8 General Notices/Errata

GENERAL NOTICES/ERRATA

Vol. 28 Iss. 14 - March 12, 2012

GENERAL NOTICES/ERRATA

STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision

Notice of action: The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a proposed revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is a plan developed by the Commonwealth in order to fulfill its responsibilities under the federal Clean Air Act to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Act. If adopted, the Commonwealth intends to submit the regulation or a portion thereof to the EPA as a revision to the SIP in accordance with the requirements of § 110(a) of the federal Clean Air Act.

Regulations affected: The regulation of the board affected by this action is as follows: Regulation for the Control of Motor Vehicles in Northern Virginia, 9VAC5-91 (Revision VV2).

Purpose of notice: DEQ is seeking comment on the issue of whether the regulation amendments that became effective in 1998 should be submitted as a revision to the SIP.

Public comment period: March 12, 2012, to April 11, 2012.

Public hearing: A public hearing may be conducted if a request is made in writing to the contact listed below. In order to be considered, the request must include the full name, address, and telephone number of the person requesting the hearing and be received by DEQ by the last day of the comment period. Notice of the date, time, and location of any requested public hearing will be announced in a separate notice and another 30-day comment period will be conducted.

Public comment stage: The regulation amendments were adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on September 11, 1997, with an effective date of January 1, 1998. Since the amendments have already been adopted, DEQ is accepting comment only on the issue cited above under "purpose of notice" and not on the content of the regulation amendments.

Description of proposal: In essence, the proposed revision consists of amendments to existing regulation provisions concerning the Regulation for the Control of Motor Vehicles in Northern Virginia. The major provisions of the proposal consist of the repeal of the following provisions: 9VAC5-91-40, Establishment of regulations; 9VAC5-91-60, Hearings and proceedings; 9VAC5-91-80, Variances; and 9VAC5-91-110, Procedural information and guidance. These provisions were moved from 9VAC5-91 into a new chapter 9VAC5-170, Regulation for General Administration.

Federal information: This notice is being given to satisfy the public participation requirements of federal regulations (40 CFR 51.102) and not any provision of state law. Except as noted below, the proposal will be submitted as a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP under § 110(a) of the federal Clean Air Act in accordance with 40 CFR 51.104. DEQ plans to submit all provisions of the proposal as a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP.

How to comment: DEQ accepts written comments by email, fax, and postal mail. In order to be considered, comments must include the full name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting and be received by DEQ by the last day of the comment period. All documents received are part of the public record.

To review regulation documents: The proposal and any supporting documents are available on the DEQ Air Public Notices for Plans website: http://www.deq.state.va.us/air/permitting/planotes.html. The documents may also be obtained by contacting the DEQ representative named below. The public may review the documents between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. of each business day until the close of the public comment period at the following locations:

1) Main Street Office, 8th Floor, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, VA, telephone [phone], and

2) Northern Regional Office, 13901 Crown Court, Woodbridge, VA, telephone [phone].

Contact Information: Karen G. Sabasteanski, 629 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX (804) 698-4510, or email [e-mail].

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Total Maximum Daily Load for Schenks Branch, Meadow Creek, Lodge Creek, and Moores Creek Watersheds

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) seek written and oral comments from interested persons on the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Implementation Plans (IPs) for the Schenks Branch, Meadow Creek, Lodge Creek, and Moores Creek watersheds in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. These streams were listed on the 2006 and 2008 303(d) TMDL Priority List and Report as impaired due to violations of the state's general water quality standard (benthic) for aquatic life. The benthic impairment on Schenks Branch extends 1.138 miles from the headwaters of its tributaries to the Meadow Creek confluence. Meadow Creek is benthically impaired from where it becomes a perennial stream to its confluence with the Rivanna River (4 miles). The benthic impairment on Moores Creek extends 6.377 miles from its confluence with the Ragged Mountain Dam receiving stream downstream to its confluence with the Rivanna River. The Moores Creek watershed includes the tributary locally known as Lodge Creek, which is benthically impaired for 1.57 miles from its headwaters to the confluence with Moores Creek.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and § 62.1-44.19:7 C of the Code of Virginia require DEQ to develop TMDLs for pollutants responsible for each impaired water contained in Virginia's § 303(d) TMDL Priority List and Report. Section 62.1-44.19:7 C of the Code of Virginia requires the development of an Implementation Plan (IP) for approved TMDLs. The IP should provide measurable goals and the date of expected achievement of water quality objectives. The IP should also include the corrective actions needed and their associated costs, benefits, and environmental impacts.

The first public meeting on the development of these TMDLs and IPs will be held on Thursday, March 15, 2012, 6 p.m. at CitySpace on Charlottesville's Downtown Mall, 100 5th Street NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902-5230.

The public comment period for the first public meeting will end on April 16, 2012. Written comments should include the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the comments and should be sent to Tara Sieber, Department of Environmental Quality, 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Total Maximum Daily Loads and Implementation Plans for Long Meadow Run and Turley Creek

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) seek written and oral comments from interested persons on the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Implementation Plans (IPs) for Long Meadow Run and Turley Creek in Rockingham County. These streams were listed in 2002 as impaired due to violations of the state's general water quality standard (benthic) for aquatic life. The aquatic life impairment on Long Meadow Run extends from its headwaters to the confluence with the North Fork Shenandoah River, which is a total of 8.53 miles. The Turley Creek aquatic life impairment extends a total of 4.01 miles from its headwaters to the confluence with the North Fork Shenandoah River.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and § 62.1-44.19:7 C of the Code of Virginia require DEQ to develop TMDLs for pollutants responsible for each impaired water contained in Virginia's § 303(d) TMDL Priority List and Report. Section 62.1-44.19:7 C of the Code of Virginia requires the development of an Implementation Plan (IP) for approved TMDLs. The IP should provide measurable goals and the date of expected achievement of water quality objectives. The IP should also include the corrective actions needed and their associated costs, benefits, and environmental impacts.

The second public meeting on the development of these TMDLs and IPs will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 7 p.m. at J. Frank Hillyard Middle School, 226 Hawks Hill Drive, Broadway, VA 22815. The TMDL document will be available on the DEQ website the day of the meeting for public comment and review: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/TMDLDataSearch/DraftReports.jspx.

The public comment period for the second public meeting will end on April 23, 2012. Written comments should include the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the comments and should be sent to Tara Sieber, Department of Environmental Quality, 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Notice of Bacteria TMDL Modification of James River and Tributaries - Lower Piedmont Region in Goochland, Fluvanna, Louisa, Powhatan, and Cumberland Counties, Virginia

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) seeks public comment from interested persons on 4 proposed minor modifications of the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) developed for impaired segment: Beaverdam Creek.

A total maximum daily load (TMDL) of E. coli was developed to address the bacterial impairments in the James River and Tributaries - Lower Piedmont Region in Goochland, Fluvanna, Louisa, Powhatan, and Cumberland Counties. This TMDL was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency on June 11, 2008. The report is available at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/ tmdl/apptmdls/jamesrvr/jmsgrp2.pdf. DEQ issued a notice of modification for minor modifications from November 7, 2011, to December 7, 2011. No comments were received. In addition to the three modifications included previously for the Beaverdam Creek TMDL, DEQ is proposing one additional modification and seeks written comments from interested persons.

In November 2011, three modifications were proposed for the Beaverdam Creek TMDL. First, DEQ proposed to remove facility Huguenot Academy (VA0063037), which should not have been given a waste load allocation (WLA) in the Beaverdam Creek TMDL because it discharges to the Fine Creek drainage. DEQ suggested the WLA of 6.96E+09 (cfu/yr) E. coli, based on a maximum discharge of 0.004 million gallons per day (MGD), be added to the "Future Growth" load for the Beaverdam Creek TMDL. Second, DEQ proposed to remove facility James River Correctional Center (VA0020681), which no longer discharges to Beaverdam Creek. DEQ suggested the WLA of 3.76E+11 (cfu/yr) E. coli, based on a maximum discharge of 0.216 MGD, be added to the "Future Growth" load for Beaverdam Creek. Third, DEQ proposed to add a new WLA, Oilville Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) (VA0092428), which is a municipal facility with a maximum discharge of 0.3 MGD, and suggested allocation by subtracting from the "Future Growth" load of Beaverdam Creek. The WLA to be assigned to this facility based on design flow at the standard is equal to 5.23E+11 (cfu/yr) E. coli.

The new proposed modification is related to the original Future Growth calculation, which was five times the WLA of dischargers (James River Correctional Center (VA0020681), VDOT Interstate 64 Goochland Rest Area (VA0023108), Huguenot Academy (VA0063037), and James River Correctional Center (VA0006149)), and equal to 2.61E+12 (cfu/yr) E. coli. This Future Growth value is 32% of the TMDL, which is relatively excessive when compared to the majority of Virginia TMDLs, whose Future Growth values are usually <10% of the TMDL. Out of the four original facilities given WLAs, only the VDOT facility remains and a new facility will begin discharging (Oilville WWTP #VA0092428). DEQ proposes to revise the Future Growth to a new value of two times the WLA of the new Oilville WWTP, equal to 1.05E+12 (cfu/yr) E. coli. The revised Future Growth would be equal to 12.8% of the TMDL, which DEQ believes is a more reasonable number of future growth reserve as a portion of the overall TMDL. The difference in old and new Future Growth will be moved to the Load Allocation (LA) (nonpoint source category). The total revised WLA will be equal to 5.57E+11 and the total revised LA will be equal to 6.54E+12, (cfu/yr) E. coli, respectively. The proposed changes for the Beaverdam Creek TMDL are equal to <1.0%.

The proposed WLA changes above will neither cause nor contribute to the nonattainment of the James River basin.

The public comment period for these modifications will end on April 16, 2012. Please send comments to Margaret Smigo, Department of Environmental Quality, Piedmont Regional Office, 4969-A Cox Road, Glen Allen, VA 23060, by email at [e-mail], or FAX at [phone]. Following the comment period, a modification letter and any comments received will be sent to EPA for final approval.

Bacteria TMDL Modification of James River and Tributaries - Hopewell to Westover in Chesterfield, Charles City, Prince George, and Hopewell, Virginia

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would like to inform the public of a retraction of previously proposed minor modifications of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) developed for the James River (tidal) segment.

A total maximum daily load of E. coli was developed to address the bacterial impairments in the James River and Tributaries - Hopewell to Westover in Chesterfield, Charles City, Prince George, and Hopewell, Virginia. This TMDL was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency on July 10, 2008. A modification to remove an unnecessary WLA and add to future growth in James River segment was approved on July 7, 2009. The report and previous modification are available by searching the approved TMDL reports page at https://www.deq.virginia.gov/TMDLDataSearch/DraftReports.jspx. A public comment period was held for proposed modifications from October 10, 2011, to November 10, 2011. One comment was received in support of DEQ's proposed actions. DEQ would like to provide notification regarding the redacted changes and seeks comments from interested persons.

DEQ previously proposed eight modifications for the James River (tidal) TMDL. DEQ proposes to now retract the proposed modification to assign a waste load allocation (WLA) for existing facility Rock Tenn (formerly known as Smurfit Stone Container Corporation, permit #VA0004642), an industrial facility with a maximum discharge of 0.288 MGD (at outfall 002). A limit for E. coli in the permit was considered because a sample submitted by the facility as part of their permit reissuance indicated the presence of bacteria.  The sample, taken from an outfall receiving car-rinse water, is believed to be caused by wildlife. Bacteria runoff from wildlife sources at the site is already modeled in the Load Allocation (LA) (nonpoint source category). For this reason, DEQ believes the proposed WLA for the facility based on the design flow at the standard of 5.01E+11 colony forming units per year (cfu/yr) E. coli is unnecessary. Therefore, the loading will not be allocated to the facility or removed from Future Growth.

Current DEQ guidance on TMDL modifications instructs regions to track the addition or subtraction of Single Family Home General Permits (SFHGPs), rather than modifying the TMDL for each change, providing the additions or subtractions are in compliance with the TMDL and future growth loading. Therefore, the remaining proposed modifications included in the previous notice will not be pursued with EPA at this time. These modifications included the addition of five new WLAs for domestic dischargers VAG404083 (UT Walls Run), VAG404132 (Parish Hill Creek), VAG404199 (James River), VAG404270 (UT James River), and VAG404271 (UT James River), which are single family home facilities, each with a design flow each of 0.001 million gallons per day (MGD). The WLA that was to be assigned to each facility based on design flow at the standard is equal to 1.75E+09 (cfu/yr) E. coli. For modifications 7 and 8, DEQ proposed to remove the WLA assigned to two single family home permits, VAG404131 and VAG404215, which are no longer in operation. Their respective WLAs of 1.75E+09 (cfu/yr) E.coli (each) were to be added to "Future Growth" load. The combined revised "Future Growth" load in the James River (tidal) TMDL as a result of these modifications was to be equal to 7.66E+14 (cfu/yr) E. coli. 

DEQ also proposed two modifications to Powell Creek in the previous public notice. The first was to add a domestic discharger (VAG404083), which is a SFHGP with a design flow of 0.001 million gallons per day (MGD), and assign a waste load allocation (WLA) of 1.75E+09 colony forming units per year (cfu/yr) for E. coli in the Powell Creek TMDL. The second modification is to remove domestic discharger VAG404131, which is a single family home facility with a WLA of 1.75E+09 (cfu/yr) E.coli that is no longer in operation.  The addition of one discharger and subtraction of another would equal a net change of 0% of the Powell Creek TMDL. Again, DEQ proposes to track these SFHGP changes rather than formally modify the TMDL at this time.

In summary, no formal modification will be pursued for the James River and Tributaries - Hopewell to Westover TMDL at this time. The addition and subtraction of SFHGPs will be tracked internally at DEQ to ensure compliance with the TMDL.

The public comment period for the retraction will end on April 16, 2012. Please send comments to Margaret Smigo, Department of Environmental Quality, Piedmont Regional Office, 4969-A Cox Road, Glen Allen, VA 23060, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC SCIENCE

Approval of Field Tests for Detection of Drugs

In accordance with 6VAC40-30, Regulations for the Approval of Field Tests for Detection of Drugs, and under the authority of the Code of Virginia, the following field tests for detection of drugs are approved field tests:

O D V INCORPORATED 13386 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32218-2383
ODV NarcoPouch
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Heroin	902 – Marquis Reagent
Amphetamine	902 – Marquis Reagent
Methamphetamine	902 – Marquis Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	902 – Marquis Reagent
Cocaine Hydrochloride	904 or 904B – Cocaine HCl and Base Reagent
Cocaine Base	904 or 904B – Cocaine HCl and Base Reagent
Barbiturates	905 – Dille-Koppanyi Reagent
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)	907 – Ehrlich's (Modified) Reagent
Marijuana	908 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Hashish Oil	908 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Marijuana	909 – K N Reagent
Hashish Oil	909 – K N Reagent
Phencyclidine (PCP) Reagent	914 – PCP Methaqualone
Heroin	922 – Opiates Reagent
Methamphetamine	923 – Methamphetamine/Ecstasy Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	923 – Methamphetamine/Ecstasy Reagent
Heroin	924 – Mecke's (Modified) Reagent
Diazepam	925 – Valium/Ketamine Reagent
Ketamine	925 – Valium/Ketamine Reagent
Ephedrine	927 – Ephedrine Reagent
gamma – Hydroxybutyrate (GHB)	928 – GHB Reagent
ODV NarcoTest
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Heroin	7602 – Marquis Reagent
Amphetamine	7602 – Marquis Reagent
Methamphetamine	7602 – Marquis Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	7602 – Marquis Reagent
Barbiturates	7605 – Dille-Koppanyi Reagent
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)	7607 – Ehrlich's (Modified) Reagent
Marijuana	7608 – Duquenois Reagent
Hashish Oil	7608 – Duquenois Reagent
Marijuana	7609 – K N Reagent
Hashish Oil	7609 – K N Reagent
Cocaine Hydrochloride	7613 – Scott (Modified) Reagent
Cocaine Base	7613 – Scott (Modified) Reagent
Phencyclidine (PCP)	7614 – PCP Methaqualone Reagent
Heroin	7622 – Opiates Reagent
Methamphetamine	7623– Methamphetamine/Ecstasy Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	7623– Methamphetamine/Ecstasy Reagent
Heroin	7624 – Mecke's Reagent
Diazepam	7625 – Valium/Ketamine Reagent
Ketamine	7625 – Valium/Ketamine Reagent
Ephedrine	7627 – Chen's Reagent - Ephedrine
gamma – Hydroxybutyrate (GHB)	7628 – GHB Reagent
SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LABORATORIES 100 HUNTER PLACE YOUNGSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27596
NARK
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Narcotic Alkaloids	1 – Mayer's Reagent
Heroin	1 – Mayer's Reagent
Morphine	1 – Mayer's Reagent
Amphetamine	1 – Mayer's Reagent
Methamphetamine	1 – Mayer's Reagent
Opium Alkaloids	2 – Marquis Reagent
Heroin	2 – Marquis Reagent
Morphine	2 – Marquis Reagent
Amphetamine	2 – Marquis Reagent
Methamphetamine	2 – Marquis Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	2 – Marquis Reagent
Meperidine (Demerol) (Pethidine)	2 – Marquis Reagent
Heroin	3 – Nitric Acid
Morphine	3 – Nitric Acid
Cocaine Hydrochloride	4 – Cobalt Thiocyanate Reagent
Cocaine Base	4 – Cobalt Thiocyanate Reagent
Procaine	4 – Cobalt Thiocyanate Reagent
Tetracaine	4 – Cobalt Thiocyanate Reagent
Barbiturates	5 – Dille-Koppanyi Reagent
Heroin	6 – Mandelin Reagent
Morphine	6 – Mandelin Reagent
Amphetamine	6 – Mandelin Reagent
Methamphetamine	6 – Mandelin Reagent
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)	7 – Ehrlich's Reagent
Marijuana	8 – Duquenois Reagent
Hashish	8 – Duquenois Reagent
Hashish Oil	8 – Duquenois Reagent
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)	8 – Duquenois Reagent
Marijuana	9 – NDB (Fast Blue B Salt) Reagent
Hashish	9 – NDB (Fast Blue B Salt) Reagent
Hashish Oil	9 – NDB (Fast Blue B Salt) Reagent
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)	9 – NDB (Fast Blue B Salt) Reagent
Cocaine Base	13 – Cobalt Thiocyanate/Crack Test
NARK II
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Narcotic Alkaloids	01 – Marquis Reagent
Heroin	01 – Marquis Reagent
Morphine	01 – Marquis Reagent
Amphetamine	01 – Marquis Reagent
Methamphetamine	01 – Marquis Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	01 – Marquis Reagent
Morphine	02 – Nitric Acid
Heroin	02 – Nitric Acid
Barbiturates	03 – Dille-Koppanyi Reagent
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)	04 – Ehrlich's Reagent
Marijuana	05 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Hashish	05 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Hashish Oil	05 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)	05 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Cocaine Hydrochloride	07 – Scott's (Modified) Reagent
Cocaine Base	07 – Scott's (Modified) Reagent
Phencyclidine (PCP)	09 – Phencyclidine Reagent
Opiates	10 – Opiates Reagent
Heroin	10 – Opiates Reagent
Morphine	10 – Opiates Reagent
Heroin	11 – Mecke's Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	11 – Mecke's Reagent
Pentazocine	12 – Talwin/ Pentazocine Reagent
Ephedrine	13 – Ephedrine Reagent
Diazepam	14 – Valium Reagent
Methamphetamine	15 – Methamphetamine (Secondary Amines Reagent)
Narcotic Alkaloids	19 – Mayer's Reagent
Heroin	19 – Mayer's Reagent
Morphine	19 – Mayer's Reagent
Amphetamine	19 – Mayer's Reagent
Methamphetamine	19 – Mayer's Reagent
3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV)	24 – MDPV (Bath Salts) Reagent
4-Methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone)	25 – Mephedrone (Bath Salts) Reagent
ARMOR HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED 13386 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32218-2383
NIK
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Heroin	Test A 6071 – Marquis Reagent
Amphetamine	Test A 6071 – Marquis Reagent
Methamphetamine	Test A 6071 – Marquis Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	Test A 6071 – Marquis Reagent
Morphine	Test B 6072 – Nitric Acid Reagent
Barbiturates	Test C 6073 – Dille-Koppanyi Reagent
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)	Test D 6074 – LSD Reagent System
Marijuana	Test E 6075 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Hashish Oil	Test E 6075 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Tetrahydrocannabinol	Test E 6075 – Duquenois – Levine Reagent
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Test G 6077 – Scott (Modified) Reagent
Cocaine Base	Test G 6077 – Scott (Modified) Reagent
Cocaine Hydrochloride	6500 or 6501 – Cocaine ID Swab
Cocaine Base	6500 or 6501 – Cocaine ID Swab
Phencyclidine (PCP)	Test J 6079 – PCP Reagent System
Heroin	Test K 6080 – Opiates Reagent
Heroin	Test L 6081 – Brown Heroin Reagent System
gamma – Hydroxybutyrate (GHB)	Test O 6090 – GHB Reagent
Ephedrine	Test Q 6085 – Ephedrine Reagent
Pseudoephedrine	Test Q 6085 – Ephedrine Reagent
Diazepam	Test R 6085 – Valium Reagent
Methamphetamine	Test U 6087 – Methamphetamine Reagent
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	Test U 6087 – Methamphetamine Reagent
Methadone	Test W 6088 – Mandelin Reagent System
MISTRAL SECURITY INCORPORATED 7910 WOODMONT AVENUE SUITE 820 BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20814
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Heroin	Detect 4 Drugs Aerosol
Amphetamine	Detect 4 Drugs Aerosol
Methamphetamine	Detect 4 Drugs Aerosol
Marijuana	Detect 4 Drugs Aerosol
Hashish Oil	Detect 4 Drugs Aerosol
Methamphetamine	Meth 1 and 2 Aerosol
Heroin	Herosol Aerosol
Marijuana	Cannabispray 1 and 2 Aerosol
Hashish Oil	Cannabispray 1 and 2 Aerosol
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Coca-Test Aerosol
Cocaine Base	Coca-Test Aerosol
Marijuana	Pen Test – D4D
Phencyclidine	Pen Test – D4D
Amphetamine	Pen Test – D4D
Ketamine	Pen Test – D4D
Methamphetamine	Pen Test – D4D
Ephedrine	Pen Test – D4D
Heroin	Pen Test – D4D
Methadone	Pen Test – D4D
Buprenorphine	Pen Test – D4D
Opium	Pen Test – D4D
Phenobarbital	Pen Test – Barbitusol
Marijuana	Pen Test – Cannabis Test
Phencyclidine	Pen Test – Coca Test
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Pen Test – Coca Test
Cocaine base	Pen Test – Coca Test
Buprenorphine	Pen Test – C&H Test
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Pen Test – C&H Test
Cocaine base	Pen Test – C&H Test
Ephedrine	Pen Test – C&H Test
Ketamine	Pen Test – C&H Test
Heroin	Pen Test – C&H Test
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)	Pen Test – C&H Test
Methadone	Pen Test – C&H Test
Methamphetamine	Pen Test – C&H Test
Heroin	Pen Test – Herosol
Methadone	Pen Test – Herosol
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide	Pen Test – LSD Test
Methamphetamine	Pen Test – Meth/X Test
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	Pen Test – Meth/X Test
Morphine	Pen Test – Opiatest
Opium	Pen Test – Opiatest
Diazepam	Pen Test – BZO
Ephedrine	Pen Test – Ephedrine
Pseudoephedrine	Pen Test – Ephedrine
JANT PHARMACAL CORPORATION 16255 VENTURA BLVD., #505 ENCINO, CA  91436
Formerly available through: MILLENNIUM SECURITY GROUP
Accutest IDenta
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Marijuana	Marijuana/Hashish (Duquenois-Levine Reagent)
Hashish Oil	Marijuana/Hashish (Duquenois-Levine Reagent)
Heroin	Heroin Step 1 and Step 2
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Cocaine/Crack Step 1 and Step 2
Cocaine Base	Cocaine/Crack Step 1 and Step 2
3,4–Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	MDMA Step 1 and Step 2
Methamphetamine	Methamphetamine Step 1 and Step 2
COZART PLC 92 MILTON PARK ABINGDON, OXFORDSHIRE ENGLAND OX14 4RY
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Cocaine	Cocaine Solid Field Test
Lynn Peavey Company 10749 West 84th Terrace Lexexa, KS 66214
QuickCheck
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Marijuana	Marijuana – 10120
Marijuana	Marijuana – 10121
Hashish Oil	Marijuana – 10120
Hashish Oil	Marijuana – 10121
Heroin	Marquis – 10123
Heroin	Heroin - 10125
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Cocaine – 10124
Cocaine Base	Cocaine – 10124
Methamphetamine	Meth/Ecstasy – 10122
Methamphetamine	Marquis – 10123
MDMA	Meth/Ecstasy – 10122
MDMA	Marquis – 10123
M.M.C. INTERNATIONAL B.V. FRANKENTHALERSTRAAT 16-18 4816 KA BREDA THE NETHERLANDS
Drug or Drug Type:	Manufacturer's Field Test:
Heroin	Opiates/Amphetamine Test (Ampoule)
Morphine	Opiates/Amphetamine Test (Ampoule)
Amphetamine	Opiates/Amphetamine Test (Ampoule)
Methamphetamine	Opiates/Amphetamine Test (Ampoule)
Codeine	Opiates/Amphetamine Test (Ampoule)
Marijuana	Cannabis Test (Ampoule)
Hashish Oil	Cannabis Test (Ampoule)
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Cocaine/Crack Test (Ampoule)
Cocaine base	Cocaine/Crack Test (Ampoule)
Heroin	Heroin Test (Ampoule)
Ketamine	Ketamine Test (Ampoule)
Methadone	Methadone Test (Ampoule)
Methamphetamine	Crystal Meth/XTC Test (Ampoule)
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	Crystal Meth/XTC Test (Ampoule)
Morphine	M&H Test (Ampoule)
Heroin	M&H Test (Ampoule)
Ephedrine	Ephedrine HCL Test (Ampoule)
Pseudoephedrine	Ephedrine HCL Test (Ampoule)
Pentazocine	Pentazocine Test (Ampoule)
Buprenorphine	Buprenorphine HCL Test (Ampoule)
Gamma butyrolactone (GBL)	GBL Test (Ampoule)
Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB)	GHB Test (Ampoule)
Oxycodone	Oxycodone Test (Ampoule)
Oxymetholone	Steroids Test B (Ampoule)
Testosterone	Steroids Test B (Ampoule)
Methandrostenolone	Steroids Test B (Ampoule)
Phenylacetone	PMK/BMK(BMK) Test (Ampoule)
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)	LSD Test (Ampoule)
Phencyclidine (PCP)	PCP Test (Ampoule)
Methaqualone	Methaqualone Test (Ampoule)
Amobarbital	Barbiturates Test (Ampoule)
Pentobarbital	Barbiturates Test (Ampoule)
Phenobarbital	Barbiturates Test (Ampoule)
Secobarbital	Barbiturates Test (Ampoule)
Propoxyphene	Propoxyphene Test (Ampoule)
Diazepam	V&R Test (Ampoule)
3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV)	Synthetic Cathinones Test (Ampoule)
3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (methylone)	Synthetic Cathinones Test (Ampoule)
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Cocaine/Crack Test (Spray)
Cocaine base	Cocaine/Crack Test (Spray)
Cocaine Hydrochloride	Cocaine Trace Wipes
Cocaine base	Cocaine Trace Wipes
Morphine	Opiate Cassette
Heroin	Opiate Cassette
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)	MDMA/Ecstasy Cassette
Methamphetamine	Methamphetamine Cassette
Amphetamine	Amphetamine Cassette

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES

Construction Management Procedures as Adopted by the Secretary of Administration

In accordance with the provision of § 2.2-4306 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary of Administration hereby adopts the following procedures for the procurement of construction management (CM) contracts, as defined in § 2.2-4301 of the Code of Virginia, which shall be followed by all departments, agencies, and institutions of the Commonwealth (each of which is hereinafter referred to as the "agency"). These procedures shall be effective March 1, 2012.

A. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY: Under the authority of § 2.2-4306 of the Code of Virginia, the Commonwealth may enter into a contract with a construction manager (CM) in accordance with these procedures and § 2.2-1502 of the Code of Virginia. Under the authority of § 2.2-4303 D 1 of the Code of Virginia, an agency is authorized to use competitive negotiations to procure CM contracts when it determines in advance, and sets forth in writing, that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not fiscally advantageous to the public, which writing shall document the basis for this determination.

B. CRITERIA FOR USE OF CM: CM contracts may be approved for use on projects where 1) fast tracking of construction is needed to meet agency program requirements, or 2) value engineering and/or constructability analyses concurrent with design are required.

The use of CM shall be limited to projects with a construction value that is in excess of $10,000,000. With proper justification for small complex projects, the Director of the Division of Engineering and Buildings (director) may grant a waiver of this requirement.

C. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL TO USE CM: Prior to taking any further action, the agency shall request authority in writing and receive approval from the director to use a CM contract.

The request shall justify and substantiate that a CM contract meets the criteria found in paragraph B. The request must also include the stipulation that the CM contract will be initiated no later than the schematic phase of design. The request shall also include a written justification that competitive sealed bidding is not practical and/or fiscally advantageous.

Approval of exceptions to this policy may be granted by the director, who is the approving authority for requests to use CM procedures.

D. CM SELECTION PROCEDURES:

1. The agency shall appoint an Evaluation Committee (committee) which shall consist of at least three members from the agency, including a registered design professional, if possible. The committee shall include a licensed professional engineer or architect provided by the Division of Engineering and Buildings. The agency shall contact the section in the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) representing the Division of Engineering and Buildings (currently the Real Estate and Land Use Section) to determine whether a representative from the OAG should be involved.

2. The basis of the award of the contract shall be in accordance with § 2.2-4301 (3) (b) of the Code of Virginia and the criteria for the award shall be submitted to the director, in advance, for approval. Cost shall be a critical component of the selection criteria.

3. Selection of qualified offerors (Step I): On projects approved for CM, the agency shall conduct a prequalification process as follows to determine which offerors are qualified to submit proposals.

a) The agency shall post a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in accordance with the current standards for the posting of public bids in the Code of Virginia and in accordance with the latest edition of the Construction and Professional Services Manual.

b) The committee shall evaluate each responding firm's submittals and any other relevant information and shall determine those deemed qualified with respect to the criteria established for the project.

c) An offeror may be denied prequalification only as specified under § 2.2-4317 of the Code of Virginia.

d) At least 30 days prior to the date established for the submission of proposals, the agency shall advise in writing each offeror that sought prequalification whether that offeror has been prequalified. In the event that an offeror is denied prequalification, the written notification to such offeror shall state the reasons for such denial of prequalification and the factual basis of such reasons.

e) In addition to the procedures described above for prequalifying firms for individual CM projects, the director may approve requests to prequalify construction managers for particular types of construction projects in accordance with § 2.2-4317 of the Code of Virginia. Firms qualified under that approval may compete for projects of the same type for which they qualified unless the director determines that further prequalification for a particular project is desirable.

4. Selection of a construction manager (Step II):

a) The committee will send a Request for Proposal (RFP) to each of the prequalified firms and request submission of formal proposals from them.

b) The committee will evaluate and rank the proposals and conduct negotiations with two or more offerors submitting the best proposals. Should the agency determine, in writing and at its sole discretion, that only one offeror is fully qualified or that one offeror is clearly more highly qualified than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated with that offeror after approval of the director.

c) The committee shall make its recommendation on the selection of a construction manager to the agency head based on its evaluations and negotiations. The contract shall be awarded to the offeror who is fully qualified, has submitted an acceptable proposal, and has been determined to provide the best value in response to the RFP. When the terms and conditions for multiple awards are so provided in the RFP, awards may be made to more than one offeror.

d) The agency shall notify the Division of Engineering and Buildings of its selection of the construction manager and shall request authority to award a contract by submission of form DGS-30-058, CO-8, Approval to Award Construction Contract, and supporting documents to the Bureau of Capital Outlay Management via email to [e-mail].

e) Award of the CM contract shall be made to the offeror selected.

f) The agency will notify all offerors who submitted proposals which offeror was selected for the project.

E. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT TERMS: Any guaranteed maximum price construction management contract entered into by any agency will contain provisions requiring that (1) not more than 10% of the construction work (measured by cost of the work) will be performed by the CM with its own forces and (2) that the remaining 90% of the construction work will be performed by subcontractors of the CM which the CM must procure by publicly advertised, competitive sealed bidding. In extraordinary circumstances the director may grant a waiver of these contractual requirements in whole or in part.

F. The guaranteed maximum price shall be established at the completion of working drawings unless a waiver has been granted to this requirement by the director.

G. An agency may request from the director approval to perform a one-step solicitation for its project. If adequate justification is provided, the director may approve the request.

H. Any institution of higher education with authority for capital projects pursuant to the Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act may utilize these procedures or such other procedures as they may have adopted pursuant to any signed memorandum of agreement.

I. The Code of Virginia requires other public bodies planning to use CM to adopt guidelines consistent with the above procedures. A key difference is that steps requiring the approval or involvement of the Director of the Division of Engineering and Buildings will instead seek the approval or involvement of the appropriate authority as directed by the governing body of the public body. Before implementing CM, such public body must have the required professional staff and meet the material requirements of § 2.2-4308 of the Code of Virginia. It should also be noted that certain procedures incorporated above are mandated by the Code of Virginia for state agencies. Other public bodies may not be required to adopt identical standards, but their procedures are required to be consistent with these.

Contact Information: Rhonda Bishton, Regulatory Coordinator, Department of General Services, 1100 Bank Street, Suite 420, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Design-Build Procedures as Adopted by the Secretary of Administration

In accordance with the provisions of § 2.2-4306 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary of Administration hereby adopts the following procedures for the procurement of design-build (D/B) contracts, as defined in § 2.2-4301 of the Code of Virginia, which shall be followed by all departments, agencies, and institutions of the Commonwealth (each of which is hereinafter referred to as an "agency"). These procedures shall be effective March 1, 2012.

A. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY: Under the authority of § 2.2-4306 of the Code of Virginia, the Commonwealth may contract to secure D/B projects on a fixed price basis in accordance with these procedures and the regulations adopted pursuant to § 2.2-1502 of the Code of Virginia. Under the authority of § 2.2-4303 D 1 of the Code of Virginia, an agency is authorized to use competitive negotiations to procure D/B contracts when it determines in advance, and sets forth in writing, that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not fiscally advantageous to the public, which writing shall document the basis for this determination.

B. CRITERIA FOR USE OF D/B CONTRACTS: D/B contracts are intended to minimize the project risk for an owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project.

C. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL TO USE D/B: Prior to taking any action, the agency shall request authority, in writing and receive approval from the Director of the Division of Engineering and Buildings (director), to use a D/B contract.

The request shall justify and substantiate that D/B is more advantageous than a competitive sealed bid construction contract with a general contractor and shall indicate how the Commonwealth will benefit from using D/B. The request shall also include a written justification that competitive sealed bidding is not practical and/or fiscally advantageous.

Approval of exceptions to this policy may be granted by the director, who is the approving authority for requests to use D/B procedures.

D. D/B SELECTION PROCEDURES: On projects approved for D/B, procurement of the contract shall be a two-step competitive negotiation process. The following procedures shall be used in selecting a design-builder and awarding a contract:

1. The agency shall appoint an Evaluation Committee ("committee") which shall consist of at least three members from the agency, including a registered design professional, if possible. The committee shall include a registered design professional provided by the Division of Engineering and Buildings. The agency shall contact the section in the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) representing the Division of Engineering and Buildings (currently the Real Estate and Land Use Section) to determine whether a representative from the OAG should be involved.

2. The basis of the award of the contract shall be in accordance with § 2.2-4301 (3) (b) of the Code of Virginia and the criteria for the award shall be submitted to the director, in advance, for approval. Cost shall be a critical component of the selection criteria.

3. Selection of qualified offerors (Step I):

On projects approved for D/B, the agency shall conduct a prequalification process as follows to determine which offerors are qualified to submit proposals.

a) The agency shall prepare a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) containing the agency's facility requirements, building and site criteria, site and survey data (if available), the criteria to be used to evaluate submittals and other relevant information, including any unique capabilities or qualifications that will be required of the contractor.

b) The RFQ shall be posted in accordance with the current standards for the posting of public bids in the Code of Virginia and in accordance with the latest edition of the Construction and Professional Services Manual.

c) The committee shall evaluate each responding firm's submittals and any other relevant information and shall determine those deemed qualified with respect to the criteria established for the project.

d) An offeror may be denied prequalification only as specified under § 2.2-4317 of the Code of Virginia.

e) At least 30 days prior to the date established for the submission of proposals, the agency shall advise in writing each offeror that sought prequalification whether that offeror has been prequalified. In the event that an offeror is denied prequalification, the written notification to such offeror shall state the reasons for such denial of prequalification and the factual basis of such reasons.

4. Selection of design-build contractor (Step II):

a) The agency will send a Request for Proposal (RFP) to at least two*, and up to five, of the D/B offerors deemed most suitable for the project, from those selected by the committee. Sealed technical proposals as described in the RFP will be submitted to the committee. Separately-sealed cost proposals will be submitted to the agency's Virginia construction contracting officer (VCCO), and shall be secured by and kept sealed until evaluation of the technical proposals and the design development negotiations are completed.

* Should the agency determine, in writing and in its sole discretion, that only one offeror is fully qualified or that one offeror is clearly more highly qualified than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated with that offeror after approval of the director.

b) The committee will evaluate the technical proposals based on the criteria contained in the RFP. It will inform each D/B offeror of any adjustments necessary to make its technical proposal fully comply with the requirements of the RFP. In addition, the agency may require that offerors make design adjustments necessary to incorporate project improvements and/or additional detailed information identified by the committee during design development.

c) Based on the revisions made to the technical proposals, the committee and an offeror may negotiate additive and deductive amendments to the offeror's cost proposals. In addition, an offeror may submit cost deductions from its original sealed cost proposal that are not based upon revisions to the technical proposals. When the terms and conditions for multiple awards are so provided in the RFP, awards may be made to more than one offeror.

d) The committee shall make its recommendation on the selection of a design-builder to the agency head based on its evaluations and negotiations. The contract shall be awarded to the offeror who is fully qualified, has submitted an acceptable proposal and has been determined provide the best value in response to the RFP.

e) The agency shall notify the Division of Engineering and Buildings of its selection of the design-builder and shall request authority to award a contract by submission of form DGS-30-058, CO-8, Approval to Award Construction Contract and supporting documents, to the Bureau of Capital Outlay Management via email to [e-mail].

f) Award of the D/B contract shall be made to the offeror selected.

g) The agency will notify all offerors who submitted proposals which offeror was selected for the project.

E. Any institution of higher education with authority for capital projects pursuant to the Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act, may utilize these procedures or such other procedures as they may have adopted pursuant to any signed memorandum of agreement.

F. The Code of Virginia requires other public bodies planning to use D/B to adopt guidelines consistent with the above procedures. A key difference is that steps requiring the approval or involvement of the Director of the Division of Engineering and Buildings will instead seek the approval or involvement of the appropriate authority, as directed by the governing body of the public body. Before implementing D/B, such public body must have the required professional staff and meet the material requirements of § 2.2-4308 of the Code of Virginia. It should also be noted that certain procedures incorporated above are mandated by Virginia law for state agencies. Other public bodies may not be required to adopt identical standards, but their procedures are required to be consistent with these.

Contact Information: Rhonda Bishton, Regulatory Coordinator, Department of General Services, 1100 Bank Street, Suite 420, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD

Approval of Water Quality Management Planning Actions

Notice of action: The State Water Control Board (Board) is considering the approval of eight Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plans (TMDL IPs) and granting authorization to include the TMDL IPs in the appropriate Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs).

Purpose of notice: The Board is seeking comment on the proposed approvals and authorizations. The purpose of these actions is to approve eight TMDL IPs as Virginia's plans for the management actions necessary for attainment of water quality goals in several impaired waterbodies. These actions are taken in accordance with the Public Participation Procedures for Water Quality Management Planning.

Public comment period: March 12, 2012, to April 12, 2012.

Description of proposed action: The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff intends to recommend (i) that the DEQ director approve the TMDL IPs listed below as Virginia's plans for the management actions necessary for attainment of water quality goals in the impaired segments, and (ii) that the DEQ director authorize inclusion of the TMDL IPs in the appropriate WQMPs. No regulatory amendments are required for these TMDL IPs.

At previous meetings, the board voted unanimously to delegate to the DEQ director the authority to approve TMDL IPs, provided that a summary report of the action the director plans to take is presented to the board prior to the director's approval. The TMDL IPs included in this public notice will be approved using this delegation of authority.

The TMDLs listed below were developed in accordance with 1997 Water Quality Monitoring, Information and Restoration Act (WQMIRA, §§ 62.1-44.19:4 through 62.1-44.19:8 of the Code of Virginia) and federal recommendations. The TMDL IPs were developed in accordance with DEQ's Public Participation Procedures for Water Quality Management Planning. Extensive public participation was solicited during the development of the plans, and the public comment process provided the affected stakeholders with opportunities for comment on the proposed plans. The final TMDL IPs can be found at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tmdl/iprpts.html.

Affected Waterbodies and Localities:

In the Tennessee/Big Sandy River Basin:

1. "Lewis Creek Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan"

• The IP proposes management actions needed to reduce sediment and restore the aquatic life use in Lewis Creek, located in Russell County.

In the Potomac/Shenandoah River Basin:

2. "Water Quality Improvement Plan, South River and Christians Creek"

• The IP proposes management actions needed to reduce bacteria and sediment in South River and Christians Creek as well as total phosphorus in South River to restore the primary contact (swimming) use and aquatic life use. The waterbodies are located in August County,

In the James River Basin:

3. " Water Quality  Improvement Plan, Hays, Moffatts, Walker and Otts Creeks"

• The IP proposes management actions needed to reduce bacteria and restore the primary contact (swimming) use in Hays Creek, Moffatts Creek, Walker Creek, and Otts Creek located in Augusta and Rockbridge counties.

4. " James River and Tributaries TMDL Implementation Plan: A Plan to Reduce Bacteria in the James River and its Tributary Watersheds"

• The IP proposes management actions to reduce bacteria and restore the primary contact (swimming) use in Ivy Creek, Fishing Creek, Blackwater Creek, Tomahawk Creek, Burton Creek, Judith Creek, Beaver Creek, and a portion of the James River, located in the City of Lynchburg, as well as in Amherst, Bedford, and Campbell counties.

5. "Implementation Plan for Fecal Coliform TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for Mill Creek and Powhatan Creek"

• The IP proposes management actions to reduce bacteria and restore the primary contact (swimming) use in Mill Creek and Powhatan Creek, located in James City County.

6. "Slate River and Rock Island Creek Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan"

• The IP proposes management actions to reduce bacteria and restore the primary contact (swimming) use in Rock Island Creek, Austin Creek, Frisby Creek, North River, Troublesome Creek, Upper Slate River, and Lower Slate River (including Muddy Creek and Turpin Creek), located in Buckingham County.

In the Rappahannock River Basin:

7. "Craig Run, Browns Run, and Marsh Run Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan"

• The IP proposes management actions to reduce bacteria and restore the primary contact (swimming) use in Craig Run, Browns Run, and Marsh Run located in Fauquier County.

8. "Little Dark Run and Robinson River Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan"

• The IP proposes management actions to reduce bacteria and restore the primary contact (swimming) use in Little Dark Run, Upper Robinson River, and Lower Robinson River, located in Madison and Culpeper counties.

How to comment: DEQ accepts written comments by email, fax, and postal mail. All written comments must include the full name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting and be received by DEQ by 5 p.m. on the last day of the comment period.

How a decision is made: After comments have been considered, the board will make the final decision.

To review documents: The TMDL implementation plans are available on the DEQ website at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/tmdl/iprpts.html and by contacting the DEQ representative named below. The electronic copies are in PDF format and may be read online or downloaded.

Contact for public comments, document requests, and additional information: Liz McKercher, Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Approval of Water Quality Management Planning Actions

Notice of action: The State Water Control Board (board) is considering the approval of five Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports and four TMDL modifications, and granting authorization to include the TMDL reports and modifications in the appropriate Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs).

Purpose of notice: The board is seeking comment on the proposed approvals and authorizations. The purpose of these actions is to approve five TMDL reports and four TMDL modifications as Virginia's plans for the pollutant reductions necessary for attainment of water quality goals in several impaired waterbodies. These actions are taken in accordance with the Public Participation Procedures for Water Quality Management Planning.

Public comment period: March 12, 2012, to April 12, 2012.

Description of proposed action: DEQ staff intends to recommend (i) that the DEQ director approve the TMDL reports and TMDL modifications listed below as Virginia's plans for the pollutant reductions necessary for attainment of water quality goals in the impaired segments and (ii) that the DEQ director authorize inclusion of the TMDL reports and TMDL modifications in the appropriate WQMPs. No regulatory amendments are required for these TMDLs and their associated waste load allocations.

At previous meetings, the board voted unanimously to delegate to the DEQ director the authority to approve TMDLs that do not include waste load allocations requiring regulatory adoption by the board, provided that a summary report of the action the director plans to take is presented to the board prior to the director approving the TMDL reports. The TMDLs included in this public notice will be approved using this delegation of authority.

The TMDLs listed below were developed in accordance with federal regulations (40 CFR § 130.7) and are exempt from the provisions of Article 2 (§ 2.2-4006 et seq.) of the Virginia Administrative Process Act. The TMDLs have been through the TMDL public participation process contained in DEQ's Public Participation Procedures for Water Quality Management Planning. The public comment process provides the affected stakeholders an opportunity for public appeal of the TMDLs. EPA approved all TMDL reports presented under this public notice. The approved reports can be found at https://www.deq.virginia.gov/TMDLDataSearch/ReportSearch.jspx.

Affected Waterbodies and Localities:

In the James River Basin:

1. " Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development for the Hoffler Creek Watershed"

• 1 bacteria TMDL, located in the cities of Portsmouth and Suffolk, proposes bacteria reductions to address primary contact (swimming use) impairment

2. "Bacterial Total Maximum Daily Load Development for the James River Tributaries - City of Richmond"

• 10 bacteria TMDLs, located in the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, and the counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Henrico, and Powhatan, propose bacteria reductions to address primary contact (swimming use) impairment

3. " Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development for the Bear Garden Creek Watershed"

• 1 bacterial TMDL, located in Buckingham County, proposes bacteria reductions to address primary contact (swimming use) impairment

4. Modification for "Development of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Moore's Creek, Albemarle County, Virginia"

• 1 bacteria TMDL proposes bacteria reductions to address primary contact (swimming use) impairment (modification)

In the Rappahannock River Basin:

5. Modification for "Shellfish Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Developments for Upper Rappahannock Tidal River, Unsegmented Estuaries in E23, Little Carter Creek, Jugs Creek, Piscataway Creek, Mark Haven Beach, and Garrett's Marina"

• 5 bacteria TMDLs, located in Essex, Richmond, Westmoreland, and Northumberland counties, propose bacteria reductions to portions of the watersheds to address VDH Shellfish Area Condemnations and primary contact (swimming use) impairments (modification.)

In the Tennessee-Big Sandy River Basin:

6. " E. coli Total Maximum Daily Loads in the Upper Clinch River Watershed of Tazewell County, Virginia"

• 2 bacteria TMDLs propose bacteria reductions to address primary contact (swimming use) impairment

In the Chowan River Basin:

7. "E. coli Total Maximum Daily Load Development for Unnamed Tributary to Nebletts Mill Run and Hatcher Run in Sussex and Dinwiddie Counties, VA"

• 2 bacteria TMDLs propose bacteria reductions to address primary contact (swimming use) impairments

8. Modification for "E. coli Total Maximum Daily Load Development for Assamoosick Swamp and Tributaries in Sussex and Southampton Counties, VA"

• 1 bacteria TMDL, located in Sussex and Southampton counties, proposes bacteria reductions to address primary contact (swimming use) impairment

In the Chesapeake Bay - Small Coastal - Eastern Shore Basin:

9. Modification for "Indian, Tabbs, Dymer, and Antipoison Creeks Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Report for Shellfish Condemnation Areas Listed Due to Bacteria Pollution"

• 2 bacteria TMDLs for Indian Creek, located in Lancaster County, propose bacteria reductions to portions of the watershed to address VDH Shellfish Area Condemnations and primary contact (swimming use) impairment (modification)

How to comment: DEQ accepts written comments by email, fax, and postal mail. All written comments must include the full name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting and be received by DEQ by 5 p.m. on the last day of the comment period.

How a decision is made: After comments have been considered, the board will make the final decision.

To review documents: The TMDL reports and TMDL implementation plans are available on the DEQ web site at https://www.deq.virginia.gov/TMDLDataSearch/ReportSearch.jspx and by contacting the DEQ representative named below. The electronic copies are in PDF format and may be read online or downloaded.

Contact for public comments, document requests, and additional information: Liz McKercher, Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

Amendment of Water Quality Management Planning Regulation

Notice of action: The State Water Control Board (board) is considering the amendment of the regulation on water quality management planning in accordance with the Public Participation Procedures for Water Quality Management Planning. A regulation is a general rule governing people's rights or conduct that is upheld by a state agency.

Purpose of notice: The board is seeking comments through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on the proposed amendment. The purpose of the amendment to the state's Water Quality Management Planning Regulation (9VAC25-720) is to adopt four total maximum daily load (TMDL) waste load allocations.

Public comment period:  March 12, 2012, to April 12, 2012.

Description of proposed action: DEQ staff will propose amendments of the state's Water Quality Management Planning Regulation for the Tennessee/Big Sandy River Basin (9VAC25-720-90 A), Chowan River Basin (9VAC25-720-100 A), and Chesapeake Bay - Small Coastal - Eastern Shore Basin (9VAC25-720-110 A). Statutory authority for promulgating these amendments can be found in § 62.1-44.15 (10) of the Code of Virginia.

Staff intends to recommend that (i) the board approve three TMDL reports and one TMDL modification as the plans for the pollutant reductions necessary for attainment of water quality goals in the impaired segments, (ii) the board authorize inclusion of the TMDL reports in the appropriate Water Quality Management Plan, and (iii) the board adopt four TMDL waste load allocations as part of the state's Water Quality Management Planning Regulation in accordance with §§ 2.2-4006 A 4 c and 2.2-4006 B of the Code of Virginia.

The three TMDL reports and one TMDL modification were developed in accordance with federal regulations (40 CFR § 130.7) and are exempt from the provisions of Article 2 (§ 2.2-4006 et seq.) of the Virginia Administrative Process Act. The reports were subject to the TMDL public participation process contained in DEQ's Public Participation Procedures for Water Quality Management Planning. The public comment process provides the affected stakeholders an opportunity for public appeal of the TMDLs. EPA approved all TMDLs presented under this public notice. The approved reports can be found at https://www.deq.virginia.gov/TMDLDataSearch/ReportSearch.jspx .

Affected Waterbodies and Localities:

In the Tennessee/Big Sandy River Basin (9VAC25-720-90 A):

1. Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Development for the North Fork Holston River, Virginia

• The North Fork Holston Mercury TMDL, located in Scott, Washington, Smyth, Bland, Tazewell, and Russell counties, proposes reductions for portions of the watershed and provides a total mercury waste load allocation of 11.9 grams/year.

In the Chowan River Basin (9VAC25-720-100 A):

2. Total Maximum Daily Load Development for the Albemarle Canal/North Landing River, A Total Phosphorus TMDL Due to Low Dissolved Oxygen Impairment

• The Albemarle Canal/North Landing River TMDL, located in the Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, provides a waste load allocation of 989.96 kg/yr.

3. Total Maximum Daily Load Development for the Northwest River Watershed A Total Phosphorus TMDL Due to Low Dissolved Oxygen Impairment

• The Northwest River TMDL, located in the City of Chesapeake and in the eastern portion of the City of Virginia Beach, provides a total phosphorus waste load allocation of 3,262.86 kg/yr.

In the Chesapeake Bay-Small Coastal-Eastern Shore River Basin (9VAC25-720-110 A):

4. Modification for Benthic Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development Parker Creek, Virginia

• The Parker Creek TMDL, located in Accomack County, was modified to clarify that the total phosphorus WLA of 664.2 lb/yr is concentration based and flow independent.  There was no change to the WLA.

How to comment: DEQ accepts written comments by email, fax, and postal mail. All written comments must include the full name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting and be received by DEQ by 5 p.m. on the last day of the comment period.

How a decision is made: After comments have been considered, the board will make the final decision. Citizens that submit statements during the comment period may address the board members during the board meeting at which a final decision is made on the proposal.

To review documents: The TMDL reports and the proposed regulatory amendments are available on the DEQ website at https://www.deq.virginia.gov/TMDLDataSearch/ReportSearch.jspx and by contacting the DEQ representative named below. The electronic copies are in PDF format and may be read online or downloaded.

Contact for public comments, document requests, and additional information: Liz McKercher, Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218, telephone [phone], FAX [phone], or email [e-mail].

VIRGINIA CODE COMMISSION

Notice to State Agencies

Contact Information: Mailing Address: Virginia Code Commission, 910 Capitol Street, General Assembly Building, 2nd Floor, Richmond, VA 23219; Telephone: Voice [phone]; FAX [phone]; Email: [e-mail].

Meeting Notices: Section 2.2-3707 C of the Code of Virginia requires state agencies to post meeting notices on their websites and on the Commonwealth Calendar at http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal3/cgi-bin/calendar.cgi.

Cumulative Table of Virginia Administrative Code Sections Adopted, Amended, or Repealed: A table listing regulation sections that have been amended, added, or repealed in the Virginia Register of Regulations since the regulations were originally published or last supplemented in the print version of the Virginia Administrative Code is available at http://register.dls.virginia.gov/cumultab.htm.

Filing Material for Publication in the Virginia Register of Regulations: Agencies are required to use the Regulation Information System (RIS) when filing regulations for publication in the Virginia Register of Regulations. The Office of the Virginia Register of Regulations implemented a web-based application called RIS for filing regulations and related items for publication in the Virginia Register. The Registrar's office has worked closely with the Department of Planning and Budget (DPB) to coordinate the system with the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall. RIS and Town Hall complement and enhance one another by sharing pertinent regulatory information.

ERRATA

STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Title of Regulation: 9VAC5-530. Electric Generator Voluntary Demand Response General Permit (adding 9VAC5-530-10 through 9VAC5-530-290) (Rev. Dg).

Publication: 27:23 VA.R. 2523-2540 July 18, 2011.

Correction to Final Regulation:

Page 2525, 9VAC5-530-20, first column, delete the definition of "Independent system operator"

Page 2526, 9VAC5-530-40 A, line 5, before "C 1 and D 1" delete "9VAC5-80-1105" and insert "9VAC5-80-1320"

VA.R. Doc. No. R10-2295; Filed February 21, 2012, 1:06 p.m.

Title of Regulation: 9VAC5-540. Emergency Generator General Permit (adding 9VAC5-540-10 through 9VAC5-530-220) (Rev. Eg).

Publication: 27:23 VA.R. 2540-2552 July 18, 2011.

Correction to Final Regulation:

Page 2542, 9VAC5-540-20, first column, insert the following definition:

"Independent system operator" or "ISO" means a person who may receive or has received by transfer pursuant to § 56-576 of the Code of Virginia, any ownership or control of, or any responsibility to operate, all or part of the transmission systems in the Commonwealth.

Page 2543, 9VAC5-540-40 A, line 4, before "B 2 b" strike "9VAC5-80-1105" and insert "9VAC5-80-1320"

Page 2543, 9VAC5-540-40 A, line 5, before "C 1" strike "9VAC5-80-1105" and insert "9VAC5-80-1320"

Page 2543, 9VAC5-540-40 A, line 5, before "D 1" strike "9VAC5-1105" and insert "9VAC5-80-1320"

VA.R. Doc. No. R10-2296; Filed February 21, 2012, 1:06 p.m.