[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4630-4634]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0006]

New Car Assessment Program

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests public comment on the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) plan to update its New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP). If this plan is implemented, NHTSA would
recommend to consumers various vehicle models that are equipped with
automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems, which can enhance the
driver's ability to avoid or mitigate rear-end crashes. For many years,
NCAP has provided comparative information on the safety of new vehicles
to assist consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions. NCAP was
upgraded beginning with model year 2011 vehicles to include recommended
crash avoidance technologies in its program. Including this information
in NCAP allows consumers to compare not only the level of crash
protection afforded by certain vehicles they are considering to
purchase, but also the types of advanced crash avoidance technologies
that are recommended by the agency to help them avoid crashes.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them no later than March 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting
comments, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
     Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). For access to the docket
to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Dr. Abigail Morgan, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, NVS-122.
    For NCAP issues: Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, NVS-120.
    For legal issues: Mr. David Jasinski and Ms. Analiese
Marchesseault, Office of the Chief Counsel, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, NCC-112.
    The mailing address for these officials is as follows: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides
comparative safety rating information on new vehicles to assist
consumers with their vehicle purchasing decisions. NCAP was upgraded
beginning with model year 2011 vehicles to include, among other
changes, recommended advanced crash avoidance technologies when these
technologies meet NCAP's performance criteria. Technologies that were
part of the 2011 upgrade were electronic stability control (ESC),
forward collision warning (FCW), and lane departure warning (LDW).
Subsequently, in 2014, NHTSA replaced ESC, which is now mandatory for
all new light vehicles, with another technology, rearview video systems
(RVS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 7, 2014, NHTSA published a final rule (79 FR 19177)
requiring rearview video systems. The rule provides a phase-in
period that begins on May 1, 2016 and ends on May 1, 2018 when all
new light vehicles will be required to be equipped with RVS. As was
done with electronic stability control, RVS will no longer be an
NCAP recommended technology once RVS is required on all new light
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FCW detects vehicles ahead and cautions a driver of an impending
collision, so the driver can brake or steer to avoid or mitigate the
collision. LDW monitors lane markings on the road and cautions a driver
of unintentional lane drift. RVS assists the driver in seeing whether
there are any obstructions, particularly a person or people, in the
area immediately behind the vehicle. The RVS is generally installed in
the rear of the vehicle and connected to a video screen.
    This document requests comments on the agency's plan to further
upgrade NCAP to include recommendations to consumers of vehicle models
that are equipped with automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems,
specifically crash imminent braking (CIB) and dynamic brake support
(DBS), which can use information from an FCW system's sensors to
enhance the driver's ability to avoid or mitigate rear-end crashes. CIB
systems provide automatic braking when forward-looking sensors indicate
that a crash is imminent and the driver is not braking. DBS systems
provide supplemental braking when sensors determine that driver-applied
braking is insufficient to avoid an imminent crash.
    This plan would add CIB and DBS to the three crash avoidance
technologies that the agency currently recommends on the agency's Web
site,

www.safercar.gov. By including CIB and DBS systems into NCAP, consumers
would receive important information regarding the safety risks
associated with rear-end crashes and the vehicle models that offer
effective countermeasures, which can assist the driver in avoiding or
mitigating these crashes. In addition, the agency believes that if it
recognizes AEB systems that meet NCAP's performance measures, and
thereby encourages consumers to purchase vehicles that are equipped
with these systems, manufacturers would have an incentive to offer
these systems on additional vehicles they produce.

Crash Imminent Braking and Dynamic Brake Support as Recommended
Advanced Technology Features

    In addition to issuing star ratings based on the crashworthiness
and rollover resistance of vehicle models, the agency also provides
additional information to consumers by recommending certain advanced
crash avoidance technologies on the agency's Web site,
www.safercar.gov. For each vehicle make/model, the Web site currently
shows (in addition to a list of some of the vehicle's safety features)
the model's 5-star crashworthiness and rollover resistance ratings and
whether the vehicle model is equipped with any of the three advanced
crash avoidance safety technologies that the agency currently
recommends to consumers. NHTSA began recommending advanced crash
avoidance technologies to consumers starting with the model year
2011.\2\ The agency recommends vehicle technologies to consumers as
part of NCAP if the technology: (1) Addresses a major crash problem,
(2) is supported by information that supports its potential or actual
safety benefit, and (3) is able to be tested by repeatable performance
tests and procedures to ensure a certain level of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 73 FR 40016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more than three years, NHTSA has been carefully reviewing and
evaluating CIB and DBS systems. The agency has also conducted test
track research to better understand the performance capabilities of
these systems. This work is documented in two reports, ``Forward-
Looking Advanced Braking Technologies Research Report'' (June 2012) \3\
and ``Automatic Emergency Braking System Research Report'' (August
2014).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0057-0001.
    \4\ See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0057-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CIB and DBS systems are two crash avoidance systems designed to
mitigate or avoid rear-end crashes. The agency's research found that
CIB and DBS systems are commercially available on a number of different
production vehicles and these systems can be tested successfully to
defined performance measures. NHTSA has developed performance measures
to ensure that CIB and DBS systems address the rear-end crash safety
problem in real-world situations by providing automatic or supplemental
vehicle braking that will help drivers mitigate or avoid rear-end
crashes. The agency found that systems meeting these performance
measures have the potential to help reduce the number of rear-end
crashes as well as deaths and injuries that result from these crashes.
Therefore, the agency believes that it is appropriate to include CIB
and DBS systems in NCAP as recommended crash avoidance technologies on
www.safercar.gov.
    In addition to the agency's research on CIB and DBS systems, these
AEB technologies were among the topics included in an April 5, 2013,
Request for comments notice on a variety of potential areas for
improvement of NCAP.\5\ Most commenters supported including CIB and DBS
in NCAP. Some commenters stated generally that available research
supports the agency's conclusion that these technologies are effective
at reducing rear-end crashes with some of those commenters citing
specific research they had conducted that they deemed relevant.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 78 FR 20597.
    \6\ See http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA 2012-0180. For
discussions of specific research see comments of Robert Bosch LLC,
NHTSA-2012-0180-0028, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS), NHTSA-2012-0180-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rear-end crashes constitute a significant vehicle safety problem.
In a detailed analysis of 2006-2008 crash data,\7\ NHTSA determined
that approximately 1,700,000 rear-end crashes involving passenger
vehicles occur each year.\8\ These crashes result in approximately
1,000 deaths and 700,000 injuries annually. The size of the safety
problem has remained consistent since then. In 2012, the most recent
year for which data are available, there were a total of 1,663,000
rear-end crashes. These rear-end crashes in 2012 resulted in 1,172
deaths and 706,000 injuries, which represents 3 percent of all
fatalities and 30 percent of all injuries from motor vehicle crashes in
2012.9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These estimates were derived from NHTSA's 2006-2008 Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data and non-fatal cases in NHTSA's
2006-2008 National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates
System (NASS/GES) data.
    \8\ The 1,700,000 total cited in the two NHTSA reports reflects
only crashes in which the front of a passenger vehicle impacts the
rear of another vehicle.
    \9\ See NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts 2012, Page 70.
    \10\ The approximately 1,000 deaths per year in 2006-2008 were
limited to two-vehicle crashes, as fatal crash data at the time did
not contain detailed information on crashes involving three or more
vehicles. This information was added starting with the 2010 data
year, and the 1,172 deaths in 2012 occurred in crashes involving any
number of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its rear-end crash analysis, the agency concluded that
AEB systems would have had a favorable impact on a little more than
one-half of rear-end crashes.\11\ The remaining crashes, which involved
circumstances such as high speed crashes resulting in a fatality in the
lead vehicle or one vehicle suddenly cutting in front of another
vehicle, were not crashes that current AEB systems would be able to
prevent or mitigate. The agency has estimated CIB and DBS system
effectiveness based on its research findings from track testing of
these systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Forward-Looking Advanced Braking Technologies
Research Report'' (June 2012). (http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA
2012-0057-0001), page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2012, the agency issued a Request for comments notice
seeking feedback on its CIB and DBS research.\12\ Ford Motor Company
indicated that the Lead Vehicle Stopped (LVS) scenario actually
consists of two scenarios, one in which the lead vehicle is actually
stopped or stationary, and one in which the lead vehicle is
decelerating and comes to a stop before the crash occurs but could have
been previously seen moving by the AEB system sensors. Additional
analysis of LVS crashes found that these crashes are evenly split
between lead vehicle stopped and lead vehicle decelerating to a stop
(LVD-S) crashes, each representing about 32 percent of the rear-end
crash population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 77 FR 39561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is issuing this document to request comments on its plan
to update NCAP. The agency believes that, through NCAP, it can help not
only to educate consumers on the role AEB technologies play in
addressing rear-end crashes, but also to utilize market incentives to
encourage wider incorporation of these important safety technologies.
    The advanced crash avoidance technologies that are currently
recommended by NHTSA through NCAP (as ``Recommended Advanced Technology
Features'') are shown on www.safercar.gov. Our plan is to add CIB and
DBS systems as recommended advanced technology features on our Web
site.

Planned Criteria for Recognizing a Vehicle Make/Model as Having a
Recommended CIB or DBS System

    For the agency to determine which CIB and DBS systems it will
recommend to consumers, NHTSA needs a means for evaluating CIB and DBS
systems. The agency has developed test procedures for both CIB and DBS
systems as part of its research effort.\13\ Although these procedures
have been designed to provide a reasonable assessment of overall system
performance, the agency may modify the number of test scenarios and the
number of test trials per test scenario to accommodate the practical
needs of NCAP. The following sections provide a brief summary of the
CIB and DBS planned test procedures. The information presented here is
intended to indicate the level of vehicle performance the test
procedures would set in order for CIB and DBS systems to receive NCAP
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Copies of the test procedures that were used by NHTSA to
conduct light vehicle AEB system evaluations in 2014 may be found at
http://www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The planned test procedures represent the four primary scenarios
present in the rear-end crash target population. They also include a
fifth scenario to assess whether an AEB system activates in a specific
non-crash-imminent scenario (subsequently referred to as a ``false
positive'' scenario). The five test scenarios are:

1. Lead vehicle stopped (LVS)
2. Lead vehicle moving (LVM) at a constant speed slower than the SV
3. Lead vehicle decelerating (LVD)
4. Lead vehicle decelerating to a stop (LVD-S)
5. False positive test (steel trench plate, STP)

    Tables 1 and 2 present the test speeds and performance measures
developed for each of NHTSA's AEB test scenarios for CIB and DBS. As
shown in the second column of these tables, the test speeds for the
vehicle being tested (hereinafter, the subject vehicle (SV)) and for
the lead vehicle (hereinafter, principal other vehicle (POV)) are the
same for the respective CIB and DBS scenarios. However, in most cases,
the DBS performance measures specify a greater SV speed reduction than
the corresponding CIB test (the exception being the LVM test performed
with a SV speed of 25 mph). This is because the speed reductions
present during DBS evaluations are the result of the foundation brake
application plus the supplementary effect of DBS, and the foundation
brake applications used during DBS evaluations are typically commanded
earlier than the automatic brake applications during CIB tests.

    Table 1--CIB Test Scenarios and System Performance Test Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Speeds of           Satisfactory
           Scenarios                 vehicles           performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LVS...........................  SV 25 mph (40.2    Speed reduction of
                                 km/h).             >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/
                                POV 0 mph (0 km/    h) for at least 7 of
                                 h).                8 valid test trials.
LVM...........................  SV 25 mph (40.2    No SV-to-POV impact
                                 km/h).             for at least 7 of 8
                                POV 10 mph (16.1    valid test trials.
                                 km/h).
LVM...........................  SV 45 mph (72.4    Speed reduction of
                                 km/h).             >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/
                                POV 20 mph (32.2    h) for at least 7 of
                                 km/h).             8 valid test trials.
LVD...........................  SV 35 mph (56.3    Speed reduction of
                                 km/h).             >=10.5 mph (16.9 km/
                                POV 35 mph (56.3    h) for at least 7 of
                                 km/h).             8 valid test trials.
LVD-S.........................  SV 25 mph (40.2    Speed reduction of
                                 km/h).             >=9.8 mph (15.8 km/
                                POV 25 mph (40.2    h) for at least 7 of
                                 km/h).             8 valid test trials.
False positive................  25 mph (40.2 km/   Peak SV deceleration
                                 h).                <=0.25g.
False positive................  45 mph (72.4 km/   Peak SV deceleration
                                 h).                <=0.25g.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Table 2--DBS Test Scenarios and System Performance Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Speeds of           Satisfactory
           Scenarios                 vehicles           performance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LVS...........................  SV 25 mph (40.2    No SV-to-POV impact
                                 km/h).             for at least 7 of 8
                                POV 0 mph (0 km/    valid test trials.
                                 h).
LVM...........................  SV 25 mph (40.2    No SV-to-POV impact
                                 km/h).             for at least 7 of 8
                                POV 10 mph (16.1    valid test trials.
                                 km/h).
LVM...........................  SV 45 mph (72.4    No SV-to-POV impact
                                 km/h).             for at least 7 of 8
                                POV 20 mph (32.2    valid test trials.
                                 km/h).
LVD...........................  SV 35 mph (56.3    No SV-to-POV impact
                                 km/h).             for at least 7 of 8
                                POV 35 mph (56.3    valid test trials.
                                 km/h).
LVD-S.........................  SV 25 mph (40.2    No SV-to-POV impact
                                 km/h).             for at least 7 of 8
                                POV 25 mph (40.2    valid test trials.
                                 km/h).
False positive................  25 mph (40.2 km/   Peak SV deceleration
                                 h).                <=125% of the
                                                    average peak SV
                                                    deceleration
                                                    realized during a
                                                    series of baseline
                                                    brake stops.
False positive................  45 mph (72.4 km/   Peak SV deceleration
                                 h).                <=125% of the
                                                    average peak SV
                                                    deceleration
                                                    realized during a
                                                    series of baseline
                                                    brake stops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As currently written, each test procedure involves a total of 56
test runs (eight valid test trials for each of the seven test
scenarios). The test procedures also include time to condition the SV
brakes, including a full FMVSS No. 135 brake burnish prior to testing
and a brake warming regiment to ensure the initial brake temperature is
within a range before each test trial.
    Additionally, because the DBS evaluations specify that the SV
brakes be applied, the DBS procedures include a series of eight brake
characterization tests. The purpose of these brake characterization
tests is to determine the position and force input magnitudes to be
used by the brake controller robot during test conduct. This process
determines the amount of braking to apply during DBS testing that is

sufficiently high to activate the DBS system being tested, yet low
enough that the SV's conventional brake assist system \14\ is not
activated. NHTSA plans to use a programmable brake controller to apply
all brake applications defined in the DBS test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Conventional brake assist system is a technology that
initiates supplemental braking based on brake pedal application rate
without the use of any forward-sensing information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also with respect to the DBS test procedure, the agency found that
in some vehicles, the brake pedal moves toward the floor during DBS
activation without the driver applying additional force to the pedal.
In this situation, the force at the brake pedal will decrease if the
brake controller maintains a constant pedal position (rather than
following it as it moves to the floor). Even though the brake pedal
position does not change, the DBS system may misinterpret this force
reduction as the driver releasing the brakes, incorrectly assuming that
strong supplemental DBS braking is no longer needed. To address this,
NHTSA has supplemented the displacement (i.e., position) feedback-based
brake applications in the DBS test procedure with an optional brake
application technique featuring ``hybrid feedback'' control, which
includes a combination of displacement and force control.
    Hybrid feedback helped certain vehicles reach their DBS-enhanced
braking potential by preventing the applied brake force from falling to
zero. However, the limited data collected indicate use of hybrid-based
braking will not benefit most vehicles. With a few exceptions, vehicles
achieved better DBS performance with displacement feedback brake
applications as opposed to hybrid feedback brake applications. The
agency will work with manufacturers to understand their preference of
the optional hybrid feedback or displacement-based feedback during
NHTSA's evaluation of their vehicles.
    For the purpose of conducting AEB testing, the agency designed and
manufactured a strikeable surrogate vehicle (SSV).\15\ The physical
appearance of the SSV resembles the rear section of a 2011 Ford Fiesta
hatchback. The SSV is constructed primarily from carbon fiber, which
enables the SSV to withstand repeated impacts with negligible change in
its shape over time and without causing harm to test drivers or damage
to vehicles being evaluated. If it is struck and damaged, the SSV can
be reconstructed to its original specifications. Our testing shows that
the SSV generates CIB and DBS system activation just as an actual
vehicle would. The agency plans to use the SSV to evaluate the
performance of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For details of the NHTSA designed SSV, see http://
www.Regulations.gov, NHTSA-2012-0057-0032, NHTSA's Stirkeable
Surrogate Vehicle (SSV) Design Overview, and NHTSA-2012-0057-0034,
Radar Measurements of NHTSA's Surrogate Vehicle (SSV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

On what topics is the agency requesting comments?

    This document requests comments on the agency's plan to recommend
CIB and DBS systems in the NCAP program. Based on comments received in
response to the April 5, 2013, Request for comments notice on a variety
of potential areas for improvement of NCAP (78 FR 20597), including CIB
and DBS, the agency believes that motor vehicle manufacturers,
suppliers, and consumer advocacy groups generally agree that consumers
would benefit from being provided with information about CIB and DBS
systems and their potential to help drivers avoid rear-end crashes.
However, the agency will consider whether there are compelling
arguments against including CIB and DBS system evaluations in NCAP.
    The agency is also interested in any suggestions or observations
regarding the practical aspects of incorporating CIB and DBS system
evaluations into NCAP as recommended technologies. In particular, the
agency would be interested in any comments or suggestions regarding the
following:
     Test procedures: What is the general response to the
planned test procedures? How will the combination of test scenarios and
test speeds described provide an accurate representation of real-world
CIB and DBS system performance, and how can they be improved? Can any
of the scenarios be removed from the test procedures while still
ensuring a certain level of system performance? If so, what are they
and why? Similarly, why and how should the number of test trials per
scenario be reduced? What, if any, specific improvements to the test
procedures are still necessary?
     The Strikeable Surrogate Vehicle (SSV): Are there specific
elements that would cause NHTSA's SSV to be inappropriate for use in
the agency's CIB and DBS performance evaluations? If so, what are they,
and how are they a problem? Will the SSV meet the needs for CIB and DBS
evaluation for the foreseeable future? If not, why not? What
alternatives could be considered and why?
     DBS Test Brake Application Strategy: We seek comment on
whether the two brake application methods defined in the DBS test
procedure, those based on displacement or hybrid control, provide NHTSA
with enough flexibility to accurately assess the performance of all DBS
systems. What specific refinements, if any, are needed to either
application method?
     CIB and DBS Research: We seek comment on whether there is
any recent research concerning CIB and DBS systems that is not
reflected in the agency's research to date. If so, please provide a
reference to that research.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery), from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket by one of the methods given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the

information specified in NHTSA's confidential business information
regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will the agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments received
after that date.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also see the comments on the Internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA may
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-01461 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2202-2203]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-168-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

January 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective January
30, 2006:

First Revised Sheet No. 154
Third Revised Sheet No. 158
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 210
First Revised Sheet No. 1062
First Revised Sheet No. 1095
Third Revised Sheet No. 2000
Third Revised Sheet No. 2002

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-295 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5815-5816]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2016-0004]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated October 22, 2015, Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0004.
    Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad, Mr. John J. Hovanec, AVP
Engineering--Design, 1400 Douglas Street, Mail Stop 0910, Omaha, NE
68179.
    UP seeks approval to modify Control Point (CP) B002 on the Omaha
Subdivision in the State of Iowa by dividing it into two CP's, CP B902
and CP B002. The reason given for the proposed modification is to
accommodate a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) project to widen
Interstate 29, as well as to facilitate yard operations and expedite
train movements in the area. The modification will involve the
relocation of most signals and some changes in signal aspects currently
in service.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 21, 2016 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://

www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-01968 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


This regulatory impact analysis estimated the reductions in compliance costs resulting from the 2008 final amendments to the SPCC rule. The Agency also considered whether the streamlined requirements in the final rule might increase the threat of discharges, with adverse consequences for the environment, human health, and welfare. EPA believes that the rule amendments protect the environment and, at the same time, provide the opportunity for regulated facilities to reduce the cost of SPCC compliance.
Many of the assumptions as well as the estimates of unit cost savings and the number of affected facilities presented in this RIA are based upon the available data. EPA made the best use of the available data to make informed decisions regarding the assumptions used in the analysis. To address uncertainties involved in estimating the total cost savings from the final amendments, the Agency used a sensitivity analysis approach to estimate the range of cost savings by examining up to three scenarios for several components of the final rule (e.g., final amendments to the security requirements, and flexibility for AFVO facilities). Major limitations of the analysis are described in this chapter.
General Limitations
For each Amendment, the cost savings estimated are limited by data and other considerations. We review the limitations here. For several of the specific amendments, we carried out sensitivity analysis by estimating costs under three alternative assumptions. We also conducted two sensitivity analyses for the entire set of cost estimates (see Appendix B, Volume II). We calculated these estimates for two discount rates (3 percent and 7 percent); and we calculated cost savings under three different compliance scenarios at baseline and after the 2009 amendments.

Estimated Number of Facilities
One of the main limitations of the regulatory analysis is limited data and information on the number of regulated facilities. The SPCC rule does not require regulated entities to identify themselves to EPA, and, with certain exceptions, regulated entities do not need to submit any information to EPA Without conducting a statistically valid survey, EPA is limited to data already collected by state or federal agencies or proprietary sources on the number and type of regulated facilities. Such data are collected for diverse purposes and can be used to identify SPCC-regulated facilities. Therefore, evaluating regulatory changes involves some uncertainties because the collected data often omit portions of the regulated universe or lack sufficient detail to ascertain the impacts of changes in certain requirements. As discussed in detail in Section 9.5, additional uncertainty is introduced in the estimate for the SPCC-regulated facilities because of lack of information on how owners and operators would use the flexibility to define the facility boundaries for contiguous and non-contiguous parcels.
Estimated Cost of Compliance
Compliance costs incurred by owners and operators of facilities in the baseline depend not only on the volume of oil stored and handled, but also on the types of oil at a site, the number of tanks (and their volume), and the locations of the tanks across the site. Given a wide range of industries and facility sizes affected by the SPCC rule -- as well as geographical and climatic conditions that affect a facility's configuration and operation patterns -- a realistic baseline against which regulatory changes are measured cannot be reliably determined. Therefore, uncertainty is involved in estimating the changes in compliance costs that could occur under the final regulatory actions.
The majority of the cost estimates used in the regulatory analysis were based on a detailed analysis by one professional engineering firm that operates in the 48 contiguous states of United States. The data provided by the firm represent information based on the experience of the Professional Engineers (PEs) employed by the firm. While the PE firm provided costs estimates by the key factors that affect cost -- facility type, facility size, container capacitythey did not provide the entire range of cost based on other factors that influence costs (e.g. location of the facility, complexity of the facility).
The cost of compliance is calculated for each of the amendments separately, holding other provisions constant, ceteris paribus. However, the interaction of different amendments might reduce or increase the total cost. Given this possibility, adding the cost changes from each amendment can introduce a bias in the estimate. For example, the amendments provide the flexibility to qualified facilities to complete an SPCC template in lieu of a full Plan, but restrict the owners and operators of facilities choosing to complete a template to claim environmental equivalence. Another amendment provides an alternative compliance option for flowlines and intra-facility gathering lines at oil production facilities in lieu of the secondary containment requirement but requires owners and operators of oil production facilities to follow the existing and more detailed flowline maintenance program. When calculating the cost saving from this amendment, EPA assumed that all facilities would claim environmental equivalence to their existing maintenance program. However, if EPA calculated the cost savings from this while taking into account the amendment to the qualified facilities, the Agency would also have to take into account the fact that qualified facilities that choose to complete a template would not be able to claim environmental equivalence. This example highlights the type and extent of interactions that can exist across different amendments. While our best estimate of the total effect of the amendments is the sum of the effects from the individual cost savings estimates, this sum should be understood with the above caveats in mind.
It is important to note that since certain SPCC requirements may be similar in nature to those imposed by state regulations and facility owner/operators of many industries may follow specific industry standards, compliance activities and their associated costs cannot be fully attributed to the SPCC rule. Since regulations vary widely across states and industries, there is no single adjustment factor that could be developed to address this issue for the universe of regulated facilities. However, due to the lack of data on the extent to which facilities adopt industry standards, in this analysis the Agency estimated the baseline compliance costs and cost savings associated with the SPCC requirements without accounting for possible overlap with industry standards. EPA did take into account requirements imposed by state regulations in 19 states with regulations that overlap with the SPCC requirements. As a result, the estimated baseline compliance costs are likely to present an overestimate of the costs attributed to the SPCC rule. For details of the state overlap analysis, refer to Section 5.4 of this report.
Hot-Mix Asphalt
Even though EPA never intended to regulate HMA containers, the Agency assumed that owners and operators of certain HMA facilities interpreted the 2002 rule as being applicable to these containers. A key piece of data that EPA needed to estimate the cost savings for facilities with HMA containers is the fraction of HMA capacity as a percentage of total facility storage capacity. In the absence of other data, to determine this fraction, EPA relied on information from three SPCC Plans obtained from EPA regions, data presented in facility air permits, and information on HMA equipment sales Web pages. At both temporary and stationary plants, HMA accounted for approximately 34 percent of total storage, on average. Although these data do not represent a statistically valid sample, the Agency assumed that this estimate is applicable to HMA facilities of all sizes. As a result, the Agency estimated that HMA containers account for about 34 percent of total storage capacity at HMA facilities.
EPA assumed that affected facilities would move across size categories as a result of a reduced total capacity based on the estimates for the fraction of the total capacity that accounts for HMA containers. EPA estimated that 30 percent of Category I facilities would leave the SPCC universe, 30 percent of Category II facilities would become Category I, 30 percent of Category III facilities would become Category II, and 60 percent of Category IV facilities would become Category III. These estimates are inherently uncertain since they are based on a small number of observations from various data sources. However, there were no additional data available to improve the reliability of these estimates.
Pesticide Application Equipment and Related Mix Containers
To estimate cost savings from exempting pesticide application equipment, EPA relied on two regional studies that conducted an economic analysis of pesticide application equipment. EPA used these studies to estimate the capacity of pesticide application equipment by different farm sizes and concluded that farms smaller than 500 acres would not have pesticide application equipment and would hire the services of custom applicator. Using agricultural census data, EPA estimated the distribution of farms by farm sizes for different categories of farms. The key limitation of this analysis is that it relies on regional data to calculate cost savings for the United States and assumes that all owners and operators of farms mix oil with pesticide when using pesticide application equipment or other mixers.
Residential Heating Oil
EPA relied on data from DOE to estimate the average size of a heating oil container at households. To estimate the number of farms that have heating oil for residential use, EPA assumed that farms make a choice between only propane and heating oil (and face no other options) and relied on DOE estimates on the percentage of households that use heating oil as compared to propane. Further, EPA assumed that only family farms would have residences on a farm and used the USDA Family Farm Report to estimate that 98 percent of SPCC-regulated farms are family farms. The same report provided estimates on the average number of residences on farms. Using these data, EPA estimated the total capacity of heating oil at farms. These estimates are based on several simplifying assumptions; therefore, this approach provides only an approximate estimate of the possible cost savings and is not expected to capture the wide variability in residential heating oil storage across the United States.
Tier I Qualified Facilities
As described in Chapter 6, to identify facilities with total storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less that had reportable discharges in the past three years, EPA used National Response Center (NRC) incident data. The main limitation of the NRC database for this analysis is the lack of information on the total amount of oil stored at a facility whose owner or operator reported an oil discharge. The Agency identified individual facilities whose owner or operator reported oil discharges of 10,000 gallons or less and used that figure as a proxy for the number of facilities with total storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less. This approach likely results in overestimating the number of facilities with total storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less that have had reportable discharges in the past three years, given that most facilities are not expected to discharge their total oil storage capacity. That is, a portion of the discharges of 10,000 gallons or less could have been from facilities with much larger oil storage capacities. Because it is not feasible to establish a relationship between the amount of oil discharged and total storage capacity at a facility, EPA examined three scenarios: 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent of facilities that reported oil discharges of 10,000 gallons or less have total oil storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less.
Security
The main assumption associated with the cost impact analysis for the 2008 rule changes to security requirements was that all existing facilities already have security measures in place as required by the 2002 SPCC rule and thus would not be affected by the rule change.
Owners and operators of SPCC facilities may already provide major security measures as standard industry practice to protect their facilities from vandalism and terrorism, which are also required by the SPCC rule These facilities often have a complex engineering structure, multiple oil storage and other flammable liquid containers, and site-specific technological processes. Therefore, not all owners and operators of new facilities would opt for the rule change offered by the 2008 final amendments.
These security measures usually include full facility fencing, lighting, and automatic shut-off valves. Because some facility owners and operators would provide these measures during construction, EPA assumed that not all new facilities coming online would prefer the alternative option offered by the 2008 rule. EPA's site visits suggested that facilities of the industries including but not limited to the following categories typically provide basic security measures: petroleum refineries, manufacturing, facilities handling AFVO, and asphalt production. Due to the lack of data on the number of facilities that have security measures in place as required by the SPCC regulations, EPA developed estimates for cost savings under the three scenarios: 50 percent (low), 75 percent (medium), and 100 percent (high) of all new facilities would use the flexibility in tailoring the security measures.
Animal Fats and Vegetable Oils (AFVO)
To estimate cost savings from the component of the 2008 rule affecting facilities that handle AFVO, EPA assumed that a facility owner or operator would have integrity testing conducted on oil storage containers every 12 years on average. This assumption was based on the industry standards that require integrity testing to be performed on storage tanks every 10-15 years depending on the standard and the tank structure.
Another assumption EPA used in its analysis is that 93 percent of total oil storage capacity at a facility handling AFVO is devoted to food oil. This estimate was based on a limited number of SPCC Plans prepared by owners and operators of AFVO facilities and does not represent a statistically valid sample of facilities.
In addition, EPA did not have data on the number of facilities handling AFVO that would have storage containers with food oil qualified for the different integrity testing requirements. Since background research indicated that most AFVO facilities would have qualified containers, EPA developed three scenarios to evaluate a range of cost savings where 40 percent, 65 percent, and 90 percent of all facilities handling AFVO would have qualified containers.
The 2008 final rule gives the PE or owner/operator certifying the SPCC Plan the flexibility to determine whether integrity testing is appropriate for certain containers. The Agency assumed that the burden associated with making this determination would be insignificant and would not introduce any additional cost to facility's owner or operator.
Oil Production Facilities
Similar to the analyses of other elements of the final rule, EPA did not have numeric information on the number of oil production facilities that would be likely to make specific changes in their operating practices in response to the final rule. The Agency does not know whether new oil production facilities coming into business would change their facility configuration and place all oil/water separators, including a heater-treater, inside the tank battery. Background research of the oil production industry and site visits suggest that it is common for existing facilities to have a heater-treater outside of the tank battery. Therefore, the Agency assumed that due to the specific characteristics of the oil and gas production industry, new facilities would continue building at least one heater-treater outside of the tank battery and therefore take advantage of the changed requirements of the final rule. Cost savings would result from the difference in cost for sized and general secondary containment.
Integrity Testing
To estimate cost savings from the component of the final rule that provides a more flexible integrity-testing requirement, EPA assumed that facilities are already using tailored integrity testing and claiming environmental equivalence. Therefore, the cost savings to owner and operators of storage facilities would be from not having to claim environmental equivalence. Furthermore, the Agency assumed that the cost of claiming environmental equivalence is the same across all size categories and not dependent on the number of containers that would qualify since the number of tanks should not affect the specific tank inspection standard that can be utilized.
Key Assumptions
EPA made four key assumptions in the analysis. First, the Agency assumed that cost minimization behavior applied to all owners and operators of facilities that qualify for reduced regulatory requirements, whereby all those affected would seek burden relief. Second, EPA assumed that owners and operators of existing SPCC-regulated facilities would forego compliance activities offered as alternatives to activities that required one-time initial investments because they would have already incurred the one-time cost. For example, an owner or operator of an existing Tier I facility qualified for reduced requirements under the final rule, who had an SPCC Plan in place, would not take advantage of the provided alternative to prepare a Plan template instead. Third, EPA assumed that compliance is nationally consistent despite variability in state regulations, political climate, and the distribution of affected facilities (though when estimating cost savings we do account for overlap with state regulations).
Fourth, in accordance with EPA's guidelines to prepare economic analyses, in the main analysis EPA assumed that all existing owners and operators of facilities are in complete compliance with the 2002 SPCC rule. It is important to note that insofar as certain owners/operators of facilities are not in compliance with the 2002 rule because of the compliance date extension, this assumption may imply that cost savings are an under estimate or an over estimate. In several cases, owners and operators would not incur cost savings if they were already in compliance with the 2002 SPCC rule, implying that the cost saving is an overestimate. For example, existing facilities would not incur cost savings from a six month delay in Plan preparation and implementation. However, if facilities are not compliance with the 2002 rule because of the compliance date extension, these facilities would in fact incur cost savings, implying that the cost savings are an underestimate. EPA did not account for the compliance date extension when assuming full compliance with the 2002 SPCC rule, as it is unclear which facilities would comply at the time of establishment of the facility (since the cost of building secondary containment might be cheaper at the time of initial construction of the facility) and those that would delay compliance until the compliance date of the rule. Furthermore, since the compliance dates were extended on several occasions, it is unclear how many facilities may have come into compliance before new extension dates were announced. The Agency conducted a sensitivity analysis to examine the impact of several compliance assumptions. The first assumption is that there is partial compliance in both the baseline and after the final rule amendments. The second assumption is that there is partial compliance in the baseline and full compliance after the final rule amendments.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography
This page intentionally left blank

 Bibliography
13 CFR part 121. Small Business Size Regulations.
33 U.S.C. 1321 Sec 311(j)(1)(C). National Response System.
40 CFR part 110. Current Good Manufacturing Practice In Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food.
40 CFR part 112. Oil Pollution Prevention and Response.
44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501. Paperwork Reduction Act.
5 U.S.C. Sec. 603. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
5 U.S.C. Sec. 604. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
AMS Oil. 2007a. http://www.amsoil.com/StoreFront/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=102. Accessed 2/6/2007.
AMS Oil. 2007b. Available at: http://www.amsoil.com/StoreFront/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=61. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Baker, Scott. 2007. Personal communication. Supervisor at Environmental Engineering Department, Sunoco petroleum refinery, Philadelphia, PA. February.
Barsanti, Pat. 2007. Personal communication. SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists. February.
Batten, Charles. "PHMSA's Data Collection  -  Does it Tell us Anything?" Safe Pipelines, Volume 3, Number 2. Available at: http://pstrust.org/library/docs/vol3no1/pstnewsletter_vol3no1.pdf
Beckert, Annie. 2007. A. Beckert at Law, LLC. Personal communication.
Bode, William. 2007. Bode & Greiner, LLP. Personal communication.
Boley, Gary. 2004. Personal communication. InterSpec, LLC. February.
Brereton, David. 2007. Freberg Environmental Insurance. Personal communication.
Brower, Mike, and Mike Chow. 2007. Rhodia Chemical Manufacturing, Freeport, TX. January.
Cargill, Inc. 2006. SPCC Plan. Animal Fats & Vegetable Oils facility. Lafayette, IN. September.
Cavazos, Hector. 2007. Personal communication. Regulatory advisor for Chevron oil production facilities. February.
Cole-Parmer. 2007a. http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=0129700. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Cole-Parmer. 2007b. http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=8800488&pfx=WU. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). 1995 and 2003.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. 1980.
ConAgra Foods, Packaged Foods Company, Inc. 2005. SPCC Plan, Sylvester, GA. December.
Corken, Heather M. 2007. Fulbright & Jaworski. Personal communication.
Cwiklewski, John. 2007. Personal communication. Honda of America Manufacturing Inc. February.
DSI Dielectric. 2007. http://www.dsifluids.com/diel_products_page.htm. Mineral Oil Di-electric Fluid. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Dun and Bradstreet (D&B). 2005. Market Spectrum Data on New Businesses. Available at: http://www.dnb.com/us/
Ebay Motors. 2007. Quote of a typical adhesive used for manufacturing. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/3M-Structural-Adhesive-Kit-2-2oz-Kit-08101_W0QQitemZ120010920259QQcmdZViewItem. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2005. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2004a. Biodiesel Performance, Costs, and Use. 6/04, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/index.html
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2004b. PetroSystem Report. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/petrosysog.html.
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2004c. Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket.
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2005. Steam Coal Prices for Industry. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/stmforind.html.
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2006a. Refiner Petroleum Prices by Sales Type. 11/1/2006, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_refoth_dcu_nus_m.htm
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2006b. Natural Gas Weekly Update. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp. Accessed 11/6/2006.
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2006c. Residual Fuel Oil Prices by Sales Type. Available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_resid_dcu_nus_m.htm. Accessed 11/1/2006.
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2007. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update, 2/5/2007, Available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
England, Mark. 2005. Personal communication. Texas Railroad Commission. May.
Environmental Insurance Brokers. 2007. (Anonymous) personal communication.
ESRI U.S. River and Stream river data. 2004.
Executive Order 11548, Delegating Functions of the President under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, 35 FR 11677; July 22, 1970.
Executive Order 11735, Assignment of functions under section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, 38 FR 21243, August 7, 1973.
Executive Order 12777, Implementation of Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, and Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993.
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks, 62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000.
Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001.
Farm-A-Syst North Carolina. 1997. Improving Storage and Handling of Pesticides. April. Available at http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/assist/pesticides/.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. "Storage Tank Facility Information - All Locations and Tank Information." Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/database_reports/pages/stcm/storagetank/stcm_allti.htm Accessed July 28, 2006.
Floyd Crim & Sons. 2005. SPCC Plan. Asphalt plant, Manilla, IN. November.
Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2000. Form EIA-906 Monthly Utility Power Plant Database. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906u.html
Freshwater Spills Symposium 2000a. An Oil Well Blow-Out in Upland Habitats of Louisiana. Buddy Goatcher. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/oil/fss/fss00/uplndla.pdf
Freshwater Spills Symposium 2000b. Olympic Pipeline Rupture/Fire and Release to Whatcom Creek. Tony Barber. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/oil/fss/fss00/olympic.pdf
Freshwater Spills Symposium. 2002 Archives. The East Walker River Spill: Cleanup in a Severe Winter Environment. Gary Reiter, Response Management Consultants. http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/oil/fss/fss02/reiterpaper.pdf
Freshwater Spills Symposium. 2004. Determination of Oil Persistence: A Historical Perspective. Barbara Davis, U.S. EPA, Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, Environmental Research Consulting, Mark Landry, Abt Associates. Available at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/oil/fss/fss04/watts_04.pdf
Freshwater Spills Symposium. 2006. Voodoo vs. Science: The Practical Application of Bioremediation Techniques as a Removal Response Option at Land-Based Oil Spills. Vincent E. Zenone, OSC, U.S. EPA Region III. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/oil/fss/fss06/allenIII_1.pdf
Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga Facility. 2006. SPCC Plan. Rancho Cucamonga, CA. November.
Frontier Industrial Supply Co. 2007a. Mobil Brand Fuel quote. http://www.fiscodirect.com/index.php?cPath=20_577&page=1&sort=3d&osCsid=173551b1fc2540493caea0efe0163268. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Goren, David. 2007. Lemac Environmental Insurance. Personal communication.
Greene, Ed. 2007. IMA of Colorado, Inc. Personal communication.
Gruhn, Steven. 2007. Personal communication. Hart Crowser. February.
Gurland, Harvey W., Jr. 2007. Duane Morris, LLP. Personal communication.
Hann, Roy W. (undated). "Cost of an Oil Spill." Availble at: http://ceprofs.tamu.edu/rhann/links/costspill.asp
Helton, Douglas and Tony Penn, 1999. "Putting Response and Natural Damage Assessment Cost in Perspective" International Spills Conference.
Hess, Mary. 2007. Personal communication. Anvil Corporation. February.
Hewitt, Tim. 2007. Personal communication. University of Florida. February.
Holden, Scott. 2007. Twin Elms Environmental Insurance. Personal communication.
ICIS. 2006. http://www.icispricing.com/il_home.asp?ISOTimeOffset=%28GMT%20-05%3A00%29&svrISOTimeOffset=00%3A00. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Independent Petroleum Association of America, (IPAA). 2007. IPAA Oil & Natural Gas Producing Industry In Your State. August. http://www.ipaa.org/reports/econreports/IPAAOPI.pdf
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). "Benzene." http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. Accessed May 29, 2008.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). "Benzo[a]pyrene." http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0136.htm. Accessed May 29, 2008.
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. 2007. Marginal Wells: Fuel for Economic Growth. http://iogcc.publishpath.com/Websites/iogcc/pdfs/2007-Marginal-Well-Report.pdf
Jack Faucett Associates, for SBA Office of Advocacy. 2004. "Proposed Reforms to the SPCC Professional Engineer Certification Requirement: Designing a More Cost Effective Approach for Small Facilities." June.
Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDH&E). 2005. Permitted Tanks Database. Available at: http://www.kdheks.gov/tanks/
Kauppila, Dennis. 2007. Personal communication. University of Vermont. February.
Lessiter, Mike. 2007. Farm Equipment. "Purchasing a Sprayer - Demystifying the Payback." Available at: http://www.lesspub.com/cgi-bin/site.pl?332&ceNews_newsID=2750
Lippard, Benjamin S. 2007. Vinson & Elkins. Personal communication.
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2005. AST Oil Operations Database. Available at: http://www.mde.state.md.us/
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2005. UST Oil Operations Database. Available at: http://www.mde.state.md.us/
Massachusetts Highway Department. 2006. Period Prices for Liquid Asphalt, Diesel Fuel and Gasoline. 11/2006 and 12/2006, Available at: www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/construction/priceAdjFile.pdf
McCay, Deborah French. 2007. Personal communication.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MnPCA). 2005. Tanks Database. Available at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/tanks_p.html
Moody, Robin. 2007. AIG Environmental. Personal communication.
Morrill, Brian. 2005. Personal communication. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. March.
Mullens, Kyle. 2004. Personal communication. Kaneb Pipe Line Partners, L.P. October.
Narragansett Improvement Company. 2005. SPCC Plan. Providence, RI. May.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2007. https://srmors.nist.gov/view_detail.cfm?srm=8504. Accessed 2/6/2007.
National Response Center, 1979. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.137. Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Nuclear Generators. Available at: http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=003957234, accessed July 2, 2008.
National Response Center. 2005. Oil discharge and response data.
National Response Center. 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0800. February. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/
Naugle, Louis A. 2007. Reed Smith. Personal communication.
Neuman, Susan. 2007. Environmental Insurance Agency. Personal communication.
New York State DEC, Major Oil Storage Facilities Database
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2005. Petroleum Bulk Storage Database. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/derfoil/index.cfm?pageid=4
Noel, William. 2007. Personal communication. STS Consultants. February.
North Carolina State University. 1997. Improving Storage and Handling of Pesticides, Farm-a-Syst North Carolina. April. Available at: http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/assist/pesticides/
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and Environment. 2007. http://<IP_ADDRESS>/search?q=cache:xzh72Tv3MP8J:https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/AF_P2/Transport/apa-1.html+refrigerant+lubricant,+price&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Oil Pollution Prevention, Non-Transportation Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities, 40 CFR part 112, Final Rule, 38 FR 34164, December 11, 1973.
Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan Requirements -- Amendments, Proposed Rule, 70 FR 73524, December 12, 2005.
Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). 2005. Petroleum Storage Tank Database. Available at: http://www.occ.state.ok.us/Divisions/PST/pstmain.htm
Owens, Wade. 2007. Environmental Insurance Service. Personal communication.
Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. 2007. Pennsylvania Department of Environment data. ftp://www.pasda.psu.edu/pub/pasda/dep/
Peter Cremer North America, LP, South Terminal. 2006. SPCC Plan. Cincinnati, OH. June.
Rahill, Katherine. 2007. Jenner & Block, LLP. Personal communication.
Railroad Commission of Texas. 2008. Personal Communication. April.
Rich, John. 2007. American Safety Insurance. Personal communication.
Roewer, Jim. 2007. Personal communication. Executive Director, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. August.
RTI International. 2004. "Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 11.1. Hot-mix Asphalt Plants. Final Report." February.
Sandia National Laboratories. Produced Water Research. Available at: http://www.sandia.gov/water/FactSheets/WIFS_ProducedWaterNew.pdf
Saunders, Kirk. 2006. Personal communication. White Mountain Oil and Propane, North Conway, NH. December.
SCS Engineers. 2007. Personal communication. January.
Seattle Biodiesel, LLC, Manufacturing Facility. 2006. SPCC Plan. April.
Seekingalpha.com. 2007. Brand of Oil. http://<IP_ADDRESS>/search?q=cache:4yRPnI9TUEMJ:energy.seekingalpha.com/article/24247+tol+oil,+price&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Shopping.com. 2007. http://www.shopping.com/XGS-Hydraulic_Fluid~NS-1~linkin_id-8000718~r-1~CLT-INTR~RFR-www.google.com. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Skurow, Catherine. 2007. Personal communication. CAS Engineering Services. February.
SkyGeek. 2007. Available at: http://<IP_ADDRESS>/search?q=cache:qPEnQ9gSNe0J:www.skygeek.com/tuaienoil.html+turbine+oils,+price&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=39&gl=us. Accessed 2/6/2007.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, Pub Law No. 104-121 (1996).
Snead, Mark C., and Martinez, R. Dale. 2006. "A Demographic and Economic Profile of Oklahoma's Marginal Oil and Gas Well Operators." Oklahoma Commission on Marginally Producing Oil and Gas Wells. Available at: http://www.ok.gov/marginalwells/documents/2.12.07%20A%20Demographic%20and%20Economic%20Profile%20of%20Oklahoma%20Draft%20Revised.pdf
Soy Ink. "US Manufacturers Producing Soy Ink." Available at: http://www.soyink.com
Stateline.org. 2004. "Oil sticker shock a windfall to energy-rich states." http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15667 June 3, 2004.
Steel Tank Institute. 2007. Tank Talk newsletter (Volume 22, Number 1). February.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (PL 14-113), March 7, 1996.
The New York First Store. 2007. http://www.newyorkfirst.com/gifts/9110.html+peanut+butter,+price&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us. Accessed 2/7/2007.
Tomic, Randy. 2007. Personal communication. Growmark Inc. February.
Town of Huntington, NY, Purchasing Division. 2006. Available at: http://town.huntington.ny.us/permit_pics/515.pdf. Accessed 1/25/2006.
Townsend, Karen. 2005. Personal communication. Woodard & Curran. March.
U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service. 2005. "Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms, 2005 Family Farm Report" Economic Information Bulletin Number 12.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1992. 1992 Economic Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/92result.html
U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. 1997 Economic Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/econ97.html#1997
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2002 Economic Census: Summary Statistics by 2002 NAICS: United States. Available at: http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/
U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. "SPCC NAICS Categories." The North American Industry Classification System, 1992-2002.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), National Response Center (NRC). 2006. Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS). Available at: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html
U.S. Code: Title 26, 168. Accelerated Cost Recovery System.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1982. "County Table 6 National Agricultural Statistics Service, County Table 6, 1982 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Volume 1."
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002, 1997 and 1982 Census of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/Create_Federal_All.jsp
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service. 2004. Direct Farm Fuel Expenses, Results from a Large Farm Survey. Robert Dubman, Survey and Data Coordinator. Presented at Farm Foundation Conference, "Agriculture as a Producer and Consumer of Energy," June 24.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. "Gasoline, fuels, and oil." Farm Production Expenses: 2002 and 1997.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2006. 1996-2005. "Number of Farms."
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. "Fuel/Oil Storage and Delivery for Farmers and Cooperatives." Survey. March.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1982. "1982 Census of Agriculture."
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. "1997 Census of Agriculture." Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/1997/index.asp
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. "Gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and LP gas, oil, kerosene, motor oil, grease, etc. Table 49: Summary by Size of Farm." Petroleum Products Expenses, 1997, 1992, and 1987.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. "2002 Census of Agriculture." Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 2005. "Base Closures and Realignment Report." Volume I Part 1 of 2: Results and Process. May.
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 2005. "Total Number of Military Installations." Where We Serve: Information About Defense Department Installations.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2005. "A Forecast of Marginal Natural Gas and Oil Well Data." June. Available at: http://www.neti.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/AP/MarginalWellData_tropical.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Economic, Electricity, and Natural Gas Analysis, Office of Policy. 2000. "The Role of Interruptible Natural Gas Customers in New England Heating Oil Markets: A Preliminary Examination of Events in January-February 2000." November 2000, Document Number DOE/PO-0063.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy. 2006. Assessment of the Potential Costs and Energy Impacts of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Diesel Generator Tanks.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Office of Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 1991. Report to Congress on Candidate Sites for Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to One Billion Barrels. March 1991, Document Number DOE/FE-0221P.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030. February. Available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/0383(2007).pdf
U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. Marginal & Stripper Well Revitalization. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/marginalwells/index.html
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030. June. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2008).pdf.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. "Table 11. Private industry, by occupational group and full-time and part-time status." Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t11.htm
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.html
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2006. SIC codes. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.html
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. 2007. Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System. Available at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p946.pdf.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 2006. "Data Statistics." Available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
U.S. Economic Census. 2002, 1997, and 1992 Economic Census, United States
U.S. Energy Information Administration (DOE). 1995. "1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)." Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/detailed_tables_1995.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2000. Form EIA-906 Monthly Utility Power Plant Database. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906u.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2002. "Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update." Official Energy Statistics from the US Government.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2003. "2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)." Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration (DOE). 2006. Distribution and Production of Oil and Gas Wells by State. Data available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/petrosysog.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Emergency Response Division. 1991. "Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Facilities Study." January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. "Regulatory Impact Analysis of Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CFR 112) to Implement the Facility Response Planning Requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990." June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Emergency Management. 1995. "Analysis of the Relationship Between Facility Characteristics and Oil Spill Risk." Available at: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/oil/spcc/pap_risk.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996a. "Analysis Of The Applicability Of EPA's SPCC Program to the Electric Utility Industry." Results of 1995 Survey of Oil Storage Facilities. July. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/spccref.htm#facilitysurvey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996b. "Analysis of the Number of Facilities Regulated by EPA's SPCC Program." July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. "Denial Of Petition Requesting Amendment Of The Facility Response Plan Rule." 62 FR 54510, October 20, 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. "Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses." September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002b. "Economic Analysis for the Final Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CFR Part 112)." May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Notice Concerning Certain Issues Pertaining to the July 2002 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule. 69 CFR 29728. March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors Version 1.0, November 28. Available at http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/spcc/spcc_guidance.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. Personal communication with Richard Franklin, Federal On-Scene Coordinator for EPA Region 6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations (40 CFR Part 112)." November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007a. Personal communication with Richard Franklin, Federal On-Scene Coordinator for EPA Region 6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. "Considerations for the Regulation of Onshore Oil Exploration and Production Facilities under the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Regulation (40 CFR Part 112)."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. Personal communication with Patricia Fleming, Office of Emergency Management/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008b. "Safe Drinking Water Act." http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/sdwa/. Accessed May 29, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008c. "Revision of Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation for Certain Facilities to Prepare and Maintain an Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008d. SPCC/FRP Technical Workgroup's Production Sector sub-workgroup. Martha Wolfe (EPA Region 8), Vincent Zenone (Region 3), and Don Smith (Region 6). April 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis System.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 1971. Memorandum of Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation, dated November 24, 1971, 36 FR 24080, December 18, 1971. (Note: portions of this MOU appear as Appendix A to 40 CFR part 112)
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2005. Available at: http://www.ferc.gov/
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007a. Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: Observations on EPA's Economic Analyses of Amendments to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Rule. July.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007b. Major Spills Occur Infrequently, but Risks to the Federal Oil Spill Fund Remain, GAO Report #GAO-07-1085, page 27. September.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2007a. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/
U.S. Geological Survey. 2007b. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/stream.xml
U.S. Internal Revenue Code. 1986. Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Part 1, Section 613A.
U.S. National Atlas Water Feature Lines. 1999. Available at: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008. Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Name. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0800. February. Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4. September 17, 2003. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf
U.S. Small Business Administration, "Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes," March 11, 2008. Available at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf
Ultronix, Inc. 2007. Quote for solvent used for oils and machines: bromoethane. Available at: http://www.ultronix.com/spareparts.html. Accessed 2/14/2007.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service data, available at http://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/Create_Federal_All.jsp.
Virginia Cooperative Extension. 2001. Farm Business Management Update. "Economic Analysis of Pesticide Application Equipment." Available at: http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/fmu/2001-10/economicanalysis.html.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2005. Registered Tanks Database. June 7, 2006. Available at: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tanks/dwnllib.html#petdbf
Vulcan Asphalt. 2005. SPCC Plan. Cordova, AL. January.
Williams, Ezekiel J. 2007. Faegre & Benson. Personal communication.
Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Storage Tank Database
Wisconsin Department of Commerce. 2004. Storage Tank Database. November, 10 2004. Available at: http://apps.commerce.state.wi.us/Er_Tanks/ER-EN-TankIDSearch.htm
Zink, Don. 2007. Personal communication. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. February.