[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73888-73890]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29192]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R06-OW-2014-0569; FRL-9920-30-Region-6]

Clean Water Act: Section 404(c) Exception Approval

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of approval for exception to 1985 Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404(c) Final Determination for the Bayou aux Carpes site.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA's) approval of coverage for the continued operation and
maintenance of the portion of the Barataria to Alliance Transmission
Line and an associated distribution line located in the Bayou aux
Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, under an
exception provided in the October 16, 1985, EPA Bayou aux Carpes Final
Determination, as amended. This action covers discharges (approximately
1.35 cubic yards) to wetlands of dredged or fill material associated
with ongoing activities by Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C. (Entergy) to
provide electrical service to residential, commercial, military,
industrial, and other facilities in nearby Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana.

DATE: The effective date of this modification is December 2, 2014.

ADDRESS: U.S. EPA Region 6, Ecosystem Protection Division, (6WQ-EC),
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Keeler by phone at (214)
665-6698 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional information
and supporting documents are available at http://www.regulations.gov
(Docket No. EPA-R06-OW-2014-0569).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site
is located approximately ten miles south of New Orleans, Louisiana, on
the West Bank of Jefferson Parish. The site includes about 3,000 acres
of wetlands subject to federal jurisdiction under the CWA. The area is
bounded on the north by the Estelle Pumping Station Outfall Canal, on
the east by Bayou Barataria (Gulf Intracoastal Waterway), on the south
by Bayou Barataria and Bayou des Familles, and on the west by State
Highway 3134 and the ``V-Levee.'' In 2009, most of the site was
incorporated into the Barataria Unit of the Jean Lafitte National
Historical Park and Preserve and the site remains subject to the CWA
Section 404(c) restrictions.
    Entergy petitioned EPA on August 18, 2014, for an exception to the
October 16, 1985, EPA Final Determination for the Bayou aux Carpes
site, issued under Section 404(c) of the CWA. An exception was provided
in the original 1985 restriction for discharges associated with routine
operation and maintenance of the Southern Natural Gas Pipeline Company
pipeline. Subsequently, the exception was extended to cover minor
discharges from emergency maintenance and relocation of a portion of
another existing pipeline operated by Shell Pipeline Corporation. Both
the original exception and the subsequent extended coverage were
allowed based on determinations that the proposed activities associated
with these existing linear service utilities would be unlikely to
result in unacceptable adverse effects to the Bayou aux Carpes CWA
Section 404(c) site. This action approves coverage under the same
exception for the work requested by Entergy, which will also entail
minor temporary impacts to the subject wetlands.
    The August 18, 2014, request by Entergy, and other background
information are available at: http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No.
EPA-R06-OW-2014-0569).

Background

    Section 404(c) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to prohibit, deny,
restrict or withdraw the use of any defined area as a disposal site for
dredged or fill material if the discharge will have unacceptable
adverse effects on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery
areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or
recreational areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authorizes
thousands of CWA Section 404 permits every year and the EPA works with
the Corps and applicants to resolve environmental concerns. Since the
passage of the CWA in 1972, the EPA has finalized Section 404(c)
prohibitions or restrictions only 13 times. The use of this authority
has typically involved major projects with unacceptable impacts on some
of America's most ecologically valuable waters.
    On November 15, 1985, EPA published a CWA Section 404(c) Final
Determination (50 FR 47267) restricting, with three exceptions, future
discharges of dredged or fill material to wetlands in the Bayou aux
Carpes site. The CWA Section 404(c) action was based upon a thorough
record of investigations, including field surveys, remote sensing and
other technical analyses conducted by three EPA facilities, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the Louisiana
State University Center for Wetland Resources.
    The 1985 EPA Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) Final
Determination included three exceptions. The first of the original
three approved exceptions is for discharges associated with the
completion of a specific design option for the Corps' Harvey Canal--
Bayou Barataria Levee Project, which was never constructed. The second
exception is for discharges associated with routine operation and
maintenance of the Southern Natural Gas Pipeline. The third exception
provides for possible future EPA approved habitat enhancement
activities. The EPA determined that these three types of activities
would be unlikely to result in unacceptable adverse effects to the
aquatic environment, as long as they were performed in accordance with
any specified conditions and complied with any permit conditions that
might be imposed by the Corps through the CWA Section 404 permit
process. A provision was also included to allow other interests to
petition the EPA for reconsideration if, in the future, other
activities were to be proposed for public benefit which would result in
only minor impacts.
    There has been only one major modification to the EPA's 1985
decision to restrict discharges into the wetlands of the Bayou aux
Carpes site. The modification was granted to the Corps in 2009 in
association with the construction of flood risk reduction upgrades
following Hurricane Katrina. On November 4, 2008, the Corps requested
that the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) designation be modified to
allow construction of a floodwall along Bayou Barataria and tying it
into the planned West Closure Complex, as part of the post-Hurricane
Katrina upgrades known as the Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm
Damage Risk Reduction System Project. This work was but a small part of
the larger effort to reduce flood risks to the 250,000 people living on
the west bank of the Mississippi River and to infrastructure supporting
the greater New Orleans area by building a more resilient and reliable
storm damage and risk reduction system, as directed by Congress.
    In addition to that modification of the 1985 EPA Bayou aux Carpes
CWA Section 404(c) Final Determination, the EPA has considered very few
requests for coverage under the original exceptions. In 1992, Shell
Pipeline Corporation requested permission to allow the discharge of
dredged and fill material effecting approximately 0.43

acres of wetlands in the restricted site in connection with a proposed
below ground pipeline relocation. This work was necessary to facilitate
the enlargement of a federal hurricane protection levee and to remedy
the emergency reconstruction of a leaking temporary by-pass pipeline
segment. In addition, future routine operation and maintenance
activities associated with this pipeline were requested to be excluded
from the CWA Section 404(c) restriction. After notifying interested
parties of the request via Federal Register publication and
coordinating with the Corps and other agencies, the EPA granted the
requests, publishing the decision at 57 FR 3757 (January 31, 1992). The
EPA concluded that relocating the pipeline to non-wetlands was
infeasible from the perspectives of engineering and public safety, the
work would have only minimal and temporary effects on the wetlands at
issue and the work was essentially the same as that envisioned under
the second exception included in the 1985 Final Determination.
    Over the years, additional requests for modifications have been the
subject of initial analyses by the EPA. In each of those cases,
however, the petitioners did not complete the analyses required for an
agency decision.

Proposed Activities

    The Barataria to Alliance Transmission Line was constructed in the
1960's by Entergy's predecessor, Louisiana Power & Light. Of the 74,012
foot total transmission line length, an 11,543 foot section and 15
towers are within the 120 foot right-of-way that runs through the
southern portion of the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site. The
distribution line and 15 wooden single poles course through
approximately 3,415 feet within a ten foot right-of-way section of the
Bayou aux Carpes site.
    On August 18, 2014, Entergy petitioned the EPA for an exception to
cover anticipated temporary impacts to a total of 0.003 acres
(approximately 1.35 cubic yards) of wetlands resulting from operation
and maintenance activities for portions of an existing transmission
line and portions of a distribution line located within the Bayou aux
Carpes Section 404(c) area.
    Entergy's request involves activities required for preventative
maintenance and inspections as required by Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission regulations, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
regulations and Entergy's guidelines and procedures. The activities
subject to the request are projected to temporarily effect no more than
0.003 acres of the protected wetlands during the remaining 50-60 years
of expected facility life.

Conclusion

    Following receipt of the request by Entergy, the EPA conducted a
technical review of the projected wetland impacts, considered the
applicable programmatic requirements, coordinated with other resource
agencies, and provided an opportunity for public review. We received no
comments from the public and one statement of federal agency support
for the proposed EPA action to approve the Entergy request, which came
from the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve.
    As a result of our analyses, the EPA has approved the request by
Entergy to perform limited operation and maintenance activities on the
specified power lines located in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) site in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The EPA has approved
coverage for the continued operation and maintenance of these lines
under an exception provided in the October 16, 1985 EPA Bayou aux
Carpes Final Determination as amended.
    The 1985 CWA Section 404(c) EPA decision to restrict the use of the
Bayou aux Carpes site for the discharge of dredged or fill material
included three exceptions. The second exception covered discharges
associated with the routine operation and maintenance of portions of
the Southern Natural Gas Pipeline that crossed the site. An exception
was subsequently extended to Shell Pipeline Corporation in 1992 for
work on another pipeline that predated the 1985 EPA restriction. We
have now extended coverage under that same exception in the Final
Determination as amended to Entergy for the purposes specified in the
August 18, 2014 request. These activities are similar to those
previously approved for the Southern Natural Gas pipeline and the Shell
pipeline in that the electrical lines existed prior to the 1985 EPA
decision and the maintenance work is expected to incur only minor and
temporary wetland impacts.
    This decision reflects a unique set of circumstances and does not
have any bearing on any other CWA Section 404(c) determinations,
amendments, or modification requests. Each CWA Section 404(c)
designation represents a unique situation that responds to a specific
set of parameters unlike any other.
    This CWA Section 404(c) approval covers discharges expected to
impact no more than a total of 0.003 acres of wetlands (approximately
1.35 cubic yards) in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site from
dredged or fill material associated with ongoing Entergy activities.
The activities are restricted to those included in the August 18, 2014,
request by Entergy to the EPA.
    The approved work includes such routine maintenance as inspecting
towers and lines for damage, replacing tower coatings, reapplying
cathodic protection on foundations and anchors, cutting vegetation away
from overhead lines, limited spot treatments with approved herbicides,
and other emergency repairs including tower replacements in the same
location. Entergy expects that any replacement of towers would be
accomplished without discharging dredged or fill material, with the
exception of tower structure #31. In that instance, special procedures
should be employed whereby the old foundations would be left in place
and the new foundations would be situated nearby. In all cases, the
access to the site, the types of work and repair methods, and the kinds
of vehicles and machinery to be used shall be designed so as to avoid
and minimize wetland impacts and shall be in accordance with the
methods specified in the August 18, 2014, Entergy request.
    Entergy shall be the responsible entity for ensuring compliance
with the terms of this approval. Entergy shall be responsible for
ensuring that all employees and contractors working within the Bayou
aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site understand the terms and extent of
this approval. Any violation of the terms of this approval shall be
reported by Entergy to the EPA by telephone immediately upon discovery,
followed by a written report by Entergy describing the circumstances
and ecological impacts. In this event, all related work activities
shall cease until resolution is reached with the EPA.
    Entergy shall notify Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and
Preserve prior to each instance during which inspections (including
aerial inspections) or operations and maintenance work is performed
within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site. In each instance,
Entergy shall employ the least damaging equipment and repair methods
possible.
    This approval does not cover any activities that would impact
wetlands in the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c) site associated
with any alternatives for placing the currently out of service
distribution line back into service or to remove the 3,415 foot-long
distribution line and associated 15 wooden poles. Similarly, this
approval does not cover the deactivation of the

transmission line or the removal of the 11,534 foot-long power line and
15 transmission structures within the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section
404(c) site. Such activities should be specifically coordinated in
advance with the EPA and Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and
Preserve.
    This approval does not provide authorization under Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act for Entergy's proposed discharges. Entergy must obtain
authorization from the Corps in order to proceed with any activities
governed by these statutes at the Bayou aux Carpes CWA Section 404(c)
site. Entergy shall also be responsible for obtaining all necessary
permits and approvals from the National Park Service, Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park and Preserve. In addition, Entergy shall be
responsible for obtaining any other necessary permits, notices and
approvals at all levels of government and for conducting all required
regulatory coordination prior to implementing any of the work covered
by this approval.
    In the event that Entergy determines that the continued operation
and maintenance activities covered by this exception will cause or are
likely to cause unanticipated and unacceptable adverse impacts, it
shall notify the EPA. Similarly, if the EPA determines that the
continued operation and maintenance activities covered by this
exception will cause or are likely to cause unanticipated and
unacceptable adverse impacts, the EPA may reconsider this approval.

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-29192 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 21371-21372]
[DOCID:fr07my09-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0192]

Availability of Information Related to the Sentinel Initiative

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
opening of a docket to receive and to make available to the public
reports and other relevant information received by FDA related to the
Sentinel Initiative. The goal of the Sentinel Initiative is to develop
a system that will ultimately enable FDA to actively monitor the safety
of marketed regulated products. The information that will be made
available is being developed primarily, but not exclusively, as a
result of a series of contracts awarded by FDA to inform the
development of the system. The information will be made available in
the docket under the docket number at the top of this notice, as well
as on FDA's Sentinel Initiative Web page (Sentinel Web page) at http://
www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/sentinel/. FDA welcomes interested
parties, including individuals, to submit to this docket their views
and perspectives on the information included in the docket or on any
other aspect of the Sentinel Initiative.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the information in this docket to
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Robb, Office of Critical Path
Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville,
MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    An important part of FDA's mission is to protect public health by
monitoring the safety of marketed regulated products. FDA currently has
a number of reporting systems in place for learning about and tracking
reports of adverse events and product problems associated with the use
of FDA-regulated products. However, most of these systems are passive;
someone (e.g., a healthcare professional, consumer, pharmaceutical
company) must first report such an event or problem to FDA. To augment
this mostly passive approach to monitoring postmarket safety, FDA
announced in May 2008 the development of a system that would enable FDA
to capitalize on the capabilities of multiple existing electronic
health care data systems (e.g. electronic health record systems,
administrative claims databases, registries) to actively monitor
regulated product safety.
    As currently envisioned, the system would enable FDA to query large
participating data sources quickly and securely for relevant product
safety information. FDA would send questions to participating data
holders, who in turn would, in accordance with existing privacy and
security safeguards, evaluate their data and send summary results to
FDA for agency review. This system, which will be developed and
implemented in stages, is expected to facilitate the development of
active surveillance methodologies related to signal detection, signal
strengthening, and signal validation.
    To be successful, the system will require the participation of many
stakeholders. Since announcing the Sentinel Initiative, FDA has
fostered a broad public forum to explore the complexities of creating
such a system. Numerous meetings have been held with a variety of
stakeholders. Eight contracts have been awarded to explore a variety of
topics that will inform the development of the system, and a number of
pilot projects are under way that will contribute to answering some of
the many technical and policy challenges that need to be addressed. To
ensure the broadest possible availability of information related to
FDA's Sentinel Initiative and to encourage public participation in the
initiative, FDA is announcing the opening of a docket to receive and
make available to the public reports and other information received by
FDA related to the Sentinel Initiative. FDA is making this information
available in the docket listed at the top of this notice, as well as on
FDA's Sentinel Web page at http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/
sentinel/.
    FDA is interested in receiving input from interested parties,
including individuals, and encourages those parties to submit to this
docket relevant views and perspectives on the information included in
the docket or on any other aspect of the Sentinel Initiative.
    As reports and other relevant information are submitted to the
agency, FDA will make them available to the public by placing them in
the docket and posting them on the Sentinel Web page. Those persons
wishing to provide their views and perspectives are encouraged to send
their input to the docket for broad public consideration.

II. Documents Being Submitted With This Notice

    FDA is making available with this notice the first of a series of
documents containing reports and other information related to the
Sentinel Initiative. This document contains a report from the Group
Health Cooperative Center for Health Studies as a result of the
contract awarded on Evaluation of Existing Methods for Safety Signal
Identification for the Sentinel Initiative.

III. Submission of Input on the Contents of This Docket

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic views and perspectives regarding
this information. Submit a single copy of electronic submissions or two
paper copies of any mailed submissions, except that individuals may
submit one paper copy. Submissions are to be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received
submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only at
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: April 30, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-10555 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: February 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 41)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11026-11027]
[DOCID:fr29fe08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 520 and 556

New Animal Drugs; Albendazole

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Pfizer, Inc. The supplemental NADA provides
for use of albendazole oral suspension in nonlactating goats for the
treatment of liver flukes.

DATES: This rule is effective February 29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan C. Gotthardt, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY
10017, filed a supplement to NADA 110-048 that provides for the use of
VALBAZEN (albendazole) Oral Suspension for the treatment of liver
flukes in nonlactating goats. The approval of this supplemental NADA
relied on publicly available safety and effectiveness data contained in
Public Master File (PMF) 5582, which were compiled under National
Research Support Project-7 (NRSP-7), a national agricultural research
program for obtaining clearances for use of new drugs in minor animal
species and for special uses. The supplemental NADA is approved as of
January 24, 2008, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 520.45a and
556.34 to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of the safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Under section 573(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the Act) (21 U.S.C.360ccc-2(c)), this approval qualifies for 7 years
of exclusive marketing rights beginning on the date of approval,
because the new animal drug has been declared a designated drug by FDA
under section 573(a) of the Act.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(4) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

21 CFR Part 556

    Animal drugs, Foods.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 520 and
556 are amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. Revise Sec.  520.45a to read as follows:

Sec.  520.45a  Albendazole suspension.

    (a) Specifications. Each milliliter of suspension contains 45.5
milligrams (mg) (4.55 percent) or 113.6 mg (11.36 percent) albendazole.
    (b) Sponsor. See No. 000069 in Sec.  510.600 of this chapter.
    (c) Related tolerances. See Sec.  556.34 of this chapter.
    (d) Special considerations. See Sec.  500.25 of this chapter.
    (e) Conditions of use--(1) Cattle. Administer 11.36 percent
suspension:
    (i) Amount. 4.54 mg/pound (lb) body weight (10 mg/kilogram (kg)) as
a single oral dose using dosing gun or dosing syringe.
    (ii) Indications for use. For removal and control of adult liver
flukes (Fasciola hepatica); heads and segments of tapeworms (Moniezia
benedeni and M. expansa); adult and 4th stage larvae of stomach worms
(brown stomach worms including 4th stage inhibited larvae (Ostertagia
ostertagi), barberpole worm (Haemonchus contortus and H. placei), small
stomach worm (Trichostrongylus axei)); adult and 4th stage larvae of
intestinal worms (thread-necked intestinal worm (Nematodirus spathiger
and N. helvetianus), small intestinal worm (Cooperia punctata and C.
oncophora)); adult stages of intestinal worms (hookworm (Bunostomum
phlebotomum), bankrupt worm (Trichostrongylus colubriformis), nodular
worm (Oesophagostomum radiatum)); adult and 4th stage larvae of
lungworms (Dictyocaulus viviparus).
    (iii) Limitations. Do not slaughter within 27 days of last
treatment. Do not use in female dairy cattle of breeding age: Do not
administer to female cattle during first 45 days of pregnancy or for 45
days after removal of bulls.
    (2) Sheep. Administer 4.45 or 11.36 percent suspension:
    (i) Amount. 3.4 mg/lb body weight (7.5 mg/kg) as a single oral dose
using dosing gun or dosing syringe.
    (ii) Indications for use. For removal and control of adult liver
flukes (Fasciola hepatica and Fascioloides magna); heads and segments
of common tapeworms (Moniezia expansa) and fringed tapeworm
(Thysanosoma actinioides); adult and fourth stage larvae of stomach
worms (brown stomach worm (Ostertagia circumcinta and Marshallagia
marshalli), barberpole worm (Haemonchus contortus), small stomach worm
(Trichostrongylus axei)); adult and fourth stage larvae of intestinal
worms (thread-necked intestinal worm (Nematodirus spathiger and N.
filicollis), Cooper's worm (Cooperia oncophora), bankrupt worm
(Trichostrongylus colubriformis), nodular worm (Oesophagostomum
columbianum), and large-mouth bowel worm (Chabertia ovina)); adult and
larval stages of lungworms (Dictyocaulus filaria).
    (iii) Limitations. Do not slaughter within 7 days of last
treatment. Do not administer to ewes during first 30 days of pregnancy
or for 30 days after removal of rams.
    (3) Goats. Administer 11.36 percent suspension:
    (i) Amount. 4.54 mg/lb body weight (10 mg/kg) as a single oral dose
using dosing gun or dosing syringe.
    (ii) Indications for use. For the treatment of adult liver flukes
(Fasciola hepatica) in nonlactating goats.
    (iii) Limitations. Do not slaughter within 7 days of last
treatment. Do not administer to does during the first 30 days of
pregnancy or for 30 days after removal of bucks.

PART 556--TOLERANCES FOR RESIDUES OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS IN FOOD

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 556 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371.

0
4. In Sec.  556.34, revise paragraph (b) and add paragraph (c) to read
as follows:

Sec.  556.34  Albendazole.

* * * * *
    (b) Tolerances. The tolerances for albendazole 2-aminosulfone
(marker residue) are:
    (1) Cattle--(i) Liver (target tissue): 0.2 parts per million (ppm).
    (ii) Muscle: 0.05 ppm.
    (2) Sheep--(i) Liver (target tissue): 0.25 ppm.
    (ii) Muscle: 0.05 ppm.
    (3) Goat--(i) Liver (target tissue): 0.25 ppm.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) Related conditions of use. See Sec.  520.45 of this chapter.

    Dated: February 19, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-3877 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36572-36573]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2028-000]

Bitter Ridge Wind Farm, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Bitter Ridge
Wind Farm, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 1, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor

must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 11, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13027 Filed 6-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Sung, et. al. ( 1995) have demonstrated a relationship between K and salinity for Cd, P Cu, and Zn in the Savannah River Estuary. It may well be that by considering salinity as well as TSS, more variability could have been accounted for in the relationship portrayed in Figure 2. No. pH POC TSS CT CD CP fD KP ( CT/ CD) 1 1 8.8 0.132 0.61 0.046 0.027 0.019 0.59 1.15 0.704 2 8.6 0.104 0.92 0.044 0.03 0.014 0.68 0.51 0.467 3 8.6 0.159 1.88 0.25 0.094 0.156 0.38 0.88 1.660 4 8.4 0.280 1.28 0.31 0.16 0.15 0.52 0.73 0.938 5 8.4 0.376 3.32 0.68 0.10 0.58 0.15 1.75 5.800 6 8.4 0.190 2.94 0.46 0.098 0.362 0.21 1.26 3.694 7 8.2 0.183 5.36 0.89 0.14 0.75 0.16 1.00 5.357 8 8.3 0.351 4.71 0.80 0.27 0.53 0.34 0.42 1.963 9 8.4 0.266 3.50 0.67 0.22 0.45 0.33 0.58 2.045 10 8.1 0.416 7.98 2.40 0.59 1.81 0.25 0.38 3.068 11 8.1 1.060 44.42 9.10 0.27 8.83 0.03 0.74 32.704 12 8.1 0.538 11.08 3.40 0.44 2.96 0.13 0.61 6.727 13 8.1 0.596 10.60 3.90 0.85 3.05 0.22 0.34 3.588 14 8.2 0.785 14.77 3.20 0.54 2.66 0.17 0.33 4.926 15 8.4 0.626 8.95 1.40 0.26 1.14 0.19 0.49 4.385 16 8.4 0.602 19.94 2.20 0.17 2.03 0.08 0.60 11.941 17 8.3 0.540 21.10 2.10 0.14 1.96 0.07 0.66 14.000 18 8.3 0.676 19.45 2.10 0.15 1.95 0.07 0.67 13.000 19 8.2 0.629 25.70 2.90 0.15 2.75 0.05 0.71 18.333 20 8.4 0.726 27.75 1.90 0.16 1.74 0.08 0.39 10.875 21 8.4 0.494 22.30 1.50 0.17 1.33 0.11 0.35 7.824 22 8.4 2.360 7.89 1.40 0.26 1.14 0.19 0.56 4.385 23 8.4 0.427 7.32 1.70 0.22 1.48 0.13 0.92 6.727 24 8.4 0.414 8.48 1.60 0.27 1.33 0.17 0.58 4.926 25 8.5 1.470 8.22 1.20 0.10 1.10 0.08 1.34 11.000 26 8.5 0.407 7.09 0.82 0.088 0.732 0.11 1.17 8.318 27 8.6 0.381 7.52 0.58 0.065 0.515 0.11 1.05 7.923 Mean 0.56 11.30 1.76 0.22 1.54 0.21 0.75 7.31 Stdev 0.46 10.23 1.80 0.19 1.72 0.17 0.36 6.77 95% 1.35 27.14 3.75 0.58 3.02 0.57 1.31 17.03 25% 0.32 4.11 0.68 0.10 0.52 0.10 0.50 3.33 Geomean 0.44 7.26 1.06 0.17 0.82 0.16 0.67 4.90 46 Table C 1. Example Data Used to Calculate Translator for Lead ( Source: NY/ NJ Harbor Study) DATE pH TSS CT CD ( CT/ CD) 1 fD 10/ 16/ 91 7.5 3 0.47 0.24 0.96 0.51 11/ 13/ 91 7.3 32 0.72 0.27 1.67 0.38 12/ 11/ 91 8.1 5 0.47 0.20 1.35 0.43 01/ 16/ 92 8.2 8 0.43 0.38 0.13 0.88 02/ 18/ 92 8.2 7 0.55 0.19 1.86 0.35 03/ 18/ 92 8.1 7 0.49 0.24 1.07 0.48 04/ 14/ 92 7.2 14 0.84 0.44 0.92 0.52 05/ 12/ 92 7.7 15 0.34 0.18 0.87 0.54 06/ 17/ 92 7.5 8 0.25 0.15 0.64 0.61 07/ 15/ 92 7.5 5 0.18 0.13 0.43 0.70 08/ 18/ 92 7.2 23 0.26 0.08 2.12 0.32 09/ 09/ 92 7.2 4 0.22 0.03 5.72 0.15 10/ 14/ 92 8.0 7 0.25 0.11 1.27 0.44 11/ 16/ 92 8.2 13 0.44 0.22 1.00 0.50 12/ 15/ 92 7.9 1 0.47 0.24 0.97 0.51 01/ 12/ 93 8.8 6 0.67 0.32 1.08 0.48 02/ 18/ 93 7.9 12 0.71 0.38 0.87 0.54 03/ 16/ 93 8.1 10 0.57 0.22 1.58 0.39 04/ 13/ 93 8.0 18 0.48 0.16 2.04 0.33 05/ 12/ 93 7.5 20 0.42 0.08 4.10 0.20 06/ 15/ 93 8.1 64.6 0.54 0.10 4.67 0.18 07/ 15/ 93 7.5 10 0.14 0.06 1.25 0.44 08/ 12/ 93 7.8 6 0.17 0.09 0.94 0.52 09/ 16/ 93 8.1 4 0.24 0.12 1.09 0.48 10/ 13/ 93 8.1 5 0.26 0.12 1.11 0.47 11/ 10/ 93 8.4 1.7 0.30 0.15 1.03 0.49 12/ 13/ 93 7.9 4.6 0.45 0.23 1.00 0.50 01/ 13/ 94 7.5 1.8 0.33 0.17 0.97 0.51 02/ 11/ 94 7.9 5.5 0.49 0.24 1.01 0.50 03/ 09/ 94 8.4 5 0.34 0.09 2.57 0.28 04/ 07/ 94 8.3 16 0.48 0.14 2.54 0.28 05/ 12/ 94 7.6 47.7 0.72 0.09 7.35 0.12 07/ 13/ 94 7.8 6 0.13 0.05 1.43 0.41 08/ 23/ 94 8.0 13 0.14 0.05 2.20 0.31 09/ 20/ 94 8.1 6 0.15 0.06 1.30 0.44 10/ 18/ 94 8.0 5.5 0.28 0.14 1.06 0.49 Mean 11.68 0.40 0.17 1.73 0.43 Stdev 12.90 0.19 0.10 1.50 0.15 95% 0.71 0.71 0.33 0.71 0.71 25% 5.00 0.25 0.09 0.97 0.34 Geomean 7.90 0.35 0.14 1.33 0.40 47 Table C 2. Time Series Example Calculating the Translator for Zinc. ( Source: Coors Brewing Company Study) 48 Box C 2. The Translator is the Dissolved Fraction ( f ) D Calculated via Site Specific Partition Coefficients Step 1  For each field sample determine C = C  C , P T D K = C /( C ° TSS) P P D Step 2  Fit least squares regressions to data ( transformed, stratified by pH, etc.) as appropriate to solve for K . P Step 3  Substitute the regression derived value of K in Eqn 2.7, P f = ( 1 + K ° TSS) D P  1 Step 4 Determine f for a TSS value D representative of the critical conditions. C. 2.2. Time Series Example Using the Ratio of C / C D T Using a data set developed over a partition coefficient, and the dissolved metal three year time span on Clear Creek in Colorado and the same analytical procedure as described in Box 1, f is calculated as the D ratio of C / C . A subset of the collected D T data, Table C 2, illustrate the approach.

This subset includes the following variables: total recoverable Zn, dissolved Zn, TSS, and pH that were measured at one sampling location. Additionally, presented in Table 2 are f values ( Box C 1  Step 1). D This data set was censored in the following manner. When calculating f , if the dissolved D concentration was found to exceed the total recoverable concentration, C was set equal D to C and f calculated as 1 ( 100% dissolved T D metal).

At the pH levels encountered in Clear Creek during the three year sampling period, no relationship was obtained between pH and f . This is not an unexpected result because D pH is in the 7 to 9 range; the major effect of pH on the dissolved fraction is normally observed at low pH levels. Relationships based on POC ( not shown) provide no improvement over the TSS based relationships.

The translator value selected for Zn between total recoverable and dissolved on Clear Creek is the geometric mean of the metal concentrations. The partition f values ( 0.40). coefficient the ratio of the particulate sorbed D C. 3. The Translator Calculated Using Site Specific Partition Coefficients It is important to remember with this method, as with the previous method, that the translator is the dissolved fraction in the downstream water. Box C 2 provides a procedure for developing the translator via partition coefficients. In Step 1 calculate the particulate fraction, the fraction. C is calculated as the difference P 17 and the dissolved metal species times the adsorbent concentration ( Eqn 2.9). The The particulate fraction can also be 17 measured in the laboratory by filtering the solids, scraping the solids from the filter, drying, weighing, and subjecting to appropriate chemical analyses. The increased number of steps may provide opportunities for additional sources of error, accompanied by increased uncertainty. See Eqn 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. Lead 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 0 10 20 30 40 50 TSS Kp R Square = 0.11 Lead 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 0 10 20 30 40 50 TSS ( Ct/ Cd) 1 ( Ct/ Cd) 1 = 0.62402 * TSS R Square = 0.81 49 dissolved fraction and the partition coefficient are related according to Eqn 2.7.

C. 3.1. Spatial Example Using Partition Coefficients Using the same NY/ NJ Harbor data as used above ( Table C 1), this example Figure 3. K as a function of TSS. P demonstrates the calculation of K and how it P may be used to arrive at site specific values of f . D The partition coefficient  TSS data are not as well behaved ( Figure 3) as are the f  TSS data. However, Shi, et. al. ( 1996) D show that after algebraic rearrangement of Eqn 2.7 to ( Ct/ Cd) 1 = K ° TSS, P K can be obtained by linear regression. The P slope of the curve is the partition coefficient ( Figure 4). Figure 4. The fraction [( Ct/ Cd) 1] as a function of TSS.

By regression analysis, K = 0.624 P L/ mg. This value is used in Eqn 2.7 along with an appropriate value of TSS to calculate the translator.

C. 3.2. Time Series Example Using Partition Coefficients Continuing the analysis of data collected from Clear Creek, this section demonstrates estimating the dissolved fraction by using a site specific partition coefficient. The particulate sorbed fraction is operationally defined as C  C and the T D partition coefficient is calculated as a function of TSS according to Equation 2.8 following the procedure given in Box 2  Step 1. Table C 2 presents the data generated by the field study as well as the calculated values.

Substitute the regression derived value of K in Eqn 2.7, as suggested in Box 2 P  Step 3. As in the previous example, the way to use this equation is to select TSS concentrations that are representative of Zinc 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 20 40 60 80 TSS ( Ct/ Cd) 1 ( Ct/ Cd) 1 = 0.107885 * TSS R Square = 0.23 50 critical conditions in the receiving waterbody and calculate the dissolved fractions ( translator values) .

Figure 5. The fraction [( Ct/ Cd) 1] as a function of TSS. 51 APPENDIX D D. 1. Sample Size tatistically, the most A sample size of 4, therefore, would Simportant objective for a determine that a difference exists only if the metal translator study is to difference between the means is 4 or more. determine the mean concentrations of total At very low concentrations typical of many and dissolved metal within an acceptable metals   for example, if the dissolved copper confidence interval of the true mean such that concentration is 3 g/ L and the total the estimated dissolved fraction is a good concentration is 6 g/ L and is 1 g/ L   this representation of the true dissolved fraction. sample size would not be adequate to The null hypothesis ( H ) is: mean translator would be rejected, therefore, even 0 total concentration ( ) = mean dissolved though it is actually valid. A sample size of t concentration ( ). 8, on the other hand, would be large enough d To determine sample size, three and support the use of a translator other than factors must be selected: 1.

1. Type I error ( ) is the probability of A sample size of 10 ( or greater) is rejecting a true hypothesis. recommended because it would allow 2. Type II error ( ) is the probability of demonstration of a significant difference for accepting a false hypothesis. somewhat less than 2.0, while still keeping 3. The expected difference between the = = 0.05. Furthermore, if 1 or 2 samples means ( ), expressed as a multiple of have to be discarded because of undetectable the standard deviation ( ), which is concentrations, outlier concentrations, or assumed to be equal for the two other sampling or analytical problems, there populations ( = = ): would still be an adequate number of samples t d = (  ) ÷ only really reliable method of estimating how t d For a translator study, the null collect some data, examine the statistical hypothesis is assumed to be false, i. e., there variability, and project from that basis. is a difference between total and dissolved concentrations. Therefore, must be small to ensure that a translator is not rejected ( no difference detected between the means) when a difference does exist. For and levels of 0.05, the following shows the relationship between and n, assuming a t distribution:

n 0.05 0.05 1.0 27 2.0 8 3.0 5 4.0 4 demonstrate that a difference exists. The to show a difference between the two means to meet the assumed statistical criteria. The many samples are going to be needed is to 52 APPENDIX E E. 1. Topics covered in Method 1669 include:

ontamination control, Quality assurance/ quality control Cincluding: minimizing procedures, including: collection of exposure of the sample, the an equipment blank, field blank, and wearing of gloves, use of metal free field duplicate. apparatus, and avoiding sources of contamination. Re cleaning procedures for cleaning Safety, including: use of material sites. safety data sheets and descriptions of the risks of sampling in and around Suggestions for pollution prevention water and in hot and cold weather. and waste management.

Apparatus and materials for Twenty references to the technical sampling, including: descriptions and literature on which the Method is part numbers for sample bottles, based and a glossary of unique terms surface sampling devices such as used in the Method. poles and bottles, a subsurface jar sampling device, continuous flow samplers including peristaltic and Table E 1 details some of the submersible pumps, glove bag for differences between standard sampling for processing samples, gloves, storage metals and sampling for trace metals using bags, a boat for collection of samples the procedures outlined below and detailed in on open waters, filtration apparatus Method 1669. consistent with the apparatus studied and used by USGS, and apparatus for field preservation of samples.

Reagents and standards for sample preservation, blanks, and for processing samples for determination of trivalent chromium.

Site selection Sample collection procedures, including: " clean hands/ dirty hands" techniques, precautions concerning wind direction and currents, manual collection of surface and sub surface samples, depth sampling using a jar sampler, and continuous flow sampling using a pump. Field filtration and preservation procedures using an inflatable glove bag, and instructions for packaging and shipment to the laboratory.

the equipment and apparatus between 53 Table E 1. Standard vs. Trace Metals Sampling Component Standard Sampling Technique Trace Metals Sampling ( USEPA, 1983, 1991b) Technique ( USEPA, 1995a) Bottles Borosilicate glass, Fluoropolymer, polyethylene, polyethylene, polypropylene, or or polycarbonate, filled and Teflon stored with 0.1% ultrapure HCl ® solution Cleaning Wash with detergent; rinse Detergent wash, DI water successively with tap water, 1: 1 rinse, soak for 2 h minimum in HNO , tap water, 1: 1 HCl, tap hot, concentrated HNO , DI 3 water, deionized distilled water water rinse, soak for 48 h ( GFAA methods; EPA, 1983). minimum in hot, dilute Soak overnight; wash with ultrapure HCl solution, drain, detergent; rinse with water; fill with 0.1% ultrapure HCl soak in HNO : HCl: water solution, double bag, and store 3 ( 1: 2: 9); rinse with water; oven until use. dry ( ICP Method 200.7; USEPA, 1991b) 3 Gloves No specification. Powder free ( non talc, class 100) latex, polyethylene, or polyvinyl chloride. Filter 0.45 µ m membrane; glass or Gelman # 12175 capsule filter plastic filter holder or equivalent capacity 0.45 µ m filter with a minimum 600 cm 2 filtration area. Rinsing the # 12175 filter with 1000 ml ultrapure water is adequate cleaning for current ambient level determinations. Preservative Conc. redistilled HNO , 5 ml/ L Ultrapure HNO to pH < 2 or 3 ( GFAA methods; USEPA, lab preserve and soak for 2 1983). 1: 1 HNO to pH < 2 days. Lab preserve samples 3 ( 3ml/ L) ( ICP Method 200.7; for mercury to preclude USEPA, 1991b) atmospheric contamination. 3 54 E. 2. Method of Sampling Sampling Method 1669 ( USEPA, submerges the sampling device to the desired 1995a) provides detailed guidance on steps depth and pulls the cord to fill the sample that can be followed to collect a reliable bottle. After filling, rinsing, and retrieval, sample and preclude contamination. Choose " clean hands" removes the sample bottle manual or continuous sampling depending from the sampling device, caps the bottle, upon which method is best for the specific and places it in the sample bag. " Dirty sampling program. Only trained personnel hands" reseals the bag for further processing should be entrusted the task of sample or shipment. collection.

E. 2.1. Manual Sampling of Surface E. 2.3. Grab Sampling of Subsurface Water or Effluent Water or Effluent Using a Jar In the manual sampling procedure, the sampling team puts on gloves and orients In sampling with the jar sampling themselves with respect to the wind and device, " dirty hands" removes the device current to minimize contamination. " Dirty from its storage container and opens the outer hands" opens the sample bag. " Clean hands" bag. " Clean hands" opens the inner bag, removes the sample bottle from the bag, removes the jar sampler, and attaches the removes the cap from the bottle, and discards pump to the flush line. " Dirty hands" lowers the dilute acid solution in the bottle into a the weighted sampler to the desired depth and carboy for wastes. " Clean hands" submerges turns on the pump, allowing a large volume the bottle, collects a partial sample, replaces of water to pass through the system. After the cap, rinses the bottle and cap with stopping the pump, " dirty hands" pulls up the sample, and discards the sample away from sampler and places it in the field portable the site. After two more rinses, " clean glove bag. " Clean hands" aliquots the sample hands" fills the bottle, replaces the cap, and into various sample bottles contained within returns the sample to the sample bag. " Dirty the glove bag. If field filtration and/ or hands" reseals the bag for further processing preservation are required, these operations ( filtration and/ or preservation) or for are performed at this point. After shipment to the laboratory. filtration/ preservation, " clean hands" caps E. 2.2. Grab Sampling of Subsurface Water or Effluent Using a Pole Sampler In sampling with the pole ( grab) sampling device, " dirty hands" removes the pole and sampling device from storage and opens the bag. " Clean hands" removes the sampling device from the bag. " Dirty hands" In the continuous flow sampling opens the sample bag. " Clean hands" technique using a submersible pump, the removes the sample bottle, empties the dilute sampling team prepares for sampling by acid shipping solution into the carboy for setup of the pump, tubing, batteries, and, if wastes, and installs the bottle in the sampling device. Using the pole, " dirty hands"

Sampler each bottle and returns it to its bag. " Dirty hands" seals the bag for shipment to the laboratory.

E. 2.4. Continuous Sampling of Surface Water, Subsurface Water, or Effluent Using a Submersible Pump 55 required, the filtration apparatus. " Clean To preclude contamination from hands" removes the submersible pump from atmospheric sources, mercury samples should its storage bag and installs the lengths of be shipped unfiltered and unpreserved via tubing required to achieve the desired depth. overnight courier and filtered and/ or " Dirty hands" connects the battery leads and preserved upon receipt at the laboratory. cable to the pump, lowers it to the desired depth, and turns on the pump. The pump is allowed to run for 5  10 minutes to pump 50  100 liters through the system. If required, " clean hands" attaches the filter to the outlet Because the operational definition of tube. " Dirty hands" unseals the bag " dissolved" is so greatly affected by filtration containing the sample bottle. " Clean hands" artifacts, the Gelman # 12175 capsule filter or removes the bottle, discards the dilute acid equivalent capacity filter must be used, shipping solution into the waste carboy, regardless of how the samples are collected. rinses the bottle and cap three times with ( The next largest capacity filter is sample, collects the sample, caps the bottle, approximately 80 cm surface area.) The and places the bottle back in the bag. " Dirty minimization of filtration artifacts can be hands" seals the bag for further processing or assured with high capacity tortuous path shipment. filters and limited sample volume ( 1000 E. 3. Preservation Samples to be analyzed for total Method 1669 is used for samples collected recoverable metals are preserved with using the manual, grab, or jar collection concentrated nitric acid ( HNO ) to a pH less systems. In line filtration using the 3 than 2. In normal natural waters, 3 5 ml of continuous flow approach was described acid per liter of sample is recommended above. The filtration procedure used in ( EPA, 1983, 1991b) to achieve the required Method 1669 is based on procedures used by pH. The nitric acid must be known to be free USGS, and the capsule filter is the filter of the metal( s) of interest. Method 1669 evaluated and used by USGS. provides specifications for the acid. Samples for total recoverable metals should be The filtration system is set up inside preserved immediately after sample a glove bag, and a peristaltic pump is placed collection. It is common for laboratories to immediately outside of the glove bag. recommend sample acidification in a Tubing from the pump is passed through controlled uncontaminating environment for small holes in the glove bag to assure that all both total recoverable and dissolved metal metallic parts of the pump are isolated from fractions. the sample. The capsule filter is also placed Field preservation is necessary for trivalent and hexavalent chromium. Field Using " clean hands/ dirty hands" preservation is advised for hexavalent techniques, blank water and sample are chromium in order to provide sample pumped through the system and collected. stability for up to 30 days. The sample is acidified, placed back inside E. 4. Filtration 2 ml). The Gelman # 12175 capsule filter has equivalent filtration area of 600 cm . 2 The filtration procedure given in inside the glove bag.

the sample bag, and shipped to the laboratory. 56 E. 5. Field Quality Assurance The study plan should describe the sampling location( s), sampling schedule, and Field blank  In order to demonstrate collection methodology, including explicit that sample contamination has not information on the sampling protocol. occurred during field sampling and Detailed requirements and procedures for sample processing, at least one ( 1) field quality control and quality assurance are field blank must be generated for given in USEPA Method 1669. If Method every ten ( 10) samples that are 1669 is not used, deviations from that collected at a given site. The field Method should be described and the Method blank is collected prior to sample should be supplemented by standard collection and should be collected for operating procedures ( SOPs) where each trip to a given site if fewer than appropriate. It is desirable to include blind 10 samples are collected per QC samples as part of the project. sampling trip.

Equipment blank  Prior to the use of Field blanks are generated by filling a any sampling equipment at a given large, pre cleaned carboy or other site, the laboratory or equipment appropriate container with reagent cleaning contractor is required to water ( water shown to be free from generate equipment blanks to metals at the level required) in the demonstrate that the equipment is laboratory, transporting the filled free from contamination. Two types container to the sampling site, of equipment blanks are required: processing the water through each of bottle blanks and sampling equipment the sample processing steps and blanks. equipment ( e. g., tubing, sampling Equipment blanks must be run on all in the field, collecting the field blank equipment that will be used in the in one of the sample bottles, and field. If, for example, samples are to shipping the bottle to the laboratory be collected using both a grab for analysis. sampling device and the jar sampling device, then an equipment blank must If it is necessary to clean the be run on both pieces of equipment. sampling equipment between The equipment blank must be collected after the cleaning analyzed using the same analytical procedures but before the next procedures used for analysis of sample is collected. samples so that contamination at the same level is detected. If any Field duplicate  A field duplicate is metal( s) of interest or any potentially used to assess the precision of the interfering substance is detected in field sampling and analytical the equipment blank, the source of processes. It is recommended that at contamination/ interference must be least one ( 1) field duplicate sample identified and removed. The equipment must be demonstrated to be free from the metal( s) of interest before the equipment may be used in the field.

devices, filters, etc.) that will be used samples, a field blank should be 57 be collected for every ten ( 10) samples that are collected at a given site or for each sampling trip if fewer than 10 samples are collected per sampling trip.

The field duplicate is collected either by splitting a larger volume into two aliquots in the glove bag, by using a sampler with dual inlets that allows simultaneous collection of two samples, or by collecting two samples in rapid succession. 58 APPENDIX F F. 1. Laboratory Facility, Equipment, and Reagents any of the laboratories analyzing an aliquot from the lot using the Mpresently performing techniques and instrumentation to be used for metals determinations are analysis of samples. The lot will be incapable of making measurements at or near acceptable if the concentration of the metal ambient criteria levels because of limitations of interest is below the detection limit of the in facilities, equipment, or reagents. The QC method being used. Ultrapure acids are Supplement suggests the facilities available and should be used to preclude modifications necessary to assure reliable contamination from this source, although determinations at these levels. The technical grades of acid may be pure enough modifications required can be extensive or to be used for the first steps in the cleaning minimal, depending on the existing processes. capabilities of the laboratory. The ideal facility is a class 100 clean room with walls Reagent water water demonstrated constructed of plastic sheeting attached to be free from the metal( s) of interest and without metals fasteners, down flow potentially interfering substances at the ventilation, air lock entrances, pass through method detection limit ( MDL) for that metal doors, and adhesive mats for use at entry in the analytical method being used is points to control dust and dirt from entering critical to reliable determination of metals at via foot traffic. If painted, paints that do not trace levels. Reagent water may be prepared contain the metal( s) of interest must be used. by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis,

Class 100 clean benches, one other techniques that remove the metal( s) and installed in the clean room; the other adjacent potential interferant( s). to the analytical instrument( s) for preparation of samples and standards, are recommended to preclude airborne dirt from contaminating the labware and samples.

All labware must be metal free. Part 136 may not be sufficiently sensitive for Suitable construction materials are trace metals determinations. The Agency fluoropolymer ( FEP, PTFE), conventional or believes dischargers may use more sensitive linear polyethylene, polycarbonate, or methods, such as stabilized temperature polypropylene. Only fluoropolymer should graphite furnace atomic absorption be used when mercury is a target analyte. spectroscopy ( STGFAA) and inductively The QC supplement suggests cleaning coupled plasma/ mass spectrometry procedures for labware. Gloves, plastic ( ICP/ MS) ( USEPA, 1994c) even though wrap, storage bags, and filters may all be those methods have not yet been approved in used new without additional cleaning unless 40 CFR Part 136 for general use in Clean results of the equipment blank pinpoint any Water Act applications. In some instances, of these materials as a source of STGFAA and ICP/ MS may be preceded by contamination. In this case, either an hydride generation or on line or off line alternate supplier should be found or the materials will need to be cleaned.

Each reagent lot should be tested for the metals of interest by diluting and anodic/ cathodic stripping voltammetry, or F. 2. Analytical Methods The test methods currently in 40 CFR preconcentration to achieve these levels. The 59 Agency is developing methods for those analysis of samples. This metals that cannot as yet be measured at demonstration is comprised of tests ambient criteria levels. The methods being to prove that the laboratory can developed use the apparatus and techniques achieve the MDL in the EPA method described in the open technical literature. and the precision and accuracy This guidance does not address the use on specified in the QC Supplement. non Part 136 methods in any context other than metal translator studies performed by Analyses of blanks are required the discharger. initially and with each batch of Although analyses by STGFAA are process at the same time to generally cheaper than those by ICP/ MS, the demonstrate freedom from cost differences are usually not a limiting contamination. consideration given the implications of obtaining a precise and accurate translator The laboratory must spike at least value. Achieving low detection levels can 10% of the samples with the metal( s) add appreciably to the cost, but those costs of interest to monitor method may be justified if a translator means the performance. When results of these difference between permit compliance and spikes indicate atypical method noncompliance. performance for samples, an F. 3. Laboratory Quality Control The QC Supplement provides detailed quality control procedures that The laboratory must, on an ongoing should assure reliable results. The QC basis, demonstrate through Supplement requires each laboratory that calibration verification and through performs trace metals determinations to analysis of a laboratory control operate a formal quality assurance program. sample that the analytical system is The minimum requirements of this program in control. consist of an initial demonstration of laboratory capability, analysis of samples The laboratory must maintain records spiked with metals of interest to evaluate and to define the quality of data that are document data quality, and analysis of generated. standards and blanks as tests of continued performance. Laboratory performance is In recognition of advances that are compared to established performance criteria occurring in analytical technology, the to determine if the results of analyses meet analyst is permitted to exercise certain the performance characteristics of the options to eliminate interferences or lower method. This formal QA program has the the costs of measurements. These options following required elements: include alternate digestion, concentration,

The analyst must make an initial instrumentation. Alternate determinative demonstration of the ability to techniques, such as the substitution of a generate acceptable accuracy and colorimetric technique or changes that precision with the method used for degrade method performance, are not samples started through the analytical alternative extraction or cleanup technique must be used to bring method performance within acceptable limits.

and cleanup procedures and changes in 60 allowed. If an analytical technique other than the technique specified in the EPA method is used, then that technique must have a specificity equal to or better than the specificity of the techniques in EPA method for the analytes of interest.


E [C]/R Incorporated                   Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		April 1, 2011

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT:	Summary of the March 23, 2011 Meeting with AEA Regarding Issues Related to Rural Sources in Alaska Subject to the CI NSPS

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

INTRODUCTION

      A meeting was held between EPA and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to discuss AEA concerns related to stationary compression ignition (CI) engines located in remote areas of Alaska that are subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII.  EPA proposed amendments to the NSPS on June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32612).          ATTENDEES

Michael Horowitz, EPA Tanya Parise, EC/R (by phone) Bob Wayland, EPA (by phone) Chris Mello, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Melanie King, EPA (by phone) Steve Stassel, Alaska Energy and Engineering Heather Valdez, EPA (by phone)

SUMMARY OF MEETING

	Representatives of AEA requested to meet with EPA to discuss the unique issues affecting stationary diesel engines in rural areas of Alaska as they relate to complying with the requirements of the CI NSPS.  Prior to the meeting, AEA submitted a letter to EPA with information on the various issues facing rural source diesel engines in Alaska.  Only the major points discussed during the meeting are repeated here, and further details can be found in AEA's letter to EPA, which are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295).

	In general, AEA expressed that it is concerned with the lack of availability of diesel engines in rural Alaskan villages that can meet EPA's Tier 4 emission standards and with the high cost associated with meeting these standards in rural Alaskan villages.  AEA said that it believes that the costs EPA has estimated for the rule are substantially lower than what compliance would realistically cost in rural portions of Alaska.

	EPA noted that affected sources are not limited to acquiring only Tier 4 certified engines to demonstrate compliance.  EPA pointed out that sources have the option of purchasing pre-Tier 4 engines, for instance a Tier 3 engine, and putting aftertreatment on that engine.  Further, there are several catalyst vendors on the market who have available systems for aftertreatment that have been verified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and EPA.  For example, there are systems available that are certified to obtain at least an 85 percent reduction of particulate matter (PM) emissions that have been certified by CARB.  EPA suggested that AEA at a minimum expand the search of available compliance options for engines in Alaska.  AEA noted that Caterpillar, John Deere, and Detroit Diesel are the engine manufacturers AEA purchases engines from.  Those three engine makers have 90 percent of the market share and introducing new engine makers to rural Alaska is difficult, according to AEA.  Manufacturers have indicated to AEA that they cannot provide pre-Tier 4 engines and added they believe that there are no provisions in the rule allowing this type of flexibility.  EPA clarified that rural portions of Alaska may have special provisions in the final rule.  EPA also offered to provide AEA with control technology vendor contact information and also talk to vendors directly to obtain more information.

	Regarding maintenance, AEA indicated that engine manufacturer John Deere claims that there is no way to maintain their filters in the field in rural Alaska.  AEA said that the information for mobile sources EPA used to develop the rule for stationary engines is not applicable for stationary engines in rural Alaska and indicated that this is one of their points of contention.  AEA said that the service intervals are much shorter on their stationary diesel engines because of higher run times and noted that a stationary diesel engine could run for 100,000 hours in prime service.

	Regarding used oil blending, AEA stressed that this is an important provision for engines in rural locations of Alaska.  AEA explained that it understood that if the fuel is controlled to on-specification levels (Note:  On-specification levels and properties of used oil are defined in 40 CFR 279.11) the fuel is allowed to be burned in stationary diesel engines.  AEA noted that it had estimated that the used oil blending would have to occur at less than 1 percent in order to obtain a blended result of less than 15 parts per million (ppm) sulfur, and according to AEA, the used oil could sometimes be well above 200 ppm sulfur.  EPA asked why the used oil would have such high sulfur content. AEA responded that sulfur is a good lubricator and there are oils that had high sulfur levels for lubricity purposes.

	In terms of the benefits associated with regulating stationary diesel engines in rural areas, AEA argued whether it was necessary to do so because in a rural community the only diesel engines are at the power plant versus in an urban setting where there are numerous diesel engines.  AEA does not believe that the benefits outweigh the costs of compliance for rural diesel engines in Alaska.  For the reasons provided during this meeting and in additional information submitted to EPA, AEA believes there is justification for providing flexibility for rural sources in Alaska, specifically exempting stationary diesel engines from meeting Tier 4 emission standards.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69717-69719]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28989]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. CP11-547-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 2012 Storage
Optimization Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the 2012 Storage Optimization
Project involving abandonment of certain facilities and construction
and operation of new facilities by Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America, LLC (Natural) in Washington County, Iowa; Effingham, Clinton,
and Piatt Counties, Illinois; and Harrison County, Texas. This EA will
be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on, December 1, 2011.
    Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how
to submit written comments are provided in the Public Participation
section of this notice.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a representative of Natural about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with
it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations
fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Natural provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Natural states that the benefits of the 2012 Storage Optimization
Project would serve the public convenience and necessity by replacing
aging compressor units with new equipment and thereby improving and
optimizing its market area storage withdrawal and injection
capabilities, system flexibility and reliability
    The proposed Project would consist of the following:

Compressor Station 205--Washington County, Iowa

     Construct and operate a new 3,550 hp gas-fired compressor
unit at Natural's Compressor Station 205 located near Keota in
Washington County, Iowa.
     Abandon by removal the existing dual 6-inch-diameter meter
runs at Natural's Compressor Station 205.
     Install new 10-inch-diameter meter.

Proposed Compressor Station 206A--Effingham County, Illinois

     Construct and operate a new 22,000 hp electric motor
driven compressor station located near Altamont in Effingham County,
Illinois.

Compressor Stations 310 and 311--Centralia and Clinton Counties,
Illinois

     Abandon in place two 2,800 hp gas-fired compressor units
at Natural's CS 310 located near Centralia in Clinton County, Illinois.
     Abandon in place three 2,800 hp gas-fired compressor units
at Natural's CS 311 located near Hammond in Piatt County, Illinois.

North Lansing Storage Field--Harrison County, Texas

     Reduce the cushion gas inventory by 5 Bcf at Natural's
North Lansing Storage Field near Longview in Harrison County, Texas.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the new proposed Compressor Station 206A would
permanently disturb about 14.32 acres of land. The remaining proposed
work would be conducted within existing facility areas.

The EA Process

    The Natural Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission
to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from
an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us \2\ to discover and
address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is
referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to
focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By
this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of
the issues to address in the EA. All comments received will be
considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the Natural Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the Natural Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\3\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project
is further developed. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards,
compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA would document our
findings on the potential project impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the Natural Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before December 1,
2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP11-547-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; environmental and public interest groups; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click
on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket number field
(i.e., CP11-547). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: November 2, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28989 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 74704-74705]
[DOCID:fr01de10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1894-203]

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Application
for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene,
and Protests

November 24, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) and is
available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for non-project use of project
lands and waters.
    b. Project No.: 1894-203.
    c. Date Filed: October 7, 2010.
    d. Applicant: South Carolina Electric and Gas Company.
    e. Name of Project: Parr Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Broad River in Fairfield
and Newberry Counties, South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: William R. Argentieri, South Carolina
Electric and Gas Company, Mail Code A221, 220 Operation Way, Cayce,
South Carolina 29033-3701. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions regarding this notice should be
addressed to Joy Kurtz at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: December 27, 2010.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings (e-filing).
    In lieu of e-filing, all paper documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include
the project number (P-1894-203) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners

filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document
on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a
copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Application: The Applicant, South Carolina
Electric and Gas Company, is seeking Commission approval to allow for
the withdrawal from, and discharge to, the Project's Monticello and
Parr reservoirs to serve the construction and operation needs of two
new nuclear generating plants at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. To
facilitate this, the Applicant would construct a raw water intake
facility that would withdraw approximately 2.2 million gallons of water
per hour from Monticello reservoir, as well as a waste water facility
that would discharge up to 0.6 million gallons of water per hour to
Parr reservoir. Additionally, the Applicant would construct an offsite
water treatment facility that would withdraw, on average, 1.7 million
gallons of water per day from, and discharge up to 220,000 gallons of
water per day to, Monticello reservoir. These facilities are key
components to the cooling and blowdown processes associated with the
new nuclear units.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-1894) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the project number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30256 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P