FIRST AID

If swallowed

	Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment
advice.

Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow.

Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by a poison control center
or doctor.

Do not give anything to an unconscious person.

If on skin or clothing	Take off contaminated clothing.

Rinse skin immediately with plenty of soap and water for 15-20 minutes.

Call a poison control center or doctor for treatment advice.

Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison
control center or doctor, or going for treatment.

HOT LINE NUMBER

For 24-Hour Medical Emergency Assistance (Human or Animal)

Call 1-888-484-7546.

For Chemical Emergency, Spill, Leak, Fire or Accident, Call CHEMTREC
1-800-424-9300.

GROUP	  7	FUNGICIDE

ISOFETAMID

TURF FUNGICIDE

ACTIVE INGREDIENT: Isofetamid*	36.0%

OTHER INGREDIENTS:	64.0%

Total	100.0%

*N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-

2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide

Contains 3.33 pounds Isofetamid Per Gallon (400 grams per liter)

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN

CAUTION

See side panel for additional precautionary statements.

Read entire label carefully and use only as directed.

ISK Biosciences Corporation

7470 Auburn Road, Suite A

Concord, Ohio 44077 U.S.A.

EPA Reg. No. 	71512-EG 		EPA Est. No.

Active Ingredient Made in Japan

Formulation Made in

Net Contents:

PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS

HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS

CAUTION

Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin.  Avoid contact with skin,
eyes or clothing.  Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling
and before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the
toilet. Remove and wash contaminated clothing before reuse.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Applicators and other handlers must wear long-sleeved shirt and long
pants, socks, shoes, and chemical resistant gloves made of any
waterproof material.

Follow manufacturer’s instructions for cleaning/ maintaining PPE. If
no such instructions for washables, use detergent and hot water. Keep
and wash PPE separately from other laundry.

Engineering Control Statements

When handlers use closed systems, enclosed cabs, or aircraft in a manner
that meets the requirements listed in the Worker Protection Standard
(WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240(d)(4-6)], the handler
PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the WPS.

User Safety Recommendations

Users should:

Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using
the toilet.

Remove clothing/PPE immediately if pesticide gets inside.  Then wash
thoroughly and put on clean clothing.

Remove PPE immediately after handling this product.  Wash the outside of
gloves before removing.  As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change
into clean clothing.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

This pesticide is toxic to oysters. DO NOT apply directly to water, or
to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the
mean high water mark. DO NOT contaminate waters when disposing of
equipment washwaters or rinsate.  Do not apply when weather conditions
favor drift from the treated areas.  Drift and runoff may be hazardous
to aquatic organisms in water adjacent to treated areas.

AVOIDING SPRAY DRIFT AT THE APPLICATION SITE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE APPLICATOR.  The interaction of many equipment-and-weather-related
factors determine the potential for spray drift.  The applicator is
responsible for considering all these factors when making decisions.
Where states have more stringent regulations, they must be observed.

STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

DO NOT contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal.

PESTICIDE STORAGE:  Store in original container, in a secured, dry, cool
place separate from fertilizer, food, and feed.  Avoid
cross-contamination with other pesticides.

PESTICIDE DISPOSAL:  Pesticide wastes may be hazardous.  Improper
disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture or rinsate is a violation of
Federal law.  If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according to
label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or Environmental
Control Agency or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA
Regional Office for guidance.

CONTAINER HANDLING:  Nonrefillable container (equal to or less than 5
gallons). DO NOT reuse or refill this container.  Triple rinse container
(or equivalent) promptly after emptying.  Triple rinse as follows: Empty
the remaining contents into application equipment or a mix tank and
drain for 10 seconds after the flow begins to drip.  Fill the container
¼ full with water and recap.  Shake for 10 seconds.  Pour rinsate into
application equipment or a mix tank or store rinsate for later use or
disposal.  Drain for 10 seconds after the flow begins to drip.  Repeat
this procedure two more times.  Then offer for recycling if available,
or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration
or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by burning.  If burned,
stay out of smoke.

Nonrefillable container (greater than 5 gallons). DO NOT reuse or refill
this container.  Triple rinse container (or equivalent) promptly after
emptying. Triple rinse as follows: Empty the remaining contents into
application equipment or a mix tank.  Fill the container ¼ full with
water.  Recap and tighten closures.  Tip container on its side and roll
it back and forth, ensuring at least one complete revolution, for 30
seconds.  Stand the container on its end and tip it back and forth
several times.  Turn the container over onto its other end and tip it
back and forth several times.  Empty rinsate into application equipment
or a mix tank or store rinsate for later use or disposal.  Repeat this
procedure two more times. Then offer for recycling if available, or
puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or by incineration or,
if allowed by state and local authorities, by burning.  If burned, stay
out of smoke.

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling.

DO NOT apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other
persons, either directly or through drift.  Only protected handlers may
be in the area during application.  For any requirements specific to
your State or Tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide
regulation.

FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE USE DIRECTIONS AND PRECAUTIONS ON THIS LABEL MAY
RESULT IN PLANT INJURY OR POOR DISEASE CONTROL.

ISOFETAMID is a flowable suspension concentrate for control of diseases
on turf areas associated with golf courses (greens, tees and fairways),
sod farms, seed farms, college and professional sports fields,
residential and commercial lawns.  Intended for use only by professional
applicators.

AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS

Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the
Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR Part 170.  This Standard contains
requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms,
forests, nurseries, and greenhouses and handlers of agricultural
pesticides.  It contains requirements for training, decontamination,
notification, and emergency assistance.  It also contains specific
instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label
about personal protective equipment (PPE), and restricted-entry
interval.  The requirements in this box only apply to uses of this
product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard.

DO NOT enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the
restricted entry interval (REI) of twelve (12) hours.

PPE required for early entry into treated areas that is permitted under
the Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything
that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, is: coveralls,
chemical resistant gloves made of any waterproof material, shoes plus
socks.

Sod and seed farms, commercial greenhouses and nurseries are within the
scope of the Worker Protection Standard.

NON-AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS

The requirements in this box apply to uses of this product that are not
within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural
pesticides, 40 CFR Part 170.  The WPS applies when this product is used
to produce agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, or
greenhouses.  Turfgrasses on golf courses and other non-residential turf
areas such as industrial parks, tank farms, professionally managed
college and professional sports fields, commercial lawns and ornamental
landscapes are not within the scope of the Worker Protection Standard.

Keep children, pets, and unprotected persons out of the treated area
until sprays have dried.

PRODUCT INFORMATION

ISOFETAMID is a broad-spectrum fungicide with preventative, systemic and
curative properties for the control of dollar spot on turfgrasses.
ISOFETAMID should be used in a regularly scheduled preventative spray
program and used in rotation with products with a different mode of
action, such as triazoles, ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors (QoI) or
benzimidazoles.  For control of other diseases not listed on this label,
ISOFETAMID may be tank mixed with other fungicides.  Tank mixes should
follow the use instructions on both labels for application rate and
application timings.  Failure to follow these instructions may results
in inferior disease control and/or phytotoxicity.

Although ISOFETAMID has been evaluated on several turfgrass cultivars,
varieties and hybrids with no indication of phytotoxicity, neither the
manufacturer nor seller have determined adequate tolerance on all
turfgrass under all conditions.  The user should determine if ISOFETAMID
can be used safely for commercial use by applying the labeled rate to a
small test area under conditions to be expected and monitor for adverse
effects before applying ISOFETAMID to the targeted area.

USE RESTRICTIONS

Do not apply more than 3.2 fl oz/1000 sq ft per year or 140 fl oz per
acre. This is equal to 8 applications at the low rate (0.452 lb
a.i./A/application) or 6 applications at the high rate (0.567 lb
a.i./A/application).

Do not apply ISOFETAMID through any type of irrigation system

Do not apply ISOFETAMID by aerial application

Intended for use only by professional applicators.

Integrated Pest Management

ISOFETAMID is an excellent disease control agent when used according to
label directions for control of dollar spot on turfgrass.  Although
ISOFETAMID has preventative, systemic and curative activity, it should
be applied as a protectant fungicide before visible symptoms of the
disease occur.

Depending upon the level of disease pressure, good protection of the
turfgrass can be expected over a period of 14 days.

ISOFETAMID is recommended for use as part of an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) program, which may include the use of disease-resistant
crop varieties, cultural practices, biological disease control agents,
pest scouting and disease forecasting systems aimed at preventing
economic pest damage.  Practices known to reduce disease development
should be followed.  Consult your state cooperative extension service or
local agricultural authorities for additional IPM strategies established
in your area.  ISOFETAMID may be used in State Agricultural Extension
advisory (disease forecasting) programs that recommend application
timing based upon environmental factors that favor disease development.

RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT

Some plant pathogens are known to develop resistance to products used
repeatedly for disease control.  ISOFETAMID’s mode/target site of
action is complex II; succinate-dehydrogenase, FRAC Group 7.  A disease
management program that includes alternation or tank mixes between
ISOFETAMID and other labeled fungicides that have a different mode of
action and/or control pathogens not controlled with ISOFETAMID is
essential to prevent disease resistant pathogens populations from
developing.  ISOFETAMID should not be utilized continuously nor tank
mixed with fungicides that have shown to have developed fungal
resistance to the target disease.

Since pathogens differ in their potential to develop resistance to
fungicides, follow the directions outlined in the “Directions For
Use” section of this label for specific resistance management
strategies.  Consult with your Federal or State Cooperative Extension
Service representatives for guidance on the proper use of ISOFETAMID in
programs that seek to minimize the occurrence of disease resistance.
ISOFETAMID is not cross-resistant with other classes of fungicides that
have different modes of action.

MIXING AND SPRAYING

For maximum efficacy ISOFETAMID should be applied prior to or in the
very early stages of disease development.  ISOFETAMID must be applied at
the label rates and timings listed in the Directions for Use section in
2 to 4 gallons of water per 1000 square feet (87 to 174 gallons per
acre).

Slowly invert container several times to assure uniform mixture of
formulation before adding this product to the spray tank. The required
amount of ISOFETAMID 400SC should be added slowly into the spray tank
during filling.  With concentrate sprays, pre-mix the required amount of
ISOFETAMID 400SC in a clean container and add to the spray tank as it is
being filled.  Keep agitator running when filling spray tank and during
spray operations.  DO NOT allow spray mixture to stand overnight or for
prolonged periods.  Prepare only the amount of spray required for
immediate use.  Spraying equipment should be thoroughly cleaned
immediately after the application.

Under conditions favorable for disease development, the highest rate
specified and shortest application interval should be used.

ISOFETAMID may be applied with all types of spray equipment normally
used for ground applications on turfgrasses.

TANK MIX COMPATIBILITY

ISOFETAMID is physically compatible (no nozzle or screen blockage) with
many products labeled for control of diseases and insects on
turfgrasses. Read and follow all manufacturers label precautions and
restrictions for the tank mix companion product. It is the
applicator’s responsibility to ensure that the companion product is
EPA approved for use on the intended site. ISOFETAMID is generally
compatible with other insecticides, fungicides, adjuvants, fertilizers
and micronutrient products provided sufficient free water is available
for dispersion of all the tank mix products. Under some conditions, the
use of adjuvants and/or surfactants at the rate of 0.025% to 0.1% of the
spray tank volume may improve the performance of ISOFETAMID.  However,
the physical compatibility of ISOFETMAID with tank mix partners must be
evaluated before use. Conduct a jar test with intended tank-mix
pesticides prior to preparation of large volumes. Use the following
procedure: 1) Pour the recommended proportions of the products into a
suitable container of water; 2) Mix thoroughly and; 3) Allow to stand
for 5 minutes.  If the combination remains mixed or can be re-mixed
readily, it is considered physically compatible. Any physical
incompatibility in the jar test indicates that ISOFETAMID should not be
used in the tank-mix.

User should note that not all turf varieties have been tested with all
possible tank mix combinations.  Thus the combination should be tested
for turf safety on a small portion of the turf to ensure that a
phytotoxic response will not occur.

Table 1.  Application Rates and Intervals

Disease	Rate

(fl oz/1000 sq ft)	Rate

(fl oz / acre)	Application

Interval

(days)	Comments

Dollar spot

 (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa)	0.4 to 0.5	 17.4 to 21.8 (0.452 to 0.567 lb.
a.i./A	14	Apply as a preventative treatment prior to or in the very
early stage of development.  Use the highest rate during periods of
prolonged favorable disease conditions.  Do not apply more than two
consecutive applications of ISOFETAMID or other Group 7 containing
fungicides before rotating to a registered fungicide with a different
mode of action. Do not apply the next application of ISOFETAMID within
28 days of the previous two consecutive ISOFETAMID applications.

Table 2.  Dilution Table for Applications

	fl oz of ISOFETAMID per 100 gallons of spray solutions

Use Rate

(fl oz per 1000 sq ft)	Spray Volume

2 gallons per 1000 sq ft	Spray Volume

3 gallons per 1000 sq ft	Spray Volume

4 gallons per 1000 sq ft

0.4	20 fl oz/ 100 gal	13.3 fl oz/ 100 gal	10 fl oz/ 100 gal

0.5	25 fl oz/ 100 gal	16.7 fl oz/ 100 gal	12.5 fl oz/ 100 gal

WARRANTY AND LIMITATION OF DAMAGES

Seller warrants to those persons lawfully acquiring title to this
product that at the time of first sale of this product by Seller that
this product conformed to its chemical description and was reasonably
fit for the purposes stated on the label when used in accordance with
Seller’s directions under normal conditions of use.  To the extent
consistent with applicable law, Buyers and users of this product assume
the risk of any use contrary to such directions.  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
ELSEWHERE IN WRITING CONTAINING AN EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THIS WARRANTY
AND LIMITATION OF DAMAGES, SELLER MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR

ISK Biosciences Corporation

7470 Auburn Road, Suite A

Concord, Ohio 44077 U.S.A.

IMPLIED WARRANTY OR GUARANTY, INCLUDING ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTY OF FITNESS OR

OF MERCHANTABILITY, AND NO AGENT OF SELLER IS

AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.  In no event shall Seller’s liability for any
breach of warranty or guaranty exceed the purchase price of the product
as to which a claim is made. To the extent consistent with applicable
law, Buyers and users of this product are responsible for all loss or
damage from use or handling of this product which results from
conditions beyond the control of Seller, including, but not limited to,
incompatibility with other products unless otherwise expressly provided
in Directions for Use of this product, weather conditions, cultural
practices, moisture conditions or other environmental conditions outside
of the ranges that are generally recognized as being conducive to good
agricultural and/or horticultural practices.

ISOFETAMID - 03202015

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


ATTACHMENT - 1                      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 		Exchange Network Grant Program Progress Report Form                 for Use by Recipients of Assistance Agreements  Please Check: □ Semi-annual report □ Final Report Instructions: This form is for Exchange Network Grant recipients to report their progress. Recipients should send these to their regional grant project officer for spring reports by April 30 for the period October 1-March 31.  Fall reports are due to the regional project officer by October 31 for the period April 1-September 30. Recipient Information:             Agency Name: EPA Grant Number  -  Program Code, Number, and Amendment Number (e.g., OS  -  12345678  -  0):

For grants awarded before 2006 Exchange Network Grant Category (i.e., One Stop, Readiness, Implementation, or Challenge):

Project Manager:                Name:                Phone:           Email:

Funding Year:   Award Amount: Expenditures during this reporting period: Funds Remaining:

Reporting Period (starting and ending dates, mm/dd/yyyy):

Date Report Submitted (mm/dd/yyyy):

EPA Project Officer to Whom Report is Submitted:              Name:              EPA Region/Program: Focus: Progress Report Instructions:  List major goals and each goal's outputs as described in the work plan    (Note for recipients submitting through CDX: After you have submitted your first online progress report for a grant, any changes to goals or outputs that are needed must be made by your EPA Regional Project Officer. You should submit your change request directly to your Regional Project Officer.)   In the "Scheduled Completion Date" column, enter the dates from the grant work plan  In the "Actual Completion Date" column, enter the date each output completed as of the period covered by this report  In the "Progress and Status" field below each output, enter any factor that has or will affect the recipient's ability to complete that output; also indicated whether a resource listed in RCS or ENDS was used or, if a resource was created, it was registered in ENDS or RCS. EXAMPLE

Goals Tasks/Outputs Scheduled Completion Date Actual Completion date

mm/dd/year mm/dd/year

Progress and Status

Progress and Status

Goals Tasks/Outputs Scheduled Completion Date Actual Completion date

Progress and Status:

Progress and Status:

Progress and Status: 	 Comments  Instructions: If you have had any problems during the current period please report them here.  In accordance with 2 C.F.R. §200.328(d), a recipient of an EPA assistance agreement must notify EPA of any problems, delays, or adverse conditions.  If you have had any project-level problems or delays in spending grant funds during the current period, please report them in this section. Problems during this reporting period:

Describe any actions your organization has taken or plans to take to resolve the problem:

If you need help from EPA you may request it here:

Other comments:

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Burden Statement: "This collection of information is approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (OMB Control No. 2025-0006). Responses to this collection of information are mandatory (2 CFR Part 200). 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 public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1.2 hours per response for the semi-annual report form, and 1.65 hours per final progress report form. Send 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 Regulatory Support Division Director, U.S.


Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 1 For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U. S. C. 101; 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671q.

Subpart I  [ Amended]

2. Section 51.165 is amended:

a. By revising paragraph ( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1).

b. By adding paragraphs ( a)( 1)( xliii) through ( xlvi),

and paragraphs ( h) and ( i).

The revision and additions read as follows:

§ 51.165 Permit requirements.

( a) * * *

( 1) * * *

( v) * * *

( C) * * *

( 1) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement.

Routine maintenance, repair and replacement shall includes,

but is not be limited to, any activity( s) that meets the requirements of the equipment replacement provisions contained in paragraph ( h) of this section.

* * * * * Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 2 ( xliii)( A) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes,

assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store aan intermediate or a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit, and a process unit may contain more than one emissions unit.

( B) Pollution control equipment is not part of the process unit, unless it serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. Administrative and warehousing facilities are not part of the process unit.

( C) For replacement cost purposes, componentsparts shared between two or more process units would beare proportionately allocated based on capacity.

( D) The following list identifies the process units at specific categories of stationary sources.

( 1) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consists of those portions of the plant that contribute directly to the production of electricity.

For example, at a pulverized coal fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack ( excluding post combustion pollution Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 3 controls), including the coal handling equipment,

pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, ash handling, boiler, burners, turbine generator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems; whereas cooling towers, transformers, and downstream electrical equipment would not be included in the steam electric generating facility process unit. Each separate generating unit would be consideredis a separate process unit.

( 2) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate andand/ or distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilerssteam generators and hydrogen production units; and those that load, unload, blend or store products.

( 3) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks.

( 4) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 4 exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, and oxidation tower. A third is the chemical recovery system,

which includes the recovery furnace, evaporators, lime kiln,

storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. A fourth is the power boiler.

( 5intermediate or completed products.

( 3) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack,

including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans.

( xliv) Functionally equivalent replacementpart means a part that serves the same functionpurpose as an originalthe replaced part of a process unit.

( xlv) Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. " Depreciable components" refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph ( a)( 1)( xlvi) of this section.

( xlvi) Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 5 and materials for installing that equipment ( direct installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment.

* * * * *

( h) Equipment Replacement Provision. Routine maintenance, repair and replacement includes, but is not limited to, the replacement of any part of a process unit with an identical or functionally equivalent part( s), and maintenance or repair activity( s) if it is associated with the replacement of a part( s), without regard to other considerations, provided that all of the requirements in paragraphs ( h)( 1) through ( 43) of this section are met.

Repair and maintenance activities are associated with the replacement of a part of the process unit if it isthey are conducted concurrentlyin conjunction with the replacement.

( 1) Capital Cost threshold for Equipment Replacement ( i) For an electric utility steam generating unit, as defined in 51.165( a)( 1)( xx), the fixed capital cost of the replacement part( s) plus the cost of any associated Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 6 maintenance and repair activities shall not exceed 20 percent of the replacement value of the process unit.

( ii) For a process unit that is not an electric unitutility steam generating unit the fixed capital cost of the replacement part( s) plus the cost of any associated maintenance and repair activities shall not exceed 20 percent of the replacement value of the process unit.

( iii) The replacement value shall be determined aAt the time the owner or operator commences the replacement activity, the owner or operator shall determine the replacement value of the process unit; and, except as otherwise allowed under paragraph ( h)( 1)( iv) of this section, the replacement value of the process unit shall be based on an estimate of the fixed capital cost of constructing a new process unit, or on the current appraised value of the process unit.

( iv) AnAs an alternative to paragraph ( h)( 1)( iii) of this section for determining the replacement value of a process unit, an owner or operator may choose to use insurance value ( where the insurance value covers only complete replacement), investment value adjusted for inflation, or another accounting procedure to establish a replacement value of the process unit if such accounting Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 7 procedure is based on gGenerally acceptable aAccepted Accounting practicesPrinciples, provided that the owner or operator sends a notice to the reviewing authority that such method is being used and continues to use the same procedure for estimating the replacement value of that process unit for the entire fiscal year. Ifat the beginning of the process unit's fiscal year. Unless the owner or operator fails to submits a notice to the reviewing authority, then paragraph ( h)( 1)( iii) of this section will be used to establish the replacement value of the process unit. Once the owner or operator submits a notice to use an alternative accounting procedure, they must continue to use that procedure for the entire fiscal year for that process unit.

In subsequent fiscal years, the owner or operator must continue to use this selected procedure unless an another notice is sent to the reviewing authority selecting another procedure consistent with this paragraph or paragraph ( h)( 1)( iii) of this section at the beginning of such fiscal year.

( 2) Basic Design Parameters. The replacement shalldoes not change the basic design parameters of the process unit.

( i) Except as provided in paragraphs ( h)( 3)( iii), Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 8 the2)( iii) of this section, for a process unit at a steam electric generating facility, one basic design parameters for an electric utility steam generating units areparameter is maximum hourly heat input, and the owner or operator may select any one of the following for the other basic design parameter: maximum hourly electric output rate, maximum steam flow rate, or maximum hourly fuel consumption rate.

When establishing fuel consumption specifications, the minimum fuel quality based on British Thermal Units content shall be used for determining the basic design parameters for a coal fired electric utility steam generating unit.

( ii) Except as provided in paragraphs ( h)( 32)( iii) of this section, the basic design parameters for any process unit that is not anat a steam electric utility steam generating unitfacility are maximum rate of fuel input, or maximum rate of material input, or maximum rate of product output.

( iii) If the owner or operator believes the basic design parameters in paragraphs ( h)( 32)( i) and ( ii) of this section are not appropriate for a specific industry or type of process unit, the owner or operator may request thatpropose to the reviewing authority establish alternative basic design parameters for the source's process unit( s). Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 9 If the reviewing authority approves of the use of an alternative basic design parameter, the reviewing authority shall issue a federallypermit that is enforceable permitas a practical matter that records such basic design parameter( s)

and requires the owner or operator to comply with such parameter( s).

( iv) The basic design parameters specified in paragraphs ( h)( 32)( i) and ( ii) of this section shall be established by the owner or operator using credible information, such as results of historic maximum capability tests, operating design information from the manufacturer,

or engineering calculations.

( v) If design information is not available for a process unit, then the owner or operator shall determine the process unit's basic design parameters using the maximum value achieved by the process unit in the five year period immediately preceding the planned activity.

( vi) Efficiency of a process unit is not a basic design parameter.

( 3) The replacement activity shall not cause the process unit to exceed any emission limitation, or operational limitation ( that has the effect of constraining emissions), or work practice requirement ( that has the Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 10 effect of constraining emissions) that applies to any part of the process unit and that is enforceable as a practical matter. Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 11 3. Section 51.166 is amended:

a. By revising paragraph ( b)( 2)( iii)( a).

b. By adding paragraphs ( b)( 53) through ( 56), and paragraphs ( y) and ( z).

The revision and additions read as follows:

§ 51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

( b) * * *

( 2) * * *

( iii) * * *

( a) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement.

Routine maintenance, repair and replacement shall includes,

but is not be limited to, any activity( s) that meets the requirements of the equipment replacement provisions contained in paragraph ( y) of this section.

* * * * *

( 53)( i) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles,

applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store an intermediate or a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit, and a process unit may contain more than one emissions unit. Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 12 ( ii) Pollution control equipment is not part of the process unit, unless it serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. Administrative and warehousing facilities are not part of the process unit.

( iii) For replacement cost purposes, componentsparts shared between two or more process units would beare proportionately allocated based on capacity.

( iv) The following list identifies the process units at specific categories of stationary sources.

( a) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consists of those portions of the plant that contribute directly to the production of electricity.

For example, at a pulverized coal fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack ( excluding post combustion pollution controls), including the coal handling equipment,

pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, ash handling, boiler, burners, turbine generator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems; whereas cooling towers, transformers, and downstream electrical equipment would not be included in the steam electric generating facility process unit. Each separate generating unit would Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 13 be consideredis a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity.

( b) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate andand/ or distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilerssteam generators and hydrogen production units; and those that load, unload, blend or store products.

( c) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks.

( d) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, and oxidation tower. A third is the chemical recovery system,

which includes the recovery furnace, evaporators, lime kiln,

storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. A fourth is the Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 14 power boiler.

( eintermediate or completed products.

( c) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack,

including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans.

( 54) Functionally equivalent replacementpart means a part that serves the same functionpurpose as an originalthe replaced part of a process unit.

( 55) Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. " Depreciable components" refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph ( b)( 56) of this section.

( 56) Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor and materials for installing that equipment ( direct installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 15 for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment.

* * * * *

( y) Equipment Replacement Provision. Routine maintenance, repair and replacement includes, but is not limited to, the replacement of any part of a process unit with an identical or functionally equivalent part( s), and maintenance or repair activity( s) if it is associated with the replacement of a part( s), without regard to other considerations, provided that all of the requirements in paragraphs ( y)( 1) through ( 43) of this section are met.

Repair and maintenance activities are associated with the replacement of a part of the process unit if it isthey are conducted concurrentlyin conjunction with the replacement.

( 1) Capital Cost threshold for Equipment Replacement ( i) For an electric utility steam generating unit, as defined in 51.166( b)( 30), the fixed capital cost of the replacement part( s) plus the cost of any associated maintenance and repair activities shall not exceed 20 percent of the replacement value of the process unit.

( ii) For a process unit that is not an electric unitutility steam generating unit the fixed capital cost of the replacement part( s) plus the cost of any associated Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 16 maintenance and repair activities shall not exceed 20 percent of the replacement value of the process unit.

( iii) The replacement value shall be determined aAt the time the owner or operator commences the replacement activity, the owner or operator shall determine the replacement value of the process unit; and, except as otherwise allowed under paragraph ( y)( 1)( iv) of this section, the replacement value of the process unit shall be based on an estimate of the fixed capital cost of constructing a new process unit, or on the current appraised value of the process unit.

( iv) AnAs an alternative to paragraph ( y)( 1)( iii) of this section for determining the replacement value of a process unit, an owner or operator may choose to use insurance value ( where the insurance value covers only complete replacement), investment value adjusted for inflation, or another accounting procedure to establish a replacement value of the process unit if such accounting procedure is based on gGenerally acceptable aAccepted Accounting practicesPrinciples, provided that the owner or operator sends a notice to the reviewing authority that such method is being used and continues to use the same procedure for estimating the replacement value of that process unit Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 17 for the entire fiscal year. Ifat the beginning of the process unit's fiscal year. Unless the owner or operator fails to submits a notice to the reviewing authority, then paragraph ( y)( 1)( iii) of this section will be used to establish the replacement value of the process unit. Once the owner or operator submits a notice to use an alternative accounting procedure, they must continue to use that procedure for the entire fiscal year for that process unit.

In subsequent fiscal years, the owner or operator must continue to use this selected procedure unless an another notice is sent to the reviewing authority selecting another procedure consistent with this paragraph or paragraph ( y)( 1)( iii) of this section at the beginning of such fiscal year.

( 2) Basic Design Parameters. The replacement shalldoes not change the basic design parameters of the process unit.

( i) Except as provided in paragraphs ( y)( 3)( iii),

the2)( iii) of this section, for a process unit at a steam electric generating facility, one basic design parameters for an electric utility steam generating units areparameter is maximum hourly heat input, and the owner or operator may select any one of the following for the other basic design Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 18 parameter: maximum hourly electric output rate, maximum steam flow rate, or maximum hourly fuel consumption rate.

When establishing fuel consumption specifications, the minimum fuel quality based on British Thermal Units content shall be used for determining the basic design parameters for a coal fired electric utility steam generating unit.

( ii) Except as provided in paragraphs ( y)( 32)( iii) of this section, the basic design parameters for any process unit that is not anat a steam electric utility steam generating unitfacility are maximum rate of fuel input, or maximum rate of material input, or maximum rate of product output.

( iii) If the owner or operator believes the basic design parameters in paragraphs ( y)( 32)( i) and ( ii) of this section are not appropriate for a specific industry or type of process unit, the owner or operator may request thatpropose to the reviewing authority establish alternative basic design parameters for the source's process unit( s).

If the reviewing authority approves of the use of an alternative basic design parameter, the reviewing authority shall issue a federallypermit that is enforceable permitas a practical matter that records such basic design parameter( s)

and requires the owner or operator to comply with such Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 19 parameter( s).

( iv) The basic design parameters specified in paragraphs ( y)( 32)( i) and ( ii) of this section shall be established by the owner or operator using credible information, such as results of historic maximum capability tests, operating design information from the manufacturer,

or engineering calculations.

( v) If design information is not available for a process unit, then the owner or operator shall determine the process unit's basic design parameters using the maximum value achieved by the process unit in the five year period immediately preceding the planned activity.

( vi) Efficiency of a process unit is not a basic design parameter.

( 3) The replacement activity shall not cause the process unit to exceed any emission limitation, or operational limitation ( that has the effect of constraining emissions), or work practice requirement ( that has the effect of constraining emissions) that applies to any part of the process unit and that is enforceable as a practical matter. Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 20 PART 52  [ Amended]

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

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

Subpart A  [ Amended]

2. Section 52.21 is amended:

a. By revising paragraph ( b)( 2)( iii)( a).

b. By adding paragraphs ( b)( 55) through ( 58), and paragraphs ( cc) and ( dd).

The revision and additions read as follows:

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

( b) * * *

( 2) * * *

( iii) * * *

( a) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement.

Routine maintenance, repair and replacement shall includes,

but is not be limited to, any activity( s) that meets the requirements of the equipment replacement provisions contained in paragraph ( cc) of this section.

* * * * *

( 55)( i) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles, Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 21 applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store aan intermediate or a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit, and a process unit may contain more than one emissions unit.

( ii) Pollution control equipment is not part of the process unit, unless it serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. Administrative and warehousing facilities are not part of the process unit.

( iii) For replacement cost purposes, componentsparts shared between two or more process units would beare proportionately allocated based on capacity.

( iv) The following list identifies the process units at specific categories of stationary sources.

( a) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consists of those portions of the plant that contribute directly to the production of electricity.

For example, at a pulverized coal fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack ( excluding post combustion pollution controls), including the coal handling equipment,

pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, ash Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 22 handling, boiler, burners, turbine generator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems; whereas cooling towers, transformers, and downstream electrical equipment would not be included in the steam electric generating facility process unit. Each separate generating unit would be consideredis a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity.

( b) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate andand/ or distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilerssteam generators and hydrogen production units; and those that load, unload, blend or store intermediate or completed products.

( c) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks.

( d) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 23 exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, and oxidation tower. A third is the chemical recovery system,

which includes the recovery furnace, evaporators, lime kiln,

storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. A fourth is the power boiler.

( e) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack,

including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans.

( 56) Functionally equivalent replacementpart means a part that serves the same functionpurpose as an originalthe replaced part of a process unit.

( 57) Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. " Depreciable components" refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph ( b)( 58) of this section.

( 58) Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor and materials for installing that equipment ( direct Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 24 installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment.

* * * * *

( cc) Equipment Replacement Provision. Routine maintenance, repair and replacement includes, but is not limited to, the replacement of any part of a process unit with an identical or functionally equivalent part( s), and maintenance or repair activity( s) if it is associated with the replacement of a part( s), without regard to other considerations, provided that all of the requirements in paragraphs ( cc)( 1) through ( 43) of this section are met.

Repair and maintenance activities are associated with the replacement of a part of the process unit if it isthey are conducted concurrentlyin conjunction with the replacement.

( 1) Capital Cost threshold for Equipment Replacement ( i) For an electric utility steam generating unit, as defined in 52.21( b)( 31), the fixed capital cost of the replacement part( s) plus the cost of any associated maintenance and repair activities shall not exceed 20 Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 25 percent of the replacement value of the process unit.

( ii) For a process unit that is not an electric unitutility steam generating unit the fixed capital cost of the replacement part( s) plus the cost of any associated maintenance and repair activities shall not exceed 20 percent of the replacement value of the process unit.

( iii) The replacement value shall be determined aAt the time the owner or operator commences the replacement activity, the owner or operator shall determine the replacement value of the process unit; and, except as otherwise allowed under paragraph ( cc)( 1)( iv) of this section, the replacement value of the process unit shall be based on an estimate of the fixed capital cost of constructing a new process unit, or on the current appraised value of the process unit.

( iv) AnAs an alternative to paragraph ( cc)( 1)( iii) of this section for determining the replacement value of a process unit, an owner or operator may choose to use insurance value ( where the insurance value covers only complete replacement), investment value adjusted for inflation, or another accounting procedure to establish a replacement value of the process unit if such accounting procedure is based on gGenerally acceptable aAccepted Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 26 Accounting practicesPrinciples, provided that the owner or operator sends a notice to the reviewing authority that such method is being used and continues to use the same procedure for estimating the replacement value of that process unit for the entire fiscal year. Ifat the beginning of the process unit's fiscal year. Unless the owner or operator fails to submits a notice to the reviewing authority, then paragraph ( cc)( 1)( iii) of this section will be used to establish the replacement value of the process unit. Once the owner or operator submits a notice to use an alternative accounting procedure, they must continue to use that procedure for the entire fiscal year for that process unit.

In subsequent fiscal years, the owner or operator must continue to use this selected procedure unless an another notice is sent to the reviewing authority selecting another procedure consistent with this paragraph or paragraph ( cc)( 1)( iii) of this section at the beginning of such fiscal year.

( 2) Basic Design Parameters. The replacement shalldoes not change the basic design parameters of the process unit.

( i) Except as provided in paragraphs ( cc)( 3)( iii),

the2)( iii) of this section, for a process unit at a steam Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 27 electric generating facility, one basic design parameters for an electric utility steam generating units areparameter is maximum hourly heat input, and the owner or operator may select any one of the following for the other basic design parameter: maximum hourly electric output rate, maximum steam flow rate, or maximum hourly fuel consumption rate.

When establishing fuel consumption specifications, the minimum fuel quality based on British Thermal Units content shall be used for determining the basic design parameters for a coal fired electric utility steam generating unit.

( ii) Except as provided in paragraphs ( cc)( 32)( iii) of this section, the basic design parameters for any process unit that is not anat a steam electric utility steam generating unitfacility are maximum rate of fuel input, or maximum rate of material input, or maximum rate of product output.

( iii) If the owner or operator believes the basic design parameters in paragraphs ( cc)( 32)( i) and ( ii) of this section are not appropriate for a specific industry or type of process unit, the owner or operator may request thatpropose to the reviewing authority establish alternative basic design parameters for the source's process unit( s).

If the reviewing authority approves of the use of an Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 28 alternative basic design parameter, the reviewing authority shall issue a federally enforceable permit ( for 52.21 specify that we will issue the parameters in an NSR permit) permit that is enforceable as a practical matter that records such basic design parameter( s) and requires the owner or operator to comply with such parameter( s).

( iv) The basic design parameters specified in paragraphs ( cc)( 32)( i) and ( ii) of this section shall be established by the owner or operator using credible information, such as results of historic maximum capability tests, operating design information from the manufacturer,

or engineering calculations.

( v) If design information is not available for a process unit, then the owner or operator shall determine the process unit's basic design parameters using the maximum value achieved by the process unit in the five year period immediately preceding the planned activity.

( vi) Efficiency of a process unit is not a basic design parameter.

( 3) The replacement activity shall not cause the process unit to exceed any emission limitation, or operational limitation ( that has the effect of constraining emissions), or work practice requirement ( that has the Internal and Deliberative Draft  Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute August 15, 2003 29 effect of constraining emissions) that applies to any part of the process unit and that is enforceable as a practical matter.


[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15105-15109]
[DOCID:fr27mr06-33]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0061; FRL-8046-5]

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Ground Water Rule;
Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proprosed rule; notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: On May 10, 2000, EPA published the proposed Ground Water Rule
(GWR), a national primary drinking water regulation, in the Federal
Register. The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide for increased
protection against microbial pathogens in public water systems that use
ground water sources. In the proposed rule, EPA presented 16 occurrence
studies. Since the rule was proposed, new data have become available
that further delineate pathogen and fecal indicator occurrence in
groundwater. The purpose of this notice of data availability is to
present additional occurrence studies that the Agency may use in
performing its economic analysis of the final GWR, and to solicit
comment on those additional studies and on whether EPA should consider
any additional ground water microbial occurrence data not mentioned in
the proposed rule or in this notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2002-0061, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to Water Docket, EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-
2002-0061. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-
0061. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be

made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address

will automatically be captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
 For additional instructions on submitting

comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Rodgers, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC
4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Today's action itself does not impose any requirements on anyone.
Instead, it presents to interested parties pathogen and indicator
occurrence data that the Agency has become aware of after publication
of the proposed GWR. EPA is considering using this new information in
this rulemaking.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

Abbreviations Used in This Notice

AWWARF American Water Works Association Research Foundation
AWWSCo American Water Works Service Company
BGMK Buffalo Green Monkey Kidney
CWS community water system
DV data verification
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GWR Ground Water Rule
GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
mL milliliters
MPN most probable number
NCWS non-community water system
NTNCWS non-transient non-community water system
PCR polymerase chain reaction
PWS public water system
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RT-PCR reverse-transcriptase, polymerase chain reaction
SAL single agar layer
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TNCWS transient non-community water system
USGS United States Geological Survey

II. Purpose of This Document

    The purpose of this document is to present pathogen and indicator
occurrence data that the Agency has become aware of since publication
of the proposed GWR. EPA is considering the incorporation of the new
information in the economic analysis of the final GWR.
    In the proposed GWR, EPA presented 16 occurrence studies. The
Agency did not use data from all of those 16 studies in developing the
proposed rule because certain studies had a different scope and were
not nationally representative. Since the proposal, EPA has become aware
of seven additional relevant studies. Based on public comments received
on the proposed GWR, the Agency has re-evaluated the 16 occurrence
studies described in the proposed rule and examined the data from the
seven additional new studies. Some of these seven additional studies
demonstrate actual pathogen and/or fecal indicator presence in ground
water at detectable levels. The Agency believes that, when considered
collectively, these studies inform EPA's understanding of the national
occurrence of viruses and fecal indicators and confirm that certain
public ground water systems may be at risk of fecal contamination,
which may pose a threat to public health.

III. Background

A. New Occurrence Data and Information

    The proposed Ground Water Rule provided summaries of 16 studies
that

evaluated pathogen and/or fecal indicator occurrence in U.S. ground
waters (65 FR 30194). The preamble to the proposed rule discussed how
EPA planned to use those studies in assessing public health risk (65 FR
30207). Table III-1 lists these 16 studies and presents updated
publication dates where available and applicable. Table III-1 also
lists the seven additional studies that EPA is noticing for public
comment today. This section also provides a summary of the additional
studies.

       Table III-1.--List of Microbial Occurrence Studies/Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Studies cited in Proposed Rule         Updated publication dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AWWARF/AWWSCo (Abbaszadegan, 1999         1999c, 2003 a,b.
 a,b)\1\.
2. EPA/AWWARF: Phase II (Lieberman et al.    2002, Fout et al, 2003.
 1994, 1999).
                                             Dahling et al, 2002.
3. Missouri Ozark Plateau 1 (Davis  2000.
 and Witt, 1998, 1999) \2\.
4. Missouri Ozark Plateau 2         2000.
 (Femmer, 1999) \3\.
5. Missouri Alluvial Aquifer (Vaughn, 1996)  N/A.
 \4\.
6. Wisconsin Migrant Worker Camp (USEPA et   N/A
 al., 1998a).
7. EPA Vulnerability (USEPA, 1998b)........  N/A.
8. U.S.-Mexico Border (TX and NM) (Pillai,   N/A.
 1997).
9. Whittier, CA (Yanko et al., 1999).......  N/A.
10. Honolulu Board of Water Supply (Fujioka  2001.
 and Yoneyama, 1997).
11. New England (Doherty et al., 1998) \5\.  N/A.
12. California Study. (Yates, 1999)........  N/A.
13-16. Three-State Study: (Battigelli,       (Maryland-Banks and
 1999).                                       Battigelli, 2002)\6\;
                                              (Maryland-Banks et al.,
                                              2001)\7\; (Minnesota DOH,
                                              2000).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Occurrence Studies:
    1. Pennsylvania Noncommunity Wells (Lindsey et al., 2002).
    2. Microbial Indicators (Karim et al., 2003, 2004).
    3. Southeast Michigan (Francy et al., 2004).
    4. Validation of Methods (USEPA, 2006).
    5. La Crosse, WI (Borchardt et al., 2004).
    6. Mountain Water Company in Missoula, MT (DeBorde et al., 1995).
    7. New Jersey (Atherholt et al, 2003).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated results:
\1\ PCR: Rotavirus (62/448), Hepatitis A virus (31/448), Enterovirus (68/
  448).
\2\ Cell culture: Enterovirus (1/109).
\3\ Cell culture: Enterovirus (0/109).
\4\ Cell culture: Enterovirus (12/81).
\5\ Cell culture: Enterovirus (0/124); PCR: Enterovirus (11/119), HAV
  (37/119), Rotavirus (6/119).
\6\ Cell culture: Enteric virus (0/91); RT-PCR: Enteric virus (11/91).
\7\ Cell culture: Enteric virus (1/27); RT-PCR: Enteric virus (3/30).

1. Summary of Additional Occurrence Studies
    EPA is now aware of seven additional studies that provide
information on pathogen occurrence in U.S. ground waters. These studies
were designed to collect occurrence data for varying reasons. This
section includes a summary of each study.
a. Pennsylvania Noncommunity Wells (Lindsey et al., 2002)
    The purpose of this study was to measure pathogen and indicator
occurrence in a random stratified sample of non-community water system
(NCWS) wells in primarily carbonate aquifers and crystalline aquifers,
which are hydrogeologically sensitive settings. The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) (Lindsey et al. 2002) analyzed 59 samples
selected from 60 NCWS wells from September 2000 to January 2001 to
assess the occurrence and distribution of pathogens in ground water
used for non-community water supplies and indicator organisms
(evaluated as surrogates for those pathogens).
b. Microbial Indicators (Karim et al., 2003, 2004)
    The overall objective of this study was to evaluate Methods 1601
and 1602, analytical procedures that test for coliphage in water
samples, and to develop a useful microbial indicator for assessing the
vulnerability of groundwater for viral/fecal contamination (Karim et
al., 2003, 2004). Researchers selected and sampled for one year 20
ground water wells from 11 states from a previous national study
(Abbaszadegan et al., 2003).
c. Southeast Michigan (Francy et al., 2004)
    The purpose of this study of small (serving fewer than 3,000
people) public ground water supply wells was to assess the presence of
both viral contamination and microbiological indicators of fecal
contamination, relate the co-existence of indicators and enteric
viruses, and consider the factors that affect the presence of enteric
viruses. From July 1999 through July 2001, researchers collected a
total of 169 regular samples and 32 replicate pairs in southeastern
Michigan from 38 wells in discontinuous sand and gravel aquifers.
d. Validation of Methods (USEPA, 2006)
    The purpose of this two-phase study was to evaluate EPA Methods
1601 and 1602 in detecting coliphages in ground water. In phase I, the
data was used to further establish and quantify the performance of the
methods. In phase II, the methods were applied to samples from
geographically representative groundwater samples from both PWSs and
private wells that were potentially vulnerable to fecal contamination.
e. La Crosse, WI (Borchardt et al., 2004)
    The objective of this study was to evaluate the vulnerability of
six PWS wells in La Crosse, Wisconsin to enteric virus contamination
(Borchardt et al. 2004). Researchers sampled monthly for

one year, analyzing for the presence of several viruses.
f. Mountain Water Company, MT (De Borde et al., 1995)
    Two PWS production wells located in the Missoula aquifer were
tested for the presence of enteroviruses and coliphage every month for
one year. Both wells were located in unsewered residential areas.
g. New Jersey (Atherholt et al., 2003)
    26 public water supply wells were sampled for a variety of fecal
indicator organisms. Three wells were non-community water supplies. 69
samples were collected from the 14 ground water wells (128 samples from
all wells) between June 1999 and February 2002.

IV. Request for Comment

    Through this notice of data availability, EPA solicits public
comment on the seven additional studies listed and summarized in this
notice. In addition to soliciting public comment on those seven
studies, EPA also solicits public comment on whether EPA should
consider any ground water microbial occurrence data not included in the
seven studies listed and summarized in this notice or in the proposed
Ground Water Rule. EPA is not soliciting public comment on any other
issues at this time.

V. References

Abbaszadegan, M., P.W. Stewart, M.W. LeChevallier, Rosen, Jeffery S.
and C.P. Gerba. 1999a. Occurrence of viruses in ground water in the
United States. American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
Denver, CO, 162 p.
Abbaszadegan, M., P. Stewart, and M. LeChevallier. 1999b. ``A
Strategy for Detection of Viruses in Groundwater by PCR.'' Applied
and Envir. Microbiology, 65(2):444-449.
Abbaszadegan, M., M. Denhart, M. Spinner, G. Di Giovanni, and M.
LeChevallier. 1999c. ``Identification of viruses present in ground
water cell culture harvest by PCR.'' In Proceedings, Water Quality
Technology Conference, Tampa, FL, October, 1999.
Abbaszadegan, M., M. LeChevallier and C. Gerba. 2003a. ``Occurrence
of viruses in U.S. Groundwaters.'' Journal Amer. Water Works Assoc.
95(9):107-120.
Abbaszadegan, M. 2003b. ``Viruses in Drinking Water and
Groundwater'' in Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology, G.
Bitton, editor in chief, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, p. 3288-
3300.
Atherholt, T., E. Feerst, B. Hovendon, J. Kwak, J. and D. Rosen.
2003. ``Evaluation of indicators of fecal contamination in
groundwater.'' Journal Amer. Water Works Assoc. 95(10):119-131.
Banks, W.S.L., C.A. Klohe, D.A. Battigelli. 2001. ``Occurrence and
distribution of enteric viruses in shallow ground water and factors
affecting well vulnerability to microbiological contamination in
Worcester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland.'' USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 01-4147.
Banks, W.S.L. and D.A. Battigelli. 2002. ``Occurrence and
distribution of microbiological contamination and enteric viruses in
shallow ground water in Baltimore and Harford Counties, Maryland.''
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4216, 32 p.
Battigelli, D.A. 1999. ``Monitoring ground waters in Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Maryland for enteric viruses and candidate viral
indicators.'' Unpublished report, February 23, 1999.
Borchardt, M.A., N. L. Haas, R.J. Hunt. 2004. ``Vulnerability of
drinking-water wells in La Crosse, Wisconsin, to enteric-virus
contamination from surface water contributions.'' Applied Envir.
Microbiology 70(10):5937-5946.
Dahling, D.R. 2002. ``An improved filter elution and cell culture
assay procedure for evaluating public groundwater systems for
culturable enteroviruses.'' Water Envir. Research 74(6):564-568.
Davis, J.V. and E.C.Witt, III. 1999. ``Microbiological and Chemical
Quality of Ground Water Used as a Source of Public Supply in
Southern Missouri.'' USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-
XXXX.
Davis, J.V. and E.C.Witt, III. 1998. ``Microbiological Quality of
Public Water Supplies in the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System,
Missouri.'' USGS Fact Sheet 028-98.
Davis, J.V. and E.C.Witt, III. 2000. ``Microbiological and Chemical
Quality of Ground Water Used as a Source of Public Supply in
Southern Missouri--Phase I, May 1997-March 1998.'' USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report 00-4038, 77 pp.
DeBorde, D.C., R. Ward. 1995. Results of one year of virus testing
at two high-yield water table wells in areas served by septic
systems. Unpublished report to Mountain Water Co., Missoula, MT.
Doherty, K. 1998. ``Status of the New England ground water viral
study.'' Proceedings, American Water Works Association Annual
Meeting, Dallas, Texas, June 23, 1998. American Water Works
Association, Denver.
Femmer, S. 1999. ``Microbiological Quality of Older Wells in Public
Water Supplies in the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System, Missouri.''
Unpublished report to Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Femmer, S. 2000. ``Microbiological and chemical quality of ground
water used as a source of public supply in southern Missouri--Phase
II, April-July, 1998.'' USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report
00-4260.
Fout, S., B.C. Martinson, M.W.N. Moyer, and D.R. Dahling. 2003. A
multiplex reverse transcription--PCR method for detection of human
enteric viruses in groundwater. Appl. Envir. Microbiology
69(6):3158-3164.
Francy, D.S., R.N. Bushon, J. Stopar, E.J. Luzano, and G.S. Fout.
2004. ``Environmental factors and chemical and microbiological
water-quality constituents related to the presence of enteric
viruses in ground water from small public water supplies in
Southeastern Michigan.'' USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-
5219, 54 p.
Fujioka, R.S. and B.S. Yoneyama. 1997. ``Vulnerability to pathogens:
phase 1 water quality monitoring and assessment study.'' Unpublished
report to the Honolulu Board of Water Supply by Hawaii Water
Resources Center, University of Hawaii, WRRC 98-01, 54 p.
Fujioka, R.S. and B.S. Yoneyama. 2001. ``Assessing the vulnerability
of groundwater sources to fecal contamination.'' Journal Amer. Water
Works Assoc. 93(8):62-71.
Karim, M.R., M. Abbaszadegan, A. Alum, and M. LeChevallier. 2003.
``Virological quality of groundwater'' in Proceedings, Water Quality
Technology Conference, Philadelphia, PA, October, 1999.
Karim, M.R., M. LeChevallier, M. Abbaszadegan, A. Alum, J. Sobrinho,
and J. Rosen. 2004. ``Microbial indicators for assessing the
vulnerability of groundwater to fecal contamination.'' American
Water Co. report, 106 p.
Lieberman, R.J., L.C. Shadix, B.S. Newport, S.R. Crout, S.E.
Buescher, R.S. Safferman, R.E. Stetler, D. Lye, G.S. Fout, and D.
Dahling. 1994. ``Source water microbial quality of some vulnerable
public ground water supplies.'' Proceedings, Water Quality
Technology Conference, San Francisco, CA, October, 1994.
Lieberman, R.J., L.C. Shadix, B.S. Newport, S.R. Crout, S.E.
Buescher, R.S. Safferman, R.E. Stetler, D. Lye, G.S. Fout, and D.
Dahling. 1999. ``Source water microbial quality of some vulnerable
public ground water supplies.'' Unpublished report in preparation.
Lieberman, R.J., L.C. Shadix, B.S. Newport, C.P. Frebis, M.W.N.
Moyer, R.S. Safferman, R.E. Stetler, D. Lye, G.S. Fout, and D.
Dahling. 2002. ``Microbial monitoring of vulnerable public ground
water supplies.'' American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, Denver, CO, 162 p.
Lindsey, B.D., Raspberry, J.S. and Zimmerman, T.M. 2002.
``Microbiological quality of water from noncommunity supply wells in
carbonate and crystalline aquifers of Pennsylvania.'' U.S.
Geological Survey Water--Resources Investigations Report 01-4268, 30
p.
Minnesota Department of Health. 2000. ``Minnesota Department of
Health viral occurrence study.'' Minnesota Department of Health, St.
Paul, 7 p.
Pillai, S. 1997. ``Virus sampling and microbial analysis at the
U.S.-Mexico border for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.''
Unpublished report for The Cadmus Group, Inc.
USEPA. 2006. National Field Study for Coliphage Detection in
Groundwater:

Method 1601 and 1602 evaluation in regional aquifers. EPA Office of
Water. EPA/822/R/06/002.
USEPA et al. 1998a. ``Wisconsin migrant worker camp drinking water
quality study.'' Unpublished report prepared for U.S. EPA Region V,
Safe Drinking Water Branch, July, 1998, 37 p.
USEPA. 1998b. ``GWR vulnerability assessment study, April 3, 1998.''
Unpublished report prepared by International Consultants, Inc. for
the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 29 p.
Vaughn, J.M. 1996. ``Sample Analyses.'' Attachment, unpublished
letter on the analysis of alluvial wells in Missouri by J. Lane and
K. Duzan, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Rolla, MO,
November 7, 1996.
Yanko, W.A., J.L. Jackson, F.P. Williams, A.S. Walker and M.S.
Castillo. 1999. ``An unexpected temporal pattern of coliphage
isolation in ground waters sampled from wells at varied distance
from reclaimed water recharge sites.'' Wat. Research, 33:53-64.
Yates, M.V. 1999. Viruses and indicators in ground water, Results of
repeated monitoring. Unpublished report, February 23, 1999.

    Dated: March 14, 2006.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 06-2931 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61987-61988]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD13-5-000]

Corbett Water District; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On September 23, 2013, Corbett Water District filed a notice of
intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant
to section 30 of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 4 of the
Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The Corbett
Hydroelectric Project would be located at the existing Corbett Water
District water treatment facility in Corbett, Multnomah County, Oregon.
    Applicant Contact: James Jans, Corbett Water District, P.O. Box 6,
Corbett, OR 97019, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A new eight-inch diameter intake pipeline
receiving water flows from an existing 8-inch diameter filter pond
diversion pipeline; (2) a new fiberglass shelter containing one 10-
kilowatt generating unit; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 72
megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

                          Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Satisfies (Y/
            Statutory provision                                   Description                            N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA.......  The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal,                 Y
                                             pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade
                                             water conveyance that is operated for the
                                             distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or
                                             industrial consumption and not primarily for the
                                             generation of electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA....  The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained              Y
                                             for the generation of electric power, and uses for
                                             such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a
                                             non-federally owned conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA...  The facility has an installed capacity that does not              Y
                                             exceed 5 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA..  On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not                  Y
                                             licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements
                                             of Part I of the FPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility not
required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions To Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-385.2005 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at

the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD13-5) in the docket number field
to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676
or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 2, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24407 Filed 10-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40914-40915]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56106; File No. SR-ISE-2007-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to a One-Week Extension for the Price Improvement
Mechanism Pilot Program

July 19, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 18, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the ISE. The ISE has designated the proposed rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to extend two pilot programs related to
its Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') contained in paragraphs .03
and .05 of the Supplemental Material to Rule 723. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on ISE's Web site at http://www.ise.com
, at ISE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public

Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently has two pilot programs related to its
PIM.\5\ The current pilot period provided in paragraphs .03 and .05 of
the Supplementary Material to Rule 723 is set to expire on July 18,
2007.\6\ Paragraph .03 provides that there is no minimum size
requirement for orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement
Mechanism. Paragraph .05 concerns the termination of the exposure
period by unrelated orders. In accordance with the Approval Order, the
Exchange recently submitted certain data in support of extending the
current pilot programs. The purpose of this filing is to extend the
pilot programs in their present form until July 25, 2007, while the
Commission reviews the data and considers to extend the pilot programs
for an additional one-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50819 (December 8,
2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) (Approving the PIM Pilot (the
``Approval Order'')) and 52027 (July 13, 2005), 70 FR 41804 (July
20, 2005) (extending the PIM pilot until July 18, 2006).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54151 (July 14,
2006), 71 FR 41490 (July 21, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the
proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. Since the PIM has only
been operating for a relatively short period of time, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to

extend the pilot periods to provide the Exchange and Commission more
data upon which to evaluate the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Exchange provided the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of the filing of
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The ISE requests that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ which would make the rule change effective and
operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot periods to
continue without interruption until July 25, 2007.\15\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-ISE-2007-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-62. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-62 and should be
submitted on or before August 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14355 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


From:  Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 4:44 PM To:  Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Self, Traci I<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:  Coke ICR - ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC - Group 3 Response

Dr. Jones,

Attached is the ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC Coke ICR Group 3 (Sections VI & VII) submittal.

Due to a death in the family, I am timely submitting this response via email to EPA on behalf of Traci Self and ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC.

The attached response will also be uploaded to EPA next week.

Rich Zavoda | Regional Manager, Air Quality Program ArcelorMittal USA Environmental Affairs| 4020 Kinross Lakes Parkway, Richfield, Ohio 44286-9000 T +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | F +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | www.arcelormittal.com

<< Coke_Enclosure_1_Group3_Responses_ArcelorMittal_Monessen_20161028 Final.xlsx >>