revised the term "countermeasures" to read "countermeasure" in the term Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. We cannot revise "countermeasures" in 40 CFR part 264 as part of this rulemaking because we did not propose any changes to that part.

Recommendations. We have not included discretionary provisions in the final rule because we do not wish to confuse the regulated community by being unclear about what is mandatory and what is discretionary. We will provide guidance or policy statements, as necessary, that will include some or all of these recommendations. In the absence of such guidance or policy statements, we urge an owner or operator to look to current industry standards for guidance on technical issues.

Syntax and grammar. We have corrected errors in syntax and grammar. 326 XVII 3 Public participation and call for more data Comments: Basis for rule. We did not discuss what major release or spill scenarios compelled us to propose changes, nor why the proposed changes would improve the situation. We should show more data and empirical evidence that demonstrate why the regulation is necessary. We should re propose this rule based on new data, which display and target the design and operating problems that require improvement. (148) Our data is deficient because we did not use Petroleum Extraction Industry statistical data or State data. (L27)

Liner Study. Section 4113 of OPA required the President "to conduct a liner study, report the study results to Congress, and implement the study recommendations six months after the report. We have not completed the study and have not made it available to commenters. We should withdraw proposed regulations on secondary containment until we complete the study, and the affected industry had an opportunity to comment on the study during rulemaking. (32) We should release this study for public comment before submitting it to Congress so that we have the full benefit of industry's practical experiences with liners and other means of containment. (54)

SPCC Task Force. We left out many small businesses in America by consulting only with American Petroleum Institute (API), and not with the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) or the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA). (11) We should have included Professional Engineers on the SPCC Task Force (Task Force). (11,110) Criticizes the Task Force because it was composed entirely of Federal and State regulatory officials and notes that there were no representatives from affected industries or State oil and gas commissions. The Task Force could not have evaluated regulatory issues impartially, or have received sufficient input regarding potential regulatory impacts on industry. The Task Force report was of extremely limited value as a basis for rulemaking. (32)

Response: Basis for rule. We disagree that we did not state our purpose in the proposed rule, and refer the reader to our extensive discussion of the proposals in the NPRM. Similarly, we cannot agree that our data and analyses are deficient, and refer the reader to the rulemaking docket for our supporting data and analyses. We note that we receive additional data from industry representatives and other interested persons which we considered throughout our rulemaking process.

Liner Study. We completed the liner study and published a report to Congress in May 1996. The study is available to interested readers on our website at epa. gov/ oilspill.

SPCC Task Force. Federal regulatory agencies must observe various procedural requirements to assure that there is adequate opportunity for the public to participate in rulemakings. While the membership of the task force may not have included certain groups, everyone had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. We considered all comments and made many changes based on them. 327 XVII 4 Adequacy of existing Plans Background: In 1991, we requested comments on whether existing SPCC Plans were adequate to meet the requirements of the regulation we proposed. We requested comments to help us estimate the extent to which the proposed requirements may impose new compliance costs.

Comments: Existing SPCC Plans would not meet the provisions we proposed. (16, 36, 79, L8, 129) Owners or operators would have to modify existing Plans if we adopt the new provisions included in the proposed regulation. (16, 79, L8)

Response: Many Plans will only need to include cross referencing modifications. An owner or operator will find it necessary to modify his existing Plan to meet the requirements of the final rule, if only to cross reference existing requirements to redesignated requirements. To reduce the burden, we permit the use of a Plan supplement which cross references the location of requirements listed in the revised rule with the equivalent requirements in an existing Plan. In the final rule preamble, we provide a table to assist owners or operators with this cross referencing.

XVII 5 Other comments Comments: Comments. We should consider all comments on the proposed regulations, including those from the regulated community. (135)

Comprehensive program. The proposed regulation will be ineffective in preventing spills, unless we substantially increase staff for facility inspections and enforcement. Using part 112 in 1991 would have lessened the justification for a new up to date and comprehensive national aboveground tank law. We should work with Congress to develop a comprehensive spill prevention program, rather than follow a piecemeal approach to oil spill prevention. (111)

Drafting. When we draft regulations, we should acknowledge company efforts. (139) In promulgating the final rule, we should eliminate "broadly written statements that would expand the coverage of this proposal without increasing the environmental benefit." (L6)

Generic Plans. We were incorrect in assuming that a widespread practice for owners or operators of large companies is to develop generic SPCC Plans without considering specific plant requirements. (39)

Reducing pollution. We should provide incentives for reducing the potential for oil pollution of navigable waters. (L12)

Substantive changes. The proposed regulations represent "substantial requirements and not mere clarifications." Cites substantive requirements and "should to shall" changes as examples. By failing to give fair notice of the nature of our proposed revisions to the Oil 328 Pollution Prevention regulations, we did not provide for adequate public participation in the rulemaking process, as we are required to do under 553( b) of the APA. (32)

Response: Comments. We have carefully considered all comments, and made many changes based on them. The final rule protects the environment while reducing the information collection burden on the regulated community.

Comprehensive program. We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding our program funding. We agree that a comprehensive approach to oil pollution prevention is best. To further that approach, the SPCC program and the UST program have worked together to eliminate duplicative regulation in this rule. Except for facility diagram requirements, we have eliminated from the SPCC program all completely buried tanks subject to all of the technical regulations of 40 CFR part 280 or of a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281.

Drafting. We agree that we should eliminate "broadly written statements that would expand the coverage of this proposal without increasing the environmental benefit," and believe we have done so. We also acknowledge company efforts to protect the environment and to comply with the rule.

Generic Plans. We do not assume and never have assumed that it is a widespread practice for owners or operators of large companies to develop generic SPCC Plans without considering specific plant requirements. We do acknowledge that most companies attempt to comply with the rule. In response to the comment that we should provide incentives for reducing the potential for oil pollution of navigable waters, we agree and have done so. We have retained the flexibility in the rule that permits an owner or operator to use alternate methods to achieve pollution prevention goals.

Reducing pollution. We agree that we should provide incentives for reducing the potential for oil pollution of navigable waters and believe we have done so in this rule. Incentives include flexible formatting and recordkeeping, use of industry standards, and the availability of deviations for most substantive provisions.

Substantive changes. We disagree that "the should to shall to must" change is substantive. See the discussion in section IV. C. in the preamble to today's final rule. The changes to the text of existing substantive requirements are mostly clarifications. There are few new requirements in the final rule. Moreover, we discussed the "should" to "shall" issue in the preamble of the proposed rule.

XVII 6 Request to extend the comment period and hold public hearings Background: In 1991, we said that we would consider comments submitted on or before December 23, 1991, which was 60 days after we published the proposed rule. We also said that if the comments we received indicated sufficient need, we would consider holding a public hearing 329 Comments: Extension of comment period. Many commenters asked for 30 to 60 more days to comment. (13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 42, 58, 108, 110, 120, 122, 142, 160, 184, L22). Requests more time, asserting that the rule was lengthy and complicated. (13, 20) Requests more time to review the economic, fire safety, and environmental consequences of our proposed changes. (17) End of the fiscal year requirements prevented reviewing the proposed rule in the 60 day time frame. (18, 19, 20) Although we allowed commenters 60 days to respond to our proposed changes, commenters had only 45 days by the time a copy of the Federal Register arrived in the mail. The commenters also noted that they had to wait to receive copies of the economic analyses that we made available through the mail upon request. (31, 110) Requests an extension to review the equipment upgrade and soil removal requirements. (160) Asks for an extension for time to visit and learn more about facilities affected by the proposed changes. (184) A State rule revision process is insufficiently advanced to allow commenters to provide comments within our time frame. (L22)

Public hearings. We should hold public hearings to discuss the proposed changes. (11, 31, 35, 42, 79, 110, 129, 142, L28) Public hearings would benefit small businesses without staff to monitor the Federal Register. (11) Asks that we hold public hearings in locations throughout the United States for small businesses without the money to travel to Washington, D. C. (11, 31, L28) Holding public hearings would give the regulated community a chance to present an accurate assessment of the costs associated with the proposed changes. (31) Asks us to grant an extension and hold public hearings to give petroleum exploration and production facility owners or operators an opportunity to inform us about the broad impacts of the proposed rule on these facilities. (142)

Response: Extension of comment period. While we did not extend the comment period for the 1991 rulemaking, we believe that a 60 day comment period was adequate, and consistent with other Federal agencies. We note that we considered comments received as late as April 1993.

Public hearings. We decided that there was insufficient need for a public hearing because the written comments provided exhaustive arguments on each side of nearly every relevant issue.

XVII 7 Support for comments submitted by other commenters Background: We received many comments from writers who simply endorsed a letter or position of another writer.

Comments: Support for the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group comments on part 112. (92, 100, 130, 138, 163,164) Support for Utility Water Act Group comments. (100, 120, 130, 138, 163) Support for Ohio Electric Utilities Institute comments. (163) Support for comments from the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. (138) 330 Support for comments from the American Petroleum Institute. (64, 83, 85, 91, 94, 96, 97, 102, 133, 173, 174) Support for the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association comments. (174)

Support for comments from the Independent Petroleum Association of America. (160, 167) Support for comments from the Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation and the American Exploration Company. (160) Support for comments from the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc. (30), and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association (59).

Response: For responses to specific comments, refer to the appropriate sections of this document.


General system characteristics: Service Area: Magnolia City plus surrounding suburban areas Production: Annual average daily demand 35 MGD Source Water Information: Grand Falls River pH: from 6.7 to 7.7 Alkalinity: from 73 to 104 mg/ L as CaCO3 TOC: from 1.8 to 5.4 mg/ L as C Entry points ( tied to source( s) and identification of service area( s) under the influence of each entry point: Entry points: River Run Plant, serves the entire service area Treatment Provided: River Run Plant, coagulation ( with ferric chloride), flocculation, sedimentation, and dual media filtration ( filter loading rates are approximately 4 gpm/ sf). Chlorine is used for both primary and residual disinfection.

Description of distribution system: Distribution system ( estimated length of lines and range of diameter): About 800 miles, 4"  56"

11storage tanks with a total of 19 MG capacity 4 elevated tanks 2.0 MG each ( 8 MG) 2 elevated tanks, 1.5 MG ( 3 MG) 2 elevated tanks, 0.5 MG ( 1 MG) 3 ground tanks ( two 2 MG and one 3 MG, 7 MG total capacity)

The average residence time of water in the distribution system is estimated as two days. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 2 Pump stations: Station # 1 is located at the ground storage tank on North Boulevard. This station is primarily used during peak demands and low pressure situations. The pump is timed to turn on in the morning and evening during peak demand, and when the pressure drops below 40 psi at a point downstream of the pump station.

Stations # 2 and # 3. These pumps are used to boost system pressure when the pressure in the areas downstream of these pumps ( Flower Village and Friendship Heights) drops below 40 psi.

Booster chlorination facilities: Facility # 1 is located in proximity to Freedom Square ( downstream of the Columbus St. storage tank). This facility is occasionally used during the summer when remote locations downstream of the booster chlorination facility lose residual.

Facility # 2 is located at the Flower Village elevated tank, in an area of the distribution system where chlorine residuals are frequently low.

Facility # 3 is located near the North Village ( downstream of the north storage tank) in an area of the distribution system where chlorine residuals are frequently low. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 3 River Run WTP P Elevated Storage Tank Pump station Booster chlorination station P Ground Storage Tank P# 1 Flower Village Friendship Heights P# 3 P# 2 1 2 3 North EST Flower Village EST Brown Pike EST Columbus Street EST 2. Schematic of the distribution system: Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 4 3. SMP monitoring requirements:

Magnolia City is a system serving 125,000 people that uses one surface water source. Instead of an IDSE SMP, an IDSE SSS has been performed based on historical system specific monitoring data that are comparable or superior to data that would be collected at monitoring sites required by the Standard Monitoring Program. A comparison of SMP monitoring site requirements and sites used as a part of this SSS is presented in the following table.

Comparison of SMP and SSS Monitoring Sites Site Criteria Number of Sample Sites Required by SMP Provided in SSS Near entry to the distribution system 1 1 Average residence time 2 4 Representative of high TTHM 3 5 Representative of high HAA5 2 2 Total 8 12 4. Description of Historical Data:

The selected SSS sites have been monitored three times a year for a period of five years ( 1999 2003). This monitoring was conducted separately from Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring. TTHM testing for the entire 5 year period was performed by certified labs. HAA5 testing was performed by certified labs beginning in 2002, so HAA5 data provided by non certified labs in the previous years were not considered and have not been included in this report.

During the 5 year period of DBP monitoring, there were no significant, long term changes made at the water treatment plant or in the operation of the distribution system. There have been no process changes at the plant, and no new tanks, pump stations, or significant water mains added to the distribution system. A small booster chlorination facility was added to the North EST in the spring of 2003, which allows chlorine to be added to water flowing out of the tank. This helped increase the chlorine residual levels in the area around and past the tank in the summer of 2003. The area affected by this new chlorine booster facility is limited to the area that receives water from this 0.5 MG tank, so the area is relatively small. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 5 Available Data:

Report all data that helped in site selection. If you have bromide, TOC, or HPC data, these may be helpful for justifying selection of Stage 2B sites.

Table L. 1 summarizes free chlorine residual data at each of the city's 24 TCR monitoring sites. Of these 24 sites, 12 have been monitored for DBP's over the last 5 years and were selected as SSS monitoring sites. Table L. 2 presents HPC data for the 24 TCR monitoring sites The historical sampling stations were chosen in 1999 to represent diverse geographical areas of the distribution system, using water quality data collected in 1997 and 1998 for free residual chlorine ( Table L. 1) and heterotrophic plate counts ( HPC) ( Table L. 2). The extent of this network of 12 monitoring stations is, in our opinion, superior to the eight monitoring stations required by the IDSE SMP for a system under the influence of one surface water source.

Table L. 3 in section 7 presents TTHM and HAA5 test results for the 12 TCR monitoring sites where TTHM and HAA5 testing has been conducted on a regularly scheduled basis for the last 5 years. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 6 Table L. 1 Magnolia City   Free Chlorine Residual Data ( mg/ L)

TCR Site # Location SSS # 11/ 97 02/ 98 05/ 98 08/ 98 Average 1 Lakeshore Dr 7 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.7 2 Dogwood Dr 5 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 3 Brown Pike 6 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.9 4 Near Heights 8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 5 Museum Rd 2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 6 Country Club Rd 9 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 7 Logan Pl 12 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 8 Langley Ave 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.0 9 Grant Hill Pl 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.7 10 River Run entry point 1 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.3 11 Gray Sq 10 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 12 Pink Ln 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 13 Oak Dr 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.7 14 Sea Dr 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 15 River Rd 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 16 Lake Ave 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.0 17 Hardwood Sq 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.0 18 Long Dr 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 19 Colonial Plaza 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 20 Butler Pl 4 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 21 Sunset Rd 11 ND 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 22 Gatewood Ln 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 23 Morgan Ave 3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 24 Central Street ND 0.2 ND 0.1 0.1 ND  Non Detect Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 7 Table L. 2 Magnolia City   Heterotrophic Plate Counts ( cfu/ mL)

TCR Site # Location SSS # 11/ 97 02/ 98 05/ 98 08/ 98 Average 1 Lakeshore Dr 7 50 34 63 113 65 2 Dogwood Dr 5 53 64 123 94 83 3 Brown Pike 6 56 42 276 345 180 4 Near Heights 8 82 136 246 146 152 5 Museum Rd 2 66 53 53 153 81 6 Country Club Rd 9 70 212 332 356 242 7 Logan Pl 12 54 65 65 93 69 8 Langley Ave 69 43 43 37 48 9 Grant Hill Pl 43 34 224 156 114 10 River Run entry point 1 67 14 42 35 40 11 Gray Sq 10 140 215 615 857 456 12 Pink Ln 280 163 263 746 363 13 Oak Dr 50 42 522 223 209 14 Sea Dr 140 66 236 364 201 15 River Rd 196 45 425 853 380 16 Lake Ave 53 42 72 84 63 17 Hardwood Sq 35 43 45 64 47 18 Long Dr 12 8 12 34 17 19 Colonial Plaza 78 86 364 384 228 20 Butler Pl 4 34 76 89 97 74 21 Sunset Rd 11 156 278 359 469 315 22 Gatewood Ln 233 214 546 656 412 23 Morgan Ave 3 35 62 92 147 84 24 Central Street 68 175 375 399 254 Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 8 5. Description historical sample sites:

A description of the characteristics used to select the twelve historical sites used for DBP monitoring in the distribution system is given here. These sites are presented graphically in section 3. Historical DBP data for these sites is presented in section 8.

Historical Site # 1   Entry point to the distribution system for River Run Water Treatment Plant. This site is located just after the first significant group of connections downstream of the plant.

Historical Site # 2   Represents average residence time of water leaving the plant. We estimated the point where the chlorine decays to about 50 percent of its original residual concentration ( at the high service pumps). There are no storage facilities between the plant and this site.

Historical Site # 3   Represents average residence time. Water at this site does not go through a storage facility, and the chlorine residual is generally 35 to 40 percent of the River Run Plant effluent concentration. We attribute this additional loss of chlorine to the fact that the transmission and distribution lines serving this area are older unlined cast iron and have significant build up of corrosion by products ( tubercles). We believe that these corrosion by products exert a chlorine demand which results in lower chlorine residual at this site, although it is probably lower in water age than Site # 2.

Historical Site # 4   Represents average residence time. The site is used as an alternative site for our coliform and chlorine residual monitoring.

Historical Site # 5   Represents average residence time. The chlorine residual at this site is generally 45 to 50 percent of the plant effluent concentration.

Historical Site # 6   Represents high TTHM levels. This sampling site is downstream of the Brown Pike Storage Tank ( a 1.5 MG elevated tank). The sampling station is located downstream of the tank before the last group of connections ( approximately 0.5 miles) to be representative of water delivered to customers.

Historical Site # 7   Represents high TTHM levels. This site is the last dedicated sampling site downstream of the Flower Village EST and is used for routine Total Coliform Rule and chlorine residual monitoring. We have over 7 years of data from this site. This site is located before the last group of connections near the end of the system, where the water demand tends to be relatively low.

Historical Site # 8   Represents high TTHM levels. This sample site is a faucet at a connection located in a zone of the distribution system that has been recently developed. Chlorine residuals are normally in the 0.2 to 0.7 mg/ L range. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 9 Historical Site # 9   Represents high TTHM levels. This site is downstream of the North Storage Tank, a 0.5 MG elevated tank with a booster chlorination facility that was recently added to aid in maintaining a chlorine residual.

Historical Site # 10   Represents high TTHM levels. This site has been problematic in the past, with the occurrence of coliform bacteria, non detectable chlorine residuals, high heterotrophic plate count, and odor complaints. A 4 inch blow off was installed downstream of this site, but the site continues to have poor water quality.

Historical Site # 11   Represents high HAA5 levels. Although chlorine residual levels are often low at this site, there has never been an occurrence of a heterotrophic plate count greater than 500 cfu/ mL or a positive coliform bacteria test.

Historical Site # 12   Represents high HAA5 levels. Sample tap is a hose bib at a building located in a zone of the distribution system with water age greater than average. Chlorine residual at this site ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/ L, and the heterotrophic plate count is consistently below 100 per mL all year round. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 10 River Run WTP P Elevated Storage Tank Pump station Booster chlorination station P Ground Storage Tank P# 1 3 Historical DBP monitoring site Stage 1 DBPR site Flower Village Friendship Heights P# 3 P# 2 1 2 3 North EST Flower Village EST Brown Pike EST Columbus Street EST 8 6 2 7 4 5 1 12 9 11 10 1 2 3 4 6. Map of the distribution system showing major transmission mains, numbered Stage 1 DBPR compliance sites, and numbered historical sample sites: Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 11 7. Summary of historical DBP data and Stage 1 DBPR compliance data:

Data for five years of TTHM monitoring and two years of HAA5 monitoring are presented in Table L. 3. Data were collected three times a year, during April, July, and October. No winter samples were taken. The historical monitoring did not include sampling during August   the peak historical month for water temperature and DBPs ( based on Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring provided below). Therefore, a single set of additional samples was collected at the 12 historical sites in August 2003 and the results included as part of the 2003 monitoring data in the following table. The August value is included in the table to allow for a comparison between the individual sampling results. However, the August 2003 results were not included in the calculation of the 2003 yearly averages because this would have prevented a direct comparison of the 2003 averages to the averages from previous years that do not include an August sample result. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 12 Table L. 3 Magnolia City Historical DBP Monitoring Results ( 1999 2003)

SSS Sample Site Year TTHM ( µ g/ L) HAA5 ( µ g/ L)

Monitoring Data1 08/ 03 Avg Monitoring Data1 08/ 03 Avg # 1  Plant entry point 1999 36, 92, 89 72 2000 24, 78, 93 65 2001 33, 15, 24 24 2002 24, 35, 46 35 21, 15, 68 35 2003 37, 45, 58 69 47 38, 58, 53 46 50 # 2  Average residence time 1999 66, 82, 80 76 2000 76, 94, 83 84 2001 72, 98, 79 83 2002 51, 75, 80 69 29, 35, 41 35 2003 44, 68, 71 78 61 45, 50, 48 56 48 # 3  Average residence time 1999 56, 71, 63 63 2000 36, 84, 103 74 2001 62, 68, 54 61 2002 41, 58 , 69 70 24, 23, 74 40 2003 41, 65, 70 74 59 47, 63, 59 48, 56 # 4  Average residence time 1999 61, 77, 75 71 2000 68, 86, 75 79 2001 67, 88, 79 78 2002 56, 75, 75 69 34, 33, 54 40 2003 47, 71, 74 85 66 43, 68, 63 59 58 # 5  Average residence time 1999 55, 70, 62 62 2000 35, 83, 82 67 2001 60, 66, 52 59 2002 43, 60 , 71 72 22, 21, 64 37 2003 39, 63, 69 92 57 48, 62, 58 36 56 # 6  High TTHM 1999 85, 71, 93 83 2000 82, 92, 102 92 2001 70, 72, 95 79 2002 61, 81, 85 76 40, 56, 68 55 2003 68, 76, 80 123 75 50, 50, 58 23 53 Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual SSS Sample Site Year TTHM ( µ g/ L) HAA5 ( µ g/ L)

Monitoring Data1 08/ 03 Avg Monitoring Data1 08/ 03 Avg July 2003  Proposal Draft L 13 # 7  High TTHM 1999 82, 69, 83 78 2000 92, 102, 112 102 2001 90, 92, 105 96 2002 71, 91, 95 86 45, 33, 25 34 2003 88, 96, 100 98 95 30, 60, 68 63 53 # 8  High TTHM 1999 75, 80, 82 79 2000 65, 103, 112 93 2001 60, 106, 152 106 2002 53, 80, 91 75 32, 31, 23 29 2003 89, 55, 99 152 81 28, 33, 49 44 37 # 9  High TTHM 1999 80, 85, 87 84 2000 75, 93, 109 92 2001 70, 110, 98 93 2002 73, 100 , 101 95 35, 36, 28 34 2003 84, 90, 94 132 89 31, 39, 59 47 45 # 10  High TTHM 1999 78, 87, 89 85 2000 85, 103, 119 102 2001 60, 120, 108 96 2002 75, 102 , 103 98 34, 36, 30 33 2003 54, 70,114 92 79 45, 19, 29 26 31 # 11  High HAA5 1999 56, 71, 63 63 2000 37, 85, 84 69 2001 63, 69, 55 62 2002 42, 58 , 69 69 42, 71, 55 56 2003 41, 65, 71 83 59 50, 65, 79 82 65 # 12  High HAA5 1999 56, 72, 70 66 2000 63, 81, 70 74 2001 62, 83, 74 73 2002 51, 70, 70 64 44, 43, 25 37 2003 42, 66, 69 90 61 53, 68, 83 78 68 1 Data obtained from sampling at approximate 90 day intervals each year are listed in order for April, July, and October. Bold values are August 2003 results and are not included in the calculated averages. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 14 Stage 1 DBPR sampling occurred as scheduled from November 2002 through August 2003. These data are presented in the following table.

Magnolia City   Stage 1 DBPR Monitoring Results for 2003 Monitoring Site TTHM ( µ g/ L) HAA5 ( µ g/ L)

Individual Results1 LRAA Individual Results1 LRAA Average residence time # 1 45, 34, 51, 67 49 24, 27, 43, 50 36 Average residence time # 2 36, 42, 41, 49 42 42, 47, 50, 61 50 Average residence time # 3 32, 34, 43, 72 45 50, 62, 62, 73 62 Maximum residence time # 4 64, 68, 74, 83 72 21, 25, 26, 28 25 1 Data listed in order for November, February, May, and August quarterly sampling.

8. Proposed Stage 2B monitoring sites:

Magnolia City is a system serving 125,000 people and uses one surface water source. Therefore, Big City is required to propose a total of four Stage 2B compliance monitoring sites. A summary of these requirements is presented in the following table.

Stage 2B Compliance Monitoring Requirements Site Criteria Number of Sites Stage 1 average residence time sites 1 Representative of high HAA5 1 Representative of high TTHM 2 Based on historical DBP data, Stage 1 compliance data, and other available water quality data ( free chlorine residual and HPC), we are proposing the Stage 2B monitoring sites listed in the following table. The rationale for their selection follows. A schematic of the sites is presented in section 9. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 15 Proposed Stage 2B Compliance Monitoring Sites Sample Site Site Description Stage 2B Site # 1 Stage 1 DBPR # 3 Stage 2B Site # 2 SSS # 11  High HAA5 Stage 2B Site # 3 SSS # 7  High TTHMs Stage 2B Site # 4 SSS # 9  High TTHMs 1. One Stage 2B monitoring site representative of average residence time must be selected from the three Stage 1 DBPR average residence time sites. Stage 1 DBPR # 3 was retained as the Stage 2B monitoring site representative of average residence time. This site had the highest individual TTHM concentration and the highest HAA5 LRAA. Because Stage 1 # 3' s HAA5 LRAA was much greater than the HAA5 LRAAs of the other two Stage 1 sites and the TTHM LRAAs of all three sites were relatively close, the decision was made to retain Stage 1 # 3 as the Stage 2B average residence time compliance site.

2. One Stage 2B monitoring site must be representative of the highest HAA5 levels in the distribution system. Among all the SSS and Stage 1 DBPR sites, SSS # 12 had the highest average HAA5 value during the 2003 sampling period ( 68 µ g/ L) but had a much lower average ( 37 µ g/ L) in 2002. SSS # 11 had the highest average HAA5 values when considered together for 2002 and 2003, the only site to have such consistently high values. It is believed that the startup of Booster Chlorination Facility # 2 in June 2003 resulted in an increase in HAA5 values at SSS # 12, compared to the values seen the previous summer. Operation of Booster Chlorination Facility # 2 is on an as needed basis, so it appears that if the booster facility is not operating, the HAA5 levels at SSS # 12 will be much lower. Also, SSS # 12 is geographically and hydraulically a little too close to Stage 2B # 3. Therefore, based on our professional judgement of these factors, SSS # 11 is proposed as the Stage 2B compliance monitoring site representative of highest HAA5.

3. Two Stage 2 DBPR monitoring sites must be representative of highest TTHM levels. Among all the SSS and Stage 1 DBPR sites, SSS # 7 and # 9 consistently had the highest average TTHM values during 1999 2003. Therefore, we propose SSS sites # 7 and # 9 as the Stage 2B compliance monitoring sites representative of highest TTHM. Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 16 River Run WTP P Elevated Storage Tank Pump station Booster chlorination station P Ground Storage Tank P# 1 Stage 2B representative high HAA5 location Stage 2B representative high TTHM location # #

# Stage 2B average residence time location Flower Village Friendship Heights P# 3 P# 2 1 2 3 North EST Flower Village EST Brown Pike EST Columbus Street EST 1 3 4 2 9. Proposed Stage 2B compliance sample sites: Stage 2 DBPR Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual July 2003  Proposal Draft L 17 This page intentionally left blank.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43841-43842]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0454]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry
on Questions and Answers Regarding the Labeling of Nonprescription
Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application as
Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer
Protection Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by August
27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0640.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Guidance for Industry on Questions and Answers Regarding the Labeling
of Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved
Application as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription
Drug Consumer Protection Act--(OMB Control Number 0910-0640)--Extension

    On December 22, 2006, the President signed into law the Dietary
Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L.
109-462, 120 Stat. 3469). This law amends the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) with respect to serious adverse event
reporting for dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs marketed
without an approved application.
    Section 502(x) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(x)), which was added
by Public Law 109-462, requires the label of a nonprescription drug
product marketed without an approved application in the United States
to include a domestic address or domestic telephone number through
which a responsible person may receive a report of a serious adverse
event associated with the product. The guidance document contains
questions and answers relating to this labeling requirement and
provides guidance to industry on the following topics: (1) The meaning
of ``domestic address'' for purposes of the labeling requirements of
section 502(x) of the FD&C Act; (2) FDA's recommendation for the use of
an introductory statement before the domestic address or phone number
that is required to appear on the product label under section 502(x) of
the FD&C Act; and (3) FDA's intent regarding enforcing the labeling
requirements of section 502(x) of the FD&C Act. Separate guidance,
issued by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on reporting
for dietary supplements, is announced elsewhere in the Federal
Register.
    Title: Guidance for Industry on Questions and Answers Regarding the
Labeling of Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an
Approved Application as Required by the Dietary Supplement and
Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.

    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information are manufacturers, packers, and distributors whose name
(under section 502(b)(1) of the FD&C Act) appears on the label of a
nonprescription drug product marketed in the United States without an
approved application.
    Burden Estimate: FDA is requesting public comment on the estimated
one-time reporting burden from these respondents, as required by 502(x)
of the FD&C Act and described in the guidance ``Questions and Answers
Regarding the Labeling of Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed
Without an Approved Application as Required by the Dietary Supplement
and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.'' The estimates for
one-time reporting are based on FDA's knowledge of nonprescription drug
product labeling in the United States, whether or not marketed under an
approved application.
    In the Federal Register of May 15, 2012 (77 FR 28604), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received on the information
collection.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                    Table 1--Estimated One-Time Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                        Number of      responses per   Total responses   Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent                       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic address or phone number labeling requirement (21 U.S.C.                200              500          100,000                4          400,000
 502(x)) and recommendation to clarify its purpose.................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or maintenance and operating costs associated with this collection of information.

    As indicated in table 1 of this document, FDA estimates that
approximately 200 manufacturers will revise approximately 100,000
labels to add a full domestic address and a domestic telephone number,
and should they choose to adopt the guidance's recommendation, to add a
statement identifying the purpose of the domestic address or telephone
number. FDA believes that designing the label change should not take
longer than 4 hours per label. Automated printing of the labels should
only require a few seconds per label. This estimate accounts for the
possibility that every manufacturer will make label revision, which is
unlikely. Because the majority of over-the-counter drug product labels
currently have a domestic telephone number that satisfies the
requirement, we believe many manufacturers will opt not to adopt the
guidance's recommendation to add a statement identifying the purpose of
the address or telephone number, significantly reducing the number of
total responses. However, assuming that all labels are revised, we
estimate a one-time reporting burden for this information collection of
400,000 hours.

    Dated: July 18, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-18233 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 26979-26981]
[DOCID:fr12my08-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-100-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare An
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed; Northern Bridge Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

May 5, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
(Texas Eastern) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Texas Eastern Richhill Township, Greene County and Uniontown Township,
Fayette County, Pennsylvania.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on June 4, 2008.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice BBS provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a
number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is
available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://
www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The proposed project would involve modifications of the Holbrook
Compressor Station (Holbrook CS) and the Uniontown Compressor Stations
(Uniontown CS) as described below.

Holbrook CS

    The Holbrook CS is an existing facility located in Rich Hill
Township,

Greene County, Pennsylvania. The entire compressor station site is 47.0
acres and is surrounded by the Ryerson Station State Park. The station
has been in operation since the mid 1950's, and since that time no
issues with surrounding landowners have occurred. The proposed Holbrook
CS consists of three main components: (1) The installation of a new
Solar Mars 100 13,333 horsepower (hp) turbine-driven centrifugal
compressor package; (2) the uprate of an existing Solar Mars 100 unit,
resulting in a 1,083 hp increase; and (3) the abandonment of four
existing reciprocating gas compressor units, resulting in a 5,400 hp
reduction. The new compressor unit will include a new compressor
building and all necessary support infrastructure. The project
components are detailed below.
     New 36-inch suction and 30-inch discharge tie-ins to the
existing Texas Eastern pipeline(s)
     Install new suction scrubber
     Install one new Solar Mars 100 13,333 hp turbine driven
centrifugal compressor
     Horsepower upgrade of an existing turbine compressor
     Install station emergency shutdown (ESD) system with blow-
down
     Install one ventilated Compressor Building
     Install new electrical equipment building
     Install skid Auxiliary Building
     Tie-into the existing source control and recovery system
     Develop site including site grading, foundations, paving,
yard stone, fencing, and access road to the new building
     Install 129 volts direct current uninterruptible power
supply system
     Install Fire and Gas detection system in the Compressor
Building
     Install facility security system(s)
     Install underground pipe cathodic protection system
     Abandon four existing GMV-10S reciprocating gas compressor
units (5,400 hp reduction)
     Isolate aboveground components of the abandoned units
     All suction, discharge and fuel gas lines will be isolated

Uniontown CS

    The Uniontown CS is an existing facility located in Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. This station includes the uprate of an existing Solar
Mars 100 compressor unit, resulting in an increase of 1,650 hp of
compression. The uprate at Uniontown will not involve the modification
of any facilities at Uniontown or cause any earth disturbance.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonjurisdictional Facilities

    There are no non-jurisdictional facilities associated with this
project.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 4.6
acres of land at the Holbrook CS. Following construction, about 0.3
would be maintained as new aboveground facility sites and pipeline
right-of-way. The remaining 4.3 acres of land would be restored and
allowed to revert to its former use on the existing compressor station
property. The work proposed for the Uniontown CS would not involve any
new land disturbance because the modifications would be done within the
existing compressor building.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \2\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils
     Land use
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands
     Cultural resources
     Vegetation and wildlife
     Air quality and noise
     Endangered and threatened species
     Hazardous waste
     Public safety
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Texas Eastern This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     Cultural resources may be affected by the project.
     The project may have air emissions and noise impacts.
     The Holbrook CS may have changed visual impacts.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA/EIS and considered by the
Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations/routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP07-451-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before June 4, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18
Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the
link to ``Documents and Filings'' and ``eFiling.'' eFiling is a file
attachment process and requires that you prepare your submission in the
same manner as you would if filing on paper, and save it to a file on
your hard drive. New eFiling users must first create an account by
clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select
the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a
``Comment on Filing.'' In addition, there is a ``Quick Comment'' option
available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit
text only comments on a project. The Quick-Comment User Guide can be
viewed at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-
guide.pdf. Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account;
however, you will be asked to provide a valid e-mail address. All
comments submitted under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are
placed in the public record for the specified docket or project
number(s). Comments submitted electronically must be submitted by June
4, 2008.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding.
    If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to
intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    The Notice of Application for this proposed project issued on April
15, 2008 identified the date for the filing of interventions as April
30, 2008. However, affected landowners and parties with environmental
concerns may be granted late intervenor status upon showing good cause
by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this
proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other
parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental
comments considered.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. Finally,
public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10459 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27543]
[FR Doc No: E9-13474]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0385; FRL-8420-7]

Permethrin; Second Revision to Reregistration Eligibility
Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's decision to modify the 2006
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide permethrin
based on the revised occupational and residential (ORE) risk
assessment. EPA conducted this reassessment of the permethrin RED in
response to new data submitted by the Consumer Specialty Product
Association, Permethrin Dermal Absorption Group. Based on the new data
received, the Agency has revised the ORE risk assessment and the
permethrin RED, appropriately. In addition, the Agency revised the
permethrin label table to reflect the updated labeling for permethrin
residential, agricultural, and wide area public health use products.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Guerry, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0385. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) directs EPA to reevaluate existing pesticides to ensure
that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. In April
2006, EPA issued a reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for
permethrin under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. The 2006 permethrin RED
was first revised in December 2007 based on public comments and post-
RED activities. However, the Agency has completed this most recent RED
revision following receipt of a new study, Estimated Dermal Penetration
in Humans Based on In Vitro and In Vivo Data, submitted by the Consumer
Specialty Products Association, Permethrin Dermal Absorption Group. The
amended permethrin RED reflects changes resulting from Agency
consideration of the new data, as well as efforts by the Agency to
appropriately mitigate overall risk.
    The new data served to revise the dermal absorption factor relied
upon in the cancer portion of the occupational and residential exposure
(ORE) risk assessment from 15% to 5.7%. The revised RED captures the
recent ORE cancer risk assessment, and also modifies the required risk
mitigation appropriately. The Agency has also revised the RED document
to reflect the current status of Office of Pesticide Program
initiatives, such as the cumulative risk assessment and the Endangered
Species Program. Further, in addition to the revised risk mitigation,
which is captured in the Summary of Labeling Changes for Permethrin
(label table), the Agency has incorporated a number of revisions to the
label table to reflect updates in labeling on permethrin residential,
agricultural, and wide area public health use products.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Permethrin.

    Dated: June 1, 2009.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-13474 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10497]
[DOCID:fr01mr06-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

February 21, 2006.

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters.
    b. Project No.: 2146-113.
    c. Date Filed: February 7, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Coosa River Project.
    f. Location: The Logan-Martin Development of the Coosa River
Project is located in St. Clair and Talledaga Counties, Alabama. The
development contains approximately 5 acres of Federal lands.
    g. Filed pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.201.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Alan Peeples, Alabama Power Company, 600
N. 18th Street, PO Box 2641, Birmingham, AL 35291-8180,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Diana Shannon<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests, comments:
March 22, 2006.
    k. Description of Proposed Action: Alabama Power Company requests
approval to allow the Coosa Valley Water Supply District (CVWSD) to
withdraw up to 9.33 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Logan Martin
Reservoir for municipal purposes. This water would supplement the water
supply found in the CVWSD-owned quarry (which itself could supply
approximately 2.5 mgd) adjacent to the Logan Martin Reservoir. The
licensee requests authorization to allow the CVWSD to construct,
maintain, and operate an intake structure and pipeline (on project
lands) which would lead to a raw water pumping station that would be
located outside the project boundary. The application documented
consultation with federal and state agencies.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A
copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address
in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (P-2146-113). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2865 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P