Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Administration Office, Executive Office of the President
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Fish and Wildlife Service
Minerals Management Service
Reclamation Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule; technical amendment.
In a final rule published in the
April 27, 2001.
Ms. Cynthia Howard, Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale MD 20737; (301) 734-5957.
On April 27, 2001, APHIS published a final rule amending the regulations in title 7, chapter III, and title 9, chapter I, to reflect enactment of the Plant Protection Act (Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772). The final rule (66 FR 21049-21064, Docket No. 00-063-2) revised the authority citations to the regulations and removed references to plant protection and quarantine statutes that were repealed by the Plant Protection Act. In a number of instances, the rule added references to the Plant Protection Act in the place of references to the repealed statutes, which included the Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. 151-164a, 167), the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 147a note, 150aa
One of our changes, to 7 CFR part 330, was in error. In 7 CFR part 330, “Federal Plant Pest Regulations; General; Plant Pests; Soil, Stone, and Quarry Products; Garbage,” we amended § 330.106, “Emergency measures,” by removing a reference to the Plant Quarantine Act and adding in its place a reference to the Plant Protection Act in the following sentence: “This section does not authorize action with respect to any means of conveyance, product, article, or plant pest which, at the time of the proposed action, is subject to disposal under the Plant Quarantine Act.” We should have removed the sentence.
Prior to enactment of the Plant Protection Act, the Plant Quarantine Act authorized the Secretary to take actions to prevent the dissemination of plant pests by nursery stock and other plants and plant products, and the Federal Plant Pest Act, which came later, extended the Secretary's authority to any means of conveyance and other nonplant articles that presented a risk of disseminating plant pests. The regulations in part 330 were promulgated under the authority of the Federal Plant Pest Act. The Federal Plant Pest Act, in its section on emergency measures by the Secretary (7 U.S.C. 150dd), stated that “this subsection shall not authorize such action [meaning emergency measures, including disposal] with respect to any product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest subject, at the time of the proposed action, to disposal under the Plant Quarantine Act.” The sentence we amended in § 330.106 paralleled this provision.
The Plant Protection Act consolidated our authorities for preventing the dissemination of plant pests into one statute. Thus, the sentence we amended was no longer necessary and should have been removed. This document amends the regulations to remove that sentence.
Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
NCUA is updating its listing of regulations and their corresponding Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers to comply with Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.
Effective March 16, 2004.
National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
Regina M. Metz, Staff Attorney, Division of Operations, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone: (703) 518-6540.
NCUA is amending its regulation on OMB control numbers to reflect changes in NCUA's information collection requirements and related OMB's control numbers occurring since NCUA last revised the display table. 12 CFR 795.1; 64 FR 49080, Sept. 10, 1999. NCUA displays the control numbers to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB's implementing regulation, 5 CFR part 1320.
The regulation conforms with OMB's recommendation that agencies issuing regulations that contain information collections display the related control numbers in a table in the CFR. 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3) and 1320.5(b)(2)(ii)(C). The table identifies those NCUA regulations with their corresponding OMB control numbers but excludes, as recommended by OMB, OMB control numbers already displayed in NCUA's forms, questionnaires, instructions, and other written collections of information. 12 CFR 795.1(b); 5 CFR 1320.3(f).
The NCUA Board is issuing the amendments to § 795.1 as a final rule because the publication of the OMB numbers in a display table provides information to the public in a recommended format. Therefore, public comment and a delayed effective date are both unnecessary. If the rule is effective upon publication, then NCUA can immediately display the updated table. Accordingly, for good cause, the Board finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest; and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the rule will be effective immediately and without 30 days advanced notice of publication.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small entities, primarily those under one million dollars in assets. The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, and therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
NCUA has determined that the final rule would not increase paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This final rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. 551. OMB is reviewing this rule to determine whether it is major for purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Credit unions, Collection requirements.
12 U.S.C. 1766(a) and 5 U.S.C. 3507(f).
(a)
(b)
Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This document amends the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations to reflect the imposition of import restrictions on certain archaeological material originating in the Republic of Honduras (Honduras). These restrictions are being imposed pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Honduras that has been entered into under the authority of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act in accordance with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The document amends the CBP Regulations by adding Honduras to the list of countries for which an agreement has been entered into for imposing import restrictions. The document also contains the Designated List of Pre-Colombian Archaeological Material from Honduras that describes the types of articles to which the restrictions apply.
March 16, 2004.
(Legal Aspects) Joseph Howard, Intellectual Property Rights Branch (202) 572-8701; (Operational Aspects) Michael Craig, Trade Compliance and Facilitation (202) 927-0370.
The value of cultural property, whether archaeological or ethnological in nature, is immeasurable. Such items often constitute the very essence of a society and convey important information concerning a people's origin, history, and traditional setting. The importance and popularity of such items regrettably make them targets of theft, encourage clandestine looting of archaeological sites, and result in their illegal export and import.
The United States shares in the international concern for the need to protect endangered cultural property. The appearance in the United States of stolen or illegally exported artifacts from other countries where there has been pillage has, on occasion, strained our foreign and cultural relations. This situation, combined with the concerns of museum, archaeological, and scholarly communities, was recognized by the President and Congress. It became apparent that it was in the national interest for the United States to join with other countries to control illegal trafficking of such articles in international commerce.
The United States joined international efforts and actively participated in deliberations resulting in the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)). U.S. acceptance of the 1970 UNESCO Convention was codified into U.S. law as the “Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act” (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
During the past several years, import restrictions have been imposed on archaeological and ethnological
Import restrictions are now being imposed on certain archaeological materials from the Republic of Honduras (Honduras).
Under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1), the United States must make certain determinations before entering into an agreement to impose import restrictions under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). On July 28, 2003, the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs made the determinations required under the statute with respect to certain archaeological materials originating in Honduras that are described in the designated list set forth further below in this document, including the following: (1) That the unique cultural patrimony of Honduras is in jeopardy from the pillage of these archaeological materials; (2) that Honduras has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony; (3) that import restrictions imposed by the United States would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and remedies less drastic are not available; and (4) that the application of import restrictions is consistent with the general interests of the international community in the interchange of the designated archaeological materials among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.
On March 12, 2004, the United States and Honduras entered into a bilateral agreement (the Agreement) pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2) covering certain archaeological materials representing its pre-Colombian cultural heritage. Dating from approximately 1200 B.C. to approximately 1500 A.D., these materials include, but are not limited to, objects of ceramic, metal, stone, shell, and animal bone representing, among others, the Maya, Chorti Maya, Lenca, Jicaque, and Pipil cultures.
In accordance with the Agreement, import restrictions are now being imposed on these archaeological materials from Honduras. Importation of these materials, described in the designated list below, are subject to the restrictions of 19 U.S.C. 2606 and § 12.104g(a) of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(a)) and will be restricted from entry into the United States unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and § 12.104c of the regulations (19 CFR 12.104c) are met. CBP is amending § 12.104g(a) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(a)) to indicate that these import restrictions have been imposed.
The bilateral agreement between Honduras and the United States covers the categories of artifacts described in a Designated List of Pre-Colombian Archaeological Material from Honduras that is set forth below. (Regarding parenthetical references to authors in the list below, see bibliography immediately after the list.)
Materials made from ceramic (
Examples include, but are not limited to, polychromes (
For reference, please consult the following: Chapters in Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993; Baudez 1983; Baudez and Bequelin 1973; Beaudry 1984; Canby 1949, 1951; Fash 1991; Glass 1966; Gordon 1898; Healy 1984; Henderson 1997; Henderson et al 1979; Hirth, Kennedy, and Cliff 1989; Joyce 1985, 1987, 1991, 1993a, 1993b; Joyce and Henderson 2001; Longyear 1952; Robinson 1978; papers in Robinson 1987; Stone 1957, 1941; Strong 1935; Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938; Urban and Schortman 1988; Veil 1978, 1983, 1993; Willey 1988; Willey et al. 1994; Wonderley 1987; Yde 1938.
The range of stone materials includes, but is not limited to, sculpture, vessels, figurines, masks, jewelry, stelae, tools, and weapons.
For reference, please consult the following: Baudez 1983, 1994; Digby 1972; Doonan 1996; Garber et al. 1993; Gordon 1898, 1920, 1921; Hirth 1988; Hirth and Hirth 1993; Joyce and Henderson 2001; Henderson 1992, 1997; Luke 2002; Luke et al. 2003; Stone 1938, 1941, 1957, 1972, 1977; Strong, Kidder and Paul 1938.
These objects are cast or beaten into the desired form, decorated with engraving, inlay, punctured design, or attachments. Often in human or stylized animal forms (for examples, consult: Healy 1984; Stone 1941, 1957, 1972, 1977).
These objects are worked and un-worked and include, but are not limited to, conch, snail, spiny oyster, sting-ray, and sea urchin spines. Shell may be decorated with cinnabar and incised lines, sometimes with inlaid jade (for examples, consult: Baudez 1983; Fash 1991).
These objects are carved or incised with geometric and animal designs and glyphs (for examples, consult: Baudez 1983; Coggins 1988; Fash 1991).
This amendment to the regulations is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) as a regulation the subject of which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained the sole authority to approve. Accordingly, the document is signed by the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection as the delegate of the Department of Homeland Security and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury as the delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury to indicate approval. (
Because the amendment to the CBP Regulations contained in this document imposing import restrictions on the above-listed cultural property of Honduras is being made in response to a bilateral agreement entered into in furtherance of the foreign affairs interests of the United States, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), no notice of proposed rulemaking or public procedure is necessary. For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This amendment does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” as described in E.O. 12866.
The principal author of this document was Bill Conrad, Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.
Customs duties and inspections, Imports, Cultural property.
5 U.S.C. 301, 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 23, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
(a) * * *
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Ivy Laboratories, Division of Ivy Animal Health, Inc. The supplemental ANADA provides for the addition of tylosin tartrate to an approved subcutaneous implant containing trenbolone and estradiol used for increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency in feedlot steers.
This rule is effective March 16, 2004.
Eric S. Dubbin, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0232, e-mail:
Ivy Laboratories, Division of Ivy Animal Health, Inc., 8857 Bond St., Overland Park, KS 66214, filed a supplement to ANADA 200-221 for COMPONENT TE-IS (trenbolone acetate and estradiol) with TYLAN, a subcutaneous implant used for increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency in steers fed in confinement for slaughter.
The supplemental ANADA provides for the addition of a pellet containing 29 milligrams tylosin tartrate to the approved implant.
The supplemental application is approved as of February 13, 2004, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.2477 to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this supplemental application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this supplemental approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning February 13, 2004.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) 80 mg trenbolone acetate and 16 mg estradiol (one implant consisting of 5 pellets, each of 4 pellets containing 20 mg trenbolone acetate and 4 mg estradiol, and 1 pellet containing 29 mg tylosin tartrate) per implant dose.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the Factor V Leiden deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mutation detections systems device into class II (special controls). The special control that will apply to the device is the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Factor V Leiden DNA Mutation Detection Systems.” The agency is taking this action in response to a petition submitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA), the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), and the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The agency is classifying this device into class II (special controls) in
This rule is effective April 15, 2004. The classification was effective December 17, 2003.
Elizabeth Mansfield, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-1293.
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, the date of enactment of the 1976 amendments, generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to previously marketed devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807 of FDA's regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act for a device that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after receiving written notice classifying the device in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the device. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act, FDA issued a notice on December 5, 2003, classifying the Factor V Leiden Kit into class III because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On December 8, 2003, Roche Diagnostics Corp. submitted a petition requesting classification of the Factor V Leiden Kit under section 513(f)(2) of the act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II.
In accordance with 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA reviewed the petition in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are to be classified into class II if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the petition, FDA determined that the Factor V Leiden system intended for use for the detection of the G1691A mutation in patients with suspected thrombophilia can be classified in class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
The device is assigned the generic name Factor V Leiden DNA mutation detection system and is identified as a device that consists of different reagents and instruments, which include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers, hybridization matrices, thermal cyclers, imagers, and software packages. The detection system is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of patients with suspected thrombophilia.
FDA has identified no direct risks to patient health when tests are used as an aid to diagnosis. However, failure of the test to perform as indicated or error in interpretation of results may lead to improper medical management of patients with clotting disorders. A false negative interpretation could lead to undermanagement of the patient, with increased risk of future thrombotic events. A false positive result could lead to inappropriate treatment and alteration of present and future drug selection and treatment. Consequently, FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device: (1) Improper medical management; and (2) misdiagnosis and improper treatment, and drug selection and dosing. Therefore, in addition to the general controls of the act, the device is subject to special controls, identified as the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Factor V Leiden DNA Mutation Detection Systems.”
The class II special controls guidance document provides information on how to meet premarket (510(k)) submission requirements for the device, including recommendations on instrumentation validation, reproducibility, use of control materials, and clinical studies or literature summaries. The premarket notification should describe the risk analysis method. FDA believes that following the class II special controls guidance document addresses the risks to health identified in the previous paragraph. Therefore, on December 17, 2003, FDA issued an order to the petitioner classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying this classification by adding § 864.7280.
Following the effective date of this final classification rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for a Factor V Leiden DNA mutation detection systems device will need to address the issues covered in the special control guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness; therefore, the device is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. The device is used to test for the Factor V Leiden DNA mutation in the Factor V gene as an aid in the diagnosis of patients with suspected thrombophilia. FDA review of key performance characteristics, test methodology, and other relevant performance data, with regard to the test's sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility, will ensure that acceptable levels of performance for both safety and effectiveness will be addressed before market clearance. Thus, persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification containing information on the Factor V Leiden DNA mutation detection systems device before marketing the device.
FDA is also adding paragraph (d) to 21 CFR 864.1 to advise interested persons where to find guidance documents referenced in 21 CFR part 864, including the special controls
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.22 and 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this final rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive order. In addition, the final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order and so it is not subject to review under the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Classification of these devices into class II will relieve manufacturers of the device of the cost of complying with the premarket approval requirements of section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e), and may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by lowering their costs. The agency, therefore, certifies that the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, this final rule will not impose costs of $100 million or more on either the private sector or State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate and, therefore, a summary statement of analysis under section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Petition from Roche Diagnostics Corp., dated December 8, 2003.
Medical devices.
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(d) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at
(a)
(b)
Peace Corps.
Final rule.
The Peace Corps is removing from the Code of Federal Regulations its regulation on Peace Corps' organization. The regulation is outdated and unnecessary. Information on the Peace Corps' organization is already published and updated annually in the
The rule will be effective on April 15, 2004.
Tyler S. Posey, General Counsel, (202) 692-2150.
This final rule removes 22 CFR part 302 from the Code of Federal Regulations because it is outdated and unnecessary. Information on Peace Corps' organization is annually updated and published in the
Organization and functions; government agencies.
Department of Education.
Final regulations.
The Secretary amends §§ 600.55 and 600.56 of the Institutional Eligibility regulations to effectuate Pub. L. 108-98, a recent enactment with a retroactive effective date of October 1, 1998.
The Secretary also is amending the Institutional Eligibility, Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowship Program, Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Work-Study Programs, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, Federal Pell Grant Program, and National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership (NEISP) Program regulations. These technical revisions are necessary to correct cross-references, delete references to programs that are no longer funded, and make a number of nomenclature changes that provide the correct names of various Title IV, HEA programs.
The amendments to §§ 600.55 and 600.56 of the Institutional Eligibility regulations are effective retroactively to October 1, 1998. All of the other amendments take effect April 15, 2004.
Lorraine Kennedy, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8018, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502-7762. Jackie Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8062, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502-7890. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
The regulations governing Institutional Eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 34 CFR part 600; Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowship Program, 34 CFR part 649; the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations, 34 CFR part 668; Federal Perkins Loan Program, 34 CFR part 674; Federal Work-Study Programs, 34 CFR part 675; Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 676; Federal Family Education Loan Program, 34 CFR part 682; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, 34 CFR part 685; Federal Pell Grant Program, 34 CFR part 690; and National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership Program, 34 CFR part 693 are amended to provide certain clarifications, to correct errors and omissions, and to remove references to Title IV, HEA programs that are no longer authorized or funded.
Sections 600.55 and 600.56 of the Institutional Eligibility regulations are revised to conform with newly-enacted Public Law 108-98. That legislation corrected technical errors in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 by removing inadvertent barriers to institutional eligibility that applied to public and non-profit foreign veterinary schools, as well as to Canadian medical schools. Consistent with the legislation, the conforming changes to the regulations are effective retroactively to October 1, 1998.
Section 600.57(a) of the Institutional Eligibility regulations has been amended to establish the maximum duration of a program participation agreement for foreign institutions as six years from the date of the Secretary's certification determination. This change conforms the regulations to the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Pub. L. 105-244, which extended the maximum period of time that an institution may be certified to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs from four to six years.
These regulations remove part 649 from 34 CFR because the Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowship Program is no longer authorized by the HEA.
The expected family contribution (EFC) definition has been removed from the individual program regulations for the Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Work-Study Programs, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Federal Pell Grant Program and is now listed instead in the Student Assistance General Provisions under the General Definitions in § 668.2. This change was made to centralize the definitions used in the Title IV, HEA program regulations.
We have removed the reference to the ALAS Program in the definition of Federal Supplemental Loans for Students in § 668.2 because the ALAS program is no longer authorized by the HEA.
The definition of parent in § 668.2 has been changed by deleting the discussion of “legal guardian”, to conform with the definition of parent in Part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
The reference to the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership Program (NEISP) in § 668.26(b)(5) has been removed because the program is no longer authorized by the HEA.
Section 668.26 has been amended by removing paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (e)(3) and redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(v) as (d)(2)(iv). Section 668.26(d)(2) lists the circumstances under which an institution whose participation in the Title IV programs has ended may disburse an FFEL Program loan. The removed paragraph required that the loan commitment be made prior to the loss of participation. However, this is redundant in light of the requirement that the first disbursement of the loan be made prior to the end of participation. The first disbursement of a loan cannot be made unless a commitment for the loan has been made. This change makes the FFEL requirement similar to the corresponding requirement for Direct Loan Program loans in § 668.26(d)(3)(iii).
These regulations make changes to the Federal Pell Grant Program regulations to move the definition of EFC to the
These regulations remove part 693 from 34 CFR because the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership (NEISP) Program is no longer authorized by the HEA.
The Secretary certifies that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that are affected by these regulations are small institutions of higher education. These regulations contain technical amendments designed to clarify and correct current regulations. The changes will not have a significant economic impact on the institutions affected.
These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.
Based on our review, we have determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. section 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these regulations merely reflect statutory changes, make certain technical changes and remove obsolete regulatory provisions. These changes do not establish any new substantive rules. Furthermore, the changes to §§ 600.55 and 600.56 effectuate a recent technical amendment to the HEA. That amendment, in Pub. L. 108-98, has a retroactive effective date and has no adverse effect on substantive rights or obligations of individuals or institutions.
For these reasons, the Secretary has determined that proposed regulations are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, the Secretary has determined, under section 492(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, that the changes should not be subject to negotiated rulemaking.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Consumer protection, Education, Grant programs-education, Loan programs-education, Reporting, Vocational education and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b, and 1099(c), unless otherwise noted.
20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1085, 1091, 1091b, 1092, 1094, 1099c, and 1099c-1, unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The loan was made for attendance during that period of enrollment.
20 U.S.C. 1087aa-1087hh and 20 U.S.C. 421-429, unless otherwise noted.
42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b, unless otherwise noted.
20 U.S.C. 1070b-1070b-3, unless otherwise noted.
20 U.S.C. 1071 to 1087-2, unless otherwise noted.
20 U.S.C. 1087a
20 U.S.C. 1070a, unless otherwise noted.
32. Section 690.63(g)(2) is amended by removing “668.2 and”.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; denial of petition for reconsideration.
This document denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Saga Communications of Iowa, LLC directed to the
Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202) 418-2177.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document denies a Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by Fort Bend Broadcasting Company directed to an earlier
Robert Hayne, Media Bureau (202) 418-2177.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In response to a
Effective April 12, 2004.
Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 03-7, adopted February 25, 2004, and released February 27, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; notice of availability.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat for
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency.
This publication also provides notice of the availability of the Final Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Desert Yellowhead (Final Economic Analysis) and the Final Environmental Assessment for Designation of Critical Habitat for the Desert Yellowhead (Final EA) for this final rule.
This final rule is effective April 15, 2004.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4000 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82001. You may obtain copies of this final rule and the Final EA and Final Economic Analysis from the field office address above or by calling 307-772-2374.
Brian T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the above address (telephone: 307-772-2374; facsimile: 307-772-2358; e-mail:
In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, “Because the ESA can protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of section 7.” Currently, only 306 species, or 25 percent of the 1,211 listed species in the United States under jurisdiction of the Service, have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,211 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and the section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of
The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left the Service with almost no ability to provide for additional public participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the critical habitat designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
Wyoming botanist Robert Dorn discovered
The fruits of
The shape and orientation of the wind-excavated hollows may allow for accumulation of moisture from sheet wash coming off adjacent areas, so the hollows may be more mesic (moist) than surrounding areas (R. Scott, Central Wyoming College, pers. comm. 2002). The vegetation of these sites is typically sparse, with vegetative cover often as low as 10 percent, and consists primarily of low-cushion plants and scattered clumps of
A permanent survey grid is now in place, and has facilitated an annual census of all known individuals. The total population size has varied from 9,293 to 13,244 individuals during the time the census has been conducted (1995-2003) (R. Scott, Central Wyoming College Herbarium,
Surveys conducted between 1990 and 1994 failed to locate additional
While not known to have impacted
The presence of locatable minerals in the area and their potential extraction also could impact the known
Recreational off-road vehicle use threatens to crush
The
Additionally, the invasion of non-native species, particularly noxious weeds, could accompany many of the activities discussed above. The resulting changes to the vegetative community could have significant adverse impacts on the population of
The current BLM Lander Resource Management Plan (RMP), which covers the area designated as critical habitat for
Since complete population counts were started in 1995, the
On March 14, 2003, we published the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
In the March 14, 2003, proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties submit comments or information concerning the designation of critical habitat for
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding proposed rules. The purpose of such review is to ensure that decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We solicited opinions of four independent experts to peer-review the proposed critical habitat designation. All four peer reviewers provided comments.
We share the reviewers' concerns regarding the vulnerability of
We received comments from the Office of the Governor (Governor), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA). Issues raised by the State agencies are addressed below.
Although the BLM is pursuing withdrawal of the critical habitat designation from locatable mineral development, it appears the uranium and zeolite resources at the site have only marginal commercial value. This is supported by the fact that there are no active load or placer claims on the critical habitat designation and the extraction of potential uranium and zeolite resources is not economical in the current price environment.
The critical habitat designation is located within the BLM's Beaver Creek Management Unit, which is rated as having a low potential for oil and gas. There are two leases encompassing the critical habitat unit. From 1952 to the present, four wells have been drilled in the general vicinity of the designated critical habitat, and all have resulted in dry holes, further supporting the low potential for oil and gas. Currently, the BLM's Lander RMP prohibits surface occupancy when necessary within a 200-meter (656-foot) buffer of the plants. The BLM plans to continue implementing the buffer area until the existing leases expire. At that time, BLM plans to exclude the designated critical habitat area from drilling activities, necessitating the use of directional drilling by new lease holders. We acknowledge that these project modifications result in an impact to the operators. The estimated costs to the oil and gas industry of critical habitat designation are around $460,000 over 10 years and are more fully described in the Final Economic Analysis.
We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new data regarding critical habitat and
Prior to publication of the proposed rule, several interested parties expressed concern regarding increased knowledge of the precise location of
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures needed to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. Section 7 of the Act also requires conferences on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not afford any additional regulatory protections under the Act against such activities.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must first be “essential to the conservation of the species.” Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (
Habitat must also require special management or protection to be included in critical habitat. Critical habitat identifies those areas that need alternation or protection to provide for the recovery of the species. We do not include areas where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species.
Our regulations state that, “The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species” (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration the economic impact, impacts to national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the
Critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant to
In determining areas that are essential to conserve
We mapped critical habitat based on USGS 7.5″ quadrangle maps (Dishpan Butte and Sweetwater Station, Wyoming). We included the areas occupied by the subpopulations of
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we must consider those physical and biological features (Primary Constituent Elements, PCEs) that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species. The area designated as critical habitat for
Based on our knowledge to date, the Primary Constituent Elements for
(1) Recent soils derived from sandstones and limestones of the Split Rock Formation at its junction with the White River Formation. These are shallow, loamy soils of the Entisol order that can be classified as course-loamy over sandy-skeletal, mixed, Lithic Torriorthent. The surface stratum has little organic matter and subsurface layers show no accumulation of humus, clay, gypsum, salts, or carbonates.
(2) Plant communities associated with
(3) Topographic features/relief (outcroppings, cliffs, and hills) and physical processes, particularly hydrologic processes, that maintain the shape and orientation of the hollows characteristic of
We identified critical habitat essential for the conservation of
Given the clustered distribution pattern of
Even though we did not propose sites other than where the population is currently known to occur, we do not imply that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species. Areas that support newly discovered populations in the future, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, as determined on the basis of best available information at the time an action is proposed.
The critical habitat areas described below include one or more of the primary constituent elements described above and constitute our best assessment at this time of the areas needed for the conservation of
The designated critical habitat is approximately 146 ha (360 ac) of Federal lands managed by BLM in the Beaver Rim area approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of Sweetwater Station in southern Fremont County, Wyoming. Within this area,
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service,
We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was listed or critical habitat designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. “Reasonable and prudent alternatives” are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical habitat is subsequently designated, and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action or such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect Y
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that, when carried out, funded or authorized by a Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify critical habitat or may be affected by the designation include, but are not limited to:
(1) Activities that have the potential to appreciably degrade or destroy
(2) Alteration of existing hydrology by lowering the groundwater table or redirection of sheet flow from areas adjacent to deflation hollows;
(3) Compaction of soil through the establishment of new trails or roads;
(4) Activities that foster the introduction of non-native vegetation, particularly noxious weeds, or create conditions that encourage the growth of non-natives. These activities could include, but are not limited to: irrigation, supplemental feeding of livestock, and ground disturbance associated with pipelines, roads, and other soil-disturbing activities; and
(5) Indirect effects that appreciably decrease habitat value or quality (
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations and protection. As such, for an area to be designated as critical habitat for a species, it must meet both provisions of the definition. In those cases where a specific area does not provide those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, it has been our policy to not include the area in designated critical habitat. Likewise, if an area determined to be biologically essential has an adequate management plan that covers the species, then special management and protection are already being provided. These areas would not meet the second provision of the definition and would not be proposed as critical habitat.
We consider a current plan to provide adequate management or protection if it meets three criteria: (1) The plan is complete and provides a conservation benefit to the species (
Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from critical habit if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such an area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on national security, or other relevant impact such as preservation of conservation partnerships or military readiness considerations, if we determine that the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including the area in critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
In summary, we use both the definitions in section 3(5)(A) and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that are proposed for designation as critical habitat as well as for those areas that are subsequently finalized (
We have not excluded any lands from this designation pursuant to section 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act. No HCPs that include
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We based this final rule on the best scientific and commercial data available. In order to make a final critical habitat designation, we further utilized the draft and final Economic Analyses and our analysis of other relevant impacts and considered all comments and information submitted during the public comment periods. No areas proposed as critical habitat were excluded or modified because of economic impacts.
Our economic analysis estimates the economic impact of compliance with the protections derived from the designation of critical habitat for
Activities potentially affected by this designation of critical habitat include oil and gas extraction, geophysical oil and gas exploration, cattle grazing, utility right-of-way (ROW), and BLM activities. Impacts are defined in terms of both the anticipated number and effort level of future consultations as well as any associated project modifications taking place under section 7 of the Act.
In our final economic analysis, we found that total costs that may be attributable to future section 7 consultations resulting from the listing of
A copy of the final economic analysis and supporting documents are included in our supporting record for this rulemaking, and may be obtained by contacting the Wyoming Field Office (see
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this critical habitat designation is not a significant regulatory action. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or other units of government.
This designation will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
On the basis of information in our final economic analysis, we have determined that a substantial number of small entities are not affected by the critical habitat designation for
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. The RFA/SBREFA requires that agencies use the Small Business Administration's definition of “small business” that has been codified at 13 CFR 121.201. Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. The RFA/SBREFA does not explicitly define either “substantial number” or “significant economic impact.” Consequently, to assess whether a “substantial number” of small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In addition, Federal courts and Congress have indicated that an RFA/SBREFA is properly limited to impacts to entities directly subject to the requirements of the regulation (Service 2002). Therefore, entities not directly regulated by the listing or critical habitat designation are not considered in this section of the analysis. The RFA/SBREFA defines “small governmental jurisdiction” as the government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. Although certain State agencies may be affected by this critical habitat designation, State governments are not considered small governments, for the purposes of the RFA. SBREFA further defines “small organization” as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
The economic analysis identified small businesses in the oil and gas extraction, cattle ranching, and geophysical oil and gas exploration industries as potentially being affected by section 7 protection for
Even where the requirements of section 7 might apply due to critical habitat, based on our experience with section 7 consultations for all listed species, virtually all projects, including those that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification determinations under section 7, can be implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent alternatives. These measures by definition must be economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the consultation.
For these reasons, we are certifying that the designation of critical habitat for
Under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 801
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211, on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy production, supply, and distribution facilities because no such facilities are included within designated critical habitat. As described in the economic analysis, Fremont County, Wyoming, produces less than ten barrels of crude oil per well on a daily basis (based on historic well production records). In the worst-case scenario that section 7 consultation causes lessees to forego drilling and operating two future production wells in the area that will be affected by critical habitat designation, it is extremely unlikely that crude oil supply will drop by more than the threshold specified in E.O. 13211 (10,000 barrels per day). Thus we do not believe that designation of critical habitat for
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1501
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights,” March 18, 1988; 53 FR 8859), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of the designation of critical habitat for
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in Wyoming. The designation of critical habitat within the geographic range occupied by
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the area essential to the conservation of the species is more clearly defined, and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. While making this definition and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the designated area to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
Our position is that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We are required to assess the effects of critical habitat designation on Tribal lands and Tribal trust resources. We believe that no Tribal lands or Tribal trust resources are essential for the conservation of
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, is available upon request from the Wyoming Field Office (
The primary author of this rule is Mary E. Jennings (
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Critical habitat unit is depicted for Fremont County, Wyoming, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
(i) Recent soils derived from sandstones and limestones of the Split Rock Formation at its junction with the White River Formation. These are shallow, loamy soils of the Entisol order that can be classified as course-loamy over sandy-skeletal, mixed, Lithic Torriorthent. The surface stratum has little organic matter, and subsurface layers show no accumulation of humus, clay, gypsum, salts, or carbonates.
(ii) Plant communities associated with
(iii) Topographic features/relief and physical processes, particularly hydrologic processes, that maintain the shape and orientation of the hollows characteristic of
(3) Critical habitat: Fremont County, Wyoming.
(i) From U.S. Geological Survey 7.5″ quadrangle maps Dishpan Butte and Sweetwater Station, Wyoming. T. 31 N., R. 95 W., SW
(ii) Map follows:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed amendments to the regulations under section 410(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed amendments permit, in certain circumstances, employees of a tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) to be excluded for the purpose of testing whether a section 401(k) plan (or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general arrangement as the section 401(k) plan of the employer) meets the requirements for minimum coverage specified in section 410(b). These regulations will affect tax-exempt employers described in section 501(c)(3), retirement plans sponsored by these employers, and participants in these plans.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 14, 2004.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-149752-03), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-149752-03), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Internet directly to the IRS Internet site at
Concerning the regulations, R. Lisa Mojiri-Azad, 202-622-6060, or Stacey Grundman, 202-622-6090; concerning submissions and delivery of comments, Treena Garrett, 202-622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) under section 410(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). The amendments implement a directive by Congress, contained in section 664 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16, 115 Stat. 38) (EGTRRA), to amend § 1.410(b)-6(g) of the regulations.
Prior to the enactment of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-188, 110 Stat. 1755) (SBJPA), both governmental and tax-exempt entities generally were subject to the section 410(b) coverage requirements and precluded from maintaining section 401(k) plans pursuant to section 401(k)(4)(B). To prevent the section 401(k)(4)(B) prohibition from causing a plan to fail section 410(b), the existing regulations provide that employees of either governmental or tax-exempt entities who are precluded from being eligible employees under a section 401(k) plan by reason of section 401(k)(4)(B) may be treated as excludable in applying the minimum coverage rules to a section 401(k) plan or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general arrangement as the section 401(k) plan, if more than 95 percent of the employees of the employer who are not precluded from being eligible employees by section 401(k)(4)(B) benefit under the plan for the plan year. Although tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) were precluded by section 401(k)(4)(B) from maintaining a section 401(k) plan, they were permitted to allow their employees to make salary reduction contributions to a plan or contract that satisfies section 403(b) (a section 403(b) plan).
Section 1426(a) of SBJPA amended section 401(k)(4)(B) to allow nongovernmental tax-exempt organizations (including organizations exempt under section 501(c)(3)) to maintain section 401(k) plans. Thus, a section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization can now maintain a section 401(k) plan, a section 403(b) plan, or both. In light of this provision of SBJPA, section 664 of EGTRRA directed the Secretary of the Treasury to modify the regulations under section 410(b) to provide that employees of a tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) who are eligible to make salary reduction contributions under a section 403(b) plan may be treated as excludable employees for the purpose of testing whether a section 401(k) plan or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general arrangement as the section 401(k) plan meets the minimum coverage requirements contained in section 410(b) if (1) no employee of the organization is eligible to participate in the section 401(k) or section 401(m) plan and (2) at least 95 percent of the employees of the employer who are not employees of the organization are eligible to participate in the section 401(k) or section 401(m) plan.
The change recognizes that many tax-exempt organizations maintained section 403(b) plans prior to the enactment of SBJPA and is needed to allow the continued maintenance of section 403(b) plans by these organizations without requiring the same employees to be covered under a section 401(k) plan and the section 403(b) plan. The change will help an employer that maintains both a section 401(k) plan and a section 403(b) plan to satisfy the section 410(b) coverage requirements without the employer having to provide dual coverage for employees.
These regulations provide that employees of a tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) who are eligible to make salary reduction contributions under a section 403(b) plan may be treated as excludable employees for the purpose of testing whether a section 401(k) plan or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general arrangement as the section 401(k) plan meets the minimum coverage requirements contained in section 410(b) if (1) no employee of the tax-exempt organization is eligible to participate in the section 401(k) or section 401(m) plan and (2) at least 95 percent of the employees of the employer who are not employees of the tax-exempt
The proposed regulations do not include any changes to the treatment of governmental plans under the current regulations. Unless grandfathered, State and local governmental entities continue to be precluded from maintaining section 401(k) plans pursuant to section 401(k)(4)(B). However, as a result of section 1505(a)(1) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34, 111 Stat. 788), which added section 401(a)(5)(G) to the Code, governmental plans (within the meaning of section 414(d)) maintained by a State or local government or political subdivision thereof (or agency or instrumentality thereof) are not subject to the minimum coverage requirements contained in section 410(b). Consequently, the IRS and Treasury request comments on whether it would be appropriate to modify the special rule for governmental plans contained in § 1.410(b)-6(g) to reflect the addition of section 401(a)(5)(G) (including whether there continues to be a need for this special rule with respect to governmental plans).
As directed by Congress in section 664 of EGTRRA, the amendments to § 1.410(b)-6(g) are proposed to be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1996. Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for guidance pending the issuance of final regulations. If, and to the extent, future guidance is more restrictive than the guidance in these proposed regulations, the future guidance will be applied without retroactive effect.
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and 8 copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the
The principal authors of these proposed regulations are R. Lisa Mojiri-Azad and Stacey Grundman of the Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury participated in the development of these regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Section 1.410(b)-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).
Section 1.410(b)-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).
Section 1.410(b)-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).
Section 1.410(b)-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).
Section 1.410(b)-6 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6) and section 664 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16, 115 Stat. 38).
Section 1.410(b)-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).
Section 1.410(b)-8 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).
Section 1.410(b)-9 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).
Section 1.410(b)-10 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 410(b)(6).* * *
1. Revising the paragraph heading for 1.410(b)-6(g).
2. Adding paragraph headings for 1.410(b)-6(g)(1) and (g)(2).
The revision and additions read as follows:
(g) Employees of certain governmental or tax-exempt entities.
(1) Employees of governmental entities.
(2) Employees of tax-exempt entities.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(i) No employee of the organization is eligible to participate in the section 401(k) or section 401(m) plan; and
(ii) At least 95 percent of the employees of the employer who are not employees of the organization are eligible to participate in the section 401(k) or section 401(m) plan.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of the revised mobile emission inventories and 2005 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) which have been developed using MOBILE6, an updated model for calculating mobile emissions of ozone precursors. These inventories and MVEBs are part of the Rate of Progress (ROP) plan approved for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton severe 1-Hour ozone nonattainment area (the Philadelphia area). The intended effect of this action is to approve a SIP revision that will better enable the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to continue to plan for attainment of the 1-Hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before April 15, 2004.
Comments may be submitted either by mail or electronically. Written comments should be mailed to Martin T. Kotsch, Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment, Mail Code 3AP23, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Electronic comments should be sent either to
Martin T. Kotsch, Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3AP23, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-20209, (215) 814-3335, or by e-mail at
The MOBILE model is an EPA emissions factor model for estimating pollution from on-road motor vehicles. The MOBILE model calculates emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO
The MOBILE model was first developed in 1978. It has been updated many times to reflect changes in the vehicle fleet and fuels, to incorporate EPA's growing understanding of vehicle emissions, and to cover new emissions regulations and modeling needs. EPA officially released the MOBILE6 motor vehicle emissions factor model on January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4254). Although some minor updates were made in 1996 with the release of MOBILE5b, the MOBILE6 version of the model is its first major revision since MOBILE5a was released in 1993.
On January 9, 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted proposed SIP revisions, and requested that EPA parallel process its approval of those SIP revisions concurrent with the state's process for amending its SIP. These proposed SIP revisions revise the 1990 and 2005 motor vehicle emissions inventories and the 2005 motor vehicle emissions budgets using the MOBILE6 model. The January 9, 2004, submittal demonstrates that the new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6 continue to demonstrate ROP for the 1-Hour ozone NAAQS for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area for the year 2005.
Table 1 summarizes the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories area in tons per summer day (tpd). These revised inventories were developed using the latest planning assumptions, including 2002 vehicle registration data, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), speeds, fleet mix, and SIP control measures.
EPA has articulated its policy regarding the use of MOBILE6 in SIP development in its “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity.”
Pennsylvania's relative reduction comparison shows that for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area, the percent reductions in VOC and NO
Based upon the emission inventories and using EPA guidance titled “NO
EPA's policy guidance also required the state to consider whether growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (
Pennsylvania's January 9, 2004, submittal satisfies the conditions outlined in EPA's MOBILE6 Policy guidance, and demonstrates that the new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6 continue to demonstrate ROP for the year 2005 in the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area.
The MVEBs are the on-road components of VOC and NO
EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania revisions to the 2005 ROP plan which were submitted on January 9, 2004. These revisions amend the Pennsylvania's 1990 and 2005 motor vehicle emission inventories and the 2005 motor MVEBs for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area to reflect the use of MOBILE6. These revisions are being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrent with the state's procedures for amending its ROP Plans. If the proposed revisions are substantively changed in areas other than those identified in this action, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantive changes are made to the currently proposed SIP revision, EPA will publish a Final Rulemaking Notice on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revisions have been adopted by Pennsylvania and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rule. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting either electronic or written comments. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number PA213-4026 in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
This rule proposing to approve Pennsylvania's revised 1990 and 2005 motor vehicle emission inventories and 2005 MVEBs of the 2005 ROP plan using MOBILE6 for the Pennsylvania
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by West Com Corp., permittee of Station WMRZ(FM) (“WMRZ”), Dawson, Georgia, and Metro Com Corp., licensee of Station WQXZ(FM) (“WQXZ”), Cordele, Georgia. The petition proposes to upgrade Channel 251A, Station WMRZ, to Channel 251C3 and to reallot Channel 252A, Station WQXZ, from Cordele to Pinehurst, Georgia. The reallotment of Channel 252A to Pinehurst will provide Pinehurst with its first local aural transmission service. The coordinates for requested Channel 251C3 at Dawson, Georgia, are 31-37-25 NL and 84-19-49 WL, with a site restriction of 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) southeast of Dawson. The coordinates for requested Channel 252A at Pinehurst, Georgia, are 32-10-03 NL and 83-37-51 WL, with a site restriction of 12.9 kilometers (8.0 miles) east of Pinehurst.
Petitioners' proposal complies with the provisions of §§ 1.420(g)(3) and (i) of the Commission's rules, and therefore, the Commission will not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 251C3 at Dawson, Georgia, or Channel 252A at Pinehurst, Georgia, or require the licensees to demonstrate the availability of additional equivalent class channels for use by other parties.
Comments must be filed on or before April 19, 2004, and reply comments on or before May 4, 2004.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Dan J. Alpert, Esq., the Office of Dan J. Alpert, 2120 N. 21st Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's notice of proposed rule making, MB Docket No. 04-33, adopted February 25, 2004, and released February 27, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a notice of proposed rule making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1.The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Georgia, is amended by adding Channel 251C3 and by removing Channel 221A at Dawson; removing Channel 252A at Cordele; and adding Pinehurst, Channel 252A.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Heritage Communications, Inc. requesting the reallotment of Channel 236C0 from Glasgow, Kentucky, to Bowling Green, Kentucky, and modification of the license for Station WGGC to reflect the changes. Channel 236C0 can be allotted to Bowling Green at coordinates 36-54-43 and 86-11-21. The license for Station WGGC was modified to specify operation on Channel 236C0 in lieu of Channel 236C at Glasgow, Kentucky.
Comments must be filed on or before April 19, 2004, and reply comments on or before May 4, 2004.
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Mark N. Lipp, J. Thomas Nolan, Vinson & Elkins,
Kathleen Scheuerle, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 04-42, adopted February 25, 2004, and released February 27, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, or via e-mail
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kentucky, is amended by removing Channel 236C at Glasgow and adding Channel 236C0 at Bowling Green.
Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board.
The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will meet March 23-25, 2004.
The public may file written comments before or up to two weeks after the meeting with the contact person.
The meeting will take place at the Hotel Washington, 515 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Written comments from the public may be sent to the Contact Person identified in this notice at: The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, Room 344-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 2255, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2255.
Deborah Hanfman, Executive Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; telephone: (202) 720-3684; fax: (202) 720-6199; or e-mail:
On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will convene its meeting at 1 p.m. in the Washington Room of the Hotel Washington. A brief business meeting of the Board will be followed by reports of three Board working groups and by USDA responses to the Board's prior written recommendations on “Obesity Prevention.” An evening reception and program to kickoff the next day's focus session titled, “Agriculture, National Resources and the Environment: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Systems,” will be held at 7 p.m. in the Capital Room, with a keynote speaker from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
On Wednesday, March 24, 2004, from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., the focus session will be held with briefings by USDA agencies of the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area and the Natural Resources and Environment mission area. Distinguished speakers and leaders with expertise on the environment, natural resources, economics, and the social sustainability of agricultural systems will speak throughout the day. A meeting from noon to 1:30 p.m. will highlight agricultural research perspectives from Professional Majority and Minority Staff Members of the U.S. Congress House of Representatives Agriculture Committee. An informal focus session reception to highlight key issues of the day will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
On Thursday, March 25, 2004, the Advisory Board will reconvene at 7:30 a.m. with the invited chairman of the REE Task Force to discuss progress being made on the Task Force's Congressional mandate. Wrap-up discussions on the findings of the Board's working groups and the focus session will follow. The Board will adjourn by 11:30 a.m.
Opportunities for public comment will be available at the end of each meeting day. Written comments for the public record on any of the topics discussed during the Advisory Board Meeting are welcomed before and up to two weeks following the meeting. All statements will become a part of the official record of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, as amended, requires the establishment of a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB is a 15-member board that is responsible for developing and recommending to the Secretary a proposed National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances. The NOSB also advises the Secretary on all other aspects of the National Organic Program. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is requesting nominations to fill five (5) upcoming vacancies on the NOSB. The positions to be filled are: organic producer (2 positions), organic handler, retailer, and environmentalist. The Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a person to each position to serve a 5-year term of office that will commence on January 24, 2005, and run until January 24, 2010. USDA encourages eligible minorities, women, and persons with disabilities to apply for membership on the NOSB.
Written nominations, with resumes, must be post-marked on or before June 14, 2004.
Nominations should be sent to Ms. Katherine E. Benham, Advisory Board Specialist, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4008-So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250.
Ms. Katherine E. Benham, (202) 205-7806; E-mail:
The OFPA of 1990, as amended (7 U.S.C. Section
The current NOSB made recommendations to the Secretary regarding the establishment of the initial organic program. It is anticipated that the NOSB will continue to make recommendations on various matters, including recommendations on substances it believes should be allowed or prohibited for use in organic production and handling.
The NOSB is composed of 15 members; 4 organic producers, 2 organic handlers, a retailer, 3 environmentalists, 3 public/consumer representatives, a scientist, and a certifying agent. Nominations are being sought to fill the following five (5) upcoming NOSB vacancies: organic producer (2 positions), organic handler, retailer, and environmentalist. Individuals desiring to be appointed to the NOSB at this time must be either an owner or operator of an organic production operation, an owner or operator of an organic handling operation, an individual who owns or operates a retail establishment with significant trade in organic products, or an individual with expertise in areas of environmental protection and resource conservation. Selection criteria will include such factors as: demonstrated experience and interest in organic production, handling and retailing; diverse commodity and geographic representation; support of consumer and public interest organizations; demonstrated experience with environmental matters; and such other factors as may be appropriate for specific positions.
Nominees will be supplied with a biographical information form that must be completed and returned to USDA within 10 working days of its receipt. Completed biographical information forms are required for a nominee to receive consideration for appointment by the Secretary.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the NOSB in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that the members of the NOSB take into account the needs of the diverse groups that are served by the Department, membership on the NOSB will include, to the extent practicable, individuals who demonstrate the ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
The information collection requirements concerning the nomination process have been previously cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0505-0001.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Reopening and extension of the comment period.
Notice is hereby given that the comment period on possible changes to the United States Standards for Greenhouse Tomatoes is reopened and extended.
Comments must be received by March 31, 2004.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; fax (202) 720-8871; E-mail
David L. Priester, at the above address or call (202) 720-2185; E-mail
A notice was published in the
A comment was received from an industry association representing fresh tomato production in North America, requesting additional time to consider possible revisions. The association requested the comment period be extended to allow the association an opportunity to meet with their members to discuss possible revisions.
After reviewing the request, AMS is reopening and extending the comment period in order to allow sufficient time for interested persons, including the association, to file comments.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting to discuss 2004 projects and the Fred Burr 80 project, receive reports on Forest Plan Revision community groups, discuss public outreach methods, and hold a short public forum (question and answer session). The meeting is being held pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393). The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on March 23, 2004, 6:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Ravalli County Administration Building, 215 S. 4th Street, Hamilton, Montana. Send written comments to Jeanne Higgins, District Ranger, Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by
Jeanne Higgins, Stevensville District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406) 777-5461.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Economic Development Council for Central Illinois, grantee of FTZ 114, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the warehousing, processing and distribution facility (industrial automation products) of Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell), located in Champaign, Illinois. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 5, 2004.
The Rockwell facility is located at 2802 West Bloomington Road, Champaign (30 acres total; 239,211 sq. ft. of enclosed space, with potential expansion to include an additional 373,402 sq. ft.). The facility (approximately 125 employees) may be used under FTZ procedures for warehousing, packaging, processing, inspecting, quality-control auditing, relabeling and distributing industrial automation power, control, and information products. Rockwell's application indicates that approximately 60 percent of the merchandise handled by the facility is domestically sourced. No authority is being sought for activity conducted under FTZ procedures that would result in a change in tariff classification.
Zone procedures would exempt Rockwell from Customs duty payments on foreign-status merchandise that is reexported. On its domestic shipments, Rockwell would be able to defer duty payments until merchandise is shipped from its facility. The company would be able to avoid duty on foreign merchandise which becomes scrap/waste, estimated at approximately one percent of imported inputs. The application indicates that Rockwell anticipates realizing significant logistical/procedural benefits, with potential future savings also possible from zone-to-zone merchandise transfers. All of the above-cited savings from FTZ procedures could help improve the facility's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
1. Submissions Via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building—Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 20005; or
2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal Service: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB—Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is May 17, 2004. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 1, 2004.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above, and at the Economic Development Council for Central Illinois, 124 SW. Adams Street, Suite 300, Peoria, IL 61602.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Holyoke Economic Development & Industrial Corporation, grantee of FTZ 201, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the warehousing and manufacturing facilities (paper conversion—the final product is “graphic arts quality base paper”) of the Hazen Paper Company (Hazen), located in Holyoke, Massachusetts. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 8, 2004.
The Hazen facilities are located at four sites in Holyoke (9 acres total; 226,100 sq. ft. of enclosed space): Site #1—Headquarters Plant (4.2 acres; 106,000 sq. ft.)—240 South Water Street; Site #2—West Plant (1.7 acres; 68,000 sq. ft.)—210 South Water Street; Site #3—West Plant (1.1 acres; 39,000 sq. ft.)—717 Main Street; and Site #4—Sulco Warehouse (2 acres; 13,100 sq. ft. within 134,000 sq. ft. warehouse)—11 Berkshire Street.
The facilities (194 employees) may be used under FTZ procedures for warehousing and manufacturing activities—Hazen's manufacturing processes include laminating and coating (printing), embossing, rewinding/slitting, and sheeting/cutting. For Hazen's current manufacturing, foreign-sourced material accounts for 17 to 30 percent of finished-product value. The application indicates that the only material which may be sourced from abroad is graphic-arts quality aluminum foil (this falls into two tariff-schedule categories: With thickness not exceeding .01 millimeter, and with thickness exceeding .01 millimeter but less than .15 millimeter). The current duty rate for this input material is 5.8 percent.
Zone procedures would exempt Hazen from Customs duty payments on the foreign input when used in export production. On its domestic sales, Hazen would be able to defer duty payments, and to choose the lower duty rate that applies to the finished product's category (duty-free) for the foreign input listed above. Hazen would be able to avoid duty on foreign input which becomes scrap/waste, estimated at 14 percent of imported material. All of the above-cited savings from zone procedures could help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the
1. Submissions Via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building—Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 20005; or
2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal Service: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB—Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is May 17, 2004. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 1, 2004.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above, and at the Holyoke Economic Development & Industrial Corporation, One Court Plaza, Holyoke, MA 01040.
Notice is hereby given that the application by Mercer County, New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 200, in Mercer County, New Jersey, for authority to expand its zone in the Mercer County, New Jersey area (Doc. 53-2003, 68 FR 58652, 10/10/03), has been amended as follows:
Comments on the changes may be submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB-Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, by April 16, 2004.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the North Carolina Department of Commerce, grantee of FTZ 66, pursuant to § 400.28(a)(2) of the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400), requesting authority on behalf of Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation (SWPC) to process foreign-origin and domestic industrial power generating equipment under FTZ procedures within FTZ 66. It was formally filed on March 9, 2004.
SWPC is a producer of large industrial power generating turbines and generators that are installed in combined-cycle power plants operated by electric generation utilities. In the proposed processing activity (as defined in § 400.2(l)), foreign-origin steam turbines with a capacity of greater than 100 megawatts (HTSUS 8406.81.1070) would be admitted to the zone under nonprivileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.42) and U.S.-produced electric generators would be admitted under domestic status on a nonconcurrent basis. The turbines and generators would then be transferred from the zone in a combined Customs entry under the classification of electric generating sets (HTSUS 8502.39.0000), as provided by specific Customs rulings. The company indicates that this activity would occur on a recurring regular basis.
FTZ procedures would exempt SWPC from Customs duty payments on the foreign power generation turbines processed for export as electric generating sets. On withdrawals from the zone for Customs entry, SWPC would be able to elect the duty rate that applies to electric generator sets (2.5%) for the foreign turbines (6.7%). The application indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the SWPC's international competitiveness.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and three copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following addresses:
The closing period for their receipt is April 12, 2004. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to April 20, 2004).
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address No.1 listed above.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of Dongguan Fay Candle Co., Ltd. (Fay) under the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period August 1, 2002 through July 31, 2003. This rescission, in part, is based on the withdrawal of requests for review by the National Candle Association (petitioner) and Fay.
March 16, 2004.
Mark Hoadley or Sally Gannon at (202) 482-3148 and (202) 482-0162, respectively, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
The Department published in the
On September 30, 2003, the Department published its
Pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department may rescind an administrative review, “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Because petitioner and Fay have now both withdrawn their requests for review, and because they were the only parties to request a review for Fay, we are rescinding this administrative review, in part, for the period August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003, for Fay. We will continue the administrative review with respect to Qingdao Kingking.
Petitioner's request was received within the 90-day period for withdrawal of review requests specified in section 351.213(d)(1). Fay's request was received after the end of this period. However, the Department is authorized to extend this deadline if it decides that it is reasonable to do so.
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) within 15 days of the publication of this notice. The Department will direct Customs to assess antidumping duties for Fay at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries during the period August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of time. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations and sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of no harvest guidelines for crustaceans.
NMFS announces that annual harvest guidelines for the commercial lobster fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) will not be issued for the year 2004.
Alvin Katekaru, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, at 808-973-2937.
Under the Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, 50 CFR 660.50(b)(2), NMFS is required to publish the harvest guidelines for lobster Permit Area 1 around the NWHI. The fishery has been closed since 2000. This action is (a) taken as a precautionary measure to prevent overfishing of the lobster resources; (b) in compliance with an order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to keep the crustacean fisheries closed until an environmental impact statement and a biological opinion have been prepared for the crustacean fisheries in the western Pacific region; and (c) consistent with Executive Orders 13178 and 13196, issued in December 2000 and January 2001, that respectively, might be interpreted to close the NWHI crustacean fishery. NMFS announces that it will not be publishing any harvest guideline for this fishery for the year 2004 and no harvest of NWHI lobster resources will be allowed. NMFS intends to continue to conduct biological research on the status of the NWHI lobster resources and to examine the resulting data for indications as to the appropriate direction for future fishery management actions.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense Historical Advisory Committee was renewed, effective January 23, 2004, in consonance with the public interest, and in accordance with the provisions of the “Federal Advisory Committee Act.”
The DoD Historical Advisory Committee consists of three subcommittees (Historical Records Declassification Advisory Panel, the Department of The Army's Historical Advisory Subcommittee, and the Secretary of the Navy's Subcommittee on Naval History) which advise the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Army and Navy regarding the professional standards, historical methodology, program priorities, liaison with professional groups, and adequacy of resources associated with Department of Defense historical programs.
The DoD Historical Advisory Committee will continue to be well balanced in terms of the interest groups represented and functions to be performed. The members include distinguished representatives from academia, current U.S. Government and private sector historians, authors and librarians, and retired general officers of general/flag rank.
Ms. Jennifer Spaeth, DoD Committee Management Officer, 703-588-8151.
DoD.
Notice.
Under the provisions of Pub. L. 92-463, the “Federal Advisory Committee Act,” notice is hereby given that the following 18 advisory committees have been determined to be in the public interest and were renewed on February 28, 2004:
A. Board of Visitors National Defense University
B. Strategic Advisory Group for the U.S. Strategic Command
C. Advisory Group on Electron Devices
D. Defense Science Board
E. Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing
F. DoD Wage Committee
G. National Security Agency Advisory Board
H. Armed Forces Epidemiological Board
I. Army Science Board
J. Army Education Advisory Committee
K. Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board
L. Scientific Advisory Board of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
M. Board of Advisors to the President, Naval War College
N. Board of Advisors to the Superintendent, Naval Postgraduate School
O. Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel Advisory Committee
P. Naval Research Advisory Committee
Q. Air University Board of Visitors
R. U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
These committees provide necessary and valuable advice to the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials in the DoD in their respective areas of expertise. They make important contributions to DoD efforts in research and development, education, and training, and various technical program areas. Some of the are authorized by statute.
It is a continuing DoD policy to make every effort to achieve a balanced membership on all DoD advisory committees. Each committee is evaluated in terms of the functional disciplines, levels of experience, professional diversity, public and private association, and similar characteristics required to ensure a high degree of balanced is obtained.
Jennifer Spaeth, DoD Committee Management Officer, 703-588-8151.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army, the USDA Forest Service, and the DOT Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announce the availability of the FEIS for the 2d ACR Transformation and Installation Mission Support, Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) and Fort Polk, Louisiana, and Long-Term Military Training Use of Kisatchie National Forest Lands. The FEIS evaluates environmental impacts associated with the Army's proposal for implementing force transformation and mission capability enhancements at the installation and at England Industrial Airpark, along with long-term military training use of Kisatchie National Forest lands. The Army's proposed action involves fielding of new vehicles and equipment; construction and improvement of firing ranges, roads, stream crossings, and support facilities; land use agreements and leases; training and deployment of Army troops; and continued environmental stewardship. In addition, the FEIS considers a Forest Service proposal to thin approximately 21,500 acres of upland pine stands on the Vernon Unit, Calcasieu Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest to improve habitat conditions for the endangered red-cocked woodpecker. The FAA proposes to approve an amendment of the Alexandria International Airport Layout Plan as influenced by proposed Army projects and activities at England Industrial Airpark.
The waiting period will end 30 days after publication of the NOA in the
Written comments or requests for copies of the FEIS may be submitted to: Dan Nance, Fort Polk Public Affairs Office, 7073 Radio Road, Fort Polk, LA 71459-5342; phone: (337) 531-7203; fax: (337) 6014; e-mail:
Questions about the FEIS may be directed to Ms. Stacy Basham-Wagner, Joint Agency Liaison, Attention: AFZX-PW-E (Basham-Wagner), 1799 23rd Street, Fort Polk, LA 71459; telephone (337) 531-7458, fax: (337) 531-2627. For further information on the Forest Service's Record of Decision, contact Ms. Cynthia A. Dancak, 2500 Shreveport Highway, Pineville, LA 71360; phone (318) 473-7160.
In support of Army initiatives to meet evolving security requirements, the Army has designated the 2d ACR to transform to the 2d Cavalry Regiment, a medium-weight force equipped with Stryker vehicles that will be strategically responsive and more rapidly deployable by air. In addition to transformation of the 2d ACR, units stationed at other Army installations would participate in exercises at the JRTC and Fort Polk on a rotational basis. To these ends, the Army proposes to implement force transformation and installation mission support activities at the JRTC and Fort Polk with respect to home station training (maneuver and gunnery exercises for Army units assigned to Fort Polk), rotational unit exercises, and facilities construction. The Army also proposes renewal of a Special Use Permit agreement with the Forest Service for continued use of Kisatchie National Forest lands to suport military training. The areas of the Kisatchie National Forest proposed for Army use are known as the Intensive Use Area and Limited Use Area of the Vernon Unit, Calcasieu Ranger District and the Special Limited Use Area (also known as Horse's Head) of the Kisatchie Ranger District.
Proposals for installation mission support involve 20 construction projects that would occur on Army lands, national forest lands, and at England Industrial Airpark in Alexandria, Louisiana. The projects include 13 facilities in the Fort Polk cantonment area, digitization and expansion of the Multi-Purpose Ranger Complex on Fort Polk's main post, road construction/improvements and construction of a sniper range in the Intensive Use Area, construction of 20 stream crossings in the Limited Use Area, construction of 20 stream crossings in the Limited Use Area, and 3 deployment support facilities at England Industrial Airpark. The JRTC and Fort Polk also propose to create additional helicopter training areas and to conduct limited types of non-live fire training on private lands.
The Army is the lead agency in preparing the FEIS, and the Forest Service and FAA are cooperating agencies. The decision to be made by the Army, based on the results of the EIS and upon consideration of all relevant factors (including mission, cost, technical factors, and environmental considerations) is how to provide for military training, readiness, and facilities requirements while ensuring the sustained use of resources entrusted to the stewardship of the Army. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) intends to rely on analyses in this EIS to make decisions concerning the Alexandria International Airport Layout Plan as it may be affected by three Army projects proposed to occur at the airport and consequent movement of aircraft, materiel, and personnel through that facility.
Based on the FEIS, the Forest Service has decided to authorize certain Army activities and land uses on Kisatchie National Forest lands and to thin, over a 10-year period, approximately 21,500 acres of upland pine stands in the Intensive Use Area to enhance habitat conditions for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The Forest Service (in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) has also decided to classify as “deleted” red-cockaded woodpecker clusters documented to have been inactive for a five-year period.
The FEIS identifies eight alternatives, two of which are analyzed in detail: (1) The proposed action, summarized above, and (2) a no action alternative. The FEIS also includes a mitigation and monitoring plan developed by the Army and Forest Service to rectify, reduce, or eliminate adverse effects to land cover, soils, water quality, and biological resources.
The Forest Service's decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal, including attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date of the legal notice of the decision is published in the Alexandria Daily Town Talk. The Appeal shall be sent to USDA, Forest Service, ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, 1720 Peachtree Rd., NW., Suite 811N, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-9102, within 45 days of the date of the legal notice. Appeals may be faxed to (404) 347-5401. Hand-delivered appeals must be received within normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Appeals may also be mailed electronically in a common digital format to
Copies of the FEIS and Forest Service Record of Decision are available for review at the following libraries: Allen Parish Library (Oberlin Branch), 320 S. Sixth Street, Oberlin; Beauregard Parish Library, 205 South Washington Avenue, DeRidder; Calcasieu Public Library, 301 W. Claude Street, Lake Charles; East Baton Rouge Parish Library, 7711 Goodwood Boulevard, Baton Rouge; Lafayette Public Library, 301 W. Congress Street, Lafayette; Lincoln Parish Library, 509 West Alabama Avenue, Ruston; Natchitoches Parish Library, 431 Jefferson Street, Natchitoches; New Orleans Public Library (Orleans Parish), 219 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans; New Orleans Public Library (Algiers Point Branch), 725 Pelican Avenue, New Orleans; Ouachita Parish Library, 1800 Stubbs Avenue, Monroe; Rapides Parish Library, 411 Washington Street, Alexandria; Vernon Parish Library, 1401 Nolan Trace, Leesville; Sabine Parish Library, 705 Main Street, Many; and Shreve Memorial Library (Caddo Parish), 424 Texas Street (71101), Shreveport. The FEIS, as well as additional information concerning the EIS process, may be reviewed at
National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of public hearing.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Draft EIS (DOE/EIS-0284) has been distributed to members of Congress, Federal and state regulatory agencies, state and local government officials, national stakeholders, and other interested persons and organizations. Copies of the Draft EIS have been made available at the Elkhart Public Library for public review, and the Draft EIS is also available for review at the following Internet site:
DOE invites members of Congress; State, local, and tribal governments; other Federal agencies; and the general public to provide comments on the Draft EIS. The comment period on the Draft EIS runs through April 19, 2004; DOE will consider all comments received by that date in preparing a Final EIS. Comments received after April 19, 2004, will be considered to the extent practicable. Written, oral, fax, or e-mail comments will be considered (see
A copy of the Draft EIS may be obtained upon request by writing to Lloyd Lorenzi, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA, 15236; by telephone (412) 386-6159; by facsimile (412) 386-4822; or by e-mail (
Comments concerning the Draft EIS can be submitted by the means described above or by leaving a message at toll-free number 1-800-276-9851. Specific information regarding the public hearing can also be obtained from the DOE contact noted above.
For general information on the Low-Emission Boiler System Proof-of-Concept Project or the NEPA process for this Project, please contact Mr. Lloyd Lorenzi at the address provided above. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119; telephone 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
The Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Low-Emission Boiler System project that was proposed by Babcock Power, Inc., to demonstrate reliable and economical technologies for meeting the environmental performance requirements of coal-fired power generation. DOE's proposed action is to provide cost-shared funding of approximately $30 million (about 23.5% of the total cost) for the proposed project. The Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS, and may provide financing for a portion of the proposed project. The project would involve constructing and operating a 91 megawatt-electric coal-fired generating plant on property owned by Turris Coal Company adjacent to its existing mining operations near Elkhart, IL. The plant would be owned and operated by Corn Belt Energy Corporation.
The Draft EIS also evaluates the environmental impacts of a no-action alternative under which DOE would not provide cost-shared funding. Alternative sites and technologies that were considered in developing the proposed project are also presented. The Draft EIS analyzes potential impacts on air quality, aesthetics and land use, surface water and groundwater, solid waste, traffic and transportation, ecological and cultural resources, noise, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and other resources.
The formal hearing will begin at 7 p.m. DOE invites people who wish to speak at this public hearing to contact Mr. Lloyd Lorenzi, either by phone, fax, e-mail, or in writing (see
DOE will begin the meeting with an overview of the proposed Low-Emission Boiler System Project. The meeting will not be conducted as an evidentiary hearing, and speakers will not be cross-examined. However, speakers may be asked questions to help ensure that DOE fully understands their comments or suggestions. A presiding officer will establish the order of speakers and provide any additional procedures necessary to conduct the meeting.
Oak Ridge Operations Office, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of availability.
The Department of Energy announces the availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Environmental Assessment Addendum (EA Addendum) for Waste Disposition Activities at the Paducah Site (DOE/EA-1339A). The EA Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
The U.S. Department of Energy has completed an Environmental Assessment Addendum (DOE/EA-1339A) for the disposition of additional waste currently located at the Paducah Site, Paducah, Kentucky. This EA Addendum follows the original EA (DOE/EA-1339), completed November 5, 2002, which analyzed continued waste management operations including disposition of waste from the Paducah Site.
The EA Addendum analyzes transportation of additional waste for disposal at various locations in the United States. Based on the results of the impact analysis reported in the EA Addendum, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the context of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement was not necessary, and DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Copies of the EA may be obtained from: U.S. Department of Energy, Paducah Site Office, Attn: Mr. Greg Bazzell, P.O. Box 1410, Paducah, KY 42001, by fax (1-270-441-6801), or electronically (
The EA is available for review at the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Information Center, Barkley Centre, 115 Memorial Drive, in Paducah, Kentucky. The EA is also available at the U.S. Department of Energy Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN 37830.
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB) Chairs Meeting. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, April 21, 2004, 8:15 a.m.-5:15 p.m. Thursday, April 22, 2004, 8:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1E-245, Forrestal Building, Washington, DC 20585.
Jay Vivari, Program Management Specialist (EM-30.1), Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5143.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Fernald. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, April 6, 2004, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.
Fernald Closure Project Site, 7400 Willey Road, Trailer 214, Hamilton, OH 45253.
Doug Sarno, The Perspectives Group, Inc., 1055 North Fairfax Street, Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 22314, at (703) 837-1197, or e-mail;
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Agency information collection activities: submission for OMB review; comment request.
The EIA has submitted the Form FE-746R, “Imports and Exports of Natural Gas,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for revision and a three-year extension under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
Comments must be filed by April 15, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within that period, you should contact the OMB Desk Officer for DOE listed below as soon as possible.
Send comments to OMB Desk Officer for DOE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-395-7285) is recommended. The mailing address is 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. (A copy of your comments should also be provided to EIA's Statistics and Methods Group at the address below.)
Requests for additional information should be directed to Grace Sutherland. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-287-1705) or e-mail (
This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (
1. Form FE-746R, “Import and Export of Natural Gas.”
2. Office of Fossil Energy.
3. OMB Number 1901-0294.
4. Revision and Three-year extension.
5. Mandatory.
6. Form FE-746R collects data to be used by the Office of Fossil Energy from persons seeking authorization to import or export natural gas, and the information collected monthly and quarterly to monitor such trade under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as other trade falling outside the parameters of NAFTA.
7. Business or other for-profit.
8. 10320 (300 respondents × 16.5 responses per year × 2.08 hours per response).
Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the
Section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (ESNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Fiftieth Revised Sheet No. 7 and Fiftieth Revised Sheet No. 8, with a proposed effective date of March 1, 2004.
ESNG states that the purpose of this instant filing is to track rate changes attributable to a storage service purchased from Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) under its Rate Schedules FSS and SST. The costs of the above referenced storage service comprise the rates and charges payable under ESNG's Rate Schedule CFSS. This tracking filing is being made pursuant to Section 3 of ESNG's Rate Schedule CFSS.
ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the permittee for the subject project has requested to surrender its preliminary permit. Investigations and feasibility studies have shown that the project would not be economically feasible.
The permit shall remain in effect through the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is Saturday, Sunday, or holiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case the permit shall remain in effect through the first business day following that day. New applications involving this project site, to the extent provided for under 18 CFR part 4, may be filed on the next business day.
Take notice that on March 1, 2004, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans), 100 Allegany Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15275, filed in
The facilities that Equitrans is seeking to refunctionalize include: (1) Approximately 275 miles of low-pressure, predominantly small diameter pipeline; (2) 14 compressor engines, located at 8 compressor stations, having a total of 14,395 horsepower; and (3) various meters and appurtenant facilities, all of which are primarily used to gather gas from numerous gas wells in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and transport such gas to Equitrans' downstream transportation facilities. The facilities are located in Armstrong and Greene Counties, Pennsylvania; and Armstrong, Braxton, Doddridge, Lewis, Marion and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. Equitrans states that concurrently with the submission of this application, it is also submitting an application under section 4 of the NGA seeking approvals for the rate treatment associated with the refunctionalized facilities.
Equitrans further requests that the Commission grant any waivers of its regulations that the Commission may deem necessary to grant the authorizations requested in its application.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to David K. Dewey, General Counsel, Equitrans, L.P., 100 Allegheny Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15275, at (412) 395-2566 and Mark Cook, BakerBotts, L.P., Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, at 202 639-7779.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Original Sheet Nos. 8T and 8U, reflecting an effective date of January 1, 2004.
Gulfstream states that this filing is being made to implement a Loan negotiated rate transaction under Rate Schedule PALS pursuant to Section 31 of the General Terms and Conditions of Gulfstream's FERC Gas Tariff. Gulfstream states that Original Sheet Nos. 8T and 8U identify and describe the negotiated rate agreement, including the exact legal name of the relevant shipper, the negotiated rate, the rate schedule, the contract term, and the contract quantity. Gulfstream also states that Original Sheet Nos. 8T and 8U include footnotes where necessary to provide further details on the agreement listed thereon.
Gulfstream states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 5, 2004, KO Transmission Company (KOT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 10, to become effective April 1, 2004.
KOT states that the proposed change is made pursuant to the provisions of Section 24, Transportation Retainage Adjustment of the General Terms and Conditions (GT&C) of KOT's Tariff, which provides that KOT may adjust its fuel retainage as operating conditions warrant. KOT states that the proposed change will lower KOT's retainage to 1.00%, from its current rate of 1.05%.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, Northern Border Pipeline Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 303A, with an effective date of April 3, 2004. Northern Border is also filing certain potentially non-conforming Global Agreements.
Northern Border states that certain Agreements are being submitted for the Commission's review and information and have been listed on the tendered tariff sheets as potentially nonconforming agreements.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern Natural), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha Nebraska 68124, filed in Docket No. CP04-70-000 on February 27, 2004 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, to abandon by sale to Sid Richardson Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (Richardson), certain pipeline facilities, with appurtenances consisting of 50 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline (Northern Natural's B-Line), located in Winkler, Ward, Reeves and Pecos Counties, Texas, together with delivery and receipt points located along the length of the pipeline. Northern Natural also proposes to abandon by removal certain associated interconnects and cross-over pipeline and valves, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Michael T. Loeffler, Director, Certificates and Reporting, Northern Natural, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha Nebraska, at (402) 398-7103.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.
Take notice that on March 5, 2004, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to replace the shipper name Calpine Energy Services, L.P. (Calpine) with Goldendale Energy Center, LLC (Goldendale) on the list of negotiated rate service agreements contained in Northwest's Tariff. Northwest states that the shipper name is revised to reflect the assignment of Calpine's negotiated rate service agreement to Goldendale.
Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Northwest's customers and interested State regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is convening a conference to discuss a settlement reached by some of the parties in the above captioned proceeding. The conference will be held on Thursday, March 18, 2004, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Conference Room A, 245 Market Street, San Francisco, California.
The purpose of the conference is to inform parties of the terms of a settlement agreement recently entered into between the Williams Companies, Inc. and Williams Power Company, Inc. (collectively, Williams), on the one hand, and Southern California Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, on the other. The settlement provides that certain additional parties may elect to join the settlement as to Williams and receive refunds in accordance with the settlement's terms. The conference will be governed by rule 602 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedures, 18 CFR 385.602 (2003). For additional information concerning the conference, interested persons may contact Robert Pease at
Take notice that on March 5, 2004, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, (Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the pro forma tariff sheets attached at Appendix A to the filing.
Tennessee states that the tariff sheets are being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order issued January 26, 2004, in the referenced proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on February 27, 2004, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC
Trunkline LNG requests authorization to amend its Original Expansion Project, as amended, with the following modifications: the layberth will be converted into an LNG unloading dock. Three LNG unloading arms, one vapor return/delivery arm, and support trestles will be installed. These facilities will permit continuous unloading of ships from either of the two docks; however, no simultaneous unloading of LNG ships will occur. The facilities will be designed to provide a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 1,261 psig. The amended expansion project is needed to provide additional firm vaporization service and increased sendout capability for Trunkline LNG's customer, BG LNG Services, LLC (BGLS). The modification will not change the level of Trunkline LNG terminal's storage capacity of 9.0 Bcf. The sustained sendout capacity of the terminal will be increased from 1.2 to 1.8 Bcf/d, with 2.1 Bcf/d peak sendout capacity. BGLS will have 100% of the terminal's expanded capacity under a long-term contract which terminates on December 31, 2023.
Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to William W. Grygar, Vice President of Rates and Regulatory Affairs, 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of way for the proposed project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as possible.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper;
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on March 5, 2004, Redbud Energy LP (Redbud) tendered for filing with the Commission an application for redetermination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, Covanta Union, Inc. (Covanta Union) tendered for filing: (1) A notice of change in facts from those described in its application for authorization to sell power at market-based rates; (2) a triennial market power analysis; and (3) a revised market-based rate tariff in compliance with the Commission's order issued November 17, 2003, in Docket No. EL01-118-000, Investigation
Covanta Union states that a copy of this filing was served on the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
Take notice that on February 20, 2004, the FPL 251 Wind, LLC filed a withdrawal of their Rate Schedule Nos. 1 through 4.
Take notice that on February 27, 2004, the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) submitted additional information regarding their November 4, 2003 filing of an amendment to section 21.2 of Schedule F, which governs modifications of transmission service on a firm basis. MAPP requests a March 1, 2004, effective date of the Schedule F amendment filed on November 4, 2003, and accepted by the Commission on December 11, 2003.
Take notice that on March 5, 2004, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing corrected tariff sheets to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) and Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (Services Tariff) filed March 3, 2004, in compliance with the Commission's February 2, 2004, order in Docket No. ER04-294-000.
NYISO states that copies of this filing have been served on all parties listed on the official service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission in these proceedings. The NYISO has also served a copy of this filing to all parties that have executed Service Agreements under the NYISO's Open-Access Transmission Tariff or Services Tariff, the New York State Public Service Commission, and to the electric utility regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on March 5, 2004, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement by and between Con Edison and Astoria Energy LLC. Con Edison states that the agreement provides for the interconnection to Con Edison's transmission system of a 1,000 MW electric generating facility that Astoria Energy LLC proposes to construct and operate in the Borough of Queens, New York.
Con Edison states that copies of this filing have been served on Astoria Energy LLC and the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Take notice that on March 5, 2004, Redbud Energy LP (Redbud) tendered for filing its proposed tariff and supporting cost data for its proposed rates to recover costs associated with its ownership of a switchyard on the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company transmission network. Redbud requests an effective date of May 4, 2004.
Take notice that on March 8, 2004, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee filed revisions to NEPOOL Market Rule 1 to allow Self-Scheduled generating Resources to receive in defined circumstances Operating Reserve Credits during non-Self-Scheduled hours. A March 1, 2004, effective date is requested.
The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were sent to the NEPOOL Participants and the New England state governors and regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on March 2, 2004, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) tendered for filing an amendment to its July 29, 2003, filing of a proposed Safety-Net Cost Recovery Adjustment Clause under the 2002 General Rate Schedule Provisions pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conversation Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2).
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson) tendered for filing (1) an updated market power analysis in compliance with the Commission's Order in Docket No. ER97-2872-000 granting Central Hudson market-based rate authority, and (2) an amendment to its market-
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC (METC), in compliance with the terms of the Commission's orders of February 13, 2002, and March 29, 2002, in Docket Nos. EC02-23-000,
METC states that copies of this filing have been served upon all transmission customers within the METC pricing zone within the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and on the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on February 26, 2004, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) in compliance with the Commission's May 20, 2003, Order in Docket No. ER03-647-000 submitted a Report on Status of Regional Adequacy Markets Working Group.
Take notice that on February 27, 2004, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) filed an informational filing submitting notification that one of the generating units covered by the Amended Reliability Agreement between the ISO and Devon Power LLC (Devon) is no longer need for reliability purposes and stating that the ISO will terminate the Amended Reliability Agreement with respect to one of Devon's units.
ISO states that copies of the filing have been served upon all parties to the proceedings.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, PSI Energy, Inc. (PSI), submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the letter order issued December 1, 2003, in Docket No. ER04-90-000.
PSI states that a copy of this is being served on Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing a compliance filing in connection with the Commission's February 2, 2004, order in Docket No. ER04-294-000.
The NYISO states that it has served a copy of this filing to all parties listed on the official service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission in these proceedings. The NYISO also states that it has also served a copy of this filing to all parties that have executed Service Agreements under the NYISO's Open-Access Transmission Tariff or Services Tariff, the New York State Public Service Commission and to the electric utility regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on March 2, 2004, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) tendered for filing additional information with respect to interconnection agreements between ComEd and Zilkha Renewable Energy Midwest I, LLC, and between ComEd and Zilkha Renewable Energy Midwest VI, LLC filed with the Commission on January 12, 2004.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, Orion Power MidWest, LP filed its Rate Schedule No. 1 to comply with the letter order of the Commission in Docket No. ER04-500-000 issued February 25, 2004.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. (VEC) tendered for filing an amendment to its initial rate filing in Docket No. ER04-519-000, and designated its amendment as proposed First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 10.
VEC states that each of the customers under the rate schedule, Citizens, the Vermont Public Service Board, and the Vermont Department of Public Service were mailed copies of the filing.
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, Onondaga Cogeneration Limited Partnership (Onondaga), pursuant to a request from Commission staff, submitted for filing a Substitute Original Sheet No. 2 to its market-based rate tariff deleting a reference to sales of black start capacity into the market administered by the New York Independent System Operator.
Take notice that on March 2, 2004, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) tendered for filing a revision to the ISO Tariff, Amendment No. 58, for acceptance by the Commission. The ISO states that the purpose of Amendment No. 58 is to (1) clarify the application of the Tolerance Band during Waiver Denial Periods; (2) define Constrained Output Generation; (3) clarify the implementation of Uninstructed Deviation Penalties to dynamically scheduled System Resources; and (4) provide for consistent treatment of unit data for Reliability Must-Run and market transactions. The ISO is requesting that the amendment be made effective on the later of May 1, 2004, or when the Phase 1-B modifications are put into service.
The ISO states that this filing has been served on the Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, parties in Docket No. ER03-1046, and parties with effective Scheduling Coordinator Agreements under the ISO Tariff.
Take notice that on March 2, 2004, Kentucky Utilities Company (KU) submitted for filing, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act and part 35 of the Commission's regulations, an amendment to a Service Agreement between KU and City of Nicholasville, Kentucky, for the addition of a new metering point, Substation No. 8, for wholesale power service.
KU states that a copy of this filing has been served upon the City of Nicholasville, Kentucky.
Take notice that on March 2, 2004, BP West Coast Products LLC—Wilmington Calciner submitted a Notice of Change of Legal Name changing ARCO CQC Kiln, Inc., to BP West Coast Products LLC—Wilmington Calciner effective January 1, 2002.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) filed an Interconnection Agreement between PPL Electric and the Borough of Ephrata, Pennsylvania. PPL Electric request an effective date of February 1, 2004.
PPL Electric states that it has served a copy of this filing on the Borough of Ephrata.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) filed an Interconnection Agreement between PPL Electric and the Borough of Perkasie, Pennsylvania. PPL Electric requests an effective date of February 1, 2004.
PPL Electric states that it has served a copy of this filing on the Borough of Perkasie.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), submitted for filing an executed interconnection service agreement (ISA) among PJM, Conectiv Atlantic Generation, LLC, and Atlantic City Electric Company d/b/a Conectiv Power Delivery. PJM requests a waiver of the Commission's 60-day notice requirement to permit a February 29, 2004, effective date for the ISA.
PJM states that copies of this filing were served upon the parties to the agreements and the state regulatory commissions within the PJM region.
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), filed modifications to recently-approved provisions contained in its December 12, 2003, filing, in which the NYISO proposed to revise its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) and Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (Services Tariff) to reduce the magnitude of congestion rent shortfalls. NYISO states that the proposed modifications will change the OATT and Services Tariff to include the appropriate Point of Injection and Point of Withdrawal for two sets of Existing Transmission Capacity for Native Load (ETCNL) listed in both Table 2 of Attachment M of the OATT and Table 1 of part IV of Attachment B of the Services Tariff. The NYISO has requested that the modifications become effective on February 2, 2004, the date that the provisions in the December 12, 2003, filing became effective.
The NYISO states that it has served a copy of this filing upon all parties that have executed Service Agreements under the NYISO's OATT or Services Tariff, the New York State Public Service Commission, and the electric utility regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, Black River Generation, LLC filed with the Commission an application pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power and part 35 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to sell energy, capacity, and ancillary services wholesale at market-based rates.
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated (ATSI) tendered for filing a proposed Schedule 2—Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service under its Open Access Transmission Tariff, ATSI FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 and a new Schedule 2.1—Revenue Requirement for Reactive Power.
ATSI states that the proposed Schedule 2 and 2.1 are intended to allow collection of revenues associated with the supply of Reactive Supply Service within the FirstEnergy Control Area by multiple generation suppliers and the distribution of all revenues collected in a fair and equitable manner. ATSI has proposed to make the revisions effective on May 1, 2004.
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, Virginia Electric and Power Company (d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power) tendered for filing revised rate schedule sheets (Revised Sheets) in its First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 109 (Rate Schedule) with Virginia Municipal Electric Association No. 1 (VMEA). Dominion Virginia Power states that, consistent with the terms of the Rate Schedule, the Revised Sheets provide for the advance payment for construction of excess facilities with a voltage-appropriate carrying charge and modify the rates for service. Dominion Virginia Power requests waiver of the Commission's regulations to allow the Revised Sheets to become effective as of April 1, 2004.
Dominion Virginia Power states that copies of the filing were served upon VMEA, the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on March 4, 2004, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated (ATSI) tendered for filing a revised Generator Interconnection and Operating Agreement (GIOA) to provide a connection of electric generating facilities owned and operated by Troy Energy, LLC to the ATSI Transmission System and for coordination of the operation and maintenance of those facilities with ATSI. ATSI states that the revisions to the GIOA were negotiated in conjunction with settlement discussions in
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for an application requesting Commission approval for the transfer of project land and water withdrawal for the Biron Hydroelectric Project. The project is located on the Wisconsin River in Wood and Portage Counties in central Wisconsin. The Biron Dam is located at river mile 219 in the Village of Biron.
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that the transfer of land and water withdrawal would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is attached to the March 5, 2004 Commission Order titled “Order Amending License for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters,” which is available for review and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Part 380 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380; FERC Order No. 486 and 52 FR 47897, the Office of Energy Projects Staff (staff) reviewed the application for a new license for the St. Anthony Falls Hydroelectric Project, located on the Mississippi River in the city of Minneapolis in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and prepared a final environmental assessment (EA) for the project. The project does not use or occupy any federal facilities or lands.
In this final EA, the staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the existing project and concludes that licensing the project, with staff's recommended measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the final EA and application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The project includes two developments with a total authorized capacity of 1,755 megawatts (MW) as follows: (a) The Wanapum development consisting of a dam 186.5 feet high and 8,637 feet long with upstream fish passage facilities, a reservoir with an approximate surface area of 14,680 acres, a powerhouse with ten turbine-generator units with a total nameplate capacity of 900 MW, transmission lines, and appurtenant facilities; and (b) the Priest Rapids development consisting of a dam 179.5 feet high and 10,103 feet long with upstream fish passage facilities, a reservoir with an approximate surface area of 7,725 acres, a powerhouse with ten turbine-generator units with a total nameplate capacity of 855 MW, transmission lines, and appurtenant facilities.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n.
Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EIS were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the Web at
Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the EIS.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Pursuant to section 4.34(b) of the Commission's Regulations (
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, motions to intervene, protests, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly
k.
l.
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure also require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
p.
q. Register online at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Pursuant to § 4.34(b) of the Commission's Regulations (see Order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23108, May 20, 1991), the deadline for filing comments, interventions, protests, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. Reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
Comments, motions to intervene, protests, recommendations, terms and
k.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008.
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “PROTEST”, “REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
n.
o. This notice also consists of the following standard paragraphs:
B1.
E1.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Pursuant to § 4.34(b) of the Commission's Regulations (
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission
Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
k.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008.
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “PROTEST”, “REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
n.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Pursuant to § 4.34(b) of the Commission's regulations (
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's rules of practice and procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
k.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008.
All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “PROTEST”, “REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
n.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-11178-003) on any comments or motions filed.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q.
Symbiotics, LLC, Lake Bistineau Hydro, LLC, Chittenden Hydro, LLC, Mohawk Hydro, LLC, Dover Hydro, LLC, Bridgeport Hydro, LLC, Arbuckle Hydro, LLC, Rathbun Hydro, LLC, Avalon Hydro, LLC, DeGray Hydro, LLC, Bayview Hydro, LLC, Pleasant Hill Hydro, LLC, Wills Creek Hydro, LLC, Bumping Lake Hydro, LLC, Lower Anacoco Hydro, LLC, Project Nos. 11915-001, 12230-001, 12273-001, 12290-001, 12300-001, 12182-001, 12211-001, 12258-001, 12216-001, 12256-001, 12284-001, 12292-001, 12180-001, 12188-001 and 12234-001.
Take notice that the permittees for the subject projects have requested to surrender their preliminary permits. Investigations and feasibility studies have shown that the projects would not be economically feasible.
The permits shall remain in effect through the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is Saturday, Sunday, or holiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case each permit shall remain in effect through the first business day following that day. New applications involving these project sites, to the extent provided for under 18 CFR part 4, may be filed on the next business day.
The Commission intends to hold meetings with the Indian Tribes potentially affected by the relicensing of the Hells Canyon Project
To ensure that all parties are made aware of the issues raised during each tribal consultation meeting, the Commission staff will also be holding a separate, tribal consultation briefing. This meeting will be held on Thursday, April 1, 2004, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Boise Center on the Grove, 850 Front Street, Boise, Idaho.
The Commission encourages parties interested in the Hells Canyon proceeding to come and discuss the issues raised at tribal consultation meetings.
For more information, contact Alan Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074 or
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merit's of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of
Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of prohibited and exempt communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 17, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OECA-2004-003 to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
Acquanetta Delaney, Compliance Assistance and Sector Programs Division (2224A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7061; fax number: (202) 564-0009; email address;
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OECA-2004-003, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Docket is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. In an effort to minimize a state's burden in preparing its annual statutorily-required report, EPA issued guidance that explains what section 1414(c)(3)(A) requires and provides model language and reporting templates. EPA also annually makes available to the states a computer query that generates for each state (from information states are already required to submit to EPA's national database on a quarterly basis) the required violations information in a table consistent with the reporting template in EPA's guidance.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the formation of an expert technical review panel whose purpose is to provide for greater input on ongoing efforts to monitor the situation for New York residents and workers impacted by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The panel members will help guide the EPA's use of the available exposure and health surveillance databases and registries to characterize any remaining exposures and risks, identify unmet public health needs, and recommend any steps to further minimize the risks associated with the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. The panel will meet several times over the course of approximately two years, and these panel meetings will be open to the public, except where the public interest requires otherwise. Information on the panel meeting agendas, documents (except where the public interest requires otherwise), and public registration to attend the meetings will be available from an Internet Web site. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0003.
The first meeting of this panel will be held on March 31, 2004, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., eastern standard time. On-site registration will begin at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House, One Bowling Green, New York, NY in the Auditorium (basement level). A government-issued identification (
Eastern Research Group, Inc., (ERG), an EPA contractor, will facilitate the meeting. To attend the meeting as an observer, please register by visiting the Web site at:
For meeting information, registration and logistics, please
Immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York City's World Trade Center, many Federal agencies, including the EPA, were called upon to focus their technical and scientific expertise on the national emergency. EPA, other Federal agencies, New York City, and New York State public health and environmental authorities focused on numerous cleanup, dust collection and ambient air monitoring activities to ameliorate and better understand the human health impacts of the disaster. Detailed information concerning the environmental monitoring activities that were conducted as part of this response is available at the EPA Response to 9-11 Web site at
In addition to environmental monitoring, EPA efforts also included toxicity testing of the dust on laboratory mice, as well as the development of a human exposure and health risk assessment. This risk assessment document,
While these monitoring and assessment activities were ongoing, and the cleanup at Ground Zero itself was occurring, EPA began planning for a program to clean and monitor residential apartments. From June 2002 until December 2002, residents impacted by World Trade Center dust and debris in an area of about 1 mile by 1 mile south of Canal Street were eligible to request federally funded cleaning and monitoring for airborne asbestos or only monitoring of their residences. The cleanup continued into the summer of 2003, by which time the EPA had cleaned and monitored 3400 apartments and monitored an additional 800 apartments. Detailed information on this portion of the EPA response is also available at
A critical component of understanding long-term human health impacts is the establishment of health registries. The World Trade Center Health Registry is a comprehensive and confidential health survey of those most directly exposed to the contamination resulting from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. It is intended to give health professionals a better picture of the health consequences of 9/11. It was established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYCDHMH), in cooperation with a number of academic institutions, public agencies and community groups. Detailed information about the registry can be obtained from the registry Web site at:
In order to obtain individual advice on the effectiveness of these programs, unmet needs and data gaps, the EPA will convene a technical panel of experts who have been involved with World Trade Center assessment activities. Dr. Paul Gilman, EPA Science Advisor, will serve as Chair of the panel, and Dr. Paul Lioy, Professor of Environmental and Community Medicine at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School-UMDNJ and Rutgers University, will serve as Vice Chair. A full list of the panel members and a charge statement and operating principles for the panel are available from the panel Web site listed above. Panel meetings will each be one-day meetings, and they will occur over the course of approximately a two-year period. Panel members will provide individual advice on issues the panel addresses. These meetings will occur in New York City and nearby locations. All of the meetings will be announced on the Web site and by a
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0003. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the Headquarters EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752; facsimile: (202) 566-1753; or e-mail:
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President.
Notice of the publication to add a new system of records and add standard routine uses.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President (OA/EOP), is proposing to create a new Privacy Act systems of records and add standard routine uses for all its systems of records. This proposal provides notice of the planned: (1) creation of one new system. The new system, OA/EOP/08 “Employee Transportation Facilitation,” includes information maintained by the Office of Administration on parking permits, carpool and vanpool members, and transportation subsidies for individuals who work for the following Executive Office of the President Organizations: Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the United States Trade Representative. (2) Addition of standard routine uses for all OA/EOP systems of records.
The notice for the new system of records and standard routine uses will become effective as published on April 26, 2004, unless the Office of Administration publishes a notice to the contrary. Comments on these systems of records should be submitted in writing before April 26, 2004.
All written comments concerning these systems of records should be submitted to the General Counsel, Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 and sent by facsimile to (202) 456-7921.
The following standard routine uses apply, subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, except where otherwise noted or where obviously not appropriate, to each system of records maintained by the Office of Administration.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Employee Transportation Facilitation.
Office of Administration, Human Resources Management, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 will keep transportation subsidy records. Office of Administration, Facilities Management Division, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 will keep parking management records.
Holders of parking permits, applicants for ridesharing information, members of carpools and vanpools, and applicants and recipients of fare subsidies who are employees with the following organizations within the EOP: Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and United States Trade Representative. The information in this system of records is kept by the Office of Administration to administer employee transportation programs on behalf of the EOP organizations listed above.
Records of holders of parking permits and records of carpool and vanpool members. Records and reports of status of rideshare applications; copies of applications and match letters received by rideshare applicants; applications and certifications of fare subsidy recipients; records and reports of disbursements to fare subsidy recipients; and information on local public mass transit facilities and fare subsidy programs.
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended; title 5 U.S.C. 301.
Parking management and fare subsidy management.
Carpool listing produced for use in creating or enlarging carpools or vanpools. Used for production of listings and reports. Used for periodic review or revalidation. Used as part of a program designed to ensure eligibility for, and receipt of, fare subsidy.
Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12). Disclosures may be made from this system to consumer reporting agencies (collecting on behalf of the United States Government) as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1982 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Records are stored in hard copy or electronically.
Records can be retrieved in hard copy form by name or electronically by employee name or social security number, or by ZIP code of residence, as applicable.
Except for carpool listings, access is accorded only to parking and fare subsidy management offices. Printout of carpool listing used in matching program has name, agency, Office of Administration permit number, and work telephone number only and is available upon request.
Data are deleted and not retained on ADP once the individual leaves the system for any reason (
Office of Administration, Human Resources Management, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 will keep transportation subsidy records. Office of Administration, Facilities Management Division, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 will keep parking management records.
Current or former employees seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the system manager. Employees should provide full name, social security number, valid identification; and any other information verifiable from this record.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Applications submitted by individuals for parking permits, carpool and vanpool membership, ridesharing information, and fare subsidies; from notifications from other Federal agencies in the program; and from
None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; OMB approval.
The Federal Communications Commission has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the revised public information collection, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, OMB Control Number 3060-0849. Therefore, the Commission announces that OMB Control No. 3060-0849 is effective March 16, 2004.
Effective March 16, 2004.
The Federal Communications Commission has received OMB approval for a revised information collection Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, OMB Control Number 3060-0849, 68 FR 38040, June 26, 2003, which now includes progress reports to be filed by the cable and consumer electronic industries with respect to ongoing inter industry negotiations that may affect the technical specifications for navigation devices. The effective date for collection of the progress reports is March 16, 2004. Through this document, the Commission announces that it received this approval; OMB Control No. 3060-0849.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before May 17, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before April 15, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments regarding this Paperwork Reduction Act submission to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments May 17, 2004. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-C804, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the internet at
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that, at 9:08 a.m. on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director John D. Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the Currency), seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry, concurred in by Scott M. Albinson, acting in the place and stead of James E. Gilleran (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Vice Chairman John M. Reich, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no notice of the meeting earlier than March 5, 2004, was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii)).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 30, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 10, 2004.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 9, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 10, 2004.
General Services Administration.
Notice.
The Department of State has cancelled the following Optional Form: OF 141, Application for Service Credit. This form is now a State Department form (DS-5001). You can request copies of the new form from: Department of State, A/RPS/DIR, SA-22, 18th and G Streets, NW., Room 2400, Washington, DC 20522-2201.
Mr. Charles Cunningham, Department of State, 202 312-9605.
Effective March 16, 2004.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting and request for information:
(1) What animal and human data best describe the health concerns from exposure to titanium dioxide?
(2) What strategies are being used to control occupational exposure to titanium dioxide (
(3) At what workplaces and occupations can exposure to titanium dioxide occur?
(4) What challenges exist in measuring workplace exposures to titanium dioxide?
(5) What are areas of future collaborative efforts (
The public is invited to attend and will have the opportunity to provide comments.
NIOSH seeks to obtain materials, including published and unpublished reports and research findings, to evaluate the possible health risks of occupational exposure to titanium dioxide (including particle size-specific information). Examples of requested information include, but are not to be limited to, the following:
(1) Identification of industries or occupations in which exposures to titanium dioxide may occur.
(2) Trends in the production and use of titanium dioxide.
(3) Description of work tasks and scenarios with a potential for exposure to titanium dioxide.
(4) Current and historical exposure measurement data in various types of industries and jobs.
(5) Case reports or other health information demonstrating health effects in workers exposed to titanium dioxide.
(6) Reports of experimental in vivo and in vitro studies that provide evidence of a dose-relationship between the particle size of a substance and its biological activity.
(7) Reports of experimental inhalation studies with rodents demonstrating a relationship between the particle size or surface area of a substance and lung inflammation, fibrosis, and biochemical mediators.
(8) Description of work practices and engineering controls used to reduce or prevent workplace exposure to titanium dioxide.
(9) Educational materials for worker safety and training on the safe handling of titanium dioxide.
(10) Data pertaining to the feasibility of establishing particle size-specific RELs for titanium dioxide.
NIOSH will use this information to determine the need for developing new recommendations for reducing occupational exposure to titanium dioxide.
Comments should be submitted to the NIOSH Docket Office, ATTN: Diane Miller, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, telephone 513/533-8450, fax 513/533-8230. Comments may also be submitted by email to:
All information received in response to this notice will be available for public examination and copying at the NIOSH Docket Office, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 15, 2004.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Karen L. Nelson, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
On November 21, 1997, the President signed the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (the Modernization Act) (Public Law 105-115) into law. Section 116 of the Modernization Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) by adding section 506A (21 U.S.C. 356a), which describes requirements and procedures for making and reporting manufacturing changes to approved new drug applications (NDAs) and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), to new and abbreviated animal drug applications, and to license applications for biological products.
The guidance is intended to assist applicants in determining how they should report changes to an approved NDA or ANDA under section 116 of the Modernization Act, which provides requirements for making and reporting manufacturing changes to an approved application and for distributing a drug product made with such changes.
The guidance provides recommendations to holders of approved NDAs and ANDAs who intend to make postapproval changes in accordance with section 506A of the act. The guidance covers recommended reporting categories for postapproval changes for drugs, other than specified biotechnology and specified synthetic biological products. Recommendations are provided for postapproval changes in these areas: (1) Components and composition, (2) sites, (3) manufacturing process, (4) specification(s), (5) package, (6) labeling, and (7) miscellaneous changes.
Some of the basic elements of section 506A of the act are as follows:
A drug made with a manufacturing change, whether a major manufacturing change or otherwise, may be distributed only after the applicant validates the effects of the change on the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the drug as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the drug (section 506A(a)(1) and (b) of the act). This section recognizes that additional testing, beyond testing to ensure that an approved specification is met, is required to ensure unchanged identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the drug.
A drug made with a major manufacturing change may be distributed only after the applicant submits a supplemental application to FDA and the supplemental application is approved by the agency. The application is required to contain information determined to be appropriate by FDA and include the information developed by the applicant when “validating the effects of the change” (section 506A(c)(1) of the act).
A major manufacturing change is a manufacturing change determined by FDA to have substantial potential to adversely affect the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the drug as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the drug. Such changes include the following possibilities: (1) A change made in the qualitative or quantitative formulation of the drug involved or in the specifications in the approved application or license unless exempted by FDA by regulation or guidance, (2) a change determined by FDA by regulation or guidance to require completion of an appropriate clinical study demonstrating equivalence of the drug to the drug manufactured without the change, and (3) other changes determined by FDA by regulation or guidance to have a substantial potential to adversely affect the safety or effectiveness of the drug (section 506A(c)(2) of the act).
FDA may require submission of a supplemental application for drugs made with manufacturing changes that are not major (section 506A(d)(1)(B) of the act) and establish categories of manufacturing changes for which a supplemental application is required (section 506A(d)(1)(C) of the act). In such a case the applicant may begin distribution of the drug 30 days after FDA receives a supplemental application unless the agency notifies the applicant within the 30-day period that prior approval of the application is required (section 506A(d)(3)(B)(i) of the act). FDA may also designate a category of manufacturing changes that permit the applicant to begin distributing a drug made with such changes upon receipt by the agency of a supplemental application for the change (section 506A(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the act). If FDA disapproves a supplemental application, the agency may order the manufacturer to cease the distribution of drugs that have been made with the disapproved change (section 506A(d)(3)(B)(iii) of the act).
FDA may authorize applicants to distribute drugs without submitting a supplemental application (section 506A(d)(1)(A) of the act) and may establish categories of manufacturing changes that may be made without submitting a supplemental application (section 506A(d)(1)(C) of the act). The applicant is required to submit a report to FDA on such a change and the report is required to contain information the agency deems to be appropriate and information developed by the applicant when validating the effects of the change. FDA may also specify the date on which the report is to be submitted (section 506A(d)(2)(A) of the act). If during a single year an applicant makes more than one manufacturing change subject to an annual reporting requirement, FDA may authorize the applicant to submit a single report containing the required information for all the changes made during the year (annual report) (section 506A(d)(2)(B) of the act).
Section 506A of the act provides FDA with considerable flexibility to determine the information and filing mechanism required for the agency to assess the effect of manufacturing changes in the safety and effectiveness of the product. There is a corresponding need to retain such flexibility in the guidance on section 506A of the act to ensure that the least burdensome means for reporting changes are available. FDA believes that such flexibility will allow it to be responsive to increasing knowledge of and experience with certain types of changes and help ensure the efficacy and safety of the products involved. For example, a change that may currently be considered to have a substantial potential to have an adverse effect on the safety or effectiveness of the product may, at a later date, based on new information or advances in technology, be determined to have a lesser potential to have such an adverse effect. Conversely, a change originally considered to have a minimal or moderate potential to have an adverse effect on the safety or effectiveness of the product may later, as a result of new information, be found to have an increased, substantial potential to adversely affect the product. The guidance enables the agency to respond more readily to knowledge gained from manufacturing experience, further research and data collection, and advances in technology. The guidance describes the agency's current interpretation of specific changes falling into the four filing categories. Section
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Section 506A(a)(1) and (b) of the act requires the holder of an approved application to validate the effects of a manufacturing change on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the drug as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the drug before distributing a drug made with the change. Under section 506A(d)(3)(A) of the act, information developed by the applicant to validate the effects of the change regarding identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency is required to be submitted to FDA as part of the supplement or annual report. Thus, no separate estimates are provided for these sections in Table 1 of this document; estimates for validation requirements are included in the estimates for supplements and annual reports. The guidance does not provide recommendations on the specific information that should be developed by the applicant to validate the effect of the change on the identity, strength (e.g., assay, content uniformity); quality (e.g., physical, chemical, and biological properties); purity (e.g., impurities and degradation products); or potency (e.g., biological activity, bioavailability, and bioequivalence) of a product as they may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product.
Section 506A(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the act sets forth requirements for changes requiring supplement submission and approval prior to distribution of the product made using the change (major changes). Under these sections of the act, a supplement must be submitted for any change in the product, production process, quality controls, equipment, or facilities that has a substantial potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the product as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product. The applicant must obtain approval of a supplement from FDA prior to distribution of a product made using the change.
Based on data concerning the number of supplements received by the agency, FDA estimates that approximately 1,517 supplements will be submitted annually under section 506A(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the act. FDA estimates that approximately 263 applicants will submit such supplements, and that it will take approximately 150 hours to prepare and submit to FDA each supplement.
Section 506A(d)(1)(B), (d)(1)(C), and (d)(3)(B)(i) sets forth requirements for changes requiring supplement submission at least 30 days prior to distribution of the product made using the change (moderate changes). Under these sections, a supplement must be submitted for any change in the product, production process, quality controls, equipment, or facilities that has a moderate potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the product as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product. Distribution of the product made using the change may begin not less than 30 days after receipt of the supplement by FDA.
Based on data concerning the number of supplements received by the agency, FDA estimates that approximately 2,322 supplements will be submitted annually under section 506A(d)(1)(B), (d)(1)(C), and (d)(3)(B)(i) of the act. FDA estimates that approximately 274 applicants will submit such supplements, and that it will take approximately 95 hours to prepare and submit to FDA each supplement.
Under section 506A(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the act, FDA may designate a category of changes for the purpose of providing that, in the case of a change in such category, the holder of an approved application may commence distribution of the drug upon receipt by the agency of a supplement for the change. Based on data concerning the number of supplements received by the agency, FDA estimates that approximately 1,959 supplements will be submitted annually under section 506A(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the act. FDA estimates that approximately 202 applicants will submit such supplements, and that it will take approximately 95 hours to prepare and submit to FDA each supplement.
Section 506A(d)(1)(A), (d)(1)(C), (d)(2)(A), and (d)(2)(B) of the act sets forth requirements for changes to be described in an annual report (minor changes). Under these sections, changes in the product, production process, quality controls, equipment, or facilities that have a minimal potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the product as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product must be documented by the applicant in the next annual report.
Based on data concerning the number of supplements and annual reports received by the agency, FDA estimates that approximately 7,639 annual reports will include documentation of certain manufacturing changes as required under section 506A(d)(1)(A), (d)(1)(C), (d)(2)(A), and (d)(2)(B). FDA estimates that approximately 580 applicants will submit such information and that it will take approximately 35 hours to prepare and submit to FDA the information for each annual report.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 17, 2004.
Submit electronic comments to
JonnaLynn P. Capezzuto, Office of Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under sections 351 and 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act)(42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) that apply to drugs (21 U.S.C. 321
Section 610.40(c)(1)(ii) (§ 610.40(c)(1)(ii) requires each dedicated donation be labeled, as required under § 606.121 (21 CFR 606.121), and with a label entitled “INTENDED RECIPIENT INFORMATION LABEL” containing the name and identifying information of the recipient. (21 CFR 606.121 is approved under OMB control number 0910-0116.) Section 610.40(g)(2) requires an establishment to obtain written approval from FDA to ship human blood or blood components for further manufacturing use prior to completion of testing. Section 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(A) requires an establishment to obtain written approval from FDA to use or ship human blood or blood components found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of a communicable disease agent(s) or collect from a donor with a record of a reactive screening test. Sections 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(ii)(D) require an establishment to label reactive human blood and blood components with the appropriate screening test results, and, if they are intended for further manufacturing use into injectable products, with a statement indicating the exempted use specifically approved by FDA. Section 610.40(h)(2)(vi) requires each donation of human blood or blood component that tests reactive by a screening test for syphilis and is determined to be a
Section 610.40(g)(1) requires an establishment to appropriately document a medical emergency for the release of human blood or blood components prior to completion of required testing. Section 606.160(b)(1)(ix) requires a facility to maintain records of notification of donors deferred or determined not to be eligible for donation, including appropriate followup. Section 606.160(b)(1)(xi) requires an establishment to maintain records of notification of the referring physician of a deferred autologous donor, including appropriate followup.
Respondents to this collection of information are Whole Blood and Source Plasma establishments that collect blood and blood components, including Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes. Based on information from FDA's Center for Biologics and Evaluation Research database system, there are approximately 84 licensed Source Plasma collection establishments and 858 registered Whole Blood collection establishments for a total of 942 establishments. Based on information received from industry, we estimate that these establishments collect annually an estimated 30 million donations: 15 million donations of Source Plasma from approximately 2 million donors and 15 million donations of Whole Blood, including 600,000 autologous, from approximately 8 million donors.
Assuming each autologous donor makes an average of 2 donations, FDA estimates that there are approximately 300,000 autologous donors. FDA estimates that approximately 5 percent (12,000) of the 240,000 donations that are donated specifically for the use of an identified recipient would be tested under the dedicated donors testing provisions in § 610.40(c)(1)(ii).
Under § 610.40(g)(2) and (h)(2)(ii)(A), the only product currently shipped prior to completion of testing is a licensed product, Source Leukocytes, used in the manufacture of interferon, which requires rapid preparation from blood. Shipments of Source Leukocytes are preapproved under a biologics license application and each shipment does not have to be reported to the agency. Based on information from CBER's database system, FDA receives an estimated 1 application per year from manufacturers of Source Leukocytes.
Under § 610.40(h)(2)(ii)(C) and (h)(2)(ii)(D), FDA estimates that each manufacturer would ship an estimated 1 human blood or blood components per month (12 per year) that would require two labels; one as reactive for the appropriate screening test under paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(C), and the other stating the exempted use specifically approved by FDA under paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(D). According to CBER's database system, there are an estimated 40 licensed manufacturers that ship known reactive human blood or blood components.
Based on information we received from industry, we estimate that approximately 18,000 donations annually test reactive by a screening test for syphilis, and are determined to be biological false positives by additional testing (§ 610.40(h)(2)(vi)).
Human blood or a blood component with a reactive screening test, as a component of a medical device, is an integral part of the medical device, e.g., a positive control for an in vitro diagnostic testing kit. It is usual and customary business practice for manufacturers to include on the container label a warning statement that identifies the communicable disease agent. In addition, on the rare occasion when a human blood or blood component with a reactive screening test is the only component available for a medical device that does not require a reactive component, then a statement of warning is required to be affixed to the medical device. To account for this rare occasion under § 610.42(a), we estimate that the warning statement would be necessary no more than once a year.
Industry estimates that approximately 13 percent of 10 million donors (1.3 million donors) who come to donate annually are determined not to be eligible for donation prior to collection because of failure to satisfy eligibility criteria. It is the usual and customary business practice of virtually all 942 collecting establishments to notify on site and to explain the reason why the donor is determined not to be suitable for donating. Based on such information as is available to FDA, we estimate that two-thirds of the 942 collecting establishments provided on site additional information and counseling to a donor determined not to be eligible for donation as usual and customary business practice. Consequently, we estimate that only one-third or 311 collection establishments would need to provide, under § 630.6(a), additional information and counseling onsite to 433,333 (one-third of 1.3 millions) ineligible donors.
It is estimated that another 4.5 percent of 10 million donors (450,000 donors) are deferred annually based on test results. We estimate that currently 95 percent of the establishments that collect 98 percent of the blood and blood components notify donors who have reactive test results for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human T-Lymphotropic virus (HTLV), and syphilis as usual and customary business practice. Consequently, 5 percent (47) of the industry (942) collecting 2 percent (9,000) of the deferred donors (450,000) would experience burden related to § 630.6(a). As part of usual and customary business practice, collecting establishments notify an autologous donor's referring physician of reactive test results obtained during the donation process required under § 630.6(d)(1). However, we estimate that 5 percent of the 858 blood collection establishments (43) do not notify the referring physicians of the estimated 2 percent of 300,000 autologous donors with reactive test results (6,000).
FDA has concluded that the use of untested or incompletely tested but appropriately documented human blood or blood components in rare medical emergencies should not be prohibited. We estimate the recordkeeping under § 610.40(g)(1) to be minimal with one or less occurrence per year. The reporting of test results to the consignee in § 610.40(g) does not create a new burden for respondents because it is the usual and customary business practice or procedure to finish the testing and provide the results to the manufacturer responsible for labeling the blood products.
Section 606.160(b)(1)(ix) requires that establishment to maintain records of the notification efforts. We estimate the total annual records based on the 1.3 million donors determined not to be eligible to donate and each of the 450,000 (1.3 + 450,000 = 1,750,000) donors deferred based on reactive test results for evidence of infection due to communicable disease agents. Under
The hours per response and hours per record are based on estimates received from industry or FDA experience with similar recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
FDA estimates the burden of this information collection as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled Guidance for Industry on How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Intent to Slaughter for Human Food Purposes has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Denver Presley, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Importer`s Entry Notice” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Denver Presley, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled, “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Factor V Leiden DNA Mutation Detection Systems.” This guidance document describes a means by which Factor V Leiden deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mutation detection systems may comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies on a 3.5″ diskette of the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Factor V Leiden DNA Mutation Detection Systems” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-443-8818. See the
Submit written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Elizabeth Mansfield, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-1293.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's GGPs. The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on Factor V Leiden DNA mutation detection systems. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
To receive “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Factor V Leiden DNA Mutation Detection Systems” by fax machine, call FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1236) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may also do so by using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a
This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501-3520) (the PRA). The collections of information addressed in the guidance document have been approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under the regulations governing premarket notification submissions (21 CFR part 807, subpart E, OMB control number. 0910-0120). The labeling provisions addressed in the guidance have been approved by OMB under the PRA under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability of funds.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds to be awarded under the Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS) Program for the development and evaluation of innovative methods for integrating buprenorphine opioid abuse treatment in HIV primary care settings.
The Chief Grants Management Officer (CGMO) or a higher level designee may authorize an extension of published deadlines when justified by such circumstances as acts of God (
Please mail one (1) original (ink-signed) and two (2) unbound photocopies of completed applications to the HRSA Grant Application Center, c/o The Legin Group, Inc., 901 Russell Avenue, Suite 450, Gaithersburg, MD 20879,
Additional information regarding this funding announcement may be requested from Lois Eldred, Dr PH, Chief, Demonstration Project Development and Evaluation Branch, Office of Science and Epidemiology, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 7C-07, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone 301-443-3327; fax 301-443-4965; e-mail address
All applications submitted to the SPNS Program will be reviewed and rated by an objective review panel. All applicants funded should recognize that this initiative is not designed to provide continuous support once the initiative is complete and evaluated. Applicants are strongly encouraged to secure non-SPNS funding support during their initiative if the evaluation suggests that the program/intervention is effective and merits continuation.
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) will no longer accept H-2B petitions for temporary nonimmigrant workers for the remainder of Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 now that it is clear that the demand for H-2B workers will exceed the statutory numerical limit (the cap) for H-2B petitions for FY 2004. This notice is published so that the public will understand the procedures for processing of H-2B petitions now that CIS has received enough H-2B petitions to reach the cap. These procedures are intended to minimize confusion and burden to employers who use the H-2B program.
This notice is effective March 16, 2004.
Kevin J. Cummings, Business and Trade Services Branch/Program and Regulation Development, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 425 I Street, NW., ULLB 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 305-3175.
Section 101(a)(15)(h)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) describes an H-2B alien as an alien coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary nonagricultural labor or services. This definition is reflected at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(1)(ii)(D) and (h)(6)(i).
Section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the total number of aliens who may be issued H-2B visas or otherwise granted H-2B status during any fiscal year may not exceed 66,000.
This notice advises the public that as of March 10, 2004, CIS will no longer accept H-2B petitions for temporary nonimmigrant workers for the remainder of FY 2004. However, CIS will adjudicate petitions received on or before March 9, 2004 in the order in which they are received.
No. The procedures described in this notice relate only to H-2B petitions filed for beneficiaries subject to the numerical limitations and who will be engaged in temporary work to commence on or before September 30, 2004.
Amendments to previously approved petitions and petitions for extension of stay are not affected by this procedure. Likewise, petitions for aliens who already hold H-2B status,
This notice informs the public that CIS has received a sufficient number of
CIS will adjudicate all H-2B petitions received on or before March 9, 2004. CIS will adjudicate these cases in the order in which they are received. CIS is not suspending premium processing and normal rules applicable to cases subject to premium processing will still apply.
No. Those petitions are not affected by the procedures described in this notice and will be adjudicated in the normal fashion. Petitioners are reminded that petitions for H-2B classification may not be filed without an approved temporary labor certification issued by the Department of Labor. H-2B petitions filed for employment to commence on or after October 1, 2004, will be counted, if otherwise chargeable against the annual H-2B cap, against the FY 2005 numerical cap.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meetings.
The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) and its subcommittees on boats and associated equipment, aftermarket marine equipment, and prevention through people will meet to discuss various issues relating to recreational boating safety. All meetings will be open to the public.
NBSAC will meet on Saturday, April 24, 2004, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., on Monday, April 26, 2004, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon. The Prevention Through People Subcommittee will meet on Sunday, April 25, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon. The Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee will meet on Sunday, April 25, 2004, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. The Aftermarket Marine Equipment Subcommittee will meet on Monday, April 26, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon. These meetings may close early if all business is finished. On Sunday, April 25, a Subcommittee meeting may start earlier if the preceding Subcommittee meeting has closed early. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before Tuesday, April 6, 2004. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittees in advance of the meeting should reach the Coast Guard on or before Friday, April 2, 2004.
NBSAC will meet at the Norfolk Waterside Marriott, 235 East Main Street, Norfolk, VA 23510. The subcommittee meetings will be held at the same address. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Jeff Hoedt, Executive Director of NBSAC, Commandant (G-OPB-1), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on the Internet at
Jeff Hoedt, Executive Director of NBSAC, telephone 202-267-0950, fax 202-267-4285. You may obtain a copy of this notice by calling the U.S. Coast Guard Infoline at 1-800-368-5647.
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
(1) Remarks—Rear Admiral Jeffrey J. Hathaway, Director of Operations Policy and Council Sponsor.
(2) Chief, Office of Boating Safety Update on NBSAC Resolutions and Recreational Boating Safety Program report.
(3) Executive Director's report.
(4) Regulatory Process description and Regulatory Project Status update.
(5) Chairman's session.
(6) Report on Joint TSAC/NBSAC Workgroup and TSAC Liaison.
(7) Report from NAVSAC Liaison.
(8) Coast Guard Auxiliary report.
(9) National Association of State Boating Law Administrators Report.
(10) Wallop Breaux reauthorization update.
(11) National Boating Survey report.
(12) Prevention Through People Subcommittee report.
(13) Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee report.
(14) Aftermarket Marine Equipment Subcommittee report.
All meetings are open to the public. At the Chairs' discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Executive Director of your request no later than Tuesday, April 6, 2004. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than Tuesday, April 6, 2004. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee in advance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director no later than Friday, April 2, 2004.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Director as soon as possible.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: Drawback Process Regulations. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before April 15, 2004.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Homeland Security Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-6974.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Tracey Denning, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-927-1429.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice.
In this notice, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development delegates to the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner certain authority provided to the Secretary under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.
March 9, 2004.
Janet Golrick, Office of Housing, Room 6112, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone (202) 708-2495 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. chapter 10) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services to dispose of surplus federal property to states, their political subdivisions or instrumentalities, and nonprofit organizations for the purpose of providing self-help housing to low-income individuals. The Act also authorizes the Secretary to enforce and revise instruments that provide for the transfer of the property. These responsibilities are being delegated by the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Secretary delegates the authority as follows:
The Secretary delegates to the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner the Secretary's authority under section 550 of the Act (40 U.S.C. 484) to (1) recommend surplus federal real property to the Administrator of General Services as needed for providing housing or housing assistance for low-income persons, (2) take all steps reasonably necessary to sell and lease surplus federal property for that purpose, including fixing sale or lease value, and (3) develop, enforce, and revise instruments transferring such property.
The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner is authorized to redelegate to employees of the Department the authority delegated under Section A.
Section 550 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484), and section 7(d) of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (We) will submit the collection of information described below to OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If you wish to obtain copies of the information collection requirements, related forms, or explanatory material, contact the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer at the address or telephone number listed below.
We will accept comments until May 17, 2004.
Mail your comments on this information collection renewal request to Anissa Craghead, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; or e-mail
To request a copy of the information collection requirements, related forms, or explanatory material, contact Anissa Craghead at telephone number (703) 358-2445, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We will submit a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information included in Form 3-200-1, the general permit application form; Form 3-200-2, Designated Port Exception permit application form; and Form 3-200-3, Import/Export license application form. The current OMB control number for all three of these forms is 1018-0092, and the OMB approval for this collection of information expires on July 31, 2004. We are requesting a three year term of approval for this information collection activity. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Form 3-200-1, Permit Application Form, is the general application form for all permitted activities authorized by the Service. In the interest of making the application process simpler for the public, we have previously modified the format of the first page of Form 3-200, creating a sequence of forms such as Form 3-200-1, 3-200-2, 3-200-3,
The Service's Form 3-200-2, Designated Port Exception permit application form is the application form to request an import or export of wildlife or wildlife products at a port other than a port designated in 50 CFR 14.12. Title 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 14.11 (50 CFR 14.11) makes it unlawful to import or export wildlife or wildlife products at a port other than a designated port listed in 50 CFR 14.12, unless you qualify for one of the exceptions that allow you to import or export your wildlife or wildlife products at a different port. These exceptions allow you to import or export wildlife or wildlife products at a non designated port for the following reasons: (1) For use as scientific specimens; (2) to minimize deterioration or loss; and (3) to relive economic hardship. We recognize the limitations that the requirement to use a designated port may place on certain individuals, businesses or scientific organizations. The issuance of a Designated Port Exception permit can relieve these limitations for certain qualified individuals, businesses or scientific organizations.
The Service's Form 3-200-3, Import/Export license application form, is the application form to request an import/export license. Title 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 14.11 (50 CFR 14.91) makes it unlawful to import or export wildlife or wildlife products for commercial purposes without first having obtained an import/export license. We use the information obtained from Form 3-200-3 as an enforcement tool and management aid in monitoring the international wildlife market and detecting trends and changes in the commercial trade of wildlife and wildlife products. Import/export licensees are required to maintain detailed records of each importation or exportation of wildlife or wildlife products made under the import/export license, and the ultimate destination of these wildlife or wildlife products. In addition, licensees are required to make these records and the corresponding inventory of wildlife or wildlife products available for our inspection at reasonable times, subject to applicable limitations of law. This authority allows us to ensure that protected species are not being used in commercial trade.
We invite comments concerning this renewal on: (1) Whether the collection of information is useful and necessary for us to do our job, (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden on the public to complete the form; (3) ways to enhance the quality and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. This information collection is part of a system of records covered by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)).
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may also be limited circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from the rulemaking record, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this clearly at the beginning of your comment. We will not consider anonymous comments. We generally make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior
The Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, intends to gather information necessary to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations. The Service is furnishing this notice in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd
(1) Advise other agencies and the public of our intentions, and
(2) Obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issued to include in the environmental document.
Special mailings, newspaper articles, and other media announcements will be used to inform the public and state and local government agencies of the opportunities for input throughout the planning process. An open house style meeting will be held during the scoping phase of the comprehensive conservation plan development process.
To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments on or before April 30, 2004.
Address comments, questions, and requests for more information to Lindy Garner, Planning Biologist, North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 11372 Highway 143, Farmerville, Louisiana 71241.
By Federal law, all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive conservation plan. This plan guides management decisions and identifies the goals, long-range objectives, and strategies for achieving refuge purposes. The planning process will consider many elmenets, including wildlife and habitat management, public recreational activities, and cultural resource protection. Public input into this planning process is essential.
D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1975, is located within the Lower Mississippi River Valley floodplain in north Louisiana. The refuge is located approximately 6 miles north of West Monroe Louisiana. The refuge's 17,421 acres include deep overflow swamp, bottomland hardwood forests, and upland mixed pine/hardwoods. D'Arbonne Refuge provides habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl, wading birds, waterbirds, and year-round habitat for nesting wood ducks, squirrels, deer, river otters, and raccoons. The refuge is open year-round for wildlife observation, nature photography, and hiking. Hunting and fishing opportunities are permitted on most areas of the refuge.
Planning Biologist, North Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex, telephone: 318/726-4222; fax 318/726-4667; e-mail:
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits for endangered species.
The following permits were issued.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review,
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by April 15, 2004.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests permits to export captive-born tigers (
The applicant requests a permit to export and re-import non-living museum specimens of endangered and threatened species of animals (excluding bald eagles) previously accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.
Minerals Management Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The OCS Scientific Committee will meet at the Hyatt Regency New Orleans at Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, April 22, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Friday, April 23, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Hyatt Regency New Orleans at Louisiana Superdome, 500 Poydras Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113-1805, telephone (504) 561-1234.
A copy of the agenda may be requested from MMS by calling Ms. Carolyn Beamer at (703) 787-1211. Other inquiries concerning the OCS Scientific Committee meeting should be addressed to Dr. James Kendall, Executive Secretary to the OCS Scientific Committee, Minerals Management Service, 381 Elden Street, Mail Stop 4043, Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817 or by calling (703) 787-1656.
The OCS Scientific Committee is an outside group of non-Federal scientists which advises the Director, MMS, on the feasibility, appropriateness, and
The Committee will meet in plenary session on Wednesday morning, April 21. Presentations will be made by the Deputy Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management, the MMS Gulf of Mexico Regional Director, and the MMS Chief Scientist. For the remainder of the day, and through Thursday, April 22, the Committee will meet in discipline breakout sessions (
On Friday morning, April 23, the Committee will meet in plenary session for reports of the discipline breakout sessions of the previous day and to continue with Committee Business.
The meetings are open to the public. Approximately 30 visitors can be accommodated on a first-come-first-served basis at the plenary session.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix I, and the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-63, Revised.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
The Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub.L. 102-575) of 1992. The AMP provides an organization and process to ensure the use of scientific information in decision making concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and protection of the affected resources consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The AMP has been organized and includes a Federal advisory committee (AMWG), a technical work group (TWG), a monitoring and research center, and independent review panels. The TWG is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice and information for the AMWG to act upon.
To allow full consideration of information by the AMWG members, written notice must be provided to Dennis Kubly, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84138; telephone (801) 524-3715; faxogram (801) 524-3858; e-mail at
Dennis Kubly, telephone (801) 524-3715; faxogram (801) 524-3858; or via e-mail at
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 11, 2004 under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Beamhit, LLC of Columbia, Maryland, SafeShot, LLC of Columbia, Maryland, and SafeShot, Inc. of New York, New York. An amended complaint was filed on February 27, 2004. The amended complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain gun barrels used in firearms training systems by reason of infringement of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 15, 21-22 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 5,829,180 and claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14-18, 20, 24, 27, 32-33, 37-40, 44-45, 49-51, and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 6,322,365 B1. The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order.
The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Kevin Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-2221.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2003).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain gun barrels used in firearms training systems by reason of infringement of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 15, 21-22 or 26 of U.S. Patent No. 5,829,180 or claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14-18, 20, 24, 27, 32-33, 37-40, 44-45, 49-51, or 54 of U.S. Patent No. 6,322,365 B1, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are—Beamhit, LLC, 10220 Old Columbia Road, Suite A & B, Columbia, Maryland 21046; SafeShot, LLC, 10220 Old Columbia Road, Suite A & B, Columbia, Maryland 21046; SafeShot, Inc., 10 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018.
(b) The respondents are the following companies alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) Kevin Baer, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436, who shall be the Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Sidney Harris is designated as the presiding administrative law judge.
A response to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting the responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against such respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of countervailing duty and antidumping investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase countervailing duty and antidumping investigations Nos. 701-TA-438 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-1076 (Preliminary) under sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from Canada of live swine,
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
March 5, 2004.
Elizabeth Haines (202-205-3200), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Department of Labor (DOL). To obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 23, 2004 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Auburn Foundry, Auburn, Indiana.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 7, 2003, applicable to workers of Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, Florida. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that leased workers of Kelly Services were employed at Cordis Corporation, at the Miami Lakes, Florida location of the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Kelly Services working at Cordis Corporation, Miami Lakes, Florida.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Cordis Corporation who were adversely affected by increased imports of medical devices.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-52,275 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Cordis Corporation, and leased workers of Kelly Services, Miami Lakes, Florida, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 20, 2002, through August 7, 2005, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on February 18, 2004 in response to a worker petition which was filed by a State agency representative on behalf of workers at Dexter Shoe Company, Dexter Plant, Dexter, Maine (TA-W-54,293).
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 29, 2004 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Kwikset, a Division of Black and Decker, Bristow, Oklahoma.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 19, 2004, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Duraw Manufacturing of Mississippi, Inc., McComb, Mississippi.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers means that at least three workers in a firm with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers would have to be affected. Separations by the subject firm did not meet this threshold level; consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 20, 2004 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Eighth Floor Promotions, Bloomington, Minnesota.
The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
On January 26, 2004, the Department received the petitioner's request for administrative reconsideration of the Department's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The determination was signed on January 6, 2004. The Notice was published in the
The Department reviewed the request and has determined that the petitioner has provided additional information. Therefore, the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 18, 2004 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at The Hamilton Collection, Jacksonville, Florida.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 23, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on behalf of workers at Lucent Technologies, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 19, 2004, applicable to workers of Medline Industries, dba Maxxim Medical, Inc., Maxxim Boundary, including leased workers of Kelly Services, Columbus, Mississippi. The notice will be published soon in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce disposable surgical
New findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-38,779, issued on May 21, 2001, for workers of Maxxim Medical, Inc., Columbus, Mississippi who were engaged in employment related to the production of disposable surgical drapes. That certification expired May 21, 2003. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date from December 18, 2002 to May 22, 2003, for workers of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-54,004 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Medline Industries, dba Maxxim Medical, Inc., Maxxim Boundary, Columbus, Mississippi, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 22, 2003, through February 19, 2006, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Furthermore, after careful review, I determine that all leased workers from Kelly Services, Columbus, Mississippi are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 26, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Multi-Form, Inc., dba Dack Industries, Bristol, Connecticut. The petition was filed more than one year after the subject firm was closed. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 2, 2004 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at National Textiles, Eden, North Carolina.
On December 15, 2003, the workers of the subject firm were denied eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, under petition number TA-W-53,487. The Department has received a request for reconsideration of that denial. The Department will provide a copy of this petition to be included in the review of the request for reconsideration of TA-W-53,487.
Further investigation of TA-W-54,132 would duplicate investigation efforts, and this investigation is terminated.
By letter of February 6, 2004, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The determination was signed on January 16, 2004. The Notice of determination was published in the
The Department reviewed the request and has determined that the petitioner has provided additional information. Therefore, the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on February 11, 2004 in response to a worker petition which was filed by a company official on behalf of workers at R & R Hosiery Partner, Rainsville, Alabama.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 12, 2004, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Stitches Manufacturing, Inc., Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers means that at least three workers in a firm with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, or five percent of the workers in a firm with a workforce of more than 50 workers would have to be affected. Separations by the subject firm did not meet this threshold level; consequently the petition has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 24, 2004, in response to a petition filed by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) on behalf of workers at Textron Fastening Systems, LDR Division, Rockford, Illinois.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 9, 2004 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at The Timken Company, Pulaski, Tennessee.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 23, 2004, applicable to workers of Union Tools, Inc., a subsidiary of Acorn Products, Frankfort, New York. The notice will be published soon in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of lawn and garden tools.
New information from the State shows that the International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, requested Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of the workers of the subject firm but that request was not addressed in the decision document.
Information obtained from the company indicates that a significant number of workers of the subject firm are age 50 or over, workers have skills that are not easily transferable, and conditions in the industry are adverse. Review of this information shows that all eligibility criteria under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, have been met.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to reflect its finding.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-53,994 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Union Tools, Inc., a subsidiary of Acorn Products, Frankfort, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 12, 2003, through January 23, 2006, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Secton 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 2, 2004, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Universal Aerospace Company, Inc., Arlington, Washington.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for comment.
OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in its Student Data Form.
Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
I.
You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA webpage. Please note you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. When you have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related problems, a significant delay may occur in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.
II.
Gail Butler, Division of Administration and Training Information, OSHA Office of Training and Education, 1555 Times Drive, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (847) 297-4810.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Section 21 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the “OSH Act”) (29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA” or the “Agency”) to conduct education and training courses. These courses must ensure an adequate number of qualified personnel to fulfill the purposes of the Act, provide them with short-term training, inform them of the importance and proper use of safety and health equipment, and train employers and employees to recognize, avoid, and prevent unsafe and unhealthful working conditions, occupational education and training courses.
Under Section 21 of the Act, the OSHA Training Institute (the “Institute”) provides basic, intermediate, and advanced training and education in occupational safety and health for Federal and State compliance officers, Agency professionals and technical-support personnel, employers, employees, organizations representing employees and employers, educators who develop curricula and teach occupational safety and health courses, and representatives of professional safety and health groups. The Institute provides courses on occupational safety and health at its national training facility in Des Plaines, Illinois.
Students attending Institute courses complete the one-page Student Data Form (OSHA Form 182, 5/98 edition) on the first day of class. The form provides information under five major categories titled “Course Information,” “Personal Data,” “Employer Data,” “Emergency Contacts,” and “Students Groups.” The OSHA Office of Training and Education (the “Office”) compiles, for each fiscal year, the following information from the “Course Information” and “Student Groups” categories: Total student attendance at the Institute; the number of students attending each training course offered by the Institute; and the types of students attending these courses (for example, students from Federal or State occupational safety and health agencies). The Office uses this information to demonstrate, in an accurate and timely manner, that the Agency is providing the training and
The Agency uses the information collected under the “Course Information,” “Personal Data,” and “Employer Data” to identify private-sector students so that it can collect tuition costs from them or their employers as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701 (“Fees and Charges for Government Services and Things of Value”); Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25 (“User Charges”); and 29 CFR part 1949 (“Office of Training and Education, Occupational Safety and Health Administration”). The information in the “Personal Data” and “Emergency Contacts” categories permits OSHA to contact students who are residing in local hotels/motels if an emergency arises at their home or place of employment, and to alert supervisors/alternate contacts of a trainee's injury or illness.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.
OSHA proposes to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collection of information requirements contained in Student Data Form. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements.
John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for comment.
OSHA requests comments concerning its proposed extension of the information-collection requirements specified by the standard on Additional Requirements for Special Dipping and Coating Operations (29 CFR 1910.126(g)(4)). The provision is to ensure that employers make employees aware of the minimum distance between goods being electrostatically deteared.
Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
I.
II.
Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA webpage. Please note you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have additional materials,you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of material by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is correct. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the “Act”) authorizes information collection by employers regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).
The standard on Additional Requirements for Special Dipping and Coating Operations, 29 CFR 1910.126(g)(4)), requires employers to post a conspicuous sign near each piece of electrostatic-detearing equipment that notifies employees of the minimum safe distance they must maintain between goods undergoing electrostatic detearing and the electrodes or conductors of the equipment used in the process. Doing so reduces the likelihood of igniting the explosive chemicals used in electrostatic-detearing operations.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is proposing to extend the information-collection (paperwork) requirement specified in the standard on Additional Requirements for Special Dipping and Coating Operations (29 CFR 1910.126(g)(4)). OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary, along with the comments, in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information-collection requirements.
John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for comment.
OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii)). The purpose of these requirements is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that employers maintain the mechanical power presses used by the employees in safe operating condition.
Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
I.
II.
Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA webpage. Please note you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your receipt comments. Because of security related problems there may be
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is correct. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) authorized information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).
The Standard specifies several paperwork requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it.
Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of § 1910.217 requires employers to establish and follow a program of periodic and regular inspections of power presses to ensure that all their parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards are in safe operating condition and adjustment. Employers must maintain a certification record of inspections that includes the date of inspection, the signature of the person who performed the inspection, and the serial number, or other identifier, of the power press that was inspected.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of § 1910.217 requires employers to inspect and test each press no less than weekly to determine the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism. Employers must perform and completer necessary maintenance or repair or both before the press is operated. In addition, employers must maintain a record of inspections, tests, and maintenance work. The record must include the date of the inspection, test, or maintenance; the signature of the person who performed the inspection, test, or maintenance; and the serial number, or other identifier, of the press that was inspected, tested, or maintained.
The certification records required in 29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirement to inspect mechanical power presses. The inspection of mechanical power presses is critical to ensuring that employers maintain the presses in safe operating condition for employees. These records also provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is proposing to extend the information collections requirements in the Standard on Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii)). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements.
John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).
National Science Foundation; National Science Board and its Subdivisions.
March 24, 25, 2004.
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230,
NSF Information Center (703) 292-5111.
Part of this meeting will be closed to the public.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC, or the Licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 issued on April 22, 1977, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The license authorizes the operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (Davis-Besse), in accordance with conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Ottawa County, Ohio.
The discovery of circumferential cracking in some of the control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles that penetrate the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head at Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 3, in February 2001, and Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2, in April 2001, raised concerns about the potential safety implications and prevalence of cracking in RPV head penetration nozzles in pressurized-water reactors (PWRs). In response to these concerns, the NRC issued NRC Bulletin 2001-01 on August 3, 2001. The bulletin required all PWR operators to report to the NRC on the structural integrity of the CRDM nozzles, including their plans to ensure that future inspections would verify structural integrity of the reactor vessel boundary. Davis-Besse was shut down on February 16, 2002, when it began its 13th refueling outage, which included an inspection of CRDM nozzles. On March 6, 2002, FENOC employees discovered a cavity in the RPV head. The cavity was the result of corrosion caused by long-term leakage of reactor coolant, which contains boric acid, from small cracks in one of the CRDM nozzles.
The NRC staff subsequently determined that FENOC's failure to properly implement its boric acid corrosion control and corrective action programs was a performance deficiency that allowed reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage to occur undetected for a prolonged time, resulting in RPV upper head degradation. The NRC determined that the Licensee's performance deficiency had high safety significance, in the Red range, as documented in a letter to the Licensee dated May 29, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031490778).
The NRC took a series of actions in response to the discovery of the cavity in the Davis-Besse RPV head. An Augmented Inspection Team was sent to Davis-Besse on March 12, 2002, to collect facts regarding the conditions that led to the head degradation. Additionally, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) to the Licensee on March 13, 2002 (ML020730225), confirming the Licensee's agreement that NRC approval is required for restart of Davis-Besse. The CAL also documented a number of
By letter dated April 18, 2002 (ML021130029), “Confirmatory Action Letter Response—Root Cause Analysis Report,” the Licensee submitted to the NRC its technical root cause analysis report for the RPV head degradation, as revised by letter dated September 23, 2002 (ML022750125), “Revision 1 to Root Cause Analysis Report Regarding Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Degradation.” The Licensee concluded that the probable cause of the degradation was primary water stress corrosion cracking of the nozzle. The physical factors that caused corrosion of the RPV head were the CRDM nozzle leakage associated with through-wall cracking, followed by boric acid corrosion of the RPV low-alloy steel. The Licensee further concluded that the large-scale corrosion occurred as a result of a failure to detect and arrest the leakage until advanced symptoms had appeared.
The Licensee submitted to the NRC its nontechnical root cause analysis by letter dated August 21, 2002 (ML022750405), “Management and Human Performance Root Cause Analysis Report on Failure to Identify Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Degradation.” In this analysis, the Licensee concluded that “there was a lack of sensitivity to nuclear safety and the focus was to justify existing conditions. The overall conclusion is that Management ineffectively implemented processes and thus failed to detect and address plant problems as opportunities arose.” The Licensee identified a number of root causes for the failure to identify boric acid corrosion of the RPV head, including:
1. Less-than-adequate nuclear safety focus—A production focus established by management, combined with minimum action to meet regulatory requirements, resulted in acceptance of degraded conditions on the RPV head and other components affected by boric acid.
2. Less-than-adequate implementation of the corrective action program, as indicated by the following:
a. Addressing symptoms rather than causes
b. Low categorization of conditions
c. Less-than-adequate cause determinations
d. Less-than-adequate corrective actions
e. Less-than-adequate trending
3. Less-than-adequate analyses of safety implications—Failure to integrate and apply key industry information and site knowledge/experience, effectively use vendor expertise, and compare new information to baseline knowledge led to less-than-adequate analyses and decisionmaking with respect to the nuclear safety implications of boric acid on the reactor vessel head and in the containment.
4. Less-than-adequate compliance with the boric acid corrosion control and inservice test programs—Contrary to these programs, boric acid was not completely removed from the RPV head. The affected areas were not inspected for corrosion and leakage from nozzles and the sources of the leakage were not determined.
As documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/02-15 (ML030380037), dated February 6, 2003, the NRC concluded that the Licensee's management and human performance initial root cause analyses were not sufficiently broad to identify potential contributors in the engineering and corporate support areas and were not developed in an integrated manner to identify potentially systemic issues. Additional analyses were performed by the Licensee, including assessments in the areas of operations, engineering, oversight, and corporate support, and were evaluated by the NRC, as documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/02-18 (ML032050528), dated July 24, 2003. Following review of the additional FENOC analyses, the NRC concluded that the Licensee's overall nontechnical root cause assessment was of appropriate depth and breadth to develop actions to correct and prevent recurrence of the management and human performance deficiencies associated with the RPV head degradation.
Corrective actions taken by the Licensee included the development of a Return-to-Service Plan, which described FENOC's actions for Davis-Besse's safe and reliable return to service. The Return-to-Service Plan was initially submitted to the NRC on May 21, 2002 (ML021430429), and has been revised several times, most recently on April 6, 2003 (ML031000739).
The NRC Davis-Besse Oversight Panel established a Restart Checklist, which lists the essential issues requiring disposition prior to restart. The Restart Checklist was originally issued on August 16, 2002 (ML022310034), and has been revised as necessary by the Oversight Panel based on the results of NRC inspections and the Licensee's assessments. The Restart Checklist addresses those issues necessary to resolve the causes of the RPV head degradation so that the Licensee can safely restart and operate the plant. For example, issues requiring resolution before the Oversight Panel can consider a recommendation for restart include (1) the adequacy of safety-significant structures, systems, and components inside containment, (2) the adequacy of safety-significant programs, such as the corrective action program, self-assessment programs, and the boric acid corrosion management program, and (3) the adequacy of organizational effectiveness and human performance, including the effectiveness of corrective actions.
While the Restart Checklist establishes those essential actions necessary for safe restart and operation, a key element in preventing recurrence of a safety-significant event such as the RPV head degradation is effective Licensee self-assessment. Given the magnitude, scope, and duration of problems found at Davis-Besse, and that the Licensee's own self-assessments were not effective in preventing risk-significant performance deficiencies, additional assurance that the Licensee's self-assessment programs remain effective is essential.
To address the issues identified above and ensure sustained safe performance in plant operation, the Licensee developed the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Operational Improvement Plan—Operating Cycle 14, which was submitted to the NRC by letter dated November 23, 2003, “Integrated Report to Support Restart of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and Request for Restart Approval” (ML033360251) and most recently revised on January 27, 2004 (ML040280597). The Operational Improvement Plan provides for a managed transition from the Return-to-Service Plan to normal plant operations and refueling outages. The purpose of the Operational Improvement Plan is to ensure that improvements realized during the extended outage remain in place and are further built upon to improve performance in the future.
On November 12, December 3, and December 10, 2003, the Licensee met
As assurance that the Operational Improvement Plan initiatives are sufficient to ensure the continued integrity of the reactor coolant system and correction of the underlying management and organizational problems which led to the RPV head degradation, the Licensee also committed to the following actions. By letters dated March 31 (ML030930451) and November 14, 2003 (ML033220323), FENOC committed to conduct certain inspections every refueling outage for leakage from the RPV upper head and from pressure-retaining components above the RPV head. These include the CRDM flanges. In addition, by letter dated July 30, 2003 (ML032160384), FENOC committed to conduct similar inspections of the reactor vessel underside incore monitoring instrumentation nozzles, including during the Cycle 14 midcycle outage. As noted in the NRC staff assessment (ML032510339), the midcycle inspection will help to assure prompt identification of any significant reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage should it develop. The midcycle outage activities will provide additional confirmation of the material status of the reactor coolant system.
Notwithstanding the corrective actions completed to address the CAL and Restart Checklist and planned by the Licensee in the Operational Improvement Plan, the NRC requires additional measures with respect to independent assessments and midcycle inspections to provide reasonable assurance that the long-term corrective actions remain effective for those conditions that resulted in risk-significant performance deficiencies. During the course of the extended shutdown of Davis-Besse beginning in February 2002, FENOC conducted a number of thorough evaluations and self-assessments. Examples include the evaluation of system design, the assessment of the completeness and accuracy of docketed information, the evaluation of operational performance deficiencies during the normal operating pressure test, and the evaluation of the failure to comply with technical specification requirements during testing of the steam and feedwater rupture control system. However, Licensee assessments of operational performance prior to both the normal operating pressure test and the NRC's Restart Readiness Assessment Team Inspection in December 2003 failed to identify a number of deficiencies. NRC inspections also discovered problems that were not originally found by the Licensee, most notably in safety culture, in the corrective action program, and in the quality of engineering calculations and analyses. These issues indicated weaknesses in the Licensee's ability to assess, find, and correct conditions adverse to quality. In addition, on November 23, 2003, the Licensee concluded that the plant, programs, and personnel were ready to support safe operation, subject to completion of a few, well-defined work activities prior to restart, and requested the NRC schedule a meeting as stated in the CAL, and then provide approval for restart. A meeting was originally scheduled for December 18, 2003, to discuss restart. However, due to self-revealing equipment and operational problems and issues from the NRC Restart Readiness Assessment and the Management and Human Performance inspection teams, the meeting was delayed. Given the Licensee's previous conclusion that it was ready to support safe operation, these problems were additional evidence of inadequate self-assessment. Since then, the NRC recognizes that FENOC has implemented significant corrective actions resulting in improved performance and self-assessment capability. Nevertheless, considering the problems noted above and going forward, the NRC requires independent outside assessments to ensure continued effective Licensee self-assessments and sustained safe performance in the areas of operations, engineering and corrective actions at Davis-Besse.
On February 26, 2004, the Licensee executed a consent form in which it committed to implement the conditions in Section IV below with respect to future independent assessments of operations, safety culture, corrective actions, and engineering at Davis-Besse, and inspections of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary during a midcycle outage. The independent assessments will provide important confirmation of the effectiveness of the Licensee's self-assessments and long-term improvement actions. The reactor coolant system pressure boundary inspections will assure prompt identification of any leakage should it develop. The Licensee further agreed that this Order would be effective upon issuance and waived its right to a hearing.
I find that the Licensee's commitments, as set forth in Section IV, are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments, plant safety is reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that the Licensee's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 50, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that License No. NPF-3 is modified as follows:
1. FENOC shall contract with independent outside organizations to conduct comprehensive assessments of the Davis-Besse operations performance, organizational safety culture, including safety conscious work environment, the corrective action program implementation, and the engineering program effectiveness. Ninety days prior to the assessments, FENOC shall inform the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, in writing, of the identity of its outside assessment organizations, including the qualifications of the assessors, and the scope and depth of the assessment plans. These outside independent assessments at Davis-Besse shall be completed before the end of the 4th calendar quarter of 2004 and annually thereafter for 5 years. Within 45 days of completion of the assessments, the Licensee shall submit by letter to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, all assessment results and any action plans necessary to address issues raised by the assessment results.
2. FENOC shall conduct a visual examination of the reactor pressure vessel upper head bare metal surface, including the head-to-penetration interfaces; the reactor pressure vessel lower head bare metal surface, including the head-to-penetration interfaces; and the control rod drive mechanism flanges, using VT-2 qualified personnel and procedures during the Cycle 14 midcycle outage. The results and evaluation of the inspections will be reported by letter to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region
If the Licensee determines that submittals made in accordance with these conditions contain proprietary information as defined by 10 CFR 2.390, the Licensee shall also provide a nonproprietary version in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390(b)(1)(ii). The Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than the Licensee, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and must include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region III, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351, and to the Licensee. If a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
Dr. Peter J. Lee, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351; telephone (630) 829-9870; or by e-mail at
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment Material License No. 13-10179-01 issued to Pfizer Inc. (the licensee), to terminate its license and authorize release of its Terra Haute, Indiana, facility for unrestricted use.
The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this licensing action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice.
The purpose of the proposed action is to terminate Pfizer Inc.'s license and release its Terra Haute, Indiana, facility for unrestricted use. The NRC authorized Pfizer Inc. to utilize labeled compounds of H-3 and C-14 for research and development on July 17, 1964. On September 25, 2003, Pfizer Inc. submitted a license amendment request to terminate its license and release its Terra Haute facility for unrestricted use. Pfizer Inc. has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The staff has examined Pfizer Inc.'s request and the information that the licensee has provided in support of its request, including the surveys performed by Pfizer Inc. to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402, “Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use,” in order to ensure that the NRC's decision is protective of the public health and safety and the environment.
The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of Pfizer Inc.'s proposed license amendment to terminate its license and release the Terre Haute facility for unrestricted use. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and the environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning of Pfizer Inc.'s facility are bound by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological impacts were identified. The staff also finds that the proposed release for unrestricted use of the Pfizer Inc. facility is in compliance with the 10 CFR 20.1402, and finds no other activities in the area that could result in cumulative impacts. On the basis of the EA, the staff has concluded that the environmental impacts from the proposed action would not be significant. Accordingly, the staff has determined that a FONSI is appropriate, and has determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” Pfizer Inc.'s request, the EA summarized above, and the documents related to this proposed action are available electronically for public inspection and copying from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of March 15, 22, 29, April 5, 12, 19, 2004.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 15, 2004.
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Status of Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Jack Davis, 301-415-7256).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
2:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1).
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Mike Case, 301-415-1275).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 29, 2004.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 5, 2004.
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Alan Levin, 301-415-6656).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 19, 2004.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (201-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from, January 20, 2004, through March 4, 2004. The last biweekly notice was published on March 2, 2004 (69 FR 9857).
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment implements revised Allowable Values for the following instrument functions.
The proposed changes do not require modification to the facility. There is no impact on the accident analysis as a result of the proposed changes to the Allowable Values. The analytical limit, which is used as input to the accident analysis, does not change. The proposed changes will be implemented through revision of the associated surveillance test procedures, where the revised Allowable Value will replace the existing value.
Derivation of the Allowable Value in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.105, “Instrument Setpoints,” uses the analytical limit as a fixed starting point from which instrument uncertainties are added or subtracted, as appropriate. Calculation of the Allowable Value to plant-specific parameters provides additional confidence that protective instrumentation that passes the surveillance testing criteria will perform its design function without exceeding the associated safety analysis limit.
The revised Allowable Values for the affected equipment are not considered an initiator to any previously analyzed accident and therefore, cannot increase the probability of any previously evaluated accident. Implementation of the revised Allowable Values will ensure that the instrumentation will perform its required function to meet the accident analysis assumptions. The proposed Allowable Values will ensure that the fuel is adequately cooled, containment and drywell are isolated as required, primary containment temperature and pressure design limits are met, and overpressurization of the nuclear steam supply system is prevented following an accident or transient. The proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Since the proposed changes ensure the same level of protection as assumed in the accident analyses, the conclusions of the accident scenarios remain valid. As a result, no changes to radiological release parameters are involved. Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
In summary, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the design, functional performance or operation of the facility. Similarly, they do not affect the design or operation of any structures, systems, or components involved in the mitigation of any accidents, nor do they affect the design or operation of any component in the facility such that new equipment failure modes are created. Setpoints remain the same and therefore, there is no impact on the operation of any of the associated systems.
As such the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not involve a change to the plant design or operation. The proposed changes will be implemented through revisions to the associated surveillance test procedures where the revised Allowable Value replaces the existing Allowable Value. No changes to the instrument setpoints are involved. Since the availability of the systems will be maintained and since the system designs are unaffected, the proposed changes ensure the instrumentation is capable of performing their intended functions. The proposed changes do not affect the accident analyses that assume the operability of the instrumentation associated with these Allowable Values. The margins associated with the analytical limits are not impacted by the proposed Allowable Values since the analytical limits remain unchanged.
Therefore, operation of CPS in accordance with the proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to Technical Specification 4.4.2.1 and associated Bases Section incorporates reference to the criteria of 10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and standards,” in lieu of the existing criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.35. This change provides consistency between the Technical Specification tendon surveillance program criteria and the regulatory requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi). These regulatory requirements and the associated surveillance program ensure that the reactor building tendon prestressing system is capable of maintaining the structural integrity of the containment during operating
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Definition 1.22, Technical Specification 3.1.6.6 and associated Bases, and Technical Specification 3.24 Bases are only administrative changes or corrections and have no affect on plant design or operations.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to Technical Specification 4.4.2.1 and associated Bases Section incorporates reference to the criteria of 10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and standards,” in lieu of the existing criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.35. This change provides consistency between the Technical Specification tendon surveillance program criteria and the regulatory requirement specified in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi). The proposed Technical Specification change does not result in any reduction in effectiveness of the existing tendon surveillance program. The tendon surveillance program will continue to satisfy the applicable Technical Specification and regulatory required criteria, thus ensuring that the containment structure will perform its design safety function. This change has no affect on the design and operation of plant structures, systems, and components. This change does not introduce any new accident precursors and does not involve any alterations to plant configurations, which could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Definition 1.22, Technical Specification 3.1.6.6 and associated Bases, and Technical Specification 3.24 Bases are only administrative changes or corrections and have no affect on plant design or operations.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to Technical Specification 4.4.2.1 and associated Bases Section incorporates reference to the criteria of 10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and standards,” in lieu of the existing criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.35. The change provides consistency between the Technical Specification tendon surveillance program criteria and the regulatory requirement specified in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi). The containment examination and inspection requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(vi) meet the same standards as the criteria specified in Regulatory Guide 1.35. The proposed Technical Specification change does not result in any reduction in effectiveness of the existing tendon surveillance program. The tendon surveillance program will continue to satisfy the applicable Technical Specification and regulatory required criteria, thus ensuring that the containment structure will perform its design safety function in accordance with existing margins of safety for containment integrity.
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Definition 1.22, Technical Specification 3.1.6.6 and associated Bases, and Technical Specification 3.24 Bases are only administrative changes or corrections and have no affect on plant design or operations.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Criterion 1—The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
A change is proposed to allow the affected SDV vent and drain line to be isolated when there are one or more SDV vent or drain lines with one valve inoperable instead of requiring the valve to be restored to operable status within 7 days. With one SDV vent or drain valve inoperable in one or more lines, the isolation function would be maintained since the redundant valve in the affected line would perform its safety function of isolating the SDV. Following the completion of the required action, the isolation function is fulfilled since the associated line is isolated. The ability to vent and drain the SDVs is maintained and controlled through administrative controls. This requirement assures the reactor protection system is not adversely affected by the inoperable valves. With the safety functions of the valves being maintained, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Criterion 2—The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change ensures that the safety functions of the SDV vent and drain valves are fulfilled. The isolation function is maintained by redundant valves and by the required action to isolate the affected line. The ability to vent and drain the SDVs is maintained through administrative controls. In addition, the reactor protection system will prevent filling of an SDV to the point that it has insufficient volume to accept a full scram. Maintaining the safety functions related to isolation of the SDV and insertion of control rods ensures that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There is no impact on previously evaluated accidents because the proposed amendment does not affect the capability of any structure, system, or component to perform its design function. The functional capability of the narrow range instrumentation is not impacted by the operability status of the wide range instrumentation. The existing minimum values specified by Technical Specifications for the wide range and the narrow range instrumentation conservatively incorporate the applicable uncertainties necessary to make either instrument suitable for use over the expected range of operating conditions. As a result, the proposed amendment does not affect the operating procedures and administrative controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating any [previously] evaluated accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change the design function or operation of any structure, system, or component. The proposed amendment does not involve any physical change to plant equipment. Use of the narrow range instrumentation while the wide range instrumentation is operable does not create any new or different failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators than those already considered in the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect the margin of safety because the existing minimum values specified by Technical Specifications for the wide range and the narrow range instrumentation are not changed. Those minimum values conservatively incorporate the applicable uncertainties necessary to make either instrument suitable for use over the expected range of operating conditions. The calculation of those uncertainties for use of the narrow range instrumentation is unaffected by the operating status of the wide range instrumentation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, [Carolina Power & Light Company] concludes that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No, the Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES) is not assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed accident. Therefore, the proposed change contained in this license amendment request has no significant impact on the probability of occurrence of any previously analyzed accident.
The ABFVES provides a means of filtering air from the area of the active emergency core cooling system (ECCS) components, thereby providing environmental control for temperature and humidity in the ECCS pump room area and the Auxiliary Building. During emergency operations, the ABFVES exhausts air from the mechanical penetration area and the ECCS pump room area and discharges it through the system filters. For cases where the Auxiliary Building pressure boundary is opened intermittently under administrative controls, appropriate compensatory measures would be required by the proposed Technical Specification to ensure the pressure boundary can be rapidly restored. Based on the compensatory measures available to the plant operators and the administrative controls required to rapidly restore an opened pressure boundary, the accident consequences do not cause a significant increase in dose above the applicable General Design Criter[i]a, Standard Review Plan, or 10 CFR [Part] 100 limits.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No, there are no changes being made to actual plant hardware which will result in
3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No, margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following accident conditions. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of these barriers will not be significantly degraded by the proposed changes. When the Auxiliary Building pressure boundary is open on an intermittent basis, as permitted by the changes proposed in this license amendment request, administrative controls would be in place to ensure that the integrity of the pressure boundary could be rapidly restored. Therefore, it is expected that the plant, and the operating personnel, would maintain the ability to mitigate design basis events, and that none of the fission product barriers would be significantly affected by this change. Therefore, the proposed change is not considered to result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Operation of the facilities in accordance with this amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The BDMS [Boron Dilution Mitigation System] system is designed to mitigate the consequences of an inadvertent boron dilution event. The probability of the dilution accident will be reduced by administratively isolating potential dilution flow paths. Thus, with the proposed changes, boron dilution is not considered a credible accident during refueling.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Operation of the facilities in accordance with this amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of this proposed amendment. No changes are being made to any structure, system, or component which will introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact any plant systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety analysis.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Operation of the facilities in accordance with this amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The design criterion and margin of safety for the current BDMS is that the dilution event is terminated prior to the loss of all shutdown margin. The same criterion will be met following the isolation of dilution valves. Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen and oxygen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. RG 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen and oxygen monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents. Also, as part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44, the Commission found that Category 2, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the oxygen monitors, because the monitors are required to verify the status of the inert containment.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen and oxygen monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3, classification of the oxygen monitors as Category 2, and removal of the hydrogen and oxygen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the SAMGs, the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen and oxygen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen and oxygen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors.
Category 2 oxygen monitors are adequate to verify the status of an inerted containment.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related oxygen monitors. Removal of hydrogen and oxygen monitoring from TS will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change will revise Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS) Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) Section 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to reflect a one-time deferral of the primary containment Type A test to no later than February 27, 2011, for Unit 2, and no later than July 13, 2009, for Unit 3. The current Type A test interval of 10 years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one-time basis to 15 years from the last Type A test.
The function of the primary containment is to isolate and contain fission products released from the reactor coolant system (RCS) following a design basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and to confine the postulated release of radioactive material to within limits. The test interval associated with Type A testing is not a precursor of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, extending this test interval on a one-time basis from 10 years to 15 years does not result in an increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident. The successful performance history of Type A testing provides assurance that the DNPS primary containments will not exceed allowable leakage rate values specified in the TS and will continue to perform their design function following an accident. The risk assessment of the proposed change has concluded that there is an insignificant increase in total population dose rate and an insignificant increase in the conditional containment failure probability.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change for a one-time extension of the Type A tests for DNPS Units 2 and 3 will not affect the control parameters
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
DNPS Units 2 and 3 are General Electric BWR/3 plants with Mark I primary containments. The Mark I primary containment consists of a drywell, which encloses the reactor vessel, reactor coolant recirculation system, and branch lines of the RCS; a toroidal-shaped pressure suppression chamber containing a large volume of water; and a vent system connecting the drywell to the water space of the suppression chamber. The primary containment is penetrated by access, piping, and electrical penetrations.
The integrity of the primary containment penetrations and isolation valves is verified through Type B and Type C local leak rate tests (LLRTs) and the overall leak-tight integrity of the primary containment is verified by a Type A integrated leak rate test (ILRT) as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, “Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.” The tests are performed to verify the essentially leak-tight characteristics of the primary containment at the design basis accident pressure. The proposed change for a one-time extension of the Type A tests do not affect the method for Type A, B, or C testing, or the test acceptance criteria. In addition, based on previous Type A testing results, EGC does not expect additional degradation, during the extended period between Type A tests, which would result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes modify Technical Specifications (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, SR 3.5.1.10, and SR 3.6.1.6.1 to provide an alternative means for testing the main steam line relief valves, automatic depressurization system valves, and low set relief valves. Accidents are initiated by the malfunction of plant equipment, or the catastrophic failure of plant structures, systems or components. The performance of relief valve testing is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated and does not change the manner in which the valves are operated. The proposed testing requirements will not contribute to the failure of the relief valves nor any plant structure, system or component. Exelon Generation Company, LLC has determined that the proposed change in testing methodology provides an equivalent level of assurance that the relief valves are capable of performing their intended safety functions. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The performance of relief valve testing provides confidence that the relief valves are capable of depressurizing the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). This will protect the reactor vessel from overpressurization and allow the combination of the Low Pressure Coolant Injection and Core Spray systems to inject into the RPV as designed. The low set relief logic causes two low set relief valves to be opened at a lower pressure than the relief mode pressure setpoints and causes the low set relief valves to stay open longer, such that reopening of more than one valve is prevented on subsequent actuations. Thus, the low set relief function prevents excessive short duration relief valve cycles with valve actuation at the relief setpoint, which limits induced thrust loads on the relief valve discharge line for subsequent actuations of the relief valve. The proposed changes do not affect any function related to the safety mode of the duel function safety/relief valves. The proposed changes involve the manner in which the subject valves are tested, and have no effect on the types or amounts of radiation released or the predicted offsite does in the events of an accident. The proposed testing requirements are sufficient to provide confidence that the relief valves are capable of performing their intended safety functions. In addition, a stuck open relief valve accident is analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Since the proposed testing requirements do not alter the assumptions for the stuck open relief valve accident, the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the assumed accident performance of the main steam relief valves, nor any plant structure, system, or component previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not install any new equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. The proposed change in test methodology will ensure that the valves remain capable of preforming their safety functions due to meeting the testing requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, with the exception of opening the valve following installation or maintenance for which a relief request has been submitted, proposing an acceptable alternative. No setpoints are being changed which would alter the dynamic response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes will allow testing of the valve actuation electrical circuitry, including the solenoid, and mechanical actuation components, without causing the relief valve to open. The relief valves will be manually actuated prior to installation in the plant. Therefore, all modes of relief valve operation will be tested prior to entering the mode of operation requiring the valve to perform their safety functions. The proposed changes do not affect the valve setpoint or the operational criteria that directs the relief valves to be manually opened during plants transients. There are no changes proposed which alter the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated, and there is no change to the operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The leak limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are designed using the applicable American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [ASME Code] and, therefore, meet the design objectives of the original steam generator (SG) tubing. The applied stresses and fatigue usage for the sleeves are bounded by the limits established in the ASME Code. Mechanical testing has shown that the structural strength of sleeves under normal, upset, emergency, and faulted conditions provides margin to the acceptance limits. These acceptance limits bound the most limiting (three times normal operating pressure differential) burst margin recommended by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes.” Burst testing of sleeve-tube assemblies has confirmed the analytical results and demonstrated that no unacceptable levels of primary-to-secondary leakage are expected during any plant condition.
The leak limiting Alloy 800 sleeve depth-based structural limit is determined using NRC guidance and the pressure stress equation of ASME Code, Section III with additional margin added to account for the configuration of long axial cracks. An Alloy 800 sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of an imperfection in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the original tube wall in the leak limiting sleeve/tube assembly.
Evaluation of the repaired SG tube testing and analysis indicates no detrimental effects on the leak limiting Alloy 800 sleeve or sleeved tube assembly from reactor system flow, primary or secondary coolant chemistries, thermal conditions or transients, or pressure conditions as may be experienced at Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit [No.] 1. Corrosion testing and historical performance of sleeve-tube assemblies indicates no evidence of sleeve or tube corrosion considered detrimental under anticipated service conditions.
The implementation of the proposed change has no significant effect on either the configuration of the plant or the manner in which it is operated. The consequences of a hypothetical failure of the leak limiting Alloy 800 sleeve-tube assembly is bounded by the current SG tube rupture (SGTR) analysis described in the BVPS Unit No. 1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Due to the slight reduction in the inside diameter caused by the sleeve wall thickness, primary coolant release rates through the parent tube would be slightly less than assumed for the SGTR analysis and therefore, would result in lower total primary fluid mass release to the secondary system. A main steam line break or feedwater line break will not cause a SGTR since the sleeves are analyzed for a maximum accident differential pressure greater than that predicted in the BVPS Unit No. 1 safety analysis. The sleeve-tube assembly leakage during plant operation would be minimal and is well within the allowable Technical Specification leakage limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The leak limiting Alloy 800 sleeves are designed using the applicable ASME Code as guidance, and therefore meet the objectives of the original SG tubing. As a result, the functions of the SG will not be significantly affected by the installation of the proposed sleeve. The proposed sleeves do not interact with any other plant systems. Any accident as a result of potential tube or sleeve degradation in the repaired portion of the tube is bounded by the existing SGTR accident analysis. The continued integrity of the installed sleeve-tube assembly is periodically verified by Technical Specification requirements and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of an imperfection in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the tube wall in the leak limiting sleeve/tube assembly.
Implementation of the proposed change has no significant effect on either the configuration of the plant, or the manner in which it is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The repair of degraded SG tubes with leak limiting Alloy 800 sleeves restores the structural integrity of the degraded tube under normal operating and postulated accident conditions. The reduction in core cooling margin due to the addition of Alloy 800 sleeves is not significant because the cumulative effect of all repaired (sleeved) and plugged tubes will continue to be less than the currently allowed core cooling margin threshold established by the total steam generator tube plugging level. The design safety factors utilized for the sleeves are consistent with the safety factors in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code used in the original SG design. The sleeve and portions of the installed sleeve-tube assembly that represent the reactor coolant pressure boundary will be monitored and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of an imperfection in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the original tube wall in the leak limiting sleeve/tube assembly. Use of the previously identified design criteria and design verification testing assures that the margin to safety is not significantly different from the original SG tubes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change will revise the BVPS Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2 UFSAR
Since no physical plant changes nor any instrument setpoint changes are being requested, it [the proposed change] would not result in an increase in [the] probability of an accident previously evaluated. Since the proposed change only clarifies the limiting design basis ultimate heat sink scenario, consistent with both Units' original licensing bases, it would not result in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
In conclusion, the request to amend the UFSARs for BVPS Unit Nos. 1 and 2 to clarify the limiting design basis ultimate heat sink scenario, consistent with both Units' original licensing bases, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes only clarif[y] the limiting design basis ultimate heat sink scenario, consistent with both Units' original licensing bases. Since this is not a change to [the] original licensing bases and the design for the River Water System, Service Water System, Intake Structure, and [the] ultimate heat sink will remain valid for all credible plant conditions, this does not induce a new mechanism that would result in a different kind of accident from those previously analyzed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed changes [sic] only clarif[y] the limiting design basis ultimate heat sink scenario, consistent with both Units' original licensing bases. The proposed bounding conditions bound the credible BVPS Unit 1 and Unit 2 operating conditions. The design for the River Water System, Service Water System, Intake Structure, and ultimate heat sink continue to meet General Design Criteria 2 and 44 and the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.27, Revision 2.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. RG 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3 and removal of the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident management strategy through the use of the SAMGs, the emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements,
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after the onset of core damage.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from the TSs will not result in a significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and availability.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (FPLE Seabrook) proposes to revise footnote (* * *) of Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.8.1.1.2a.5 to remove the link created between actions b. and c. of TS 3.8.1.1 and the loaded surveillance testing requirements of SR 4.8.1.1.2a.6. This revision to footnote (* * *) is a change to the Technical Specifications that does not modify the physical design or operation of the plant and will not create a possibility of an accident. Strict compliance with the footnote requires paralleling the only operable EDG [emergency diesel generator] unit with the off-site grid upon entry into action statement[s] b. or c. of TS 3.8.1.1. Operation of the only operable EDG unit in this manner may increase its vulnerability for failure if power from the off-site grid is disturbed or lost. EDG unit availability for subsequent emergency demands may also be adversely affected.
The proposed change will eliminate the undesirable link that presently exists between action statement[s] b. and c. of TS 3.8.1.1 and SR 4.8.1.1.2a.6 but will maintain the primary purpose of the SR, which is to ensure that the EDG unit is capable of starting from standby conditions and attaining rated voltage and frequency. Additionally, the proposed change is consistent with the methodology used in NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] NUREG-1431, Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.” Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase [in] the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not affect any plant structures, systems, or components. The operation of plant systems and equipment will not be affected by this proposed change. The proposed change to footnote (* * *) does not have the capability to initiate accidents. The proposed change will eliminate the undesirable link that presently exists between action statement[s] b. and c. of TS 3.8.1.1 and SR 4.8.1.1.2a.6. However, the proposed change will maintain the primary purpose of the SR and supporting footnote, which is to ensure that the EDG unit is capable of starting from standby conditions and attaining rated voltage and frequency. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a change in the operational limits or physical design of the plant. The proposed changes do not change the function or operation of plant equipment or affect the response of that equipment if it is called on to operate. The performance capability of the EDG units will not be affected. The proposed change will maintain the primary purpose of the SR and supporting footnote, which is to ensure that the EDG unit is capable of starting from standby conditions and attaining rated voltage and frequency. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed revisions to the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) P/T curves are based on the recommendations in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 2, and are therefore in accordance with the latest Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidance. The evaluation for the P/T curves for 32 EFPY [Effective Full Power Years] was performed using the approved methodologies of 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix G. The curves generated from these methods provide guidance to ensure that the P/T limits will not be exceeded during any phase of reactor operation. Accordingly, the proposed revision to the CNS P/T curves is based on
Based on the above, NPPD [Nebraska Public Power District] concludes that the proposed TS change to TS 3.4.9 P/T curves, figures 3.4.9-1, 3.4.9-2, and 3.4.9-3 does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change updates existing P/T operating limits to correspond to the current NRC guidance. The proposed TS change provides more operating flexibility in the P/T curves for in-service leakage and hydrostatic pressure testing, non-nuclear heatup and cooldown, and criticality, with the benefits primarily in the area of pressure test being performed at a lower temperature. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant, add any new equipment or any new mode of operation. These changes demonstrate compliance with the brittle fracture requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50 Appendix G, and therefore do not create the possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed TS change to TS 3.4.9 P/T curves, figures 3.4.9-1, 3.4.9-2, and 3.4.9-3 does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
The proposed change to the CNS P/T curves does not create a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed change revises the existing CNS P/T curves to be consistent with recommendations of RG 1.99, Revision 2, the current NRC guidance given to ensure compliance with 10 CFR [Part] 50 Appendix G.
For P/T curve development ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Section Xl Code [Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] Case N-640 uses the Kic fracture toughness curve as the lower bound for fracture toughness. P/T curves based on the Kic fracture toughness limits enhance industrial safety by expanding the P/T window in the low-temperature operating region. The potential benefits are a reduction in the duration of the pressure test and, associated increase in personnel safety, while conducting inspections in primary containment. Therefore, operational flexibility is gained while maintaining an adequate margin of safety to Reactor Pressure Vessel brittle fracture. As stated above, the development of the P/T curves to 32 EFPY was performed per the guidelines of 10 CFR [Part] 50 Appendix G, and thus, the margin of safety is not significantly reduced as the result of the proposed TS change.
Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed TS change to TS 3.4.9 P/T curves, figures 3.4.9-1, 3.4.9-2, and 3.4.9-3 does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Criterion 1—The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
A change is proposed to allow the affected SDV vent and drain line to be isolated when there are one or more SDV vent or drain lines with one valve inoperable instead of requiring the valve to be restored to operable status within 7 days. With one SDV vent or drain valve inoperable in one or more lines, the isolation function would be maintained since the redundant valve in the affected line would perform its safety function of isolating the SDV. Following the completion of the required action, the isolation function is fulfilled since the associated line is isolated. The ability to vent and drain the SDVs is maintained and controlled through administrative controls. This requirement assures the reactor protection system is not adversely affected by the inoperable valves. With the safety functions of the valves being maintained, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Criterion 2—The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change ensures that the safety functions of the SDV vent and drain valves are fulfilled. The isolation function is maintained by redundant valves and by the required action to isolate the affected line. The ability to vent and drain the SDVs is maintained through administrative controls. In addition, the reactor protection system will prevent filling of an SDV to the point that it has insufficient volume to accept a full scram. Maintaining the safety functions related to isolation of the SDV and insertion of control rods ensures that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-359. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS LCO. The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Criterion 1—The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to the RCP flywheel examination frequency does not change the response of the plant to any accidents. The RCP will remain highly reliable and the proposed change will not result in a significant increase in the risk of plant operation. Given the extremely low failure probabilities for the RCP motor flywheel during normal and accident conditions, the extremely low probability of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with loss of offsite power (LOOP), and assuming a conditional core damage probability (CCDP) of 1.0 (complete failure of safety systems), the core damage frequency (CDF) and change in risk would still not exceed the NRC's acceptance guidelines contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 (<1.0E-6 per year). Moreover, considering the uncertainties involved in this evaluation, the risk associated with the postulated failure of an RCP motor flywheel is significantly low. Even if all four RCP motor flywheels are considered in the bounding plant configuration case, the risk is still acceptably low.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained; alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits; or affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the type or amount of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposure. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2—The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
The proposed change in flywheel inspection frequency does not involve any change in the design or operation of the RCP. Nor does the change to examination frequency affect any existing accident scenarios, or create any new or different accident scenarios. Further, the change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Criterion 3—The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the acceptance criteria contained in RG 1.174. There are no significant mechanisms for inservice degradation of the RCP flywheel. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,
The December 5, 2003, supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not enlarge the scope of the amendment as noticed in the original
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 2, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 4, 2004.
The December 16, 2003, supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 2, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 18, 2004.
The change increases the Allowable Value band to account for instrumentation deadband, as-left setting tolerances and setpoint drift and to resolve historical difficulties during calibration. The current Allowable Value was initially provided in the LaSalle County Station TS during conversion to Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) format. This value was based on vendor supplied data and believed at the time to adequately account for these parameters. The upper Allowable Value limit is being increased based on historical performance data for the High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) system flow switches. The increase in the allowed bypass flow rate does not affect the capability of the HPCS system in performing its intended safety function.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 4, 2004.
The supplements dated January 29 and February 13, 2004, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2004.
The supplemental letter of February 5, 2004, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The staff's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2004.
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination and did not expand the scope of the original
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2004.
The August 8 and November 13, 2003, supplemental letters provided additional clarifying information, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 18, 2004.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on the participant exchanges. The six participants to the OPRA Plan are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, Inc., the Pacific Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
The purpose of the proposed amendment to OPRA's national market system plan is to make incremental changes to the device-based and Enterprise Rate professional subscriber fees charged by OPRA in respect of its Basic Service and FCO Service over a four-year period commencing in 2004. By January 1, 2007, every professional subscriber would be subject to the same Basic Service device-based fee and the same FCO Service device-based fee, or elect to pay the Basic Service Enterprise Rate fee as an alternative to the Basic Service device-based fee at a rate per registered representative that is more closely aligned to the uniform device-based rate. OPRA's Basic Service consists of market data and related information pertaining to equity and index options. OPRA's FCO Service consists of this same information pertaining to foreign currency options. As a result of these changes, by the beginning of 2007, OPRA would have eliminated all distinctions in the device fees paid by professional subscribers based on the subscriber's status as a member or nonmember of an exchange that is a party to the OPRA Plan, as well as distinctions in the per-device fee based on the total number of OPRA-enabled devices of each professional subscriber.
The annual incremental changes to OPRA's professional subscriber fees proposed to be made over a four year period, including the changes to be made at the beginning of the fourth year when all device-based fees would be the same for all professional subscribers, are estimated by OPRA to increase total OPRA revenues derived from these fees by approximately 5% each year. This would be at or below the rate at which OPRA has increased professional subscriber fees in the past. Since Professional Subscribers currently pay device-based fees at different rates depending on their status as members or nonmembers of exchanges and on the number of devices through which they access OPRA information, in one or more of the four years during which these distinctions are being phased out, some Professional Subscribers would see their fees increase by more than the 5% average, although a greater number of Professional Subscribers would actually see their OPRA fees decrease. Professional subscribers are persons who subscribe to OPRA Information and do not qualify for the reduced fees charged to nonprofessional subscribers.
The elimination from OPRA's device-based professional subscriber fees of both the member and nonmember distinction and the volume discount is intended to make OPRA's rate structure simpler and fairer in light of continuing changes in communications and computer technology as well as in the structure of exchanges and in the nature of exchange membership. All of these combine to make these distinctions no longer useful. OPRA proposes to phase in the elimination of these fee distinctions over a four-year period in order to avoid making too great a change to the fees paid by any one professional subscriber in a single year.
The 5% annual increase in OPRA revenues estimated to result from these proposed fee changes is needed to defray the ever-increasing costs incurred by OPRA in collecting, processing, and disseminating options market data. These costs have increased over the past several years on account of the expansion of options trading and the introduction of new services, such as OPRA's BBO service that was introduced in 2003. OPRA's costs are expected to continue to increase over the next four years in light of anticipated continued growth in the number of messages that OPRA would be required to handle as a result of the entry of new options exchanges and the expansion of trading on existing exchanges, and changes in the trading and quoting methodologies used by OPRA's exchanges that are expected to increase significantly the number of individual quotes generated by each exchange.
The text of the proposed Professional Subscriber Fee Schedule is set forth below.
Subscriber shall pay a monthly fee based upon the number of electronic display or interrogation devices maintained by Subscriber that are capable of displaying or reporting OPRA Information. OPRA's device-based professional subscriber fees are subject to written policies. These policies are available at
As an alternative to the Device-based Professional Subscriber Fee, OPRA's Enterprise Rate Professional Subscriber Fee is available to those Subscribers that are members or associate members in good standing of one or more of the exchanges that are parties to the OPRA Plan, and that elect to pay Subscriber Fees at the Enterprise Rate by signing the Enterprise Rate Amendment to the Subscriber Agreement. The Enterprise Rate Subscriber Fee in effect commencing April 1, 2004 is a monthly fee of $12.00 times the number of a Subscriber's registered representatives based in the United States, its territories and possessions as reported by the NASD, subject to a minimum monthly fee of $2,400 per subscriber and subject to adjustment in accordance with the Enterprise Rate Amendment to the Subscriber Agreement. Effective January 1, 2005, the Enterprise Rate Subscriber Fee will be $14.00 per registered representative subject to a minimum monthly fee of $2,800, effective January 1, 2006, the Enterprise Rate Subscriber Fee will be $16 per registered representative subject to a minimum monthly fee of $3,200, and effective January 1, 2007, the Enterprise Rate Subscriber Fee will be $20 per registered representative subject to a minimum monthly fee of $4,000. Payment of the Enterprise Rate Professional Subscriber Fee entitles Subscriber to access OPRA's Basic Service at any of its locations in the United States, its territories and possessions, except that Subscribers who pay the Enterprise Rate Professional Subscriber Fee on the basis of more than 7,000 registered representatives (
Subscriber shall pay a monthly fee based upon the number of electronic display or interrogation devices maintained by Subscriber that are capable of displaying or reporting OPRA's FCO Service. The monthly fee per device shall be as follows:
Pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i) of Rule 11Aa3-2 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed OPRA Plan amendment is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by March 31, 2004, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After March 31, 2004, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
AGL Resources Inc. (“AGL Resources”), a registered public utility holding company, Ten Peachtree Place, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, AGL Resources' electric and gas public utility subsidiaries, Atlanta Gas Light Company (“AGLC”), Ten Peachtree Place, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309; Chattanooga Gas Company (“CGC”) 2207 Olan Mills Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421; Virginia Natural Gas, Inc. (“VNG”), 5100 East Virginia Beach Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23502, (AGLC, CGC, and VNG collectively “Utility Subsidiaries”); and AGL Resources” direct and indirect nonutility subsidiaries (“Nonutility Subsidiaries” and collectively with the Utility Subsidiaries, “Subsidiaries”) Georgia Natural Gas Company (“GNG”); AGL Investments, Inc. (“AGLI”); AGL Services Company (“AGL Services”); AGL Capital Corporation (“AGL Capital”); Global Energy Resource Insurance Corporation (“GERIC”); Pivotal Energy Services, Inc. (“Pivotal Energy Services”); AGL Rome Holdings, Inc.; Pivotal Propane of Virginia, Inc.; Southeastern LNG, Inc. (“Southeastern LNG”); AGL Capital Trust I; AGL Capital Trust II; AGL Capital Trust III; Trustees Investments, Inc.; Customer Care Services, Inc. (“Customer Care Services”); AGL Networks, LLC (“AGL Networks”); AGL Energy Corporation (“AGL Energy”); and AGL Propane Services, Inc. (“AGL Propane”); Ten Peachtree Place, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, SouthStar Energy Services, LLC (“SouthStar”), 817 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Sequent Energy Management, LP; Sequent Holdings, LLC; Sequent, LLC; Sequent Energy Marketing, LP, 1200 Smith Street Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77002 (collectively, “Applicants”) have filed an application (“Application”) under to sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, and 12 of the Act and rules 43, 45, 46, and 54 under the Act.
By order dated October 5, 2000 (HCAR No. 27243) (“Merger Order”), AGL Resources was authorized to acquire all of the issued and outstanding common stock of VNG. AGL Resources registered as a holding company under the Act on October 10, 2000. AGL Resources owns directly all of the issued and outstanding common stock of three public utility companies, AGLC, CGC, and VNG.
AGL Resources directly owns AGLC, CGC, VNG, GNG, AGL Services, AGL Capital, GERIC, AGLI. AGL Resources' common stock has a five-dollar ($5.00) par value and is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “ATG.” As of June 30, 2003 AGL Resources had 63,731,156 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. As of and for the six months ended June 30, 2003, AGL Resources had total assets of $3.66 billion, net utility plant assets of $2.07 billion, total operating revenues of $539.1 million, operating margin
Applicants state that AGLC is a natural gas local distribution utility with distribution systems and related facilities serving 237 cities throughout Georgia, including Atlanta, Athens, Augusta, Brunswick, Macon, Rome, Savannah, and Valdosta. AGLC also has approximately 6.0 billion cubic feet, or Bcf, of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) storage capacity in three LNG plants to supplement the supply of natural gas during peak usage periods. As of and for the six months ended June 30, 2003, AGLC had total assets of $2.34 billion, total operating revenues of $249.9 million and net income of $40.1 million. As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2002, AGLC had total assets of $2.37 billion, total operating revenues of $538.9 million and net income of $80.0 million. AGLC owns all of the outstanding stock of AGL Rome Holdings, Inc. AGL Rome Holdings, Inc. owns property associated with a former manufactured gas plant in Rome, Georgia.
CGC is a natural gas local distribution utility with distribution systems and related facilities serving 12 cities and surrounding areas, including the Chattanooga and Cleveland areas of Tennessee. CGC also has approximately 1.2 Bcf of LNG storage capacity in its
VNG is a natural gas local distribution utility with distribution systems and related facilities serving eight cities in the Hampton Roads region of southeastern Virginia. VNG owns and operates approximately 155 miles of a separate high-pressure pipeline that provides delivery of gas to customers under firm transportation agreements within the state of Virginia. VNG also has approximately 5.0 million gallons of propane storage capacity in its two propane facilities to supplement the supply of natural gas during peak usage periods. As of and for the six months ended June 30, 2003, VNG had total assets of $648.3 million, total operating revenues of $201.0 million and net income of $17.7 million. As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2002, VNG had total assets of $637.5 million, total operating revenues of $283.2 million and net income of $19.5 million.
GNG, a wholly owned subsidiary of AGL Resources, owns a non-controlling 70% financial interest in SouthStar. SouthStar, a joint venture formed in 1998, markets retail natural gas and related services to industrial, commercial and residential customers, principally in Georgia. SouthStar is the largest marketer in Georgia with a market share of 38% and operates under the trade name Georgia Natural Gas. At the formation of SouthStar, GNG owned a 50% interest; however, in March 2003, AGL Resources, through GNG, purchased an additional 20% ownership interest in SouthStar. Upon closing, GNG owned a non-controlling 70% financial interest in SouthStar and a subsidiary of Piedmont Natural Gas Company owned the remaining 30%. Although GNG owns 70% of SouthStar, GNG states that it does not have a controlling interest, as matters of significance require the unanimous vote of SouthStar's governing board. GNG and SouthStar are “gas-related companies” under rule 58 of the Act.
AGLI is an intermediate holding company for AGL Resources' investments in Sequent Energy Management, LP, AGL Networks, AGL Propane Services, AGL Energy, and other Nonutility Subsidiaries.
(i) Sequent, LLC is an intermediate holding company for Sequent Energy Management, LP; Sequent Energy Marketing, LP; and Sequent Holdings, LLC; collectively referred to as “Sequent.” Sequent provides asset optimization, gas supply services, and wholesale marketing and risk management services for third parties and the Utility Subsidiaries. Asset optimization activities focus on capturing the value from idle or underutilized natural gas assets, typically by participating in transactions that balance the needs of varying markets and time horizons. These assets include rights to pipeline capacity, underground storage, and natural gas peaking services and facilities. Sequent related activities also include the aggregation of gas from other marketers and producers and its resale to third parties and the Utility Subsidiaries. In addition, Sequent may bundle this commodity with transportation and storage service and sell short-term and long-term gas supply on a delivered basis. The Sequent organization is a “gas-related company” under rule 58 of the Act.
(ii) AGL Networks is a carrier-neutral provider of last-mile infrastructure and dark fiber solutions to a variety of customers in Atlanta, Georgia, and Phoenix, Arizona. AGL Networks is an exempt telecommunications company under section 34 of the Act.
(iii) AGL Propane holds a 22.36% membership interest in US Propane L.P.; and AGL Energy Corporation holds a membership interest in US Propane, LLC, the general partner of US Propane L.P. US Propane L.P. owns all of the general partnership interests and approximately 25% of the limited partnership interests, in Heritage Propane Partners, L.P. (“Heritage”). Heritage, a publicly traded company, is a marketer of propane through a nationwide retail distribution network and is the fourth largest retail marketer of propane in the United States.
(iv) AGL Investments is also the sole shareholder of the following active companies: Trustees Investments, Inc., which owns a residential and retail development in Savannah, Georgia, located on or adjacent to manufactured gas plant sites; Customer Care Services; Pivotal Energy Services, and Southeastern LNG.
AGL Services Company is a service company established in accordance with section 13 of the Act. AGL Services Company provides business services to AGL Resources and its various Subsidiaries.
AGL Capital is a financing subsidiary that provides for the ongoing financing needs of AGL Resources through a commercial paper program, the issuance of various debt and hybrid securities and other financing arrangements.
AGL Capital Trust I, AGL Capital Trust II and AGL Capital Trust III are Delaware statutory business trusts established for the purpose of issuing trust preferred securities. AGL Resources owns 100% of AGL Capital Trust I common stock and AGL Capital Trust I owns AGL Resources' 8.17% junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures. AGL Capital owns 100% of AGL Capital Trust II's common stock and AGL Capital Trust II owns AGL Capital's 8% junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures. AGL Capital Trust III exists for the exclusive purposes of issuing and selling its trust preferred securities and common securities, using the proceeds from the sale of these securities to acquire unsecured debt obligations of AGL Capital, and making distributions to the holders of trust securities. As of the date hereof, no securities have been issued by AGL Capital Trust III.
By order dated April 13, 2001(HCAR No. 27378), the Commission authorized GERIC, a captive insurance company, to underwrite certain insurance for AGL Resources and its Subsidiaries.
Applicants request authorization to engage in the following financing transactions during the period from the effective date of the order granted in this Application through March 31, 2007 (“Authorization Period”).
Applicants state that the proceeds from the sale of securities in external financing transactions will be used for general corporate purposes, including the financing, in part, of the capital expenditures and working capital requirements of AGL Resources and its Subsidiaries, for the acquisition, retirement or redemption of securities previously issued by AGL Resources or the Subsidiaries, and for authorized
Applicants request authorization for the following transactions through the Authorization Period:
(i) issuances and sales of securities or borrowings during the Authorization Period by AGL Resources of up to $5 billion at any time outstanding (“AGL Resources External Limit”);
(ii) issuances by AGL Resources of guarantees and other forms of credit support in an aggregate amount of $1 billion at any time outstanding (“AGL Resources Guarantee Limit”);
(iii) issuances by AGLC, CGC, and VNG of guarantees and other forms of credit support with respect to the obligations of their respective subsidiaries in an amount not to exceed and $300 million, $75 million, and $150 million, respectively (“Utility Guarantees”);
(iv) short-term borrowings by AGLC of $750 million and CGC of $250 million in short-term debt;
(v) hedging transactions by AGL Resources and the Utility Subsidiaries with respect to their indebtedness;
(vi) reorganization of the current combined system money pool into separate utility and non-utility money pools, and borrowings by the Subsidiaries under the new money pools;
(vii) changes in the terms of any wholly owned Subsidiary's authorized capital stock capitalization;
(viii) payment of dividends out of capital or unearned surplus by Nonutility Subsidiaries;
(ix) acquisition by AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries of the equity securities of one or more special purpose subsidiaries (“Financing Subsidiaries”) organized solely to facilitate a financing transaction and to guarantee the securities issued by Financing Subsidiaries;
(x) restructuring of AGL Resources' nonutility interests from time to time, including the establishment of one or more intermediate subsidiaries (“Intermediate Subsidiaries”) organized exclusively for the purpose of acquiring, financing, and holding the securities of one or more existing or future Nonutility Subsidiaries; and
(xi) issuance of up to 22 million shares of common stock under dividend reinvestment and stock-based management incentive and employee benefit plans (“Common Stock Plan Limit”).
Applicants state that financings will be subject to the following limitations (“Financing Limitations”):
(i) the cost of money on debt financings and the dividend rate on preferred stock or other types of preferred or equity-linked securities under the authorizations requested will be consistent with those of similar securities of comparable credit quality and maturities issued by other companies;
(ii) the maturity of long-term indebtedness will not exceed fifty years and short-term debt will mature within one year;
(iii) the underwriting fees, commissions or other similar remuneration paid in connection with the non-competitive issue, sale or distribution of securities will not exceed the greater of (a) 5% of the principal or total amount of the securities being issued or (b) issuance expenses that are generally paid at the time of the pricing for sales of the particular issuance, having the same or reasonably similar terms and conditions issued by similar companies of reasonably comparable credit quality;
(iv) AGL Resources will maintain common stock equity
(v) Applicants further represent that, except for securities issued for the purpose of funding money pool (“Money Pool”) operations, no guarantees or other securities, other than common stock, may be issued in reliance upon the authorization granted by the Commission under this Application, unless (a) the security to be issued, if rated, is rated investment grade; (b) all outstanding securities of the issuer that are rated, are rated investment grade; and (c) all outstanding securities of AGL Resources that are rated, are rated investment grade. For purposes of this provision, a security will be deemed to be rated “investment grade” if it is rated investment grade by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”), as that term is used in paragraphs (c)(2)(vi)(E), (F) and (H) of Rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“1934 Act”). Applicants request that the Commission reserve jurisdiction over the issuance of any securities that are rated below investment grade. Applicants further request that the Commission reserve jurisdiction over the issuance of any guarantee or other securities in reliance upon the authorization granted by the Commission under this Application at any time that the conditions set forth in clauses (a) through (c) above are not satisfied.
1.
2. Current Debt Ratings: The debt ratings of AGL Resources and certain of its Subsidiaries are set forth below:
AGL Resources seeks authorization to issue equity and debt securities aggregating not more than the AGL Resources External Limit at any one time outstanding during the Authorization Period. These securities could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, common stock, preferred stock, preferred stock equivalent securities, options, warrants, purchase contracts, units (consisting of one or more purchase contracts, warrants, debt securities, shares of preferred stock, shares of common stock or any combination of such securities), long- and short-term debt (including commercial paper), convertible securities, subordinated debt, bank borrowings and securities with call or put options. In addition, AGL Resources also seeks authorization to issue shares of common stock or options to purchase shares under stock purchase/dividend reinvestment plans and stock-based management incentive and employee benefit plans up to the Common Stock Plan Limit. Securities issued under the Common Stock Plan Limit would not reduce the AGL Resources' capacity to issue securities under the AGL Resources External Limit.
AGL Resources seeks authority to issue common stock in an aggregate amount outstanding not to exceed the AGL Resources External Limit at any time during the Authorization Period. Specifically, AGL Resources proposes to issue and sell common stock, options, warrants, purchase contracts, units, other stock purchase rights exercisable for common stock and securities with some of the characteristics of AGL Resources common stock. AGL Resources may perform common stock financings through underwriting agreements of a type generally standard in the industry. Public distributions may be made by private negotiation with underwriters, dealers or agents as discussed below or through competitive bidding among underwriters. In addition, sales may be made through private placements or other non-public offerings to one or more persons. All common stock sales will be at rates or prices and under conditions negotiated or based upon, or otherwise determined by, competitive capital markets. Underwriters may resell common stock from time to time in one or more transactions, including negotiated transactions, at a fixed public offering price or at varying prices determined at the time of sale. AGL Resources also may grant underwriters a “green shoe” option permitting common stock to be offered solely for the purpose of covering over-allotments.
AGL Resources also seeks authorization to issue common stock or options, warrants or other stock purchase rights exercisable for common stock in public or privately negotiated transactions as consideration for the equity securities or assets of other companies, provided that the acquisition of any equity securities or assets has been authorized by the Commission or is exempt under the Act or rules under the Act. The ability to offer stock as consideration may make a transaction more economical for AGL Resources as well as for the seller of the business. For purposes of calculating compliance with the AGL Resources External Limit, AGL Resources' common stock would be valued based upon the negotiated agreement between the buyer and the seller.
AGL Resources proposes, from time to time, during the Authorization Period to issue and/or acquire in open market transactions or by some other method that complies with applicable law and Commission interpretations then in effect, up to 22 million shares of AGL Resources common stock under AGL Resources' dividend reinvestment plan, certain incentive compensation plans and other employee benefit plans currently existing or that may be adopted in the future.
AGL Resources may issue preferred stock from time to time during the Authorization Period. Preferred stock or other types of preferred or equity-linked securities may be issued in one or more series with rights, preferences, and priorities as may be designated in the instrument creating each series, as determined by AGL Resources' board of directors. Dividends or distributions on preferred stock or other preferred securities will be made periodically and to the extent funds are legally available for that purpose, but may be made subject to terms that allow the issuer to defer dividend payments for specified periods. Preferred stock or other preferred securities may be convertible or exchangeable into shares of AGL Resources' common stock or unsecured indebtedness.
AGL Resources proposes to issue long-term debt in accordance with the conditions described in Financing Limitations. Any long-term debt security would have the maturity, interest rate(s) or methods of determining the same, terms of payment of interest, redemption provisions, sinking fund terms and other terms and conditions as AGL Resources may determine at the time of issuance. Any long-term debt (i) may be convertible into any other authorized securities of AGL Resources; (ii) will have maturities ranging from one to fifty years; (iii) may be subject to optional and/or mandatory redemption, in whole or in part, at par or at various premiums above the principal amount; (iv) may be entitled to mandatory or optional sinking-fund provisions; (v) may provide for reset of the coupon pursuant to a remarketing arrangement; (vi) may be subject to tender or the obligation of the issuer to repurchase at the election of the holder or upon the occurrence of a specified event; (vii) may be called from existing
AGL Resources requests authorization to issue directly, or indirectly through Financing Subsidiaries existing or to be formed under the authorization requested herein, short-term debt including, but not limited to, institutional borrowings, commercial paper and bid notes. Issuance of short-term debt will be under terms determined by AGL Resources at the time of issuance and in accordance with the Financing Limitations. Short-term debt issued by AGL Resources will be unsecured. Proceeds of any short-term debt issuance may be used to refund short-term debt, to refund maturing long-term debt, and to provide financing for general corporate purposes, working capital requirements and Subsidiary capital expenditures until long-term financing can be obtained.
Applicants state that AGL Resources maintains committed lines of bank credit for $500 million with various banks. Sequent maintains an unsecured line of credit in the current amount of $15 million for the posting of margin deposits, which is guaranteed by AGL Resources.
AGL Resources may sell commercial paper, from time to time, in established domestic or European commercial paper markets. Commercial paper would be sold to dealers at the discount rate or the coupon rate per annum prevailing at the date of issuance for commercial paper of comparable quality and maturities sold to commercial paper dealers generally. It is expected that the dealers acquiring commercial paper from AGL Resources will reoffer this paper at a discount to corporate, institutional and, with respect to European commercial paper, individual investors. Institutional investors are expected to include commercial banks, insurance companies, pension funds, investment trusts, foundations, colleges and universities and finance companies.
AGL Resources proposes to engage in other types of short-term financing generally available to borrowers with comparable credit ratings as it may deem appropriate in light of its needs and market conditions at the time of issuance. Applicants state that any additional short-term financing would be conducted in accordance with the Financing Limitations.
To the extent credit is extended under either commercial paper or short-term debt facilities during the Authorization Period, these amounts would be included within the AGL Resources External Limit and would be subject to the Financing Limitations.
AGL Resources requests authority to enter into, perform, purchase and sell financial instruments intended to manage the volatility of interest rates, including but not limited to interest rate swaps, caps, floors, collars and forward agreements or any other similar agreements (“Hedging Instruments”). Hedging Instruments, in addition to the foregoing sentence, may also include the issuance of structured notes (
In addition, AGL Resources requests authorization to enter into Hedging Instruments with respect to anticipated debt offerings (“Anticipatory Hedges”), subject to certain limitations and restrictions. Anticipatory Hedges would only be entered into with Approved Counterparties, and would be used to fix and/or limit the interest rate risk associated with any new issuance through (i) a forward sale of exchange-traded Hedging Instruments (“Forward Sale”); (ii) the purchase of put options on Hedging Instruments (“ Put Options Purchase”); (iii) a Put Options Purchase in combination with the sale of call options on Hedging Instruments (“Zero Cost Collar”); (iv) transactions involving the purchase or sale, including short sales, of Hedging Instruments; or (v) some combination of a Forward Sale, Put Options Purchase, Zero Cost Collar and/or other derivative or cash transactions, including, but not limited to structured notes, caps and collars, appropriate for the Anticipatory Hedges.
Hedging Instruments may be executed on-exchange (“On-Exchange Trades”) with brokers through the opening of futures and/or options positions traded on the Chicago Board of Trade, the opening of over-the-counter positions with one or more counterparties (“Off-Exchange Trades”), or a combination of On-Exchange Trades and Off-Exchange Trades. AGL Resources will determine the optimal structure of each Hedging Instrument transaction at the time of execution.
AGL Resources requests authorization to enter into guarantees, obtain letters of credit, enter into expense agreements or otherwise provide credit support (“Guarantees”) with respect to the obligations of its Subsidiaries as may be appropriate or necessary to enable the Subsidiaries to carry on in the ordinary course of their respective businesses in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed the $1 billion AGL Resources Guarantee Limit outstanding at any one time. In addition, Applicants request authority for AGLC, CGC, and VNG to issue Guarantees in an amount not to exceed $300 million, $75 million, and $150 million, respectively with respect to the obligations of their Subsidiaries.
Applicants state that Guarantees may take the form of, among others, direct guarantees, reimbursement undertakings under letters of credit, “keep well” undertakings, agreements to indemnify, expense reimbursement agreements, and credit support with respect to the obligations of the subsidiary companies as may be appropriate to enable the system companies to carry on their respective authorized or permitted businesses. Any Guarantee that is outstanding at the end of the Authorization Period shall remain in force until it expires or terminates in accordance with its terms.
Applicants state that certain Guarantees may be in support of obligations that are not capable of exact quantification. In these cases, AGL Resources and the Utility Subsidiaries will determine the exposure under a Guarantee for purposes of measuring compliance with the appropriate Guarantee limit by appropriate means, including estimation of exposure based on potential payment amounts. Applicants request authority for each Subsidiary to be charged a fee for any Guarantee provided on its behalf that is not greater than the cost, if any, incurred by the guarantor in obtaining the liquidity necessary to perform the Guarantee for the period of time the Guarantee remains outstanding.
The Utility Subsidiaries request authority to enter into, perform, purchase and sell Hedging Instruments in the same manner as requested by AGL Resources above.
AGLC and CGC propose to issue up to $750 million and $250 million, respectively, of short-term debt consisting of commercial paper, secured or unsecured bank loans and borrowings under the utility money pool (“Utility Money Pool”), at any one time outstanding during the Authorization Period (“Utility Short-Term Debt Limit”). These issuances of securities will comply with the Financing Limitations.
If a Utility Subsidiary elects to issue commercial paper, either under rule 52 of the Act or under an applicable Commission order, each Utility Subsidiary requests that it be authorized to be made party to any AGL Resources' credit facility as back-up to the commercial paper.
Applicants request authority for AGL Resources and the Utility Subsidiaries to operate a Utility Money Pool, and for the Utility Subsidiaries to make unsecured short-term borrowings from the Utility Money Pool, to contribute surplus funds to the Utility Money Pool, and to lend and extend credit to (and acquire promissory notes from) one another through the Utility Money Pool.
In addition, to the extent not exempt under rule 52(b), Applicants request authority for AGL Resources and the Nonutility Subsidiaries to operate a nonutility money pool (“Nonutility Money Pool”), and the Nonutility Subsidiaries to make unsecured short-term borrowings from the Nonutility Money Pool, to contribute surplus funds to the Nonutility Money Pool, and to lend and extend credit to (and acquire promissory notes from) one another through the Nonutility Money Pool.
AGL Resources requests authorization to contribute surplus funds and to lend and extend credit to (i) the Utility Subsidiaries through the Utility Money Pool and (ii) the Nonutility Subsidiaries through the Nonutility Money Pool. AGL Resources will not borrow from either the Utility Money Pool or the Nonutility Money Pool. AGL Services will serve as administrator for both the Utility Money Pool and the Nonutility Money Pool. Applicants request that the Commission reserve jurisdiction over the participation of any AGL Resources system company in either money pool as a borrower until the record in this matter has been supplemented with additional information regarding the proposed participant.
Applicants state that Utility Money Pool funds are available from the following sources for short-term loans to the participating companies from time to time (i) surplus funds in the treasuries of participants and (ii) proceeds received by the participants from the sale of commercial paper and borrowings from banks (“External Funds”). Funds are made available from sources in the order that AGL Services, as the administrator under the Utility Money Pool Agreement, determines would result in a lower cost of borrowing compared to the cost that would be incurred by the borrowing participants individually in connection with external short-term borrowings, consistent with the individual borrowing needs and financial standing of Utility Money Pool participants that invest funds in the Utility Money Pool.
Each company that is authorized to borrow from the Utility Money Pool (“Eligible Borrower”) will borrow pro rata from each Utility Money Pool participant that invests surplus funds, in the proportion that the total amount invested by the investing participant bears to the total amount then invested in the Utility Money Pool. The interest rate charged to Eligible Borrowers on borrowings under the Utility Money Pool will be equal to AGL Resources' actual cost of external short-term borrowings and the interest rate paid on loans to the Utility Money Pool would be a weighted average of the interest rate earned on loans made by the Utility Money Pool and the return on excess funds earned from the investments described below. The interest income and investment income earned on loans and investments of surplus funds would be allocated among those Utility Money Pool participants that have invested funds in accordance with the proportion each participant's investment of funds bears to the total amount of funds invested in the Utility Money Pool.
Funds not required by the Utility Money Pool to make loans (with the exception of funds required to satisfy the Utility Money Pool's liquidity requirements) would ordinarily be invested in one or more short-term investments, including (i) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government and/or its agencies and instrumentalities; (ii) commercial paper; (iii) certificates of deposit; (iv) bankers' acceptances; (v) repurchase agreements; (vi) tax exempt notes; (vii) tax exempt bonds; (viii) tax exempt preferred stock; and (ix) other investments that are permitted by section 9(c) of the Act and rule 40 thereunder.
Each Eligible Borrower receiving a loan through the Utility Money Pool would be required to repay the principal amount of the loan, together with all interest accrued thereon, on demand and in any event within one year after the date of the loan. All loans made through the Utility Money Pool may be prepaid by the borrower without premium or penalty and without prior notice. Applicants state that the Nonutility Money Pool would be operated on the same terms as the Utility Money Pool.
Applicants request authority to change the terms of any wholly owned subsidiary's authorized capital stock capitalization by an amount deemed appropriate by AGL Resources or other intermediate parent company. Applicants state that the portion of an
The requested authorization is limited to AGL Resources' wholly owned Subsidiaries and will not affect the aggregate limits or other conditions contained herein. A Subsidiary would be able to change the par value, or change between par value and no-par stock, without additional Commission approval. Any such action by a Utility Subsidiary would be subject to and would only be taken upon the receipt of any necessary approvals by the state commission in the state or states where the Utility Subsidiary is incorporated and doing business. In addition, each of the Utility Subsidiaries will maintain, during the Authorization Period, a common equity capitalization of at least 30%.
Applicants request authority for the Nonutility Subsidiaries to pay dividends from time to time through the Authorization Period, out of capital and unearned surplus, to the extent permitted under applicable corporate law and state or national law applicable in the jurisdiction where each company is organized, and any applicable financing covenants.
AGL Resources anticipates that there will be situations in which a Nonutility Subsidiary will have unrestricted cash available for distribution in excess of the company's current and retained earnings. In these situations, the declaration and payment of a dividend would have to be charged, in whole or in part, to capital or unearned surplus. The sale of an asset, for example, may provide cash in excess of the selling company's retained earnings. In addition, distributions out of capital may be necessary in connection with winding down a subsidiary. Further, there may be periods during which unrestricted cash available for distribution by a Nonutility Subsidiary exceeds current and retained earnings due to the difference between accelerated depreciation allowed for tax purposes, which may generate significant amounts of distributable cash, and depreciation methods required to be used in determining book income. Finally, even under circumstances in which a Nonutility Subsidiary has sufficient earnings, and therefore may declare and pay a dividend to its immediate parent, the immediate parent may have negative retained earnings, even after receipt of the dividend, due to losses from other operations. In this instance, cash would be trapped at a subsidiary level where there is no current need for it.
AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries seek authorization to organize new corporations, trusts, partnerships or other entities, or to use existing Financing Entities, such as AGL Capital, that will facilitate financings by issuing short-term debt, long-term debt, preferred securities, equity securities, or other securities to third parties and transfer the proceeds of these financings to AGL Resources or their respective parent Subsidiaries. To the extent not exempt under rule 52, the Financing Entities also request authorization to issue these securities to third parties. In connection with this method of financing, AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries may (i) issue debentures or other evidences of indebtedness to Financing Entities in return for the proceeds of the financing; (ii) acquire voting interests or equity securities issued by the Financing Entities to establish ownership of the Financing Entities (the equity portion of the entity generally being created through a capital contribution or the purchase of equity securities, ranging from one to three percent of the capitalization of the Financing Entities); and (iii) guarantee a Financing Entity's obligations in connection with a financing transaction. Any amounts issued by Financing Entities to a third party under this authorization will be included in the overall external financing limitation authorized herein for the immediate parent of the Financing Entity. However, the underlying intra-system mirror debt and parent guarantee shall not be so included. AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries also request authorization to enter into support or expense agreements (“Expense Agreement”) with Financing Entities to pay the expenses of any such entity. Any affiliate transactions entered into by a Financing Entity in connection with an Expense Agreement would be conducted at fair market value without regard to cost, and therefore, Applicants request an exemption under section 13(b) from the at cost standards of rules 90 and 91 for AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries to enter into these transactions.
Applicants propose to restructure AGL Resources' nonutility holdings from time to time as may be necessary or appropriate in the furtherance of AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries' authorized nonutility activities. Restructuring could involve the acquisition of one or more new subsidiaries to acquire and hold direct or indirect interests in any or all of AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries' existing or future authorized nonutility businesses. Restructuring could also involve the merger or transfer of existing subsidiaries, or portions of existing businesses, among the AGL Resources associates and/or the reincorporation of existing subsidiaries in a different state. This would enable AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries to consolidate similar businesses and to participate effectively in authorized nonutility activities, without the need to apply for or receive additional Commission approval.
These direct or indirect subsidiaries might be corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies or other entities in which AGL Resources, directly or indirectly, might have a 100% interest, a majority equity or debt position, or a minority debt or equity position. These subsidiaries would engage only in businesses to the extent AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries are authorized, whether by statute, rule, regulation or order, to engage in those businesses. AGL Resources does not seek authorization to acquire an interest in any nonassociate company as part of the authority requested in this Application and states that the reorganization will not result in the entry by AGL Resources and the Subsidiaries into a new, unauthorized line of business.
AGL Resources proposes to acquire, directly or indirectly, the securities of one or more entities (“Intermediate Subsidiaries”), which would be organized exclusively for the purpose of acquiring, holding and/or financing the acquisition of the securities of or other interest in one or more EWGs, FUCOs, Rule 58 Companies, ETCs, or other non-exempt Nonutility Subsidiaries (as authorized in this proceeding or in a separate proceeding), provided that Intermediate Subsidiaries may also engage in administrative activities (“Administrative Activities”) and development activities (“Development Activities”), defined below, relating to these subsidiaries.
Administrative Activities include ongoing personnel, accounting, engineering, legal, financial, and other support activities necessary to manage AGL Resources' investments in Nonutility Subsidiaries. Development Activities will be limited to due diligence and design review; market studies; preliminary engineering; site inspection; preparation of bid proposals, including, in connection therewith, posting of bid bonds; application for required permits and/or regulatory approvals; acquisition of site options and options on other necessary rights; negotiation and execution of contractual commitments with owners of existing facilities, equipment vendors, construction firms, and other project contractors; negotiation of financing commitments with lenders and other third-party investors; and other preliminary activities that may be required in connection with the purchase, acquisition, financing or construction of facilities, or the acquisition of securities of or interests in new businesses.
Administrative Activities will include ongoing personnel, accounting, engineering, legal, financial, and other support activities necessary to manage AGL Resources' investments in Nonutility Subsidiaries.
An Intermediate Subsidiary may be organized, among other things, (i) to facilitate the making of bids or proposals to develop or acquire an interest in any EWG, FUCO, Rule 58 Company, ETC or other Nonutility Subsidiary; (ii) after the award of such a bid proposal, to facilitate closing on the purchase or financing of an acquired company; (iii) at any time subsequent to the consummation of an acquisition of an interest in any such company to, among other things, effect an adjustment in the respective ownership interests in such business held by AGL Resources and non-affiliated investors; (iv) to facilitate the sale of ownership interests in one or more acquired non-utility companies; (v) to comply with applicable laws of foreign jurisdictions limiting or otherwise relating to the ownership of domestic companies by foreign nationals; (vi) as a part of tax planning in order to limit AGL Resources' exposure to taxes; (vii) to further insulate AGL Resources and the Utility Subsidiaries from operational or other business risks that may be associated with investments in non-utility companies; or (viii) for other lawful business purposes.
Investments in Intermediate Subsidiaries may take the form of any combination of the following (i) purchases of capital shares, partnership interests, member interests in limited liability companies, trust certificates or other forms of equity interests; (ii) capital contributions; (iii) open account advances with or without interest; (iv) loans; and (v) guarantees issued, provided or arranged in respect of the securities or other obligations of any Intermediate Subsidiaries. Funds for any direct or indirect investment in any Intermediate Subsidiary will be derived from (i) financings authorized in this proceeding; (ii) any appropriate future debt or equity securities issuance authorization obtained by AGL Resources from the Commission; and (iii) other available cash resources, including proceeds of securities sales by Nonutility Subsidiaries under rule 52. To the extent that AGL Resources provides funds or Guarantees directly or indirectly to an Intermediate Subsidiary that are used for the purpose of making an investment in any EWG, FUCO, or Rule 58 Company, the amount of the funds or Guarantees will be included in AGL Resources' “aggregate investment” in these entities, as calculated in accordance with rule 53 or rule 58, as applicable.
AGL Resources requests authorization to consolidate or otherwise reorganize all or any part of its direct and indirect ownership interests in Nonutility Subsidiaries, and the activities and functions related to these investments. To effect any consolidation or other reorganization, AGL Resources may wish to merge or contribute the equity securities of one Nonutility Subsidiary to another Nonutility Subsidiary (including a newly formed Intermediate Subsidiary) or sell (or cause a Nonutility Subsidiary to sell) the equity securities or all or part of the assets of one Nonutility Subsidiary to another one. To the extent that these transactions are not otherwise exempt under the Act or rules thereunder, AGL Resources requests authorization to consolidate or otherwise reorganize under one or more direct or indirect Intermediate Subsidiaries, AGL Resources' ownership interests in existing and future Nonutility Subsidiaries. These transactions may take the form of a Nonutility Subsidiary selling, contributing, or transferring the equity securities of a subsidiary or all or part of a subsidiary's assets as a dividend to an Intermediate Subsidiary or to another Nonutility Subsidiary, and the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of the equity securities or assets of the subsidiary, either by purchase or by receipt of a dividend. The purchasing Nonutility Subsidiary in any transaction structured as an intrasystem sale of equity securities or assets may execute and deliver its promissory note evidencing all or a portion of the consideration given. Each transaction would be carried out in compliance with all applicable laws and accounting requirements.
AGL Resources requests authorization to make expenditures on Development Activities, as defined above, in an aggregate amount of up to $600 million. AGL Resources proposes a “revolving fund” concept for permitted expenditures on Development Activities. Thus, to the extent a Nonutility Subsidiary in respect of which expenditures for Development Activities were made subsequently becomes an EWG, FUCO, or Rule 58 Company, the amount so expended will cease to be considered an expenditure for Development Activities, but will instead be considered as part of the “aggregate investment” in the entity under rule 53 or 58, as applicable.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 15, 2003, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On February 4, 2004, the NASD amended the proposed rule change.
The NASD submitted the proposed rule change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto to create a new rule series, the proposed Rule 9550 Series, to consolidate, clarify and streamline those existing procedural rules that have an expedited proceeding component.
After the proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, including whether Amendment No. 3 is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments should be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment is published for comment in the
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association, and, in particular, section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASD is proposing to adopt Interpretative Material 3150 (“IM-3150”) to establish exemptions from the reporting requirements of NASD Rule 3150. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a) Each member that is a clearing firm or self-clearing firm shall be required to report to [the Association]
(b) Pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series, [the Association]
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASD Rule 3150(a) requires each clearing firm (both those that are self-clearing and those that clear for other firms) to report to NASD, on a daily basis, and in a format determined by NASD, prescribed data pertaining to the member and any member broker-dealer for which it clears. This data is reported into NASD's electronic surveillance system, which identifies member “exceptions” based on historical and current comparisons of member data. The exceptions trigger follow-up reviews and possible member examinations. As provided in NASD Rule 3150(b), NASD may, in exceptional and unusual circumstances, taking into consideration all relevant factors, exempt a member or class of members, unconditionally or on specified terms, from any or all of the provisions of
NASD initially notified its members of the availability of certain exemptions in a letter dated June 20, 2002,
1. members that derive the preponderance of their revenue for the last two calendar years from fixed income securities;
2. members that conduct an institutional business and that settle transactions on an RVP/DVP basis;
3. members that conduct no traditional retail securities business.
Based on these classes and NASD's current regulatory needs, proposed IM-3150 would establish three classes of self-clearing members that may be exempt from the reporting requirements of NASD Rule 3150(a).
Under proposed IM-3150(a)(1), NASD generally would exempt self-clearing firms that are primarily engaged in transactions in fixed income securities. Proposed IM-3150(a)(1) replaces the term “preponderance of their revenue” set forth in the June 20, 2002 letter with the phrase “at least 85 percent of its revenue” and eliminates the requirement that members must have derived at least 85 percent of their revenue for the last two calendar years from fixed income securities. Instead, to qualify for this exemption, members must be able to ascertain that transactions in fixed income securities account for at least 85 percent of their annual revenue. Annualizing the 85 percent requirement allows firms to average their fixed income business over one year and takes into account daily, weekly, and monthly fluctuations in a firm's sources of revenue. Proposed IM-3150(a)(1) further clarifies that members must have derived at least 85 percent of their revenue from transactions in fixed income securities. These changes are consistent with the exemptions NASD staff has granted under this standard pursuant to the June 20, 2002 letter.
Under proposed IM-3150(a)(2), NASD generally would continue to exempt the institutional business of self-clearing firms that settle on an RVP/DVP basis. With respect to any other remaining business of such self-clearing firms, NASD will determine whether that business otherwise qualifies for an exemption under IM-3150 or is sufficiently
NASD is proposing to modify the language of the exemption pertaining to “members that conduct no traditional retail securities business” in order to clarify the types of firms that might qualify for this exemption. Accordingly, proposed IM-3150(a)(3) would create an exemption for firms that do not execute transactions for customers or otherwise hold customer accounts or act as an introducing broker with respect to customer accounts (
Additionally, under proposed IM-3150(b), NASD may grant an exemption to a clearing firm with respect to one or more of the introducing firms for which it clears if the introducing firm falls within one of the three proposed classes. Proposed IM-3150 continues to require members to request all exemptions from NASD Rule 3150(a) in writing pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series, including possible exemptions under proposed IM-3150. Members that do not fall within one or more of the three enumerated classes set forth in proposed IM-3150 are not precluded from requesting an exemption from NASD Rule 3150(a), pursuant to Rule 3150(b) and the Rule 9600 Series, if they believe their business activities justify such a request.
NASD is currently reviewing the electronic surveillance system's data requirements in view of current regulatory developments. Among other things, NASD will be reassessing whether firms that primarily conduct an institutional business should be exempted from the reporting requirements of NASD Rule 3150. In the event NASD seeks to amend or rescind the classes of firms for which exemptions from NASD Rule 3150 generally will be available under proposed IM-3150, NASD will file a proposed rule change to amend IM-3150. Additionally, in the event there is a change in the facts pertaining to a self-clearing firm's business such that the firm would no longer qualify for an exemption granted by NASD under IM-3150, the exemption is revoked under IM-3150(c), and the affected self-clearing firm must notify the Department of Member Regulation and commence reporting under NASD Rule 3150.
In addition, the proposed rule change replaces several references to “the Association” in the text of the proposed rule change with “NASD.” NASD no longer refers to itself using its full corporate name or “the Association.” Instead, NASD uses “NASD” unless otherwise appropriate for corporate or regulatory reasons.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing proposal has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is proposing to amend the regulatory fee portion of its Schedule of Fees and Charges (“Fees”) in order to make a technical change to its Designated Examination Fee (“DEA”) Fee exemption. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit A. The text of the proposed rule changes is available at the PCX and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the PCX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the regulatory fee portion of its Fees in order to make a technical change to the DEA Fee exemption.
On September 24, 2003, the Exchange submitted a filing with the Commission to amend the DEA Fee exemption.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to make one technical change to the DEA Fee exemption, by adding the word “and” to the phrase “as measured in contract or share volume.” As revised, the phrase would read “as measured in contract and/or share volume.” The exemption is intended to be calculated using all securities transactions, as measured in contract and/or share volume. In other words, the 25% securities transactions threshold can be met based on either a combination of contracts and share volume, or exclusively contracts or share volume. The word “and” was inadvertently omitted from the previously filing and the Exchange wishes to make the technical correction at this time.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective March 4, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include Harney and Wheeler Counties for Public Assistance in the State of Oregon as disaster areas due to damages caused by severe winter storms occurring on December 26, 2003 and continuing through January 14, 2004.
All other information remains the same,
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
The following summarizes the information collection proposal to be submitted to OMB:
Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Public comments, or requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice should be directed to Brendan Mullarkey of the Office of Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, 2401 E St. NW., RM L-703, Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached at 202-663-1166.
The Department of State Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy will meet March 31, 2004 at 1 p.m. Members of the press and general public may attend, although attendance will be limited by seating availability.
To attend the meeting, please call (202) 205-2178 or (202) 205-2122 and provide your date of birth and Social Security number. Members of the public who have confirmed their attendance must present a photo ID at the security desk before they enter the Department of State and are escorted to the meeting room.
The Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy is responsible for advising the Secretary of State on programs and policies to advance the use of cultural diplomacy in United States foreign policy. This charge includes providing to the Secretary guidance on increasing the presentation abroad of the finest of U.S. creative, visual, and performing arts, as well as strategies for increasing public-private partnerships to sponsor cultural exchange programs that promote the national interests of the United States. An agenda for the committee's first session will be distributed at the meeting.
Accuride Corporation (Accuride) has determined that approximately 1,053 Extra Service Wheels, produced between May 27, 2003, and May 31, 2003, do not meet certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, “Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.” Some 466 of the 1,053 Extra Service Wheels were shipped to eleven different customers.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Accuride has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.”
Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day comment period, on July 21, 2003, in the
Accuride described the noncompliant wheels as size 22.5 x 8.25 inch, 15 degree drop center, one piece tubeless aluminum dual wheels. Accuride produced these wheels at its Erie, Pennsylvania plant and machined them at the Accuride plant in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The symbol “DOT” and the designation, which indicates the source of the rims” published nominal dimensions, in this case “T,” were inadvertently not marked on the wheels. Accuride believes that the omission of the “DOT-T” marking is inconsequential to safety as the omission in no way affects the performance of the wheel and does not otherwise compromise safety. Accuride states that all other information markings required by FMVSS No. 120 are correctly marked.
Paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS 120 requires that each rim be marked with specific information, including a designation indicating the source of the rims' published nominal dimensions and the symbol “DOT,” constituting a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that it complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Exclusion of the information may cause mismatching of tires to rims that could result in tire and rim separations or blowouts.
In this case, the agency agrees that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as all other information markings, including the correct rim size designation, as required by FMVSS No. 120 are correctly marked and the consumer can refer to these markings to match the rims to tires. Also, the agency traditionally considers failure to mark “DOT” as a failure to certify under 49 CFR Part 567—Certification rather than a failure to comply with a FMVSS. As such, the absence of the “DOT” symbol in this case will not compromise the safe operation of motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance at issue is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Accuride's application is hereby granted, and the applicant is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance.
(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
On February 25, 2004, Florida West Coast Railroad Company, Inc. (FWCR), filed with the Surface Transportation Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon and discontinue service over an approximately 13-mile line of railroad extending from milepost 734.0, in Trenton, to milepost 721.0, in Newberry, in Alachua and Gilchrist Counties, FL. The line traverses United States Postal Service ZIP Codes 32669 and 32693, and includes no stations.
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in FWCR's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by June 14, 2004.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,100 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than April 5, 2004. Each
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-347 (Sub-No. 3X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) David H. Anderson, Law Office of David H. Anderson, 288 Littleton Road, Suite 21, Westford, MA 01886. Replies to the FWCR petition are due on or before April 5, 2004.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment and discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1539. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.)
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary), prepared by SEA, will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days after the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before April 15, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before April 15, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Recordkeeping—6 hr., 42 min.
Learning about the law or the form—2 hr., 10 min.
Preparing and sending the form to the IRS
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and
Written comments should be received on or before May 17, 2004, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held April 14 and 15, 2004.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on April 14 and 15, 2004, in Room 4600E beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Karen Carolan, C:AP:AS, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Telephone (202) 694-1861 (not a toll free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (2000), that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on April 14 and 15, 2004, in Room 4600E beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 17, 2004.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Mechelle Powell, National Cemetery Administration (41D1), Department of
Mechelle Powell at (202) 273-5181 or FAX (202) 273-6695.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, NCA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 17, 2004.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Mechelle Powell, National Cemetery Administration (402B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail comments to:
Mechelle Powell at (202) 501-1960 or FAX (202) 273-6695.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, NCA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR).
Today's action is a SNPR to a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on January 30, 2004. The NPR proposed to: set national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA); alternatively, to revise the regulatory finding EPA made by notice dated December 20, 2000 pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1)(A); and if the December 2000 finding is revised as proposed, to set standards of performance, under CAA section 111, for mercury (Hg) for new and existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating units (Utility Units), as defined in CAA section 112(a)(8), and for nickel (Ni) for new and existing oil-fired Utility Units. Thus, regardless of whether it would base its action on section 111 or 112, EPA intends to require reductions in the emissions of Hg and Ni from coal- and oil-fired utility units, respectively.
Today's SNPR includes proposed rule language for the action proposed in the NPR published on January 30, 2004, proposed state plan approvability criteria, and a proposed model cap-and-trade rule. EPA is also proposing to revise regulations to establish methodologies to measure mercury (Hg) emissions from new and existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating units. Today's SNPR and the associated NPR are part of a broader effort to issue a coordinated set of emissions limitations for the power sector.
For general information on today's SNPR and specific information on today's action under CAA section 112, contact William Maxwell, Combustion Group (mail stop C439-01), Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5430, fax number (919) 541-5450, electronic mail (e-mail) address,
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists examples of the types of entities EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.9981 of the proposed rule or §§ 60.45a and 60.46a of the proposed NSPS amendments. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA Dockets. Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket, visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002).
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” The EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits.
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at
Comments may be sent by e-mail to
You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule. If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting information will be considered with the same weight as any oral statement and supporting information presented at a public hearing.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on January 30, 2004 (69 FR 4651), EPA proposed: (1) Set national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA); (2) alternatively, to revise the regulatory finding that it made on December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79825) pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1)(A) (December 2000 Finding); and (3) if the December 2000 finding is revised as proposed, to set standards of performance pursuant to CAA section 111 for both mercury (Hg) for new and existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating units (Utility Units), as defined in CAA section 112(a)(8); and nickel (Ni) for new and existing oil-fired Utility Units. Thus, regardless of whether it would base its actions on section 111 or 112, EPA intends to require reductions in the emissions of Hg and Ni from coal- and oil-fired utility units, respectively. The January 30, 2004 NPR, and today's SNPR, are part of a broader effort to issue a coordinated set of emissions limitations for the power sector.
The December 2000 Finding consisted of a finding, pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1)(A), that regulation of coal- and oil-fired Utility Units under CAA section 112 is appropriate and necessary. The section 112 “MACT” rule proposed in the January 30, 2004 NPR would require coal- and oil-fired Utility Units to meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determined pursuant to the procedures set forth in CAA section 112(d). In the January 30, 2004 NPR, EPA also co-proposed and solicited comment on implementing a cap-and-trade program under section 112, similar to that proposed under section 111 of the CAA.
The proposed NPR CAA section 112 MACT rule would limit emissions of Hg from coal-fired EGUs and Ni from oil-fired EGUs. Exposure to Hg or Ni above identified thresholds has been demonstrated to cause a variety of adverse health effects. The NPR also proposed an alternative to regulate Hg from coal-fired EGUs and Ni from oil-fired EGUs under Section 111.
In the January 30, 2004 NPR, EPA also proposed, in the alternative, standards of performance under CAA section 111 to establish a mechanism by which Hg emissions from new and existing coal-fired Utility Units would be capped at specified, nation-wide levels. A first phase cap would become effective in 2010 and a second phase cap would become effective in 2018. Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the standard by holding one “allowance” for each ounce of Hg emitted in any given year. Allowances would be readily transferrable among all regulated facilities. EPA believes that such a “cap and trade” approach to limiting Hg emissions is the most cost effective way to achieve the reductions in Hg emissions from the power sector that are needed to protect human health and the environment.
The added benefit of this cap-and-trade approach is that it dovetails well with the sulfur dioxide (SO
Today's action is a SNPR augmenting EPA's January 30, 2004 NPR. This SNPR includes proposed rule language for the action proposed in the NPR and proposed state plan approvability criteria. This SNPR also includes a model cap-and-trade rule, including the proposed CFR rule language for the basic elements of the proposed Hg Budget Trading Program. The rule language is located at the end of the preamble.
In today's SNPR, EPA is proposing that each state impose control requirements that demonstrate it will meet its statewide Hg emissions budget, proposed in the NPR. States may join the trading program by adopting or referencing the model trade rule in State regulations or adopting regulations that mirror the necessary components of the model trading rule. Today's SNPR identifies the necessary common components of state rule rules and identifies EPA and state responsibilities for administering a Hg trading program. Today's notice also discusses the program elements of the model trading program, including applicability, allowance allocations, banking, compliance, and enforcement.
EPA is also proposing to revise Parts 72 and 75 to establish methodologies to measure mercury (Hg) emissions from new and existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating units. In today's proposed rule, EPA would add subpart I to Part 75. Subpart I would provide mercury monitoring requirements that could be adopted by State agencies (or, if necessary, by EPA) as part of any regulatory requirements included in the final rules. Proposed Subpart I sets forth general procedures for measuring total vapor phase mercury mass emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units, using continuous emission monitoring systems or sorbent trap monitoring systems. In addition to adding Subpart I to Part 75, today's proposed rule would revise the regulatory language at several places in Parts 72 and 75 to include specific mercury monitoring definitions and provisions.
The January 30, 2004 NPR explained that under the section 111 co-proposal each State would be required to submit a state plan demonstrating “that each State will meet the assigned statewide mercury emission budget.” Each state plan should include fully-adopted State rules for the mercury reduction strategy with compliance dates providing for controls by 2010 and 2018.
The purpose of this section is to identify criteria for determining approvability of a State submittal in response to the performance standard requirements. In addition, this section describes the actions the Agency intends to take if a State fails to submit a satisfactory plan.
As discussed in the NPR, Section 111(a) and (d)(1) authorizes EPA to promulgate a “standard of performance” that States must apply to existing sources through a State plan. As also discussed in the NPR, EPA is interpreting the term “standard of performance”, as applied to existing sources, to include a cap-and-trade program.
The State budgets are not an independently enforceable requirement. Rather, each State must impose control requirements that the State demonstrates will limit state-wide emissions from affected new and existing sources to the amount of the budget. EPA believes that the best way to assure this emission limitation is for the State to assign to each affected source—new and existing—an amount of allowances that sum to the state budget. Therefore, EPA proposes that all regulatory requirements be in the form of a maximum level of emissions—that is, a cap—for the sources. Also, consistent with the IAQR, EPA is proposing that States may meet their Statewide emission budget by allowing their sources to participate in a national cap-and-trade program. That is, a State may authorize its affected sources to buy and sell allowances out of state, so that any difference between the State's budget and the total amount of statewide emissions will be offset in another State (or States).
EPA notes that the January 30, 2004 NPR stated that States not participating in the trading program would be required to make the individual source allocations specified in the NPR (as noted above) as the basis for the Statewide budget. In today's supplemental notice, EPA is proposing that each State must submit a demonstration that it will meet its assigned Statewide emission budget, but that regardless of whether the State participates in a trading program, the State may allocate its allowances by its own methodology rather than following the method used by EPA to derive the state emissions budgets. This alternative approach is consistent with the approach in the IAQR (
Moreover, States remain authorized to require emissions reductions beyond those required by the State budget, and nothing in today's SNPR or the associated NPR would preclude the States from requiring such stricter controls.
In addition, EPA proposes today that sources would be required to comply with the 40 CFR part 75 requirements proposed today. EPA believes that compliance with these requirements are necessary to demonstrate compliance with a mass emissions limit.
If a State fails to submit a State plan as proposed to be required in the January 30, 2004 NPR and today's SNPR, EPA would prescribe a Federal plan for that State, under CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). EPA proposes today's model rule as that Federal plan. By the same token, as discussed below, EPA proposes today's model rule (with some changes) as the regulatory requirements under section 112(n)(1)(A), as co-proposed in the NPR as the basis for Hg regulation.
Mercury-specific air pollution control device development has made major strides since the EPA announced its Information Collection Request in 1998. Currently, there are a broad range of technologies under consideration, consistent with the view that the EPA believes a portfolio approach is required to adequately and effectively implement significant reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. In selecting a Hg emissions control
Ongoing Hg Research and Development (R&D) programs recognize that conventional air pollution control technologies (
There are two overarching goals for the DOE R&D program: (1) to develop control technologies capable of 50-70% Hg capture for commercial demonstration at bituminous coal-fired power plants by 2005, and at lower rank coal-fired power plants by 2007 and (2) to develop lower cost control technologies capable of 90% Hg capture for commercial demonstration by 2010. The DOE R&D program takes technologies from a conceptual level through bench scale and pilot scale proof of concept. For the more promising technologies, defined in terms of performance and cost, full-scale field tests are conducted to generate the information necessary for a multi-year demonstration project. In addition to funding for the Hg R&D program, DOE is also provided funds by Congress to conduct such full-scale technology demonstrations under the Clean Coal Power Initiative.
Several categories of technologies are now under development and evaluation at DOE and ORD, which EPA has considered in proposing regulations for Hg emissions from coal-fired power plants. These include sorbent injection technologies, technologies that enhance the Hg capture of traditional pollutant controls, such as SO
a.
b.
c.
Calcium-based sorbents and oxidizing agents are being evaluated under a cooperative agreement between DOE and the Southern Research Institute. These systems could remove both SO
d.
DOE is also investigating the ability of a specific wavelength of ultraviolet light to oxidize elemental Hg to a form more easily captured by conventional air pollution control equipment.
In contrast to most of DOE's short-term Hg R&D projects, in September 2003, DOE initiated a series of eight longer-term, large-scale field tests that will investigate the potential for improvements and more wide-spread applicability of Hg control using one or more of the approaches outlined above. The actual testing varies by project, but generally will begin in early 2004 and last for several months. Technologies to be evaluated include both sorbent-based approaches, like activated carbon injection, as well as oxidation-based approaches intended to improve Hg collection by more traditional air pollution control technologies.
As discussed above, the DOE and ORD R&D programs are complemented by a demonstration program within the Clean Coal Power Initiative. In January 2003, DOE announced the first awards under this program,
Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Presque Isle plant will evaluate the TOXECON process combined with chemical additives as an integrated Hg, particulate matter, SO
The City of Colorado Springs is teaming with Foster Wheeler to demonstrate an advanced circulating fluidized bed combustor, with integrated pollution controls expected to reduce Hg emissions by over 90 percent. This 6-year project carries a total cost of just over $300 million.
These projects evidence the commitment of project participants, including DOE and ORD, to invest the resources needed to bring promising Hg control concepts to commercial readiness. We believe the nature of the Hg control challenge is so complex that a number of additional demonstration projects will be needed, but we are confident that resources will be made available to pursue those projects and solutions will be developed that have broad application.
The normal flow of development of new technologies is R&D at the bench scale and pilot scale (typically 2 to 4 years), followed by large scale testing (typically one year under a range of operating conditions and technology configurations at a facility), followed by one or more cycles of full-scale demonstrations (typically 6 years each).
In implementing the Clean Coal Technology Program, DOE has gained extensive experience with the process of demonstrating emerging air pollution control technologies. Based on SO
Although pursuit is continuing on some Hg emissions control technologies at the bench and pilot scale, much work has already been completed at these smaller scales. However, some technologies, like sorbent injection, have entered the large scale field testing stage, and we have initiated a full-scale demonstration project for sorbent injection technology. It appears that these technologies, with at least 50-70% Hg emissions reduction, will be ready for broader full-scale demonstration on bituminous coal in 2005, and on subbituminous coal and lignite in 2007. If these demonstrations are successful, commercial deployment could occur on a large scale after 2010, or perhaps later. Assuming two years to permit and construct such commercial units, large scale operation of the technology is feasible by 2013 and 2015. It is important to note that reliable and predictable performance will be achieved only if such demonstration projects can be completed on a range of coal types with a range of characteristics (such as Hg, chlorine, and sulfur content), and at plants with a range of hardware (ESPs of varying relative sizes; spray dryers on coals with low chlorine content). Additional technologies, perhaps much lower in costs, should follow in 2-4 additional years.
Greater Hg emissions reduction performance is an integral part of DOE's and ORD's Hg emissions control technology development programs. A second wave of technologies operating at 90% reduction should be ready for full-scale demonstration by 2010, leading to effective reductions after 2018. An important caveat to these time projections is that they could be extended if the same units being retrofit for Hg emissions must contemporaneously focus on installing separate pollution control systems for other pollutants. The significance of this potential problem will vary with the type of control technologies being installed.
Substantial progress in Hg control technology development has been achieved through a partnership between government (both ORD and DOE) and industry. A broad portfolio of technologies is beginning to emerge, and EPA is confident these technologies will most likely be able to provide 50 to 70% reduction of Hg emissions in the period after 2015, with up to 90% reduction of Hg emissions on many applications after 2018. Thus, EPA is proposing a Phase II cap of 15 tons in this supplemental notice, which will take full advantage of the emerging, demonstrated technologies that are outlined above. More details and actual demonstration data are available in the docket related to this rulemaking effort.
In the January 30, 2004 NPR, EPA proposed that the compliance date for Ni controls under section 111(d) correspond to the 2010 compliance date for the Phase I Hg controls. EPA concluded that the compliance dates for the two sets of controls should be synchronized. The oil-fired unit population is limited (the number of existing units is approximately 130) and their primary use is in providing peak shaving power during periods of high electricity demand. Moreover, current industry guidance indicates that the viability of new oil-fired generation is extremely limited due to the economic and generation efficiencies afforded by natural gas-fired simple- and combine-cycle stationary combustion turbine units.
In the January 30, 2004 NPR to reduce national mercury emissions, EPA stated that it would develop and administer a national Hg trading program to assist States in the achievement of these goals; today's notice proposes such a program. This program employs a cap on total emissions in order to ensure that emissions reductions are achieved, while providing the flexibility and cost effectiveness of a market-based system. This Section provides background information and a description of the Hg Budget Trading Program, as well as an explanation of how the trading program would interface with other State and Federal programs. In addition, a model rule for the trading program is proposed. States can voluntarily choose to participate in the Hg Budget Trading Program, and they may do so by adopting the model rule, which is a fully approvable control strategy for achieving emissions reductions required under the mercury reduction rulemaking. States may submit rules
More specifically, States that choose to participate in the Hg Budget Trading Program must adopt all the provisions of the model rule, except that they have the flexibility with respect to the requirements for allocating allowances to their sources. The applicability of the model trading rule is discussed more fully below. EPA must review these State rules through notice-and-comment rulemaking, but this rulemaking will be expedited for, at the least, those State rules that mirror the model rule. If a State does not choose to participate in the Hg Budget Trading Program (that is, it does not wish to allow its sources to participate in inter-state trading, and it may or may not wish allow its sources to participate in intra-state trading), then the State may submit rules other than the model rule, and EPA will evaluate these rules in the regular course of notice-and-comment rulemaking.
As discussed in the January 30, 2004 NPR, the trading program establishes, for affected utility units, a first phase Hg cap at a level that reflects the Hg reductions expected as co-benefits accompanying the SO
Today's proposed Hg Budget Trading Rule will be incorporated into the 40 CFR part 60 as a new subpart HHHH. The new sections in subpart HHHH of 40 CFR part 60 are described below. The provisions of 40 CFR part 60 subpart HHHH will become effective and apply to sources only if a State incorporates 40 CFR part 60 subpart HHHH by reference into the State's regulation or adopts regulations that are in accordance with 40 CFR part 60 subpart HHHH.
a.
b.
c.
i.
Consistent and accurate quantification of emissions ensures the integrity of a Hg reduction program. The continuous emissions monitoring methods must incorporate rigorous quality assurance testing and substitute data provisions for times when monitors are unavailable because of planned and unplanned outages. In addition, there must be requirements for record keeping and electronic reporting. Provisions like these are contained in 40 CFR part 75, and are used in both the Acid Rain and NO
As discussed further below, EPA is proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 75 to establish requirements for mercury emission monitoring, quality assurance, substitute data, record keeping, and reporting and to include a requirement for States to require year-round part 75 monitoring and reporting for all sources. EPA believes that emissions will then be consistently and accurately monitored and reported from unit to unit and from State to State.
ii.
d.
In order to resume operation without violating program requirements (
e.
f.
Sections 60.4110 through 60.4114 of today's proposed Hg Budget Trading Rule establishes the process for certifying the Hg AAR and describes his or her duties. A Hg AAR is the individual who is authorized to represent the owners and operators of each Hg Budget unit at a Hg Budget source in matters pertaining to the Hg Budget Trading Program. Because the Hg AAR is representing the owners and operators of all the Hg Budget units at a Hg Budget source, the Hg AAR must certify that he or she was selected by an agreement binding on all such owners and operators and is authorized to act on their behalf. The Hg AAR's responsibilities include: the submission of permit applications to the permitting authority, submission of monitoring plans and certification applications, holding and transferring Hg allowances, and submission of emissions data and compliance reports.
The Agency recognizes that the Hg AAR cannot always be available to perform his or her duties. Therefore, the rule proposes to allow for the appointment of one alternate Hg AAR (alternate Hg AAR) for a Hg Budget source. The alternate Hg AAR would have the same authority and responsibilities as the Hg AAR. Therefore, unless expressly provided to the contrary, whenever the term “Hg authorized account representative” is used in the rule, it should be read to apply to the alternate Hg AAR as well. While the alternate Hg AAR would have full authority to act on behalf of the Hg AAR, all correspondence from EPA, including reports, would be sent only to the Hg AAR.
Today's proposal requires the completion and submission of the account certificate of representation form in order to certify a Hg AAR for a Hg Budget source and all Hg Budget units at the source. There would be one standard form which would be submitted by sources to EPA. The EPA would establish a compliance account for each source in the mercury allownce tracking system (MATS). The form would include: the plant name, State, and identifying number (ORIS or facility code); the identifying number of each Hg budget unit at the source; the Hg AAR name, the Hg AAR identification number (if already assigned), address, phone, fax, and e-mail (as well as similar information for the alternate Hg AAR, if applicable); the name of every owner and operator of the source and each Hg Budget unit at the source; and certification language and signature of the Hg AAR and alternate, if applicable.
In order to change the Hg AAR, alternate Hg AAR, or list of owners and operators, EPA is proposing that a new complete account certificate of representation be submitted. The EPA believes the Hg AAR requirements afford the regulated community with flexibility, while ensuring source accountability and simplifying the administration of the trading program. These submissions can be made electronically to EPA.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Sections 60.4130 through 60.4131 of today's proposed Hg Budget Trading Rule sets forth the requirements concerning certification by the Hg AAR at the end of each control period that the Hg Budget units at the facility were in compliance with the emissions limitation and other requirements of the Hg Budget Trading Program. The Hg AAR must submit a compliance certification report for the Hg Budget units at each facility by March 1 following the control period, to both the permitting authority and the Administrator. This report must identify the Hg Budget units and the Hg Budget source, and include a compliance certification statement. The compliance certification statement must indicate whether all of the applicable requirements of the Hg Budget Trading Program, including the requirement to hold allowances greater than or equal to emissions and the requirement to monitor and report according to the provisions in § 60.4106 of today's proposal, were met by the unit for the most recent control period. The report also allows the Hg AAR to specify which allowances (by serial number) should be deducted from the Hg Budget facility's compliance account.
Sections 60.4140 through 60.4142 of today's proposed model rule addresses the allocation of Hg allowances to Hg Budget units. Within each participating State, the Hg Budget Trading Program would establish a State trading program budget (
a.
EPA proposes today that each State be required to submit a state plan under section 111(d) that assures that the State budget is met by capping emissions, through the allocation of allowances, from each affected Utility Unit. The State may allocate allowances to Utility Units in any manner it wishes, as long as the total number of allowances does not exceed the State budget. The State is not required to allocate allowances to each affected Utility Unit in accordance with the allocation option proposed in Section III.B.4.c below or the formula used to determine the State budget. Those unit-specific allocations are hypothetical and determined solely for accounting purposes.
EPA does, however, solicit comment on whether to require the State to allocate allowances to each affected Utility Unit in accordance with this hypothetical allocation. EPA recognizes that statements in the NPR may be read to propose a requirement that the State must allocate allowances to each affected Utility Unit in accordance with this hypothetical allocation. Today's SNPR is proposing that the State may allocate allowances in accordance with its own methodology. EPA solicits comment on whether to authorize the State to have flexibility in the allowance allocation methodology, or whether to mandate that the State allocate allowances in accordance with the hypothetical allocation, depending on whether the State (i) authorizes its sources to participate in the interstate trading program, (ii) authorizes its sources to participate in only intra-state trading, or (iii) does not authorize its sources to trade allowances. Allocating allowances to sources using the hypothetical allocation methodology satisfies the requirements for States to meet the Standard of Performance required by section 111(d) because the hypothetical allocation is consistent with the State budgets and would ensure that the State budget and therefore the Standard of Performance is met. The docket for today's action includes a memorandum that describes in more detail the basis for EPA's proposed allocation methods.
Finally, it should be noted that the State may decide to allocate fewer total allowances to its sources than the amount of its budget.
b.
The timing requirements would also contribute to the efficient administration of the Hg Budget Trading Program. By establishing this schedule at the outset of the trading program, both the States and EPA would be able to develop internal procedures for effectively implementing the Hg allowance provisions of the trading program. This is particularly important for EPA with its role as administrator of the MATS for all participating States. The timing requirements would ensure that EPA would be able to record in the MATS the time sensitive Hg allowance allocations for the Hg Budget units in all participating States at the same time for each control period.
States may choose any of a number of options for the timing of issuing allowances, beyond the three year requirement, and that choice will interact to a great extent with the state's choice of method for allocating allowances. The timing options generally range from: (1) Year-by-year allocations, in which the Hg allowance allocations would be placed into the MATS on an annual basis for future control periods; (2) 5 to 10 year allocations where Hg allowance allocations would be periodically placed into the MATS for 5 to 10 consecutive control periods; and (3) a single, permanent allocation where the Hg allowance allocations would be set only once at the beginning of the trading program and recorded in the MATS for an extended, rolling block of time (
Timing options which provide an opportunity to periodically update the allocation of Hg allowances to Hg budget units might have certain advantages. These advantages include that an allocation regime which is periodically updated would provide an opportunity to reallocate allowances based on changes in the electricity industry that may significantly affect the mix of electricity generators that produce electricity in the future. Depending on the formula that is used to allocate the allowances, trading programs that periodically update the allocations may provide an opportunity to reward energy efficiency improvements at specific Hg Budget units. They could also facilitate the introduction of more efficient, new generation.
Permanent allocations provide a long planning horizon for the Hg Budget units that receive an allocation. Permanent allocations would not create incentives for the owners or operators of high emitting units to continue operating only for the sake of continuing to receive allowances, but would result in retired units receiving allowances in perpetuity. Additionally, permanent allocations provide an incentive to improve a Hg Budget unit's energy efficiency and require fewer resources to administer as compared to updating allocation systems. Nonetheless, these incentives would not affect the total emissions over time because the emissions are restricted by the cap, regardless of the allocation system. In a permanent allocation system, all allowances are allocated to Hg Budget units at the beginning of the trading program. New Hg Budget units that begin operations after the allocation of allowances would be required to obtain allowances from the market in order to comply with the trading program requirements (which may impede competition by hindering the entry of new units into the market), or there would need to be a new source set-aside that increased from year to year, coupled with a declining allocation to existing sources.
EPA is leaving the choice of timing of allocations largely up to the states, requiring only that they be finalized in the Hg Budget Trading Program and submitted to EPA for inclusion into the MATS three years in advance. This would ensure that all Hg Budget units would have sufficient time and the same minimum amount of time to plan for compliance for each control period and to trade Hg allowances. EPA is soliciting comments on this timing requirement.
A rolling annual updating system, determining allocations for a single control period six years in advance, has been developed in coordination with the example allocation approach provided in the subsequent section. The full example allocation approach is presented in the regulatory text. This example is offered as guidance and not as an implied requirement for the States to take part in the model trading program. At the start of the program, initial allocations would be made for the first five control periods of the program. Afterwards, annual updating would determine the allocations for the control period six years in advance. Consequently, units would always have in their accounts five years of allowances going forward, which would facilitate the operation of an efficient liquid allowance market and provide greater certainty to unit's compliance planning decisions, but might leave limited allowances in the near term for new units.
c.
States have many different possible options and combinations in the development of an allocations methodology. The key design differences are: (1) Auction or free distribution of allowances; (2) permanent or updated allowances; and (3) allowances based on input-basis, output basis, or based on emission reductions. These options would differ in terms of the amount of allowances different sources receive, whether states generate revenue from the allowances, in their treatment of new coal-fired generation, in their difficulty of administration, and in their coordination with a safety valve mechanism.
Today's proposal allows the state to decide whether it will allocate allowances to sources for free, or hold an auction to sell them to bidders. Auctions, at which allowances would be offered for sale, would ensure all parties access to allowances, and would be efficient since sources would bid their perceived value for allowances. The pool of allowances to be auctioned would be created by specified procedures, such as setting aside a fixed or incremented percentage of allocations each year, or auctioning all available allowances. For example, in the current Acid Rain Program, one percent of available allowances could be used for auctions. The auctions would be open to any person (including sources or third-party entities), who would submit bids according to auction procedures, a bidding schedule, a bidding means, and requirements for financial guarantees specified in the regulations. Winning bids, and required payments, for allowances would be determined in accordance with the regulations. Auctions could be held regularly for single compliance periods, or less frequently for a block of years at a time. An auctioning method of allocations would work well with a safety valve mechanism, where allocations would be reduced from future budgets to reflect allowances purchases via the safety-valve. Auctions would also eliminate any potential disadvantage to new units in the market for allowances. Responsibility for managing auctions would fall to the individual states, which would also have full discretion as to the use of auction revenues. EPA solicits comment on whether it would have authority to charge purchasers for allowances, in the case of Federal plans promulgated under 111(d)(2)(A) (if the State fails to submit a State plan under section 111(d)(1)) or 112(n)(1)(A) (if EPA concludes that this provision provides regulatory authority). Any amounts collected by EPA would be deposited in the general revenues under the Miscellaneous Receipts Act.
However, requiring controlled sources to both reduce emissions and pay for allowances for their remaining emissions could impose significant costs on the emitting sources. Allocating allowances for free could provide assistance to the entities incurring most of the costs of complying with the necessary mercury reductions, lessening the financial impact of the program on these sources. It would also give states the ability to determine who would be the initial allowance recipients.
If a state decided to allocate allowances for free, the state would need to decide between permanent and updating allocations. As mentioned above, permanent allocations provide a long planning horizon and would not create incentives for the owners or operators of high emitting units to continue operating. However, since they are based on a historic baseline period, permanent allocations would not reflect changes in the industry going forward and sources would continue to receive allowances even after they retire. Permanent allocations do not provide for allowances to new Hg Budget units that begin operations after the allocation of allowances and these units would be required to obtain allowances from the market in order to comply with the trading program requirements. This could inhibit the entry of new units into the market.
A new source set-aside (taking away allowances from existing sources) could be created if there is a desire to encourage new generation and concern about the availability of allowances on the market. Alternately, a portion of allowances could be set aside and sold through an auction to make these allowances accessible. A drawback of these approaches is that it can be difficult to forecast the amount of the new sources over time and thus the appropriate size of the set-aside. Allowance requests resulting from the entry of numerous new sources could, in time, exceed the amount of allowances set aside.
Updating allocations provide an opportunity to reallocate allowances based on changes in the industry that may significantly affect the mix of generators that produce electricity in the future. By updating allocations, states would periodically review their basis for allocations and reallocate allowances to sources. Updating would include new generating units as they enter service and develop baseline data (input or output) for calculation of allocations. However, updating might also provide a subsidy to all generation, rewarding units for generating by providing them allocations based on generation (either input or output). Slightly different incentives would be provided depending on whether the updating is input or output-based. This may result in a slight distortion in the price of electricity, and might also encourage older units not to retire, although the total number of allowances (and thus emissions) are capped either way. Any such effects would be less pronounced with the lengthening of the period of time between the base-line and the actual receipt of the allocations.
Updating may be done annually for a period in advance, or periodically, with updates for several years at a time. The less frequent the updating, the more this program becomes like a permanent allocation. Updating also works well with a safety valve mechanism, as it provides the opportunity to reduce allocations from a future budget before they are allocated to reflect allowances purchases via the safety-valve mechanism.
This SNPR proposes to allow states to decide the basis for their allocation decisions, whether allocating through a permanent or updating method. Generally, allocations have considered using a baseline heat input (mmBtu of coal burned) or baseline generating output (kWh). In a permanent allocation, this decision has consequences that are purely distributional, with the output method favoring more efficient existing plants. If states want to have allocations reflect the difficulty of controlling for mercury, they might consider multiplying baseline data by ratios based on coal type (1.0 for bituminous, 1.25 for subbituminous, 3.0 for lignite for a heat input basis), similar to the methodology proposed in the NPR for determining state budgets.
Finally, states may consider hybrid systems, combining various aspects of the general approaches outlined above, in their choice of plan. In summary, the EPA is providing states with the flexibility to develop a plan which is best suited to their circumstances.
Included below is an example (offered for informational guidance) of an allocations methodology that includes allowances for new generation, addresses the safety-valve mechanism, and is administratively straightforward. The method involves input-based
Initial allocations for existing sources could be made for the first five control periods at the start of the program, on the basis of heat input and with different ratios based on coal-type. After the first 5 years, the budget will be distributed on an annual basis, taking into account data from new units.
As new units enter into service and establish a baseline, they begin to pick up allowances in relation to their generation. Allowances allocated to existing plants slowly decline as their share of total heat input decreases with the entry of new plants. In this EPA example methodology, existing units as a group would not update their heat input numbers. This would eliminate the potential generation subsidy (and efficiency loss) as well as an incentive for less efficient (and higher ratio) units to generate more. This methodology would also be easier to implement since it would not require the updating of existing units' baseline data. However, retiring units would continue to receive allowances indefinitely.
Through this EPA example methodology, new units as a group would only update their heat input numbers once—in the initial baseline period when they start operating. This would eliminate any potential generation subsidy and be easier to implement, since it would not require the collection and processing of data needed for regular updating.
EPA believes that allocating based on heat input data (rather than output data) for existing units is desirable because accurate protocols exist for monitoring this data and reporting it to EPA and several years of certified data are available for most of the affected sources. However, allocating on the basis of input for new sources would serve to subsidize less-efficient new generation. For a given generation capacity, the most efficient unit would have the lowest fuel input or heat input. Allocating to new units based on heat input may encourage the building of less efficient units since they would get more allowances than an efficient, lower heat input unit. The modified output approach, as described below, would encourage new clean generation and would not reward inefficient or high-emission new units.
Allowances would be allocated to new units on a modified output basis. Once new units have an adequate operating baseline (in the EPA example methodology, EPA proposes taking the average of the highest three years out of five years of operations), the total annual heat input of the affected units would be updated by adding the calculated new unit modified-output to the original existing coal-type-adjusted unit heat input. For purposes of including data from new units in the updated allocation calculation, new units would calculate their heat input by multiplying their gross output by a heat rate conversion factor of 8,000 btu/kWh. The 8,000 btu/kWh conversion factor was chosen as a mid-point between expected heat-rates for new pulverized coal plants and new IGCC coal plants as assumed in EPA's economic modeling analysis (IPM documentation at
New units that have entered service, but have not yet established a baseline output and have not yet started receiving allowances through the update, could receive allowances each year from a new source set-aside. In the example methodology described in the model rule, EPA has proposed a new source set-aside representing two percent of the State's mercury trading program budget.
Allowances in the new source set-aside could be distributed in a number of different ways. For example, as described in today's model rule, the new source allowances could be distributed based on a unit's utilization/output and the unit's mercury emission NSPS rate limitation presented in the January 30, 2004 NPR. Because the proposed NSPS rates vary across coal types, this allocation method could provide new coal plant investors with varying incentives depending upon the coal type. While this set-aside would help new sources relative to no set-aside, because the demand for allowances for future sources is unknown, it is difficult to know beforehand what should be the appropriate size of the set-aside pool.
EPA is taking comment on a number of alternatives for distributing the new source set-aside in the example methodology. For example, a single emissions rate for all new coal plants may be used together with utilization/output levels to calculate allowance allocations for new coal units before they begin receiving allowances through the update. Alternatively, the lower of the NSPS rates for the respective coal types and a rate representing the proposed mercury cap in 2018 divided by projected 2018 total affected unit generation may be used to calculate allowance allocations for new coal units before they begin receiving allowances through the update. This alternative would ensure that new sources should receive allowances at the same rate as that applied to existing sources and no greater than their proposed NSPS. We ask for comment on these various proposals, and for any other alternatives commenters may wish to raise.
In today's proposed example allocation methodology, these new units would be granted allowances from the set-aside for the control period, initially based on the unit's full utilization rates. At the end of the year, the actual allowance allocation will be adjusted to account for actual unit utilization/output, and excess allowances will be returned and redistributed, first taking into account new unit requests that were not able to be addressed. Any subsequent unused set-aside allowances would be redistributed to existing units based on their existing allocations. An alternate method for allocating these allowances would provide new sources with allowances at the end of the relevant control period, based on their actual utilization. This would eliminate the need for returning and redistributing allowances, but would also deprive sources of the ability to trade those allowances during the course of the year. EPA is soliciting comment on the timing and method of allocating allowances from the set aside in the example methodology.
While EPA recognizes States' flexibility in choosing their allocations method and is proposing that States be allowed to determine their own method for allocating allowances to sources in their state, EPA is also asking for
In the January 30, 2004 NPR, EPA is proposing a safety valve provision that sets the maximum cost purchasers must pay for Hg emissions allowances. This provision addresses some of the uncertainty associated with the cost of Hg control.
Under the safety valve mechanism, the price of allowances is effectively (although not legally) capped. Sources may purchase allowances from subsequent year budgets at the safety-valve price at any time. However, it is unlikely they would do so unless the market allowance price exceeded the safety valve price. EPA proposes a price of $2,187.50 for a Hg allowance (covering one ounce) and this price will be annually adjusted for inflation. The permitting authority will deduct corresponding allowances from future allowance budgets. EPA solicits comment on whether it would have authority to charge purchasers this amount for allowances, in the case of Federal plans promulgated under 111(d)(2)(A) (if the State fails to submit a State plan under section 111(d)(1)) or 112(n)(1)(A) (if EPA concludes that this provision provides regulatory authority). Any amounts collected by EPA would be deposited in the general revenues under the Miscellaneous Receipts Act.
The purpose of this provision is to minimize unanticipated market volatility and provide more market information that industry can rely upon for compliance decisions. The safety valve mechanism ensures the cost of control does not exceed a certain level, but also ensures that emissions reductions are achieved. The future year cap is reduced by the borrowed amount, ensuring the integrity of the caps.
The safety valve mechanism would need to be incorporated into a state's chosen allocations methodology to ensure the availability of un-distributed allowances from which purchasers could borrow. Making allowances available through the safety valve without taking them away from future budgets would undermine the integrity of the cap. The safety valve mechanism would be easiest to incorporate into a system where allowances are periodically auctioned or updated because at least some portion of the State budgets would not have been previously allocated to individual units (which might not be the case in a permanent, historically based allocation method). Within EPA's example allocations methodology, the safety valve allowances borrowed from future budgets would be taken out of the pool of allowances available for units that have been generating for at least five years (not from the new source set aside) in the subsequent updating calculation of allocations. Under this allocation methodology, the future budget for the State would be lowered by the amount borrowed through the safety valve mechanism for the control period six years in advance.
We ask for comment on the need for a safety valve and the viability of our example approach, and solicit suggestions for other viable approaches.
Sections 60.4150 through 60.4157 of today's proposed trading rule covers the mercury allowance tracking system (MATS). The proposed rule is intended to be reasonably consistent with the allowance tracking systems developed for the NO
The MATS would be an automated system used to track Hg allowances held by Hg Budget units under the Hg Budget Trading Program, as well as those allowances held by other organizations or individuals. Specifically, the MATS would track the allocation of all Hg allowances, holdings of Hg allowances in accounts, deduction of Hg allowances for compliance purposes, and transfers between accounts. The primary role of MATS is to provide an efficient, automated means of monitoring compliance with the Hg Budget Trading Program. The MATS would also provide the allowance market with a record of ownership of allowances, dates of allowance transfers, buyer and seller information, and the serial numbers of allowances transferred. Although today's proposal assigns each allowance a unique serial number, EPA requests comments on the necessity of serial numbers and on whether the administrative burden to allowance holders and EPA of tracking and reporting serial numbers outweighs the benefits of serial numbers for tax and accounting purposes.
The EPA is proposing that MATS contain two primary types of accounts: Compliance accounts and general accounts. Compliance accounts are created for each Hg Budget source with one or more Hg Budget units, upon receipt of the account certificate of representation form. General accounts are created for any organization or individual upon receipt of a general account information form.
a.
b.
c.
To open a general account, a person or group must complete the standard general account information form, which is similar to the account certificate of representation that precedes the opening of a compliance account and any overdraft account. The form would include: the Hg AAR name, phone, fax, and e-mail (as well as similar information for the Alternate Hg AAR, if applicable); Hg AAR mailing address; the names of all parties with an ownership interest with the respect to the Hg allowances in the account; and certification language and signatures of the Hg AAR and alternate, if applicable.
Revisions to information regarding an existing general account are made by submitting a new general account information form which would be sent to EPA in all cases, whether the form is used to open a new account, or revise information on an existing one. The EPA would notify the Hg AAR cited on the application of the establishment of his or her account in the MATS or of the registration of requested changes.
Banking is the retention of unused allowances from one control period for use in a later control period. Banking allows sources to create reductions beyond required levels and “bank” the unused allowances for use later. Generally speaking, banking has several advantages: It can encourage earlier or greater reductions than are required from sources, stimulate the market and encourage efficiency, and provide flexibility in achieving emissions reduction goals (
EPA is proposing that banking of allowances after the start of the Hg trading program be allowed with no restriction. Banking after a program starts and the budget is imposed allows sources to retain any allowances not surrendered for compliance at the end of each control period. Once the trading program budget is in place, sources may over-control for one or more seasons and withdraw from the bank in a later season. This type of banking provides the general advantages as described above (encourages early reductions, stimulates the market, and provides flexibility to sources), while also potentially causing Hg emissions in some control periods to be greater than the allowances allocated for those seasons.
The EPA is proposing that once a Hg AAR is appointed and an account is established in the MATS, Hg allowances can be transferred to or from the accounts with the submission of an allowance transfer form to EPA. Transfers can occur between any accounts at any time of year with one exception: transfers of current and past year allowances into and out of compliance accounts are prohibited after the Hg allowance transfer deadline (March 1 following each control period) until EPA completes the annual reconciliation process by deducting the necessary allowances.
There would be one standard Hg allowance transfer form. This form would be submitted to the EPA in all cases. This form can be submitted electronically. The form would include: the transferror and transferee MATS account numbers; the transferror's printed name, phone number, signature, and date of signature; and a list of allowances to be transferred, by serial number.
Monitoring and reporting of an affected source's emissions are integral parts of any cap-and-trade program. Consistent and accurate measurement of emissions ensures that each allowance actually represents one ounce of emissions and that one ounce of reported emissions from one source is equivalent to one ounce of reported emissions from another source. This establishes the integrity of each allowance and instills confidence in the market mechanisms that are designed to provide sources with flexibility in achieving compliance.
Given the variability in the type, operation, and fuel mix of sources in the proposed Hg cap-and-trade program, EPA believes that emissions must be monitored continuously in order to ensure the precision, reliability, accuracy, and timeliness of emissions data that support the cap-and-trade program. The EPA is proposing to allow two methodologies for continuously monitoring mercury emissions: (1) Mercury continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS); and (2) sorbent trap monitoring systems. Based on preliminary evaluations, EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that both technologies will be well-developed by the time a mercury emissions trading program is implemented.
The EPA is proposing, and solicits comment on, two alternative approaches for the continuous monitoring of Hg emissions, as described below and discussed in more detail in section II.B of the Appendix A to this preamble.
In the first alternative, most sources would be required to use CEMS, with low-emitting sources having Hg emissions at or below a specified threshold value being allowed to use sorbent trap monitoring systems. The proposed threshold value is 9 lb (144 ounces) of Hg emissions per year (based on a 3-year average), although EPA is taking comment on three alternative thresholds of 29, 46, and 76 lb/yr.
Alternative 1 represents EPA's traditional approach to implementing an emissions trading program. The Acid Rain Program, as established by Congress in the 1990 Amendments to the Act, required the use of CEMS or an alternative monitoring system that is demonstrated to provide information with the same precision, reliability, accuracy, and timeliness as a CEMS. In implementing that program, as well as the NO
In the second alternative, all sources would be allowed to use either CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring systems. Those sources whose Hg emissions are above the specified emission threshold would
The QA requirements for the Acid Rain Program mandated by Congress under the Act have been codified in Appendices A and B of the Acid Rain Continuous Monitoring Regulation (40 CFR part 75). Part 75 specifies that each CEMS must undergo rigorous initial certification testing and periodic quality assurance testing thereafter, including the use of relative accuracy test audits (RATAs). A standard set of data validation rules and substitute data procedures apply to all of the CEMS. These stringent requirements provide an accurate accounting of the mass emissions from each affected source, and provide prompt feedback if the monitoring system is not operating properly. This ensures a level playing field among the regulated sources with accurate accounting for every ton of emissions, which inspires confidence in the trading of allowances.
For the purposes of a Hg emissions trading program, EPA believes that the same high level of QA should be required for both CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems, particularly for the higher-emitting sources that are responsible for the bulk of the Hg emissions. To achieve this, proposed Alternative 2 would require that for the sources with Hg emissions above the specified threshold value, a minimum of one substantive QA test of each monitoring system would be performed each quarter. A quarterly linearity check of each CEMS would be required, as well as an annual RATA. For the sorbent trap systems, which cannot accept calibration gas and, therefore, cannot be tested for linearity, an annual RATA and three quarterly 3-run relative accuracy audits (RAAs) would be required. This general approach to quality-assurance of continuous monitoring systems is consistent with both Part 75, Appendix B, and with Appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. However, the EPA is willing to consider replacing the RAA requirement with another type of substantive quarterly QA test, if commenters who favor the use of sorbent trap systems are aware of, and can provide details of, any such test or procedure.
For affected sources with Hg emissions at or below the specified threshold value, Alternative 2 would still require quarterly linearity checks and annual RATA for Hg CEMS, but for the sorbent trap monitoring systems, only an annual RATA would be required—the quarterly RAA requirement would be dropped.
The use of sorbent trap monitoring systems as an alternative to CEMS for monitoring Hg emissions has been proposed by EPA for determining compliance under either of the alternative non-trading approaches in the NPR for regulating Hg emissions from coal-fired utility units. The proposed QA requirements for CEMS and sorbent trap systems in Alternative 2 above are more stringent than the proposed QA requirements for monitoring compliance with the non-trading compliance alternatives in the NPR. This difference in the level of required QA reflects a fundamental difference in the purposes of monitoring for an emissions trading program compared to monitoring for an emissions limitation program. Monitoring for the trading program requires frequent assessments of the accuracy of the measurement method, because each unit of emissions measured is tied to an allowance which is tradeable at any time throughout the year. It is important for source owners to know how much “money is in the bank” at any given time. This need was recognized by Congress when it required the use of CEMS in the Acid Rain Program, which serves as the model for both the NO
Consistent with the current requirements in Part 75 for the Acid Rain and the NO
In order to ensure program integrity, EPA proposes to require states to include year round Part 75 monitoring and reporting for Hg for all sources. Proposed deadlines for monitor certification and other details are specified in the model trading rule. EPA believes that emissions will then be accurately and consistently monitored and reported from unit to unit and from State to State.
Part 75 also specifies reporting requirements. As is currently required for sources subject to both the Acid Rain program and the NO
The EPA would publish a report annually, commencing after the first year of compliance, that would contain, for each Hg budget unit, the control period Hg emissions and the number of Hg allowances deducted for all reasons. This would be done in order for States to track emissions and Hg allowance transaction activity in neighboring States.
The administration of this program would be somewhat different from the administration of a typical State program. This is both because of the trading aspects of the program and because of the national nature of the trading program. In order for the market forces underlying the trading program to work, the sources that participate in the trading program must have confidence in the market. This confidence stems from a number of factors including: a belief that all of the sources included in the program are following the same set of rules, and a belief that trades can be
States would be responsible for developing and promulgating rules consistent with the model rule and for submitting those rules as part of the State plan States would also be responsible for identifying sources subject to the rule, issuing new or revised permits as appropriate, and determining Hg allowance allocations. In addition, they would be responsible for receiving, reviewing and, where appropriate, approving most monitoring plans and monitoring certification applications, observing monitor certification and ongoing quality assurance testing and performing audits. The final primary area of State responsibility would be enforcement of the trading program. If violations occur, the State would take the lead in pursuing enforcement action. However, once the rules are approved as part of the State plan, they would also become federally enforceable, and EPA could also take enforcement action.
The EPA would have two primary roles in administration of the program. The first role would be EPA's traditional role in the approval and oversight of the State plan . The second would be a more unique role for EPA, in which EPA would administer significant portions of the program.
In EPA's traditional role in the State plan process, EPA would be responsible for taking action to approve or disapprove the State plan revision once it was submitted to EPA. Once the State plan revision was approved, EPA would play an oversight role in ensuring that the State plan was properly implemented. This oversight role might include audits of the State program, or taking enforcement action, if EPA believed that sources were violating the State plan .
In EPA's more unique role as administrator of portions of the program, EPA would run both the system to receive, store program related data, and verify total emissions for the control period, and the MATS. The EPA would use the same system that it is currently using to track emissions data from the Acid Rain Program and the NO
In addition to receiving the emissions data, quality assuring it, and providing reports to both States and units about the emissions data, EPA would have several other responsibilities as the administrator of the data system. The EPA would be involved in approval of any petitions for alternatives to the allowable monitoring methods. The EPA would also be involved in providing units and States assistance in using the data system. This assistance may include: Answering individual questions from units and States, providing guidance documents and training for units and States, and providing software to assist in the submittal of program related data.
As the administrator of MATS, EPA would be responsible for receiving applications for Hg AARs, tracking all official transfers of Hg allowances, and using the end of control season emissions data and Hg allowance data to determine compliance for the control season. In order for EPA to play this role, each State would have to provide EPA with its Hg allowance allocations consistent with a prescribed schedule and format. The Hg AARs for individual sources would have to provide EPA with information about all official Hg allowance transfers in a prescribed format. The Hg AAR's would also have to provide EPA with an end of control period compliance certification. At the end of the control period, EPA would use all of this data to determine how many Hg allowances should be deducted from each source's compliance account. In the event that there were not enough Hg allowances to cover a source's emissions for a control period, EPA would notify the State and would automatically deduct Hg allowances for the next control period according to the emissions offset provisions set forth in the proposed trading rule.
The main joint role that EPA and States would have is for the approval of alternatives to the allowable monitoring methods. This role is more fully discussed in Section V.C.9 of the preamble on monitoring.
The EPA intends to approve the portion of any State's plan submission that adopts the model rule, provided: (1) The State has the legal authority to adopt the model rule and implement its responsibilities under the model rule, and (2) the state plan submission accurately reflects the Hg reductions to be expected from the State's adoption of the model rule. Provided a State meets these two criteria, then EPA intends to approve the model rule portion of the State's plan submission.
State adoption of the model rule would ensure consistency in certain key operational elements of the program among participating States, while allowing each State flexibility in other important program elements. Uniformity of the key operational elements is necessary to ensure a viable and efficient trading program with low transaction costs and minimum administrative costs for sources, States, and EPA. Consistency in areas such as allowance management, compliance, penalties, banking, emissions monitoring and reporting and accountability are essential.
The EPA's intent in issuing a model rule for the Hg Budget Trading Program is to provide States with a model program that serves as an approvable strategy for achieving the required reductions. States choosing to participate in the program will be responsible for adopting State regulations to support the Hg Budget Trading Program, and submitting those rules as part of the state plan. There are two alternatives for a State to use in joining the Hg Budget Trading Program: incorporate 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH by reference into the State's regulations or adopt State regulations that mirror 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH, but for the potential variations described below.
Some variations and omissions from the model rule are acceptable in a State rule. This approach provides States
State plans incorporating a trading program that is not approved for inclusion in the Hg Budget Trading Program may still be acceptable for purposes of achieving some or all of a State's obligations provided the general criteria. However, only States participating in the Hg Budget Trading Program would be included in EPA's tracking systems for Hg emissions and allowances used to administer the multi-state trading program.
In terms of allocations, States must include an allocation section in their rule, conform to the timing requirements for submission of allocations to EPA that are described in this preamble, and allocate an amount of allowances that does not exceed their State trading program budget. However, States may allocate allowances to budget sources according to whatever methodology they choose. The EPA has included an optional allocation methodology but States are free to allocate as they see fit within the bounds specified above, and still receive state plan approval for purposes of the Hg Budget Trading Program.
Today's action proposes revisions to the regulatory provisions in 40 CFR 60.21 and 60.24 to make clear that a standard of performance for existing sources under section 111(d) may include an allowance program of the type described today.
In the January 30, 2004 NPR, EPA has taken comment on a proposal to promulgate, under section 112(n)(1)(A), a cap-and-trade program for Hg from coal-fired Utility Units. The model rule proposed here for Section 111 would serve as the Federal trading rule if the EPA decides to promulgate a cap-and-trade program under CAA Section 112. In general, a trading program under Section 112(n)(1)(A) would be federally implemented with the EPA serving as the permitting authority, unlike Section 111 which has the States serving as the permitting authority. Today's proposed model trading rule would be implemented the same for each state with no opportunity for flexibility for certain operational aspects of the trading program (
In implementing this program under section 112(n), EPA would adopt caps and establish deadlines similar to those published on January 30, 2004 under the section 111 cap and trade proposal. EPA would allocate these cap levels of annual emissions across coal-fired units using the proposed MACT emission limits presented in the NPR and the proportionate share of their baseline heat input to total heat input of all affected units. Alternatively, EPA could allocate these cap levels of annual emissions across all coal-fired Utility Units in accordance with the allocation methodology identified in today's section 111 cap-and-trade proposal. EPA is soliciting comment on this alternative proposal.
For new units under a section 112 trading program, EPA is proposing they would be covered under the cap and would use a similar new unit set-aside in combination with an updating allocation system discussed under today's section 111 proposal and provided in today's regulatory text. Since no NSPS would be required under section 112, EPA would also make adjustments to its new unit allocation methodology proposed under section 111. EPA is proposing that initially the new unit would receive allocation based on their utilization/output and MACT rate limitations proposed in the NPR, until the new unit establishes a baseline output and receives allowances through the updating mechanism.
EPA is also proposing the use of a safety valve of $2,187.50 per Hg allowance (covering one ounce) under a section 112 trading program. The safety valve would be implemented similarly to today's section 111 trading program, except that the funds would be collected to the U.S. Treasury and not the State. EPA is taking comment on the implementation of a safety valve under section 112 and EPA is taking comment on whether it has authority under a 112(n)(1)(A) to collect payment from the purchaser.
EPA would also require part 75 monitoring requirements identified in today's section 111 proposal. In addition, a trading program under section 112 would provide for administrative appeals at EPA of final agency actions under the program.
In the NPR, EPA provided its review of the statutory and executive order requirements under this rulemaking. These orders include: (1) Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, (2) Paperwork Reduction Act, (3) Regulatory Flexibility Act, (4) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (5) Executive Order 13132: Federalism, (6) Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, (7) Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks, (8) Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, and (9) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
The following provides a summary of EPA's conclusions. For Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, EPA concluded the proposed rule was an economically “significant regulatory action” because the annual cost may exceed $100 million dollars. For the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA provided an analysis of the information collection requirements required by the proposed rule. For the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA determined that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, EPA determined that the proposed rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private sector in any one year; and accordingly, EPA prepared a written statement under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized in the NPR. For Executive Order 13132 and Executive Order 13175, EPA concluded that the proposed rule did not have federalism or tribal implications. For Executive Order 1304, EPA concluded the strategies proposed in the NPR will further improve air quality and will further improve children's health. For Executive Order 13211, EPA concluded that the proposed rule was significant because the proposal had a greater than a 1% impact on the cost of electricity production and because it results in the retirement of greater than 500 MW of coal-fired generation. In this SNPR, EPA is not making changes to these statutory and executive order conclusions.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
This action proposes a model cap-and-trade program including environmental monitoring and measurement provisions that States are encouraged to adopt as part of their SIPs. If States adopt those provisions, sources that participate in the cap-and-trade program would be required to meet the applicable monitoring requirements of part 75. Part 75 incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards.
Further discussion of how EPA intends to adhere to the requirements of the NTTAA in this rulemaking is containing in a technical support document that will be placed in the e-docket by the date of publication of this document.
As required by Title IV of the Act, Part 75 contains requirements for continuously monitoring and reporting SO
Today's proposed rule would add Subpart I (§§ 75.80 through 75.84) to Part 75. For mercury mass emissions monitoring, Subpart I would serve the same purpose as Subpart H does for NO
If the proposed Subpart I monitoring provisions were to be adopted as part of a mercury mass emission reduction program, States would not have to develop their own mercury emission reduction strategies and industry would not have to become familiar with and implement multiple approaches to achieving the required emission reductions.
Today's proposed rule would add specific mercury monitoring provisions to Parts 72 and 75, in support of Subpart I. One definition in § 72.2 would be revised and one new definition would be added. The proposal would add two new sections to Part 75 (§§ 75.38 and 75.39), and would revise §§ 75.2, 75.10, 75.15, 75.20, 75.21, 75.22, 75.24, 75.31, 75.32, 75.33, 75.37, 75.38, 75.39, 75.53, 75.57, 75.58, and 75.59. Revisions to Appendices A, B, and F of 40 CFR part 75 are also proposed. The proposed amendments to Parts 72 and 75 would only apply to sources in a State or Federal mercury mass emissions reduction program that adopts the monitoring provisions of Subpart I.
Today's proposed rule therefore encourages States to consider implementing a cap-and-trade program for mercury mass emissions reduction, using Part 75 monitoring. Having a standardized approach to emissions monitoring would greatly facilitate the administration of such a program. It would also establish a “level playing field” among the regulated sources, thereby ensuring the integrity of the commodity being traded (
Today's proposed rule would add emission monitoring requirements to Part 75 for a mercury mass emission reduction program. To achieve this, Subpart I, containing five new sections (§§ 75.80 through 75.84), would be added to the rule. Compliance with Subpart I would be required only if the mercury monitoring provisions of Subpart I were adopted as an element of a State or Federal mercury mass emissions reduction program.
Under proposed § 75.80(a), the term “affected unit” would mean any coal-fired unit subject to such a program. The “permitting authority” would be the State or Federal authority under which the program is implemented, and the “designated representative” would be the party responsible to ensure that the affected unit compliance with the program requirements.
If an affected unit in the mercury mass emission reduction program were also subject to the Acid Rain Program or to other programs requiring the use of Part 75 monitoring (
Regarding the monitoring of mercury emissions, proposed § 75.80(c) sets forth prohibitions similar to those outlined in the Acid Rain Program. Specifically, the use of any other alternative monitoring system, reference method, or continuous emission monitoring system without obtaining prior written approval from the permitting authority would be prohibited. In addition, the owner or operator of an affected unit would be prohibited from: (1) Operating the unit so as to discharge mercury to the atmosphere without accounting for such emissions; (2) disrupting the continuous emission monitoring system or any other approved emission monitoring method to thereby avoid monitoring and recording mercury mass emissions; or (3) retiring or permanently discontinuing the use of the required continuous emission monitoring systems, or any other approved emission monitoring system(s) except in a few precisely defined circumstances.
Proposed § 75.80(d) describes the initial certification, recertification, and quality-assurance (QA) requirements for the monitoring systems needed to quantify mercury mass emissions. In general, these requirements would be the same as or similar to the ones established for Acid Rain Program monitoring systems in §§ 75.20 and 75.21 and in Appendix B of 40 CFR part 75. Since most coal-fired electric generating units are subject to the Acid Rain Program and are familiar with the basic Part 75 monitor certification and QA procedures, EPA believes that this would facilitate compliance with the mercury monitoring requirements.
Section 75.80(f) of the proposed rule would require the owner or operator to report substitute data values for every unit operating hour in which a valid, quality-assured hour of mercury emissions data is not obtained with a certified monitoring system or a reference method. For uncertified monitoring systems, maximum potential concentrations or emission rates would be reported until all of the certification tests have been passed. After certification, special missing data algorithms would be used to provide the substitute data values. These missing data routines are discussed in greater detail below, in section II.C.6 of this appendix.
Proposed § 75.80(h) would allow sources to petition for an alternative to any requirement of Subpart I. The petition would have to meet the requirements of § 75.66 and any additional requirements established by the State or Federal mercury mass emission reduction program.
Proposed § 75.81 sets forth the general requirements for monitoring mercury emissions and heat input for affected units with simple exhaust configurations (
To use the first mercury mass monitoring option (
If the source elected to use the second mercury mass monitoring option (
Section 75.82 of the proposed Subpart I sets forth requirements for monitoring emissions from units with common stack or multiple stack exhaust configurations. While many power plants have simple one unit-one stack exhaust configurations with CEMS installed on the stack, other plants have more than one unit discharging through a common stack or have a unit that discharges through multiple stacks. The emission calculations for a single unit with a single stack are relatively simple, but complications can arise with the calculations for common or multiple stacks. These configurations sometimes require special monitoring and apportioning methodologies, as described in proposed § 75.82. The provisions in § 75.82 mirror, when appropriate, existing Part 75 provisions for monitoring SO
Proposed § 75.83 of Subpart I would establish the requirement to calculate mercury mass emissions and heat input rate in accordance with Appendix F of Part 75. For a detailed discussion of these calculations, see section II.C.12 of this appendix.
Finally, proposed § 75.84 of Subpart I sets forth the general recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with mercury mass emission monitoring. For the most part, proposed § 75.84 refers to other sections of Part 75, where the specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements are found, although note that a few provisions in § 75.84 are unique and appear only in that section.
Today's proposed rule would expand the definition of “continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS” to include a “Hg concentration monitoring system” and a “Hg-diluent monitoring system”. A mercury concentration monitoring system would consist of a mercury pollutant concentration monitor and an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS), and would provide a permanent, continuous record of mercury emissions in units of micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm).
A mercury-diluent monitoring system would consist of a mercury pollutant concentration monitor, a diluent gas (CO
Today's proposed rule would also add a new definition to § 72.2,
In today's proposed rule, EPA solicits comment on two alternative approaches concerning the use of Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems in a Hg mass emissions trading program. Proposed rule language for both alternatives is provided. The two alternatives are as follows:
This approach is consistent with the way that EPA has implemented the Acid Rain and NO
This general approach to emissions monitoring has worked well in the Acid Rain and NO
Alternative 1 restricts the use of sorbent trap monitoring systems for the same reason that Part 75 restricts the use of Appendices D and E for SO
The EPA believes that in order to extend the use of sorbent trap systems to the units that potentially account for 80 percent (or more) of the Hg emissions in the budget for an emissions trading program, an additional, substantive quarterly QA test should be required. This is consistent with the QA requirements of Parts 60 and 75, for monitors that are used for compliance determination. Both Part 60 and Part 75 require at least one such QA test to be performed each quarter. Appendix F of Part 60 requires affected facilities to perform a RATA in one calendar quarter of the year and to perform either a cylinder gas audit (CGA) or a RAA in the other three quarters. Under Appendix B of Part 75, quarterly linearity checks are required, in addition to semiannual or annual RATA. Because sorbent trap systems cannot be calibrated with cylinder gases, linearity checks and CGA are not feasible. Therefore, a RATA would be required in one quarter and an RAA in the other three quarters. However, note that the Agency is willing to consider replacing the RAA requirement with another type of substantive quarterly QA test, if commenters who favor the use of sorbent trap systems are aware of, and can provide details of, any such test or procedure.
Today's proposed rule would amend the text and appendices of Part 75 to set forth requirements for the continuous monitoring and reporting of mercury mass emissions under a trading program that adopts Subpart I.
The proposed revisions include a number of changes that EPA believes would facilitate the implementation of such a program. These include, but are not limited to, special provisions for measuring mercury mass emissions with sorbent trap monitoring systems, quality assurance and quality control requirements for mercury CEMS and sorbent traps, missing data procedures for both mercury CEMS and sorbent trap systems, determination of monitor availability, recordkeeping and reporting provisions, and mathematical equations for quantifying mercury mass emissions.
The majority of the proposed changes are substantive, and are patterned after requirements already established for SO
Today's proposed rule would add paragraph (d) to § 75.2, indicating that the mercury monitoring provisions of Part 75 would apply to sources subject to a State or Federal mercury mass emission reduction program only to the extent that Part 75 monitoring is adopted by such a program.
EPA proposes to amend § 75.10 to include general operating requirements for mercury CEMS (
EPA proposes to add text to § 75.15 (previously reserved), to set forth special provisions for measuring mercury mass emissions with sorbent traps. For each monitoring system, the use of paired sorbent traps would be required. The use of redundant backup systems would be allowed, provided that each backup system uses paired sorbent traps. A stack flow monitor and a moisture monitoring system (or approved moisture constant) would be used in conjunction with the sorbent trap system to quantify mercury mass emissions.
Each sorbent trap monitoring system would be installed and operated in accordance with EPA Method 324. This method specifies the minimum quality assurance and quality control procedures necessary to ensure proper operation of the system. Mercury sampling would be proportional to the stack gas volumetric flow rate. In section 6.5.2.1 of Appendix A to Part 75, there is a standardized procedure for dividing the operating range of the affected unit into three load levels,
After each sample collection period (the length of which would depend upon the expected mercury concentration in the stack gas), the mass of mercury adsorbed in the sorbent trap would be determined using Method 324. For each sorbent trap, the average mercury concentration (μg/dscm) for the collection period would be calculated by dividing the total mercury mass by the total volume of dry gas metered. For each pair of sorbent traps, the higher of the two average Hg concentrations would be used for reporting purposes. Finally, the mercury mass emissions for each hour of the collection period would be determined using the average mercury concentration in conjunction with the hourly flow rates recorded by the stack flow monitor.
All valid data from the primary sorbent trap monitoring system would be required to be reported in the electronic quarterly report under § 75.84(f). When the primary monitoring system is non-operational or for hours in which data from that system are invalid (as determined using the quality control procedures in section 9.0 of Method 324), the owner or operator would have the option of reporting valid mercury concentration data from a certified redundant backup monitoring system or from the Ontario Hydro reference method. However, if for a particular hour no quality-assured mercury concentration data are available, the owner or operator would report the appropriate substitute data values, in accordance with proposed § 75.39.
Proposed revisions to § 75.20 would specify the required initial certification tests for mercury CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems. The mercury concentration and mercury-diluent CEMS would be required to undergo the same full battery of certification tests that is required for SO
Today's proposed rule would amend § 75.24 to require mercury emissions data to be adjusted for bias in the same manner as is done for SO
For mercury concentration and mercury-diluent CEMS, proposed revisions to § 75.31 would require the same initial missing data procedures that are used for SO
EPA proposes to amend § 75.32 to require the percent monitor data availability (PMA) to be calculated and reported after 720 hours of quality-assured mercury concentration or mercury emission rate data have been collected following initial certification. At that point, the owner or operator would switch from using the initial missing data procedures to the proposed standard missing data procedures in § 75.38. The proposed standard missing data procedures for mercury CEMS are modeled after the familiar SO
For a unit equipped with a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system that meaningfully reduces the concentration of mercury emitted to the atmosphere, or for a unit equipped with add-on mercury emission controls, the initial and standard mercury missing data procedures would apply only when the FGD or add-on controls are documented to be operating properly, in accordance with § 75.58(b)(3). A certification statement from the designated representative verifying proper operation of the emission controls during the missing data periods would be required in each electronic quarterly report. For any hour in which the FGD or add-on controls are not operating properly, the maximum potential mercury concentration (MPC) or the maximum potential mercury emission rate (MER) would be the required substitute data value.
Also for units equipped with FGD systems or add-on mercury emission controls, proposed § 75.38 would allow the owner or operator to petition to use the maximum controlled mercury concentration or emission rate in the 720-hour missing data lookback (in lieu of the maximum recorded value) when the PMA is less than 90.0 percent.
In proposed § 75.39, EPA would add initial and standard missing data procedures for sorbent trap monitoring systems. Once a sorbent trap monitoring system has been certified, missing data would be substituted whenever a gas sample is not extracted from the stack, or when the results of the mercury analyses representing a particular period of unit operation are missing or invalid. In the latter case, the missing data period would begin when the sorbent traps for which the mercury analyses are missing or invalid were put into service and would end when valid mercury concentration data are first obtained with another pair of sorbent traps.
The initial missing data procedures would be applied from the hour of certification until 720 quality-assured hours of data have been collected with the sorbent traps. The initial missing data algorithm would require the owner or operator to average the mercury concentrations from all valid sorbent trap analyses to date, including data from the initial certification test runs, and to fill in this average concentration for each hour of the missing data period.
Once 720 quality-assured hours of mercury concentration data are collected, the owner or operator would begin reporting the percent monitor data availability (PMA) and would begin using the standard missing data algorithms. The standard missing data procedures for sorbent trap systems would follow a “tiered” approach, based on the PMA. For example, at high PMA (≥ 95.0%), the substitute data value would be the average mercury concentration obtained from all valid sorbent trap analyses in the previous 12 months. At lower PMA values, the substitute data values would become increasingly conservative, until finally, if the PMA drops below 80.0%, the maximum potential mercury concentration (MPC) would be reported.
Similar to the proposed provision for mercury CEMS, if a unit that uses sorbent traps is equipped with an FGD system or add-on mercury emission controls, the initial and standard missing data procedures could only be applied for hours in which proper operation of the emission controls was documented. In the absence of such documentation, the mercury MPC would be reported.
EPA is proposing to amend § 75.53 to require the owner or operator to provide essential information for each mercury monitoring system in the monitoring plan for the affected unit. The information to be provided would include the identification and description of each monitoring system component (
Today's proposed rule would amend § 75.57 to add general recordkeeping provisions for mercury monitoring systems and the auxiliary monitors (flow, moisture, and O
For mercury concentration CEMS, the owner or operator would record, for each operating hour, information such as the component-system identification codes, the date and hour, the average mercury concentration, the bias-adjusted mercury concentration (if a bias adjustment factor (BAF) is required), the method of determination codes for the mercury concentration, flow rate and moisture data, and the percent monitor data availability for each monitored parameter.
For mercury-diluent systems, the owner or operator would record hourly information such as the monitoring system and component identification codes, the date and hour, the average mercury and diluent gas concentrations, the average stack gas flow rate and moisture content, the average mercury emission rate, the bias-adjusted mercury emission rate (if a BAF is required), the percent monitor data availability for mercury emission rate, flow rate and moisture, the method of determination codes for the mercury emission rate, flow rate, percent moisture and diluent gas concentration, the identification codes for emissions formulas used to calculate the mercury emission rate and mercury mass emissions, and the F-factor used to convert mercury concentrations into emission rates.
For sorbent trap monitoring systems, the owner or operator would record hourly information such as component-system identification codes, date and hour, average mercury concentration, bias-adjusted mercury concentration (if a BAF is required), the method of determination codes and percent monitor data availability for mercury concentration, flow rate and moisture, the average flow rate of the stack gas sample through each sorbent trap, and the unit or stack operating load level.
Today's proposed rule would also amend § 75.59, the quality-assurance and quality-control (QA/QC) recordkeeping section, to require that records be kept of all QA tests of mercury monitoring systems (
Finally, for each sorbent trap monitoring system, the owner or operator would be required to record information such as the ID number of the monitoring system in which the paired sorbent traps are used to collect mercury, the unique ID number of each sorbent trap, the beginning and ending dates and hours of the data collection period, the two average mercury concentrations for the data collection period, and information documenting the results of the required Method 324 leak checks, quality control procedures, and laboratory analyses of the mercury collected by the sorbent traps.
EPA proposes to amend section 2 of Appendix A to Part 75, by adding a new sub-section, 2.1.7, to address span and range issues for mercury CEMS.
Since the mercury content of different types of coal is variable, the maximum potential mercury concentration (MPC) depends upon which type of coal is combusted in the unit. For the initial MPC determination, today's proposed rule would provide the owner or operator with three options: (1) To use a fuel-specific default value of 9 μg/dscm for bituminous coal, 10 μg/dscm for sub-bituminous coal, 16 μg/dscm for lignite, and 1 μg/dscm for waste coal (if different coals are blended, the highest MPC value for any fuel in the blend would be used); (2) to determine the MPC based on the results of site-specific emission testing using the Ontario Hydro method (at least three 2-hour runs at normal load). This option would be allowed only if the unit does not have add-on mercury emission controls or a flue gas desulfurization system, or if the testing is done upstream of these control devices; or (3) to base the MPC on 720 or more hours of historical CEMS data, if the unit has a mercury CEMS that has been tested for relative accuracy against the Ontario Hydro method and has met a relative accuracy specification of 20.0% or less.
The terms “span” and “range” do not apply to sorbent trap monitoring systems; however, note that an MPC determination would be required for these monitoring systems for the purposes of missing data substitution. Also, for units using mercury-diluent monitoring systems, calculation of the maximum potential mercury emission rate (MER), in units of lb/10
For units with FGD systems (including fluidized bed units that use limestone injection) and for units equipped with add-on mercury emission controls (
The span and range value(s) for each mercury monitor would be calculated as follows. A “high” span value would be determined by rounding the MPC value upward to the next highest multiple of 10 μg/dscm. If the affected unit is equipped with an FGD system or add-on mercury emission controls, and if the MEC value is less than 20 percent of the high span value and the high span value is 20 μg/dscm or greater, the owner or operator would be required to define a second, low span value of 10 μg/dscm.
If the owner or operator determines that only a high span value is required, the full-scale range of the mercury analyzer would be set greater than or equal to the span value. If two span values are required, the owner or operator could either use two separate (high and low) measurement scales, or quality-assure two segments of a single measurement scale.
The owner or operator would be required to make a periodic evaluation (at least annually of the MPC, MEC, span, and range values for each mercury monitor, to make any necessary span and range adjustments and corresponding monitoring plan updates, and to keep the results of the most recent span and range evaluation on-site, in a format suitable for inspection. Span and range adjustments might be required, for example, as a result of changes in the fuel supply, changes in the manner of operation of the unit, or with installation or removal of emission controls. Each required span or range adjustment would have to be made no later than 45 days after the end of the quarter in which the need to adjust the span or range is identified, except that up to 90 days after the end of that quarter would be allowed if the calibration gases currently being used for daily calibration error tests and linearity checks are unsuitable for use with the new span value.
If a full-scale range exceedance occurs during a quarter and is not caused by a monitor out-of-control period, for monitors with a single measurement scale, the owner or operator would report 200 percent of the full-scale range as the hourly mercury concentration until the readings come back on-scale. If over-scaling occurs, appropriate adjustments to the MPC, span, and range would be required to prevent future full-scale exceedances. For units with two separate measurement scales, no further action would be required if the low range is exceeded and the high range is available. However, if the high range is not able to provide quality assured data at any time during the continuation of a low-scale exceedance, then the MPC would be reported until the readings return to the low range or until the high range is able to provide quality-assured data.
Whenever changes are made to the MPC, MEC, full-scale range, or span value of the mercury monitor, the new settings, MPC or MEC, and calculations of the adjusted span value(s) would be represented in an updated monitoring plan. The monitoring plan update would be made in the quarter in which the changes become effective. Whenever a span adjustment is made, the owner or operator would be required to ensure that the new span value is reflected in the records for the daily calibration error tests and quarterly linearity checks. For mercury monitors, a diagnostic linearity check would be required when a span value is changed, using calibration gases consistent with the new span value.
Today's proposed rule would amend section 3 of Appendix A to Part 75 by setting forth performance specifications for the initial certification of mercury monitoring systems. In particular, specifications for 7-day calibration error tests, linearity checks, cycle time tests, converter checks, and RATAs are proposed. A bias test of each mercury monitoring system would also be required and a bias adjustment factor would have to be applied to the subsequent data generated by any monitoring system found to have a low bias. For the 7-day calibration error tests, linearity checks and cycle time tests, proposed section 5.1.9 of Appendix A would require the use of elemental mercury calibration gas standards. For converter checks, the use of HgCl
For each day of the 7-day calibration error test, the monitor would not be permitted to deviate from the zero or upscale reference calibration gas by more than 5.0 percent of the span value. As an alternative, if the span value is 10 μg/dscm (
Linearity checks would be required for all mercury CEMS. For dual-span units, the test would be required on both measurement scales (or at two distinct segments of a single measurement scale). The maximum allowable linearity error at any gas injection level (low, mid, or high) would be 10.0% of the reference gas tag value. Alternatively, the results would be acceptable if the absolute difference between the reference gas value and the average analyzer response (
A cycle time test of each mercury CEMS would be required. For this test, however, EPA is not proposing any new performance specification. The pass/fail criterion for the cycle time test of a mercury concentration or mercury-diluent monitoring system would be the same as for a Part 75 gas monitoring system (
A 3-point check of the converter would be required for each mercury monitor, using HgCl
Relative accuracy testing of all three types of mercury monitoring systems,
Finally, EPA proposes to revise sections 6.5(a) and 6.5.7 of Appendix A to require that the RATAs of mercury monitoring systems be performed while the unit is combusting coal. The minimum acceptable time for each test run using the Ontario Hydro reference method would be 2 hours. For sorbent trap monitoring systems, a new pair of sorbent traps would be required to be used for each RATA run.
Today's proposed rule would revise sections 1 and 2 of Appendix B to Part 75 to add specific quality-assurance and quality control requirements for mercury monitoring systems.
First, for sorbent trap monitoring systems, EPA proposes to add a new section 1.5 to Appendix B to set forth the minimum acceptable elements of a QA/QC program for these monitoring systems. As previously noted, sorbent traps differ from traditional CEMS, in that daily calibration checks and quarterly linearity checks cannot be performed on these systems. Thus, the on-going quality of the data from a sorbent trap system depends vitally on the manner of operation of the system and the care with which the sorbent traps are handled. In view of this, EPA is proposing that the QA plan for sorbent trap systems include the following elements: (1) An explanation of the procedures for inscribing and tracking a unique identification number on each sorbent trap; (2) an explanation of the leak check procedures used and other QA procedures used to ensure system integrity and data quality (
For mercury CEMS, revised section 2.1.1 of Appendix B would require the same daily calibration error tests to be performed on mercury monitors as are done on other Part 75 monitors. Each mercury monitor would be required to meet a daily calibration error specification of either 7.5 percent of the span value or an absolute difference of <1.5 μg/dscm between the reference gas and the analyzer response (whichever is less restrictive).
A monthly 3-point check of the converter would be required for each mercury monitor, using HgCl
Revised section 2.2.1 of Appendix A would require quarterly linearity checks to be performed on each mercury monitor. Elemental mercury standards would be used for these tests. Revised sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3 of Appendix B would require an annual RATA and bias test of each mercury concentration monitoring system, each mercury-diluent monitoring system, and each sorbent trap monitoring system. The RATAs would be performed at the normal load level. If any monitoring system fails the bias test, the owner or operator would calculate a bias adjustment factor and apply it to the subsequent hourly data recorded by that system.
Regarding sorbent trap monitoring systems, note that two versions of the amended regulatory language and Figures in section 2 of Part 75, Appendix B are presented, corresponding to Alternatives # 1 and # 2, previously discussed in section II.B.3 of this appendix. Under Alternative # 1, only an annual RATA would be required in addition to the Method 324 QA/QC procedures. Under Alternative # 2, the annual RATA would be required for all sorbent trap monitoring systems, and additional quarterly 3-run relative accuracy audits (RAAs) would be required if the unit's average Hg emissions exceed 9 lbs/yr for the same calendar years used to allocate the Hg allowances. The RAAs would be required in every QA operating quarter (
EPA believes that the proposed performance specifications for the initial certification tests and on-going quality-assurance tests are reasonable and achievable, in view of the results of recent field evaluations of mercury CEMS and sorbent traps (Docket 2002-0056, Items # 0023 through 0027). The Agency solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed specifications.
Today's proposed rule would add section 9 to Appendix F of Part 75. Proposed section 9 would provide the necessary equations for calculating the hourly, quarterly, and year-to-date mercury mass emissions. Three new equations, F-28, F-29, and F-30, would be added to Appendix F.
Equation F-28 would be used to determine the hourly mercury mass emissions (in ounces, rounded to one decimal place), when the mercury concentration (in μg/dscm)is measured with a mercury concentration CEMS or with a sorbent trap system. For units using mercury-diluent CEMS, proposed section 9.1.2 of Appendix F would require the measured hourly emission rate (in lb/10
Finally, where heat input monitoring is required, proposed section 9.3 of Appendix F would instruct the owner or operator to follow the heat input rate apportionment and summation procedures in sections 5.3, 5.6 and 5.7 of Appendix F.
Unit level allocations used to develop the phase II state emissions budgets are presented below. For further discussion of the methodology used to develop these units level allocations see the memorandum entitled “Allocation Adjustment Factors for the Proposed Mercury Trading Rulemaking” in the docket. The same methodology described in the docket memo and used below would be used to develop the 2010 unit level allocations and state budgets.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air pollution control, carbon dioxide, Continuous emissions monitors, Electric utilities, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Mercury, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 60, 72, and 75 of chapter 1 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7426, and 7601.
2. Section 60.21 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
(f)
(k)
3-4. Section 60.24(b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
5. Subpart HHHH is added to read as follows:
This subpart establishes the model rule comprising general provisions and the applicability, permitting, allowance, excess emissions, and monitoring for the state Hg Budget Trading Program, under section 111 of the CAA and § 52.34 of this chapter, as a means of reducing national mercury emissions.
The terms used in this subpart shall have the meanings set forth in this section as follows:
(1) 1.0, for the portion of the baseline heat input that is the unit's average annual combustion of bituminous during the years on which the unit's baseline heat input is based;
(2) 3.0, for the portion of the baseline heat input that is the unit's average annual combustion of lignite during the years on which the unit's baseline heat input is based;
(3) 1.25, for the portion of the baseline heat input that is the unit's average annual combustion of subbituminous during the years on which the unit's baseline heat input is based;
(4) 1.0, for the portion of the baseline heat input that is not covered by paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of this definition or for the entire baseline heat input if such baseline heat input is not based on the unit's heat input in specified years; and
(5) 1.0, for the portion of the baseline heat input that is the new unit's average annual combustion during the years on which the new unit's baseline heat input is based.
(1) A flow monitoring system, consisting of a stack flow rate monitor and an automated DAHS. A flow monitoring system provides a permanent, continuous record of stack gas volumetric flow rate, in units of standard cubic feet per hour (scfh);
(2) A Hg concentration monitoring system, consisting of a Hg pollutant concentration monitor and an automated DAHS. A Hg concentration monitoring system provides a permanent, continuous record of Hg emissions in units of micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm);
(3) A Hg emission rate (or Hg-diluent) monitoring system, consisting of a Hg pollutant concentration monitor, a diluent gas (CO
(4) A moisture monitoring system, as defined in § 75.11(b)(2) of this chapter. A moisture monitoring system provides a permanent, continuous record of the stack gas moisture content, in units of percent H
(1) For the life of the unit;
(2) For a cumulative term of no less than 30 years, including contracts that permit an election for early termination; or
(3) For a period equal to or greater than 25 years or 70 percent of the economic useful life of the unit determined as of the time the unit is built, with option rights to purchase or release some portion of the nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by the unit at the end of the period.
(1) Any holder of any portion of the legal or equitable title in a Hg Budget unit; or
(2) Any holder of a leasehold interest in a Hg Budget unit; or
(3) Any purchaser of power from a Hg Budget unit under a life-of-the-unit, firm power contractual arrangement. However, unless expressly provided for in a leasehold agreement, owner shall not include a passive lessor, or a person who has an equitable interest through such lessor, whose rental payments are not based, either directly or indirectly, upon the revenues or income from the Hg Budget unit; or
(4) With respect to any general account, any person who has an ownership interest with respect to the Hg allowances held in the general account and who is subject to the binding agreement for the Hg authorized account representative to represent that person's ownership interest with respect to Hg allowances.
(1) In person;
(2) By United States Postal Service; or
(3) By other means of dispatch or transmission and delivery. Compliance with any “submission,” “service,” or “mailing” deadline shall be determined by the date of dispatch, transmission, or mailing and not the date of receipt.
Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms used in this part are defined as follows:
The following units in a State shall be Hg Budget units, and any source that includes one or more such units shall be a Hg Budget source, subject to the requirements of this part:
(a) A coal-fired combustion unit that serves a generator of more than 25 MW that produces electricity for sale.
(b) A coal-fired combustion unit that cogenerates steam and serves a generator that supplies more than one-third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 MW electrical output to any utility power distribution system for sale.
(a) This section applies to any Hg Budget unit that is permanently retired.
(b)(1) Any Hg Budget unit, that is permanently retired shall be exempt from the Hg Budget Trading Program, except for the provisions of this section, § 60.4102, § 60.4103, § 60.4104, § 60.4107, and §§ 60.4130 through 60.4162.
(2) The exemption under paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall become effective the day on which the unit is permanently retired. Within 30 days of permanent retirement, the Hg authorized account representative shall submit a statement to the permitting authority otherwise responsible for administering any Hg Budget permit for the unit. The Hg authorized account representative shall submit a copy of the statement to the Administrator. The statement shall state, in a format prescribed by the permitting authority, that the unit is permanently retired and will comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) After receipt of the notice under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the permitting authority will amend any permit covering the source at which the unit is located to add the provisions and requirements of the exemption under paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section.
(c)
(2) The Permitting Authority will allocate Hg allowances under §§ 60.4140 through 60.4142 to a unit exempt under this section.
(3) For a period of 5 years from the date the records are created, the owners and operators of a unit exempt under this section shall retain at the source that includes the unit, records demonstrating that the unit is permanently retired. The 5-year period for keeping records may be extended for cause, at any time prior to the end of the period, in writing by the permitting authority or the Administrator. The owners and operators bear the burden of proof that the unit is permanently retired.
(4) The owners and operators and, to the extent applicable, the Hg authorized account representative of a unit exempt under this section shall comply with the requirements of the Hg Budget Trading Program concerning all periods for which the exemption is not in effect, even if such requirements arise, or must be complied with, after the exemption takes effect.
(5) A unit exempt under this section and located at a source that is required, or but for this exemption would be required, to have a title V operating permit shall not resume operation unless the Hg authorized account representative of the source submits a complete Hg Budget permit application under § 60.4122 for the unit not less than 18 months (or such lesser time provided by the permitting authority) before the later of January 1, 2010 or the date on which the unit resumes operation.
(6) On the earlier of the following dates, a unit exempt under paragraph (b) of this section shall lose its exemption:
(i) The date on which the Hg authorized account representative submits a Hg Budget permit application under paragraph (c)(5) of this section;
(ii) The date on which the Hg authorized account representative is required under paragraph (c)(5) of this section to submit a Hg Budget permit application; or
(iii) The date on which the unit resumes operation, if the Hg authorized account representative is not required to submit a Hg Budget permit application for the unit.
(7) For the purpose of applying monitoring requirements under §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176 of this part, a unit that loses its exemption under this section shall be treated as a unit that commences operation or commercial operation on the first date on which the unit resumes operation.
(a)
(i) Submit to the permitting authority a complete Hg Budget permit application under § 60.4122 in accordance with the deadlines specified in § 60.4121(b) and (c);
(ii) Submit in a timely manner any supplemental information that the permitting authority determines is necessary in order to review a Hg Budget permit application and issue or deny a Hg Budget permit.
(2) The owners and operators of each Hg Budget source required to have a title V operating permit and each Hg Budget unit required to have a title V operating permit at the source shall have a Hg Budget permit issued by the permitting authority and operate the unit in compliance with such Hg Budget permit.
(3) The owners and operators of a Hg Budget source that is not otherwise required to have a title V operating permit are not required to submit a Hg Budget permit application, and to have a Hg Budget permit, under §§ 60.4120 through 60.4124 for such Hg Budget source.
(b)
(2) The emissions measurements recorded and reported in accordance with §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176 shall be used to determine compliance by the unit with the Hg Budget emissions limitation under paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)
(2) Each ounce of mercury emitted in excess of the Hg Budget emissions limitation shall constitute a separate violation of this part, the Clean Air Act, and applicable State law.
(3) A Hg Budget unit shall be subject to the requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of this section starting on the later of January 1, 2010 or the date on which the unit commences operation.
(4) Hg allowances shall be held in, deducted from, or transferred among Hg Allowance Tracking System accounts in accordance with §§ 60.4140 through 60.4162.
(5) A Hg allowance shall not be deducted, in order to comply with the requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, for a control period in a year prior to the year for which the Hg allowance was allocated.
(6) A Hg allowance allocated by the Administrator under the Hg Budget Trading Program is a limited authorization to emit one ounce of mercury in accordance with the Hg Budget Trading Program. No provision of the Hg Budget Trading Program, the Hg Budget permit application, the Hg Budget permit and no provision of law shall be construed to limit the authority of the United States to terminate or limit such authorization.
(7) A Hg allowance allocated by the Administrator under the Hg Budget Trading Program does not constitute a property right.
(8) Upon recordation by the Administrator under §§ 60.4150 through 60.4162, every allocation, transfer, or deduction of a Hg allowance to or from a Hg Budget unit's compliance account is incorporated automatically in any Hg Budget permit of the Hg Budget unit.
(d)
(i) Surrender the Hg allowances required for deduction under § 60.4154(d)(1); and
(ii) Pay any fine, penalty, or assessment or comply with any other remedy imposed under § 60.4154(d)(3).
(e)
(i) The account certificate of representation under § 60.4113 for the Hg authorized account representative for the source and each Hg Budget unit at the source and all documents that demonstrate the truth of the statements in the account certificate of representation; provided that the certificate and documents shall be retained on site at the source beyond such 5-year period until such documents are superseded because of the submission of a new account certificate of representation under § 60.4113 changing the Hg authorized account representative.
(ii) All emissions monitoring information, in accordance with §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176; provided that to the extent that §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176 of this part provides for a 3-year period for recordkeeping, the 3-year period shall apply.
(iii) Copies of all reports, compliance certifications, and other submissions and all records made or required under the Hg Budget Trading Program.
(iv) Copies of all documents used to complete a Hg Budget permit application and any other submission under the Hg Budget Trading Program or to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Hg Budget Trading Program.
(2) The Hg authorized account representative of a Hg Budget source and each Hg Budget unit at the source shall submit the reports and compliance certifications required under the Hg Budget Trading Program, including those under §§ 60.4130 through 60.4131 and §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176.
(f)
(2) Any person who knowingly makes a false material statement in any record, submission, or report under the Hg Budget Trading Program shall be subject to criminal enforcement pursuant to the applicable State or Federal law.
(3) No permit revision shall excuse any violation of the requirements of the Hg Budget Trading Program that occurs prior to the date that the revision takes effect.
(4) Each Hg Budget source and each Hg Budget unit shall meet the requirements of the Hg Budget Trading Program.
(5) Any provision of the Hg Budget Trading Program that applies to a Hg Budget source or the Hg authorized account representative of a Hg Budget source shall also apply to the owners and operators of such source and of the Hg Budget units at the source.
(6) Any provision of the Hg Budget Trading Program that applies to a Hg Budget unit or the Hg authorized account representative of a Hg budget unit shall also apply to the owners and operators of such unit. Except with regard to the requirements applicable to units with a common stack under §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176, the owners and operators and the Hg authorized account representative of one Hg Budget unit shall not be liable for any violation by any other Hg Budget unit of which they are not owners or operators or the Hg authorized account representative and that is located at a source of which they are not owners or operators or the Hg authorized account representative.
(g)
(a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the Hg Budget Trading Program, to begin on the occurrence of an act or event shall begin on the day the act or event occurs.
(b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the Hg Budget Trading Program, to begin before the occurrence of an act or event shall be computed so that the period ends the day before the act or event occurs.
(c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period, under the Hg Budget Trading Program, falls on a weekend or a State or Federal holiday, the time period shall be extended to the next business day.
(a) Except as provided under § 60.4111, each Hg Budget source, including all Hg Budget units at the source, shall have one and only one Hg authorized account representative, with regard to all matters under the Hg Budget Trading Program concerning the source or any Hg Budget unit at the source.
(b) The Hg authorized account representative of the Hg Budget source shall be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the source and all Hg Budget units at the source.
(c) Upon receipt by the Administrator of a complete account certificate of representation under § 60.4113, the Hg authorized account representative of the source shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each owner and operator of the Hg Budget source
(d) No Hg Budget permit shall be issued, and no Hg Allowance Tracking System account shall be established for a Hg Budget unit at a source, until the Administrator has received a complete account certificate of representation under § 60.4113 for a Hg authorized account representative of the source and the Hg Budget units at the source.
(e)(1) Each submission under the Hg Budget Trading Program shall be submitted, signed, and certified by the Hg authorized account representative for each Hg Budget source on behalf of which the submission is made. Each such submission shall include the following certification statement by the Hg authorized account representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the owners and operators of the Hg Budget sources or Hg Budget units for which the submission is made. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.”
(2) The permitting authority and the Administrator will accept or act on a submission made on behalf of owner or operators of a Hg Budget source or a Hg Budget unit only if the submission has been made, signed, and certified in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(a) An account certificate of representation may designate one and only one alternate Hg authorized account representative who may act on behalf of the Hg authorized account representative. The agreement by which the alternate Hg authorized account representative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate Hg authorized account representative to act in lieu of the Hg authorized account representative.
(b) Upon receipt by the Administrator of a complete account certificate of representation under § 60.4113, any representation, action, inaction, or submission by the alternate Hg authorized account representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the Hg authorized account representative.
(c) Except in this section and §§ 60.4110(a), 60.4112, 60.4113, and 60.4151, whenever the term “Hg authorized account representative” is used in this subpart, the term shall be construed to include the alternate Hg authorized account representative.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Within 30 days following any change in the owners and operators of a Hg Budget source or a Hg Budget unit, including the addition of a new owner or operator, the Hg authorized account representative or alternate Hg authorized account representative shall submit a revision to the account certificate of representation under § 60.4113 amending the list of owners and operators to include the change.
(a) A complete account certificate of representation for a Hg authorized account representative or an alternate Hg authorized account representative shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator:
(1) Identification of the Hg Budget source and each Hg Budget unit at the source for which the account certificate of representation is submitted.
(2) The name, address, e-mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative.
(3) A list of the owners and operators of the Hg Budget source and of each Hg Budget unit at the source.
(4) The following certification statement by the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative: “I certify that I was selected as the Hg authorized account representative or alternate Hg authorized account representative, as applicable, by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the Hg Budget source and each Hg Budget unit at the source. I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the Hg Budget Trading Program on behalf of the owners and operators of the Hg Budget source and of each Hg Budget unit at the source and that each such owner and operator shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any decision or order issued to me by the permitting
(5) The signature of the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative and the dates signed.
(b) Unless otherwise required by the permitting authority or the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the account certificate of representation shall not be submitted to the permitting authority or the Administrator. Neither the permitting authority nor the Administrator shall be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted.
(a) Once a complete account certificate of representation under § 60.4113 has been submitted and received, the permitting authority and the Administrator will rely on the account certificate of representation unless and until a superseding complete account certificate of representation under § 60.4113 is received by the Administrator.
(b) Except as provided in § 60.4112(a) or (b), no objection or other communication submitted to the permitting authority or the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the Hg authorized account representative shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the Hg authorized account representative or the finality of any decision or order by the permitting authority or the Administrator under the Hg Budget Trading Program.
(c) Neither the permitting authority nor the Administrator will adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of any Hg authorized account representative, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of Hg allowance transfers.
(a) For each Hg Budget source required to have a title V operating permit, such permit shall include a Hg Budget permit administered by the permitting authority for the title V operating permit. The Hg Budget portion of the title V permit shall be administered in accordance with the permitting authority's title V operating permits regulations promulgated under part 70 or 71 of this chapter, except as provided otherwise by this subpart or subpart I of this part.
(b) Each Hg Budget permit shall contain all applicable Hg Budget Trading Program requirements and shall be a complete and segregable portion of the title V operating permit under paragraph (a) of this section.
(a)
(b)
(2) For any source, with any Hg Budget unit under § 60.4104(a) that commences operation on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
(c)
A complete Hg Budget permit application shall include the following elements concerning the Hg Budget source for which the application is submitted, in a format prescribed by the permitting authority:
(a) Identification of the Hg Budget source, including plant name and the ORIS (Office of Regulatory Information Systems) or facility code assigned to the source by the Energy Information Administration, if applicable;
(b) Identification of each Hg Budget unit at the Hg Budget source and whether it is a Hg Budget unit under § 60.4104(a); and
(c) The standard requirements under § 60.4106.
(a) Each Hg Budget permit will contain, in a format prescribed by the permitting authority, all elements required for a complete Hg Budget permit application under § 60.4122.
(b) Each Hg Budget permit is deemed to incorporate automatically the definitions of terms under § 60.4102 and, upon recordation by the Administrator under §§ 60.4150 through 60.4162, every allocation, transfer, or deduction of a Hg allowance to or from the compliance accounts of the Hg Budget units covered by the permit.
Except as provided in § 60.4123(b), the permitting authority will revise the Hg Budget permit, as necessary, in accordance with the permitting authority's title V operating permits regulations addressing permit revisions.
(a)
(b)
(1) Identification of each Hg Budget unit;
(2) At the Hg authorized account representative's option, the serial numbers of the Hg allowances that are to be deducted from each source's compliance account under § 60.4154 for the control period; and
(3) The compliance certification under paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)
(1) Whether the unit was operated in compliance with the Hg Budget emissions limitation;
(2) Whether the monitoring plan that governs the unit has been maintained to reflect the actual operation and monitoring of the unit and contains all information necessary to attribute Hg emissions to the unit, in accordance with §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176;
(3) Whether all the Hg emissions from the unit, or a group of units (including the unit) using a common stack, were monitored or accounted for through the missing data procedures and reported in the quarterly monitoring reports, including whether conditional data were reported in the quarterly reports in accordance with §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176. If conditional data were reported, the owner or operator shall indicate whether the status of all conditional data has been resolved and all necessary quarterly report resubmissions have been made;
(4) Whether the facts that form the basis for certification under this subpart of each monitor at the unit or a group of units (including the unit) using a common stack, or for using an excepted monitoring method or alternative monitoring method approved under this subpart, if any, have changed; and
(5) If a change is required to be reported under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, specify the nature of the change, the reason for the change, when the change occurred, and how the unit's compliance status was determined subsequent to the change, including what method was used to determine emissions when a change mandated the need for monitor recertification.
(a) The Administrator may review and conduct independent audits concerning any compliance certification or any other submission under the Hg Budget Trading Program and make appropriate adjustments of the information in the compliance certifications or other submissions.
(b) The Administrator may deduct Hg allowances from or transfer Hg allowances to a source's compliance account based on the information in the compliance certifications or other submissions, as adjusted under paragraph (a) of this section.
(a) For each state listed in paragraph (b) of this section, the state plan required under subpart B, 40 CFR part 60, and this section shall limit total annual Hg emissions from Hg Budget units to the amounts specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The state-by-state trading program budgets for annual allocations for 2010 through 2017 and for 2018 and thereafter are respectively as follows:
(a) By October 31, 2006, the permitting authority will submit to the Administrator the Hg allowance allocations, in format prescribed by the Administrator and in accordance with § 60.4142, for the control periods in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. If the permitting authority fails to submit to the Administrator the Hg allowance allocations in accordance with this paragraph (a), the Administrator will allocate Hg allowances for the applicable control periods, in accordance with § 60.4142, within 60 days of the deadline for submission by the permitting authority.
(b) By October 31, 2009 and October 31 of each year thereafter, the permitting authority will submit to the Administrator the Hg allowance allocations, in a format prescribed by the Administrator and in accordance with § 60.4142, for the control period in the year that is 6 years after the year of the applicable deadline for submission under this paragraph (b). If the permitting authority fails to submit to the Administrator the Hg allowance allocations in accordance with this paragraph (b), the Administrator will allocate Hg allowances for the applicable control period, in accordance with § 60.4142, within 60 days of the applicable deadline for submission by the permitting authority.
(a)(1) The baseline heat input (in mmBtu) used for calculating Hg allowance allocations for each Hg Budget unit under § 60.4104 will be:
(i) For units that commenced operation before January 1, 2000 the average of the three highest amounts of the unit's annual heat input for 1998 through 2002 and multiplied by:
(A) 3.0, for the portion of such average heat input that equals the unit's average annual combustion of lignite during 1999,
(B) 1.25, for the portion of such average heat input that equals the unit's average annual combustion of subbituminous coal during 1999,
(C) 1.0, for the portion of such average heat input that is not covered by
(ii) For units that commence operation on or after January 1, 2000 and operate during five years or more, the average of the three highest amounts of the unit's total converted annual heat input over the first five years during which the unit operates.
(2)(i) A unit's annual heat input for a year specified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section will be determined in accordance with part 75 of this chapter, if the Hg Budget unit was otherwise subject to the requirements of part 75 of this chapter for the year, or will be based on the best available data reported to the permitting authority for the unit, if the unit was not otherwise subject to the requirements of part 75 of this chapter for the year.
(ii) A unit's converted annual heat input for a year specified under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section equals the gross electrical output of the generator or generators served by the unit multiplied by 8,000 Btu/kWh, plus, for a cogeneration unit, one half of the unit's gross process steam output multiplied by 8,000 Btu/kWh. If the generator is served by two or more units, then the gross electrical output of the generator will be attributed to each unit in proportion to the unit's heat input.
(b) For each control period under § 60.4141, the permitting authority will allocate to all Hg Budget units under § 60.4104 in the State that have operated for at least five years a total amount of Hg allowances equal to 98 percent of the ounces of Hg emissions in the State trading program budget under § 60.4140 (except as provided in § 60.4143) in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) The permitting authority will allocate Hg allowances to each Hg Budget unit in an amount determined by multiplying the allocation amount in State trading budget by the ratio of the baseline heat input of such unit to the total amount of baseline heat input of all affected units in the State (as calculated in § 60.4142(a)(1))
(2) If the initial total number of Hg allowances allocated to all Hg Budget units in the State for a control period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not equal 98 percent of the amount of ounces of Hg emissions in the State trading program budget, the permitting authority will adjust the total amount of Hg allowances allocated to all such Hg Budget units for the control period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section so that the total amount of Hg allowances allocated equals 98 percent of the amount of ounces of Hg emissions in the State trading program budget. This adjustment will be made by: Multiplying each unit's allocation by the total amount of Hg allowances allocated under paragraph (b)(1) of this section divided by 98 percent of the amount of ounces of Hg emissions in the State trading program budget, and rounding to the nearest whole allowance as appropriate.
(c) For each control period under § 60.4141, the permitting authority will allocate Hg allowances to Hg Budget units under § 60.4104 in the State that commenced operation on or after January 1, 2000 and have operated or operate during less than five years, in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) The permitting authority will establish a separate allocation set-aside for each control period. Each allocation set-aside will be allocated Hg allowances equal to 2 percent of the amount of ounces of Hg emissions in the State trading program budget under § 60.4140.
(2) The Hg authorized account representative of a Hg Budget unit under paragraph (c) of this section may submit to the permitting authority a request, in writing or in a format specified by the permitting authority, to be allocated Hg allowances for no more than five consecutive control periods under § 60.4141, starting with the control period during which the Hg Budget unit is projected to commence operation. The Hg allowance allocation request must be submitted prior to January 1 of the first control period for which the Hg allowance allocation is requested and after the date on which the permitting authority issues a permit to construct the Hg Budget unit.
(3) In a Hg allowance allocation request under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Hg authorized account representative may request for a control period Hg allowances in an amount that does not exceed the unit's mercury emissions rate limitation under § 60.45a of this chapter (in lb/GWh) multiplied by the Hg Budget unit's maximum design output (in GW) multiplied by the number of hours remaining in the control period starting with the first day in the control period on which the unit is projected to operate multiplied by 0.90.
(4) The permitting authority will review, and allocate Hg allowances pursuant to, Hg allowance allocation requests under paragraph (c)(2) of this section in the order that the requests are received by the permitting authority.
(i) Upon receipt of a Hg allowance allocation request, the permitting authority will determine whether, and will make any necessary adjustments to the request to ensure that, the control period and the amount of allowances specified are consistent with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section.
(ii) If the allocation set-aside for the control period for which Hg allowances are requested has an amount of Hg allowances not less than the amount requested (as adjusted under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section), the permitting authority will allocate the full, adjusted amount of the Hg allowances requested to the Hg Budget unit.
(iii) If the allocation set-aside for the control period for which Hg allowances are requested has a smaller amount of Hg allowances than the amount requested (as adjusted under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section), the permitting authority will deny in part the request and allocate only the remaining amount of Hg allowances in the allocation set-aside to the Hg Budget unit.
(iv) Once an allocation set-aside for a control period has been depleted of all Hg allowances, the permitting authority will deny, and will not allocate any Hg allowances pursuant to, any Hg allowance allocation requests under which Hg allowances have not already been allocated for the control period.
(5) Within 60 days of receipt of a Hg allowance allocation request, the permitting authority will take appropriate action under paragraph (c)(4) of this section and notify the Hg authorized account representative that submitted the request and the Administrator of the amount of Hg allowances (if any) allocated for the control period to the Hg Budget unit.
(d) For a Hg Budget unit that is allocated Hg allowances under paragraph (c) of this section for a control period, the Administrator will deduct Hg allowances under § 60.4154(b) to account for the actual utilization of the unit during the control period, using the following formula, provided that the amount of Hg allowances to be deducted shall be zero if the amount calculated is less than zero:
(e) The permitting authority will reallocate any Hg allowances deducted by the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, pursuant to any Hg allowance allocation requests that were originally denied in whole or in part under paragraph (c)(4)(iii) or (iv) of this section as follows:
(1) Such Hg allowance allocation requests will be considered in the order that they were received by the permitting authority.
(2) The amount of Hg allowances reallocated pursuant to each such Hg allowance allocation request will equal the unit's actual control period utilization multiplied by the unit's mercury emission rate limitation under § 60.45a of this chapter, except as provided under paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(3) As each such Hg allowance request is considered for reallocation, if fewer Hg allowances remain available for reallocation pursuant to an Hg allowance allocation request than the amount of Hg allowances under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, then all of the Hg allowances remaining available for reallocation will be reallocated pursuant to such Hg allowance allocation request.
(4) The permitting authority will notify the Hg authorized account representative that submitted the request and the Administrator of the amount of Hg allowances (if any) allocated under this paragraph.
(f) If, after completion of the procedures under paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, there are remaining unallocated Hg allowances from the allocation set-aside for a control period remain, the permitting authority shall reallocate to each Hg Budget unit that was allocated Hg allowances under paragraph (b) an amount of Hg allowances equal to the total amount of such remaining unallocated Hg allowances multiplied by the unit's allocation under paragraph (b) of this section divided by 98 percent of the amount of ounces of Hg emissions in the State trading program budget and rounding to the nearest whole allowance as appropriate.
(a) Any person may purchase Hg allowances from the permitting authority during any control period. Each mercury allowance shall be sold for $2,187.50, with such price adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index on the January 1, 2004 and annually thereafter.
(b) The proceeds from any sales of Hg allowances under paragraph (a) of this section shall be deposited in the State Treasury.
(c) Each Hg allowance purchased under paragraph (a) of this section shall be taken from, and reduce, the total amount of Hg allowances available for allocation under § 60.4142 (b) for the first control period after the control period during which such Hg allowance is purchased and for which Hg allowances have not already been allocated under § 60.4142 (b).
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, each Hg allowance purchased under paragraph (a) of this section shall be treated as being allocated for the control period during which such Hg allowance was purchased or for the immediately preceding control period.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) Any person may apply to open a general account for the purpose of holding and transferring allowances. An application for a general account may designate one and only one Hg authorized account representative and one and only one alternate Hg authorized account representative who may act on behalf of the Hg authorized account representative. The agreement by which the alternate Hg authorized account representative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate Hg authorized account representative to act in lieu of the Hg authorized account representative. A complete application for a general account shall be submitted to the Administrator and shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the Administrator:
(A) Name, mailing address, e-mail address (if any), telephone number, and facsimile transmission number (if any) of the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative;
(B) At the option of the Hg authorized account representative, organization name and type of organization;
(C) A list of all persons subject to a binding agreement for the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative to represent their ownership interest with respect to the allowances held in the general account;
(D) The following certification statement by the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative: “I certify that I was selected as the Hg authorized account representative or the Hg alternate authorized account representative, as applicable, by an agreement that is binding on all persons who have an ownership interest with respect to allowances held in the general account. I certify that I have all the necessary authority to carry out my duties and responsibilities under the Hg Budget Trading Program on behalf of such persons and that each such person shall be fully bound by my representations, actions, inactions, or submissions and by any order or decision issued to me by the Administrator or a court regarding the general account.”
(E) The signature of the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative and the dates signed.
(ii) Unless otherwise required by the permitting authority or the Administrator, documents of agreement referred to in the application for a general account shall not be submitted to the permitting authority or the Administrator. Neither the permitting authority nor the Administrator shall be under any obligation to review or evaluate the sufficiency of such documents, if submitted.
(2)
(i) The Administrator will establish a general account for the person or persons for whom the application is submitted.
(ii) The Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative for the general account shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each person who has an ownership interest with respect to Hg allowances held in the general account in all matters pertaining to the Hg Budget Trading Program, not withstanding any agreement between the Hg authorized account representative or any alternate Hg authorized account representative and such person. Any such person shall be bound by any order or decision issued to the Hg authorized account representative or any alternate Hg authorized account representative by the Administrator or a court regarding the general account.
(iii) Any representation, action, inaction, or submission by any alternate Hg authorized account representative shall be deemed to be a representation, action, inaction, or submission by the Hg authorized account representative.
(iv) Each submission concerning the general account shall be submitted, signed, and certified by the Hg authorized account representative or any alternate Hg authorized account representative for the persons having an ownership interest with respect to Hg allowances held in the general account. Each such submission shall include the following certification statement by the Hg authorized account representative or any alternate Hg authorizing account representative: “I am authorized to make this submission on behalf of the persons having an ownership interest with respect to the Hg allowances held in the general account. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false statements and information or omitting required statements and information, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.”
(v) The Administrator will accept or act on a submission concerning the general account only if the submission has been made, signed, and certified in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(3)
(i) The Hg authorized account representative for a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous Hg authorized account representative prior to the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new Hg authorized account representative and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the Hg allowances in the general account.
(ii) The alternate Hg authorized account representative for a general account may be changed at any time upon receipt by the Administrator of a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Notwithstanding any such change, all representations, actions, inactions, and submissions by the previous alternate Hg authorized account representative prior to the time and date when the Administrator receives the superseding application for a general account shall be binding on the new alternate Hg authorized account representative and the persons with an ownership interest with respect to the Hg allowances in the general account.
(iii) (A) In the event a new person having an ownership interest with respect to Hg allowances in the general account is not included in the list of such persons in the account certificate of representation, such new person shall be deemed to be subject to and bound by the account certificate of representation, the representation, actions, inactions, and submissions of the Hg authorized account representative and any alternate Hg authorized account representative of the source or unit, and the decisions, orders, actions, and inactions of the Administrator, as if the new person were included in such list.
(B) Within 30 days following any change in the persons having an ownership interest with respect to Hg allowances in the general account, including the addition of persons, the Hg authorized account representative or any alternate Hg authorized account representative shall submit a revision to the application for a general account amending the list of persons having an ownership interest with respect to the Hg allowances in the general account to include the change.
(4)
(i) Once a complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section has been submitted and received, the Administrator will rely on the application unless and until a superseding complete application for a general account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section is received by the Administrator.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, no objection or other communication submitted to the Administrator concerning the authorization, or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the Hg authorized account representative or any alternative Hg authorized account representative for a general account shall affect any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the Hg authorized account representative or any alternative Hg authorized account representative or the finality of any decision or order by the Administrator under the Hg Budget Trading Program.
(iii) The Administrator will not adjudicate any private legal dispute concerning the authorization or any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the Hg authorized account representative or any alternative Hg authorized account representative for a general account, including private legal disputes concerning the proceeds of Hg allowance transfers.
(c)
(a) Following the establishment of a Hg Allowance Tracking System account, all submissions to the Administrator pertaining to the account, including, but not limited to, submissions concerning the deduction or transfer of Hg allowances in the account, shall be made only by the Hg authorized account representative for the account.
(b)
(a) The Administrator will record the Hg allowances for 2010 for a Hg Budget unit allocated under §§ 60.4140 through 60.4142 in the source's compliance account.
(b) By January 1, 2008, the Administrator will record the Hg allowances for 2011 for a Hg Budget unit allocated under §§ 60.4140 through 60.4142 in the unit's compliance account.
(c) By January 1, 2009, the Administrator will record the Hg allowances for 2012 for a Hg Budget unit allocated under §§ 60.4140 through 60.4142 in the unit's compliance account.
(d) By January 1, 2010, the Administrator will record the Hg allowances for 2013 for a Hg Budget unit allocated under §§ 60.4140 through 60.4142 in the unit's compliance account.
(e) Each year starting with 2011, after the Administrator has made all deductions from a Hg Budget unit's compliance account pursuant to § 60.4154 (except deductions pursuant to § 60.4154(d)(2)), the Administrator will record:
(1) Hg allowances, in the compliance account, as allocated to the unit under §§ 60.4140 through 60.4142 for the third year after the year of the control period for which such deductions were or could have been made; and
(2) Hg allowances, in the general account specified by the owners and operators of the unit, as allocated under § 60.4105(c)(2) for the third year after the year of the control period for which such deductions are or could have been made.
(f)
(a)
(1) Were allocated for a control period in a prior year or the same year; and
(2) Are held in the source's compliance account as of the Hg allowance transfer deadline for that control period or are transferred into the compliance account by a Hg allowance transfer correctly submitted for recordation under § 60.4160 by the Hg allowance transfer deadline for that control period.
(b)
(2) The Administrator will deduct Hg allowances from the source's compliance account under paragraph (b)(1) of this section:
(i) Until the number of Hg allowances deducted for the control period equals the number of ounces of total Hg emissions, determined in accordance with §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176, from all Hg Budget units at the source for the control period for which compliance is being determined, plus the number of Hg allowances required for deduction to account for actual heat input under § 60.4142(e) for the control period; or
(ii) Until no more Hg allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section remain in the compliance account.
(c)(1)
(2)
(i) Those Hg allowances that were allocated in the order of recordation to the units at the source under §§ 60.4140 through 60.4142;
(ii) Those Hg allowances that were allocated for the control period to any unit and transferred and recorded in the compliance account pursuant to §§ 60.4160 through 60.4162 in order of their date of recordation;
(d)
(2) If the compliance account does not contain sufficient Hg allowances, the Administrator will deduct the required number of Hg allowances, regardless of the control period for which they were allocated, whenever Hg allowances are recorded in the compliance account.
(3) Any allowance deduction required under paragraph (d) of this section shall not affect the liability of the owners and operators of the Hg Budget unit for any fine, penalty, or assessment, or their obligation to comply with any other remedy, for the same violation, as ordered under the Clean Air Act or applicable State law. The following guidelines will be followed in assessing fines, penalties or other obligations:
(i) For purposes of determining the number of days of violation, if a Hg Budget source has excess emissions for a control period, each day in the control period (153 days) constitutes a day in violation unless the owners and operators of the source demonstrate that a lesser number of days should be considered.
(ii) Each ounce of excess emissions is a separate violation.
(e)
Hg allowances may be banked for future use or transfer in a compliance account or a general account, as follows: any Hg allowance that is held in a compliance account or a general account will remain in such account unless and until the Hg allowance is deducted or transferred under § 60.4131, § 60.4154, § 60.4156, or §§ 60.4160 through 60.4162.
The Administrator may, at his or her sole discretion and on his or her own motion, correct any error in any Hg Allowance Tracking System account. Within 10 business days of making such correction, the Administrator will notify
(a) The Hg authorized account representative of a general account may instruct the Administrator to close the account by submitting a statement requesting deletion of the account from the Hg Allowance Tracking System and by correctly submitting for recordation under § 60.4160 an allowance transfer of all Hg allowances in the account to one or more other Hg Allowance Tracking System accounts.
(b) If a general account shows no activity for a period of a year or more and does not contain any Hg allowances, the Administrator may notify the Hg authorized account representative for the account that the account will be closed and deleted from the Hg Allowance Tracking System following 20 business days after the notice is sent. The account will be closed after the 20-day period unless before the end of the 20-day period the Administrator receives a correctly submitted transfer of Hg allowances into the account under § 60.4160 or a statement submitted by the Hg authorized account representative demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Administrator good cause as to why the account should not be closed.
A Hg authorized account representative seeking recordation of a Hg allowance transfer shall submit the transfer to the Administrator. To be considered correctly submitted, the Hg allowance transfer shall include the following elements in a format specified by the Administrator:
(a) The numbers identifying both the transferor and transferee accounts;
(b) A specification by serial number of each Hg allowance to be transferred; and
(c) The printed name and signature of the Hg authorized account representative of the transferor account and the date signed.
(a) Within 5 business days of receiving a Hg allowance transfer, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Administrator will record a Hg allowance transfer by moving each Hg allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request, provided that:
(1) The transfer is correctly submitted under § 60.4160; and
(2) The transferor account includes each Hg allowance identified by serial number in the transfer.
(b) A Hg allowance transfer that is submitted for recordation following the Hg allowance transfer deadline and that includes any Hg allowances allocated for a control period in a prior year or the same year as the Hg allowance transfer deadline will not be recorded until after the Administrator completes the recordation of Hg allowance allocations under § 60.4153 for the control period in the fourth year after the control period to which the Hg allowance transfer deadline applies.
(c) Where a Hg allowance transfer submitted for recordation fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator will not record such transfer.
(a)
(b)
(1) A decision not to record the transfer, and
(2) The reasons for such non-recordation.
(c) Nothing in this section shall preclude the submission of a Hg allowance transfer for recordation following notification of non-recordation.
The owners and operators, and to the extent applicable, the Hg authorized account representative of a Hg Budget unit, shall comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as provided in this section and §§ 60.4171 through 60.4176 and in subpart I of part 75 of this chapter. For purposes of complying with such requirements, the definitions in § 60.4102 and in § 72.2 of this chapter shall apply, and the terms “affected unit,” “designated representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) in part 75 of this chapter shall be deemed to refer to the terms “Hg Budget unit,” “Hg authorized account representative,” and “continuous emission monitoring system” (or “CEMS”) respectively, as defined in § 60.4102. The owner or operator of a unit that is not a Hg Budget unit but that is monitored under § 75.82(b)(2)(i) of this chapter shall comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for a Hg Budget unit under this part.
(a)
(1) Install all monitoring systems required under this subpart for monitoring Hg mass emissions. This includes all systems required to monitor Hg emission rate, Hg concentration, heat input rate, moisture, and stack flow rate, in accordance with §§ 75.81 and 75.82 of this chapter.
(2) Successfully complete all certification tests required under § 60.4171 and meet all other requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter applicable to the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(3) Record, report, and quality-assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b)
(1) For the owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit that commences operation before July 1, 2008, by January 1, 2009.
(2) For the owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit that commences operation on or after July 1, 2008, by the later of the following dates:
(i) January 1, 2009; or
(ii) 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days, whichever occurs first, after the date on which the unit commences commercial operation.
(3) For the owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit that has a new stack or flue for which construction is completed after the applicable deadline under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, by the earlier of 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days after the date on which emissions first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack or flue.
(c)
(d)
(1) No owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit shall use any alternative monitoring system, alternative reference method, or any other alternative for the required continuous emission monitoring system without having obtained prior written approval in accordance with § 60.4175.
(2) No owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit shall operate the unit so as to discharge, or allow to be discharged, Hg emissions to the atmosphere without accounting for all such emissions in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter.
(3) No owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit shall disrupt the continuous emission monitoring system, any portion thereof, or any other approved emission monitoring method, and thereby avoid monitoring and recording Hg mass emissions discharged into the atmosphere, except for periods of recertification or periods when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter.
(4) No owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit shall retire or permanently discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system, any component thereof, or any other approved emission monitoring system under this subpart, except under any one of the following circumstances:
(i) During the period that the unit is covered by an exemption under § 60.4105 that is in effect;
(ii) The owner or operator is monitoring emissions from the unit with another certified monitoring system approved, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, by the permitting authority for use at that unit that provides emission data for the same pollutant or parameter as the retired or discontinued monitoring system; or
(iii) The Hg authorized account representative submits notification of the date of certification testing of a replacement monitoring system for the retired or discontinued monitoring system in accordance with § 60.4171(c)(2).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(5)
(i) The owner or operator shall substitute the following values, for each hour of unit operation during the period of invalid data specified under § 75.20(a)(4)(iii), § 75.20(b)(5), or § 75.21(e) of this chapter and continuing until the date and hour specified under § 75.20(a)(5)(i) of this chapter:
(A) For units that the owner or operator monitors for Hg emission rate and heat input rate, the maximum potential Hg emission rate and the maximum potential hourly heat input of the unit; and
(B) For units that the owner or operator monitors for Hg mass emissions using a Hg pollutant concentration monitor and a flow monitor, the maximum potential concentration of Hg and the maximum potential flow rate under section 2.1.4 of appendix A of part 75 of this chapter.
(ii) The Hg authorized account representative shall submit a notification of certification retest dates and a new certification application in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) The owner or operator shall repeat all certification tests or other requirements that were failed by the monitoring system, as indicated in the permitting authority's notice of disapproval, no later than 30 unit operating days after the date of issuance of the notice of disapproval.
(d)
(e)
(a) Whenever any monitoring system fails to meet the quality assurance or data validation requirements of part 75 of this chapter, data shall be substituted using the applicable procedures in subpart D of part 75 of this chapter.
(b)
The Hg authorized account representative for a Hg Budget unit shall submit written notice to the permitting authority and the Administrator in accordance with § 75.61 of this chapter, except that if the unit is not subject to an Acid Rain emissions limitation, the notification is only required to be sent to the permitting authority.
(a)
(1) The Hg authorized account representative shall comply with all recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section and with the requirements of § 60.4110(e)(1).
(2) If a Hg Budget unit is subject to an Acid Rain emission limitation or an applicable State or Federal NO
(b)
(1) The owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit shall comply with requirements of § 75.62 of this chapter, except that the monitoring plan is only required to include the information required by subpart I of part 75 of this chapter.
(2) For Hg Budget units that are also subject to the Acid Rain Program or an applicable State or Federal NO
(c)
(d)
(1) The Hg authorized account representative shall submit a quarterly report for each calendar quarter beginning with:
(i) For a unit that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2008, the calendar quarter covering January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009. Data shall be reported from the first hour on January 1, 2009; or
(ii) For a unit that commences commercial operation on or after July 1, 2008, the calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date of provisional certification or the relevant deadline for initial certification under § 60.4170(b), unless that quarter is the third or fourth quarter of 2008, in which case reporting shall commence in the quarter covering January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009. Data shall be reported from the later of the date and hour corresponding to the date and hour of provisional certification or the first hour on January 1, 2009.
(2) The Hg authorized account representative shall submit each quarterly report to the Administrator within 30 days following the end of the calendar quarter covered by the report. Quarterly reports shall be submitted in the manner specified in subpart I of part 75 of this chapter and § 75.64 of this chapter.
(i) For Hg Budget units that are also subject to an Acid Rain emissions limitation, quarterly reports shall include the data and information required in subpart I of 40 CFR part 75 of this chapter and the data and information required in subpart G of 40 CFR part 75 of this chapter.
(ii) For Hg Budget units that are also subject to an applicable State or Federal NO
(iii) For Hg Budget units not subject to an Acid Rain emissions limitation or an applicable State or Federal NO
(3)
(i) The monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with the applicable requirements of this subpart and part 75 of this chapter, including the quality assurance procedures and specifications; and
(ii) For a unit with add-on Hg emission controls or that has an installed flue gas desulfurization system, for all hours where Hg data are substituted in accordance with § 75.38(b) of this chapter, the add-on emission controls were operating within the range of parameters listed in the quality assurance/quality control program under appendix B of 40 CFR part 75 of this chapter and the substitute values do not systematically underestimate Hg emissions.
(a) The Hg authorized account representative of a Hg Budget unit that is subject to an Acid Rain emissions limitation may submit a petition under § 75.66 of this chapter to the Administrator requesting approval to apply an alternative to any requirement of this subpart.
(1) Application of an alternative to any requirement of this subpart is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that the petition is approved by the Administrator, in consultation with the permitting authority.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if the petition requests approval to apply an alternative to a requirement concerning any additional CEMS required under the common stack provisions of § 75.82 of this chapter, the petition is governed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The Hg authorized account representative of a Hg Budget unit that is not subject to an Acid Rain emissions limitation may submit a petition under § 75.66 of this chapter to the permitting authority and the Administrator requesting approval to apply an alternative to any requirement of this subpart.
(1) The Hg authorized account representative of a Hg Budget unit that is subject to an Acid Rain emissions limitation may submit a petition under § 75.66 of this chapter to the permitting authority and the Administrator requesting approval to apply an alternative to a requirement concerning any additional CEMS required under the common stack provisions of § 75.82 of this chapter or a Hg emission rate (or Hg-diluent) monitoring system, a Hg concentration monitoring system, or a carbon canister monitoring system, as applicable, used under § 75.81 of this chapter.
(2) Application of an alternative to any requirement of this subpart is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that the petition is approved by both the permitting authority and the Administrator.
The owner or operator of a Hg Budget unit that monitors and reports Hg mass emissions using a Hg concentration system and a flow system shall also monitor and report heat input rate at the unit level using the procedures set forth in part 75 of this chapter.
1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651,
2. Section 72.2 is amended in the definition of “Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS” by revising the introductory text and adding paragraphs (7) and (8); and by adding, in alphabetical order, a new definition for “sorbent trap monitoring system”, to read as follows:
(7) A mercury (Hg) emission rate (or Hg-diluent) monitoring system, consisting of a Hg pollutant concentration monitor, a diluent gas (CO
(8) A Hg concentration monitoring system, consisting of a Hg pollutant concentration monitor and an automated DAHS. A Hg concentration monitoring system provides a permanent, continuous record of Hg emissions in units of micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm).
3. The authority citation for Part 75 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7601, 7651k, and 7651k note.
4. Section 75.2 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) The provisions of this part apply to sources subject to a State or Federal mercury (Hg) mass emission reduction program, to the extent that these provisions are adopted as requirements under such a program.
5. Section 75.10 is amended by revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(1) and revising the first two sentences of paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * * The owner or operator shall reduce all SO
(3) Failure of an SO
6. Section 75.15 is added to read as follows:
For an affected coal-fired unit under a State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the provisions of subpart I of this part, if the owner or operator elects to use sorbent trap monitoring systems (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) to quantify Hg mass emissions:
(a) For sorbent trap monitoring system (whether primary or redundant backup), the use of paired sorbent traps, as described in Method 324 in appendix B to part 63 of this chapter, is required;
(b) Each sorbent trap shall have both a main portion and a backup portion;
(c) A certified flow monitoring system is required;
(d) Correction for stack gas moisture content is required, and in some cases, a certified O
(e) Each sorbent trap monitoring system shall be installed and operated in accordance with EPA Method 324. The Hg sampling shall be proportional to the stack gas volumetric flow rate. Use an intermediate sampling rate of 0.3 to 0.5 liters per minute through each sorbent trap when the unit is operating at the normal (
(f) At the beginning and end of each sample collection period, record the dry gas meter readings, for the purposes of determining the total volume of dry gas sampled during the collection period.
(g) After each sample collection period, the mass of Hg adsorbed in each sorbent trap (both the main and backup portions) shall be determined according to Method 324.
(h) The hourly Hg mass emissions for each collection period are determined using the results of the Method 324 analyses in conjunction with contemporaneous data recorded by the stack flow monitor. For each pair of sorbent traps analyzed, the higher of the two Hg concentrations shall be used for reporting purposes under § 75.84(f).
(i) All unit operating hours for which valid Hg concentration data are obtained with the primary sorbent trap monitoring system (as verified using the quality assurance procedures in section 8.3 of Method 324) shall be reported in the electronic quarterly report under § 75.84(f). For hours in which data from the primary monitoring system are invalid, the owner or operator may report valid Hg concentration data from a certified redundant backup monitoring system or from the applicable reference method under § 75.22. If no quality-assured Hg concentration are available for a particular hour, the owner or operator shall report the appropriate substitute data value in accordance with § 75.39.
(j) Initial certification requirements and additional quality-assurance requirements for the sorbent trap monitoring systems are found in § 75.20(c)(9), in section 6.5.7 of appendix A to this part and in sections 1.5 and 2.3 of appendix B to this part.
7. Section 75.20 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(i);
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
d. Redesignating existing paragraphs (c)(9) and (c)(10) as paragraphs (c)(10) and (c)(11), respectively;
e. Adding a new paragraph (c)(9); and
f. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(v).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Until such time, date, and hour as the continuous emission monitoring system can be adjusted, repaired, or replaced and certification tests successfully completed (or, if the conditional data validation procedures in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(ix) of this section are used, until a probationary calibration error test is passed following corrective actions in accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section), the owner or operator shall substitute the following values, as applicable, for each hour of unit operation during the period of invalid data specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section or in § 75.21: The maximum potential concentration of SO
(b)
(c) * * *
(1) For each SO
(i) A 7-day calibration error test, where, for the NO
(ii) A linearity check, where, for the NO
(iii) A relative accuracy test audit. For the NO
(iv) A bias test;
(v) A cycle time test; and
(vi) For Hg monitors only, a 3-point check of the converter, using HgCl
(9) For each sorbent trap monitoring system, perform a RATA, on a μg/dscm basis, and a bias test.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) For each parameter monitored (
8. Section 75.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) The owner or operator shall perform quality assurance upon a reference method backup monitoring system according to the requirements of method 2, 6C, 7E, or 3A in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter (supplemented, as necessary, by guidance from the Administrator), or the Ontario Hydro method, as applicable, instead of the procedures specified in appendix B of this part.
9. Section 75.22 is amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(5) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(7) ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound, and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (also known as the Ontario Hydro Method) is the reference method for determining Hg concentration.
(b) * * *
(5) ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound, and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
10. Section 75.24 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) When the bias test indicates that an SO
11. Section 75.31 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) During the first 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours following initial certification of the required SO
(b)
(1) Whenever prior quality-assured data exist, the owner or operator shall substitute, by means of the data acquisition and handling system, for each hour of missing data, the average of the hourly SO
(2) Whenever no prior quality assured SO
12. Section 75.32 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
(a) Following initial certification of the required SO
13. Table 1 in section 75.33 is revised as follows:
14. Subpart D is further amended by adding two new sections, § 75.38 and § 75.39 to read as follows:
(a) Upon completion of 720 quality assured monitor operating hours using the initial missing data procedures of § 75.31(b), the owner or operator shall provide substitute data for Hg concentration or for Hg emission rate (as applicable), in accordance with the procedures in § 75.33(b)(1) through (b)(4), except that the term “Hg concentration” or “Hg emission rate” shall apply rather than “SO
(b) For a unit equipped with a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system that significantly reduces the concentration of Hg emitted to the atmosphere (including circulating fluidized bed units that use limestone injection), or for a unit equipped with add-on Hg emission controls (
(c) For units with FGD systems or add-on Hg controls, when the percent monitor data availability is less than 90.0 percent, and a missing data period occurs, the owner or operator may petition to report the maximum controlled Hg concentration or emission rate in the previous 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours, consistent with § 75.34(a)(3).
(a) If a sorbent trap monitoring system has not been certified by the applicable compliance date specified under a State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of subpart I of this part, the owner or operator shall report the maximum potential Hg concentration, as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix A to this part, until the system is certified.
(b) For a certified sorbent trap system, a missing data period will occur whenever:
(1) A gas sample is not extracted from the stack (
(2) The results of the Hg analysis for either one (or both) of the paired sorbent traps are missing or invalid (as determined using the quality assurance procedures in section 8.3 of Method 324). The missing data period begins with the hour in which the paired sorbent traps for which the Hg analysis is missing or invalid were put into service. The missing data period ends at the first hour in which valid Hg concentration data are obtained with another pair of sorbent traps.
(c)
(d)
(1) If the percent monitor data availability (PMA) at the end of the missing data period is ≥ 95.0%, report the average Hg concentration for all valid sorbent trap analyses in the previous 12 months.
(2) If the PMA at the end of the missing data period is ≥90.0%, but
(3) If the PMA at the end of the missing data period is ≥ 80.0%, but <90.0%, report 1.5 times the highest Hg concentration obtained from all of the valid sorbent trap analyses in the previous 12 months.
(4) If the PMA at the end of the missing data period is <80.0%, report the maximum potential Hg concentration, as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix A to this part.
(5) For the purposes of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section, if fewer than 12 months have elapsed since initial certification, use whatever valid sorbent trap analyses are available to determine the appropriate substitute data values.
(e) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, if the unit has add-on Hg emission controls or is equipped with a flue gas desulfurization system that significantly reduces Hg emissions, the owner or operator shall report the maximum potential Hg concentration, as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix A to this part, for any hour(s) in the missing data period for which proper operation of the Hg emission controls or FGD system is not documented according to § 75.58(b)(3).
15. Section 75.53 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(i)(E);
b. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv) introductory text; and
c. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(x).
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Type(s) of emission controls for SO
(iv) Identification and description of each monitoring component (including each monitor and its identifiable components, such as analyzer and/or probe) in the CEMS (
(x) For each parameter monitored: scale, maximum potential concentration (and method of calculation), maximum expected concentration (if applicable) (and method of calculation), maximum potential flow rate (and method of calculation), maximum potential NO
16. Section 75.57 is amended by adding new paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:
(i)
(1) For Hg concentration during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified primary monitor, certified back-up monitor, or other approved method of emissions determination:
(i) Component-system identification code, as provided in § 75.53;
(ii) Date and hour;
(iii) Hourly average Hg concentration (μg/dscm, rounded to the nearest tenth);
(iv) For Hg concentration monitoring systems only, record the bias-adjusted hourly average Hg concentration (μg/dscm, rounded to the nearest tenth) if a bias adjustment factor is required, as provided in § 75.24(d);
(v) Method of determination for hourly average Hg concentration using Codes 1-55 in Table 4a of this section; and
(vi) For Hg concentration monitoring systems only, record the percent monitor data availability (to the nearest tenth of a percent), calculated pursuant to § 75.32.
(2) For flue gas moisture content during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified primary monitor, certified back-up monitor, or other approved method of emissions determination (except where a default moisture value is used in accordance with § 75.11(b), § 75.12(b), or approved under § 75.66):
(i) Component-system identification code, as provided in § 75.53;
(ii) Date and hour;
(iii) Hourly average moisture content of flue gas (percent, rounded to the nearest tenth). If the continuous moisture monitoring system consists of wet- and dry-basis oxygen analyzers, also record both the wet- and dry-basis oxygen hourly averages (in percent O
(iv) Percent monitor data availability (recorded to the nearest tenth of a percent) for the moisture monitoring system, calculated pursuant to § 75.32; and
(v) Method of determination for hourly average moisture percentage, using Codes 1-55 in Table 4a of this section.
(3) For diluent gas (O
(i) Component-system identification code, as provided in § 75.53;
(ii) Date and hour;
(iii) Hourly average diluent gas (O
(iv) Method of determination code for diluent gas (O
(v) If the diluent monitor is used only for heat input rate determination, record the percent monitor data availability (to the nearest tenth of a percent) for the O
(4) For stack gas volumetric flow rate during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified primary monitor, certified back-up monitor, or other approved method of emissions determination, record the information required under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vi) of this section.
(5) For Hg emission rate during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified primary Hg-diluent monitoring system, certified back-up monitoring system, or other approved method of emissions determination:
(i) Monitoring system identification code, as provided in § 75.53;
(ii) Date and hour;
(iii) Hourly average Hg emission rate (in units of lb/10
(iv) Hourly average Hg emission rate (in units of lb/10
(v) Percent monitor data availability (recorded to the nearest tenth of a percent), calculated pursuant to § 75.32;
(vi) Method of determination for hourly average Hg emission rate, using Codes 1-55 in Table 4a of this section;
(vii) Identification codes for emissions formulas used to derive hourly average Hg emission rate and total Hg mass emissions, as provided in § 75.53; and
(viii) The F-factor used to convert Hg concentrations into emission rates.
(6) For Hg mass emissions during unit operation, as measured and reported from the certified primary monitoring system(s), certified redundant or non-redundant back-up monitoring system(s), or other approved method(s) of emissions determination:
(i) Date and hour;
(ii) Hourly Hg mass emissions (ounces, rounded to one decimal place);
(iii) Hourly Hg mass emissions (ounces, rounded to one decimal place), adjusted for bias if a bias adjustment factor is required, as provided in § 75.24(d); and
(iv) Identification code for emissions formula used to derive hourly Hg mass emissions from Hg concentration, flow rate and moisture data, as provided in § 75.53.
(j)
(1) For Hg concentration during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified primary monitor, certified back-up monitor, or other approved method of emissions determination:
(i) Component-system identification code, as provided in § 75.53;
(ii) Date and hour;
(iii) Hourly average Hg concentration (μg/dscm, rounded to the nearest tenth);
(iv) The bias-adjusted hourly average Hg concentration (μg/dscm, rounded to the nearest tenth) if a bias adjustment factor is required, as provided in § 75.24(d);
(v) Method of determination for hourly average Hg concentration using Codes 1-55 in Table 4a of this section; and
(vi) Percent monitor data availability (recorded to the nearest tenth of a percent), calculated pursuant to § 75.32;
(2) For flue gas moisture content during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified primary monitor, certified back-up monitor, or other approved method of emissions determination (except where a default moisture value is used in accordance with § 75.11(b), § 75.12(b), or approved under § 75.66):
(i) Component-system identification code, as provided in § 75.53;
(ii) Date and hour;
(iii) Hourly average moisture content of flue gas (percent, rounded to the nearest tenth). If the continuous moisture monitoring system consists of wet- and dry-basis oxygen analyzers, also record both the wet- and dry-basis oxygen hourly averages (in percent O
(iv) Percent monitor data availability (recorded to the nearest tenth of a percent) for the moisture monitoring system, calculated pursuant to § 75.32; and
(v) Method of determination for hourly average moisture percentage, using Codes 1-55 in Table 4a of this section.
(3) For diluent gas (O
(4) For stack gas volumetric flow rate during unit operation, as measured and reported from each certified primary monitor, certified back-up monitor, or other approved method of emissions determination, record the information required under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vi) of this section.
(5) For Hg mass emissions during unit operation, as measured and reported from the certified primary monitoring system(s), certified redundant or non-redundant back-up monitoring system(s), or other approved method(s) of emissions determination, record the information required under paragraph (i)(6) of this section.
(6) Record the average flow rate of stack gas through each sorbent trap (in liters per minute, rounded to the nearest tenth), and the unit or stack operating level (
17. Section 75.58 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(3)(i), and (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) Except as otherwise provided in § 75.34(d), for units with add-on SO
(i) Parametric data which demonstrate, for each hour of missing SO
(ii) A flag indicating, for each hour of missing SO
18. Section 75.59 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3),(a)(5), (a)(5)(ii), (a)(6), and (a)(9);
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(7)(vii) and (a)(14);
c. Revising paragraph (a)(9)(vi); and
d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) For each SO
(3) For each SO
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(5) For each SO
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(5) For each SO
(ii) Individual test run data from the relative accuracy test audit for the SO
(6) For each SO
(7) * * *
(vii) For each RATA run using the Ontario Hydro method to determine Hg concentration:
(A) Percent CO
(B) Moisture content of the stack gas (percent H
(C) Average stack temperature (°F);
(D) Dry gas volume metered (dscm);
(E) Percent isokinetic;
(F) Particle-bound Hg collected by the filter, blank, and probe rinse (μg);
(G) Oxidized Hg collected by the KCl impingers (μg)
(H) Elemental Hg collected in the HNO
(I) Total Hg, including particle-bound Hg (μg); and
(J) Total Hg, excluding particle-bound Hg (μg)
(9) When hardcopy relative accuracy test reports, certification reports, recertification reports, or semiannual or annual reports for gas or flow rate CEMS, Hg CEMS, or sorbent trap monitoring systems are required or requested under § 75.60(b)(6) or § 75.63, the reports shall include, at a minimum, the following elements (as applicable to the type(s) of test(s) performed:
(vi) Laboratory calibrations of the source sampling equipment. For sorbent trap monitoring systems, the laboratory analyses of all sorbent traps, and information documenting the results of all Method 324 leak checks and other quality control procedures.
(14) For the sorbent traps used in sorbent trap monitoring systems to quantify Hg concentration under subpart I of this part (including sorbent traps used for relative accuracy testing), the owner or operator shall keep records of the following:
(i) The ID number of the monitoring system in which each sorbent trap was used to collect Hg;
(ii) The unique identification number of each sorbent trap;
(iii) The beginning and ending dates and hours of the data collection period for each sorbent trap;
(iv) The average Hg concentration (in μg/dscm) for the data collection period;
(v) Information documenting the results of the required Method 324 leak checks;
(vi) The Method 324 laboratory analysis of the Hg collected by each sorbent trap; and
(vii) Information documenting the results of the applicable quality control procedures in section 8.3 of Method 324.
(c) For units with add-on SO
19. Part 75 is amended by adding Subpart I to read as follows:
(a)
(1) For purposes of this subpart, the term “affected unit” shall mean any coal-fired unit (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) that is subject to a State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program requiring compliance with this subpart. The term “non-affected unit” shall mean any unit that is not subject to such a program, the term “permitting authority” shall mean the permitting authority under an applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart, and the term “designated representative” shall mean the responsible party under the applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart.
(2) In addition, the provisions of subparts A, C, D, E, F, and G and appendices A through G of this part applicable to Hg concentration, flow rate, Hg emission rate and heat input, as set forth and referenced in this subpart, shall apply to the owner or operator of a unit required to meet the requirements of this subpart by a State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program. The requirements of this part for SO
(b)
(c)
(1) No owner or operator of an affected unit or a non-affected unit under § 75.82(b)(2)(ii) shall use any alternative monitoring system, alternative reference method, or any other alternative for the required continuous emission monitoring system without having obtained prior written approval in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section.
(2) No owner or operator of an affected unit or a non-affected unit under § 75.82(b)(2)(ii) shall operate the unit so as to discharge, or allow to be discharged emissions of Hg to the atmosphere without accounting for all such emissions in accordance with the applicable provisions of this part.
(3) No owner or operator of an affected unit or a non-affected unit under § 75.82(b)(2)(ii) shall disrupt the continuous emission monitoring system, any portion thereof, or any other approved emission monitoring method, and thereby avoid monitoring and recording Hg mass emissions discharged into the atmosphere, except for periods of recertification or periods when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is performed in accordance with the provisions of this part applicable to monitoring systems under § 75.81.
(4) No owner or operator of an affected unit or a non-affected unit under § 75.82(b)(2)(ii) shall retire or permanently discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system, any component thereof, or any other approved emission monitoring system under this part, except under any one of the following circumstances:
(i) During the period that the unit is covered by a retired unit exemption that is in effect under the State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart; or
(ii) The owner or operator is monitoring Hg mass emissions from the affected unit with another certified monitoring system approved, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section; or
(iii) The designated representative submits notification of the date of certification testing of a replacement monitoring system in accordance with § 75.61.
(d)
(1) The owner or operator of an affected unit that is subject to the Acid Rain Program or to a State or Federal NO
(2) The owner or operator of an affected unit that is not subject to the Acid Rain Program or to a State or Federal NO
(e)
(f)
(1) For an owner or operator using continuous emissions monitoring systems, substitute for missing data in accordance with the applicable missing data procedures in ‘75.31 through § 75.38 whenever the unit combusts fuel and:
(i) A valid, quality-assured hour of Hg emission rate data (in lb/10
(ii) A valid, quality-assured hour of flow rate data (in scfh) has not been measured and recorded for a unit either by a certified flow monitor, by an appropriate EPA reference method under § 75.22, or by an approved alternative monitoring system under subpart E of this part; or
(iii) A valid, quality-assured hour of heat input rate data (in mmBtu/hr) has not been measured and recorded for a unit, either by certified flow rate and diluent (CO
(iv) A valid, quality-assured hour of Hg concentration data (in micrograms per dry standard cubic meter) has not been measured and recorded, either by a certified Hg concentration monitoring system, by an appropriate EPA reference method under § 75.22, or by an approved alternative monitoring method under subpart E of this part, where the owner or operator chooses to use a Hg concentration monitoring system with a flow monitor to calculate Hg mass emissions; or
(v) A valid, quality-assured hour of moisture data (in percent H
(2) For an owner or operator using a sorbent trap monitoring system to quantify Hg mass emissions, substitute for missing data in accordance with the missing data procedures in § 75.39.
(g)
(1) If Hg mass emissions are determined from the Hg emission rate and the heat input rate, report the maximum potential Hg emission rate (as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix A to this part), the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part, and, for heat input rate determinations, the maximum potential CO
(2) If Hg mass emissions are determined using a Hg concentration monitoring system or a sorbent trap monitoring system and a flow monitoring system, report the maximum potential concentration of Hg as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix A to this part and the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part;
(3) For any unit, report data from the reference methods under § 75.22.
(4) For any unit using the procedures in paragraph (g)(2) of this section that is required to report heat input for purposes of allocating allowances, report the maximum potential flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part, the maximum potential CO
(h)
(1) The designated representative of an affected unit that is also subject to the Acid Rain Program may submit a petition to the Administrator requesting an alternative to any requirement of this subpart. Such a petition shall meet the requirements of § 75.66 and any additional requirements established by the applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart. Use of an alternative to any requirement of this subpart is in accordance with this subpart and with such State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program only to the extent that the petition is approved by the Administrator, in consultation with the permitting authority.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (h)(1) of this section, petitions requesting an alternative to a requirement concerning any additional CEMS required solely to meet the common stack provisions of § 75.82 shall be submitted to the permitting authority and the Administrator and shall be governed by paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Such a petition shall meet the requirements of § 75.66 and any additional requirements established by an applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart.
(3) The designated representative of an affected unit that is not subject to the Acid Rain Program may submit a petition to the permitting authority and the Administrator requesting an alternative to any requirement of this subpart. Such a petition shall meet the requirements of § 75.66 and any additional requirements established by the applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart. Use of an alternative to any requirement of this subpart is in accordance with this subpart only to the extent that it is approved by the Administrator and by the permitting authority.
The owner or operator of the affected coal-fired unit shall either:
(a) Meet the general operating requirements in § 75.10 for the following continuous emission monitors (except as provided in accordance with subpart E of this part):
(1) A Hg-diluent continuous emission monitoring system (consisting of a Hg pollutant concentration monitor, an O
(2) A flow rate monitoring system; and
(3) An O
(4) A continuous moisture monitoring system, as described in § 75.11(b) or § 75.12(b). Alternatively, the owner or operator may use the appropriate fuel-specific default moisture value provided in § 75.11 or § 75.12, or a site-specific moisture value approved by petition under § 75.66; or
(b) Meet the general operating requirements in § 75.10 for the following continuous emission monitors (except as provided in accordance with subpart E of this part):
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(1) A Hg concentration monitoring system (consisting of a Hg pollutant concentration monitor and a n automated data acquisition and handling system) or, for affected units that qualify, a sorbent trap monitoring system (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) to measure Hg concentration. The use of sorbent trap monitoring systems is restricted to affected units with estimated average Hg mass emissions of 144 ounces (9 lbs) or less for the same three calendar years that are used to allocate the Hg allowances; and
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(1) A Hg concentration monitoring system (consisting of a Hg pollutant concentration monitor and a n automated data acquisition and handling system) or, for affected units that qualify, a sorbent trap monitoring system (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) to measure Hg concentration; and
(2) A flow rate monitoring system; and
(3) A continuous moisture monitoring system, as described in § 75.11(b) or § 75.12(b). Alternatively, the owner or operator may use the appropriate fuel-specific default moisture value provided in § 75.11 or § 75.12, or a site-specific moisture value approved by petition under § 75.66; and
(4) If heat input is required to be reported under the applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart, the owner or operator also must meet the general operating requirements for a flow monitoring system and an O
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or operator shall quantify mercury mass emissions using either a mercury concentration CEMS or a
(a)
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) at the common stack, record the combined Hg mass emissions for the units exhausting to the common stack, and, where unit heat input rate determination is required, determine the hourly unit heat input rates by either:
(i) Apportioning the common stack heat input rate to the individual units according to the procedures in § 75.16(e)(3); or
(ii) Installing, certifying, operating, and maintaining a flow monitoring system and diluent monitor in the duct to the common stack from each unit; or
(2) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) in the duct to the common stack from each unit.
(b)
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) in the duct to the common stack from each affected unit; or
(2) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) in the common stack; and
(i) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) in the common stack and in the duct to the common stack from each non-affected unit. The designated representative shall submit a petition to the permitting authority and the Administrator to allow a method of calculating and reporting the Hg mass emissions from the affected units as the difference between Hg mass emissions measured in the common stack and Hg mass emissions measured in the ducts of the non-affected units, not to be reported as an hourly value less than zero. The permitting authority and the Administrator may approve such a method whenever the designated representative demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the permitting authority and the Administrator, that the method ensures that the Hg mass emissions from the affected units are not underestimated; or
(ii) Count the combined emissions measured at the common stack as the Hg mass emissions for the affected units, for recordkeeping and compliance purposes, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; or
(iii) Submit a petition to the permitting authority and the Administrator to allow use of a method for apportioning Hg mass emissions measured in the common stack to each of the units using the common stack and for reporting the Hg mass emissions. The permitting authority and the Administrator may approve such a method whenever the designated representative demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the permitting authority and the Administrator, that the method ensures that the Hg mass emissions from the affected units are not underestimated.
(c)
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) on both the main stack and the bypass stack and calculate Hg mass emissions for the unit as the sum of the Hg mass emissions measured at the two stacks;
(2) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) at the main stack and measure Hg mass emissions at the bypass stack using the appropriate reference methods in § 75.22(b). Calculate Hg mass emissions for the unit as the sum of the emissions recorded by the installed monitoring systems on the main stack and the emissions measured by the reference method monitoring systems; or
(3) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) only on the main stack. If this option is chosen, it is not necessary to designate the exhaust configuration as a multiple stack configuration in the monitoring plan required under § 75.53, since only the main stack is monitored. For each unit operating hour in which the bypass stack is used, report, as applicable, the maximum potential Hg emission rate (as defined in section 2.1.7 of appendix A to this part), and the appropriate substitute data values for flow rate, CO
(d)
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) in each of the multiple stacks and determine Hg mass emissions from the affected unit as the sum of the Hg mass emissions recorded for each stack. If another unit also exhausts flue gases into one of the monitored stacks, the owner or operator shall comply with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in order to properly determine the Hg mass emissions from the units using that stack; or
(2) Install, certify, operate, and maintain the monitoring systems described in § 75.81(a) or § 75.81(b) in each of the ducts that feed into the stack, and determine Hg mass emissions from the affected unit using the sum of the Hg mass emissions measured at each duct, except that where another unit also exhausts flue gases to one or more of the stacks, the owner or operator shall also comply with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to determine and record Hg mass emissions from the units using that stack.
The owner or operator shall calculate Hg mass emissions and heat input rate in accordance with the procedures in sections 9.1 through 9.3 of appendix F to this part.
(a)
(1) The information required in §§ 75.57(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (b), (c)(2), (g) (if applicable), (h), and (i) or (j) (as applicable). For the information in § 75.57(a)(2), replace the phrase “the deadline in § 75.4(a), (b) or (c)” with the phrase “the applicable certification deadline under the State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program”;
(2) The information required in § 75.58(b)(3), for units with flue gas desulfurization systems or add-on Hg emission controls;
(3) For affected units using Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring systems, for each hour when the unit is operating, record the Hg mass emissions, calculated in accordance with section 9 of appendix F to this part.
(4) Heat input and Hg methodologies for the hour; and
(5) Formulas from monitoring plan for total Hg mass emissions and heat input rate (if applicable);
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(1) The designated representative for an affected unit shall comply with all reporting requirements in this section and with any additional requirements set forth in an applicable State or Federal Hg mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart.
(2) The designated representative for an affected unit shall submit the following for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.82(b)(2)(ii):
(i) Initial certification and recertification applications in accordance with § 75.80(d);
(ii) Monitoring plans in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section; and
(iii) Quarterly reports in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Other petitions and communications. The designated representative for an affected unit shall submit petitions, correspondence, application forms, and petition-related test results in accordance with the provisions in § 75.80(h).
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(4)
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(4)
(5)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(f)
(1)
(i) The facility information in § 75.64(a)(1); and
(ii) The information and hourly data required in paragraph (a) of this section, except for:
(A) Descriptions of adjustments, corrective action, and maintenance;
(B) Information which is incompatible with electronic reporting (
(C) For units with flue gas desulfurization systems or with add-on Hg emission controls, the information in § 75.58(b)(3);
(D) Information required by § 75.57(h) concerning the causes of any missing data periods and the actions taken to cure such causes;
(E) Hardcopy monitoring plan information required by § 75.53 and hardcopy test data and results required by § 75.59;
(F) Records of flow polynomial equations and numerical values required by § 75.59(a)(5)(vi);
(G) Stratification test results required as part of the RATA supplementary records under § 75.59(a)(7);
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(H) Data and results of RATAs that are aborted or invalidated due to problems with the reference method or operational problems with the unit and data and results of linearity checks that are aborted or invalidated due to operational problems with the unit; and
(I) Supplementary RATA information required under § 75.59(a)(7)(i) through § 75.59(a)(14), as applicable, except that: The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) and the data under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through (M) shall, as applicable, be reported for flow RATAs in which angular compensation (measurement of pitch and/or yaw angles) is used and for flow RATAs in which a site-specific wall effects adjustment factor is determined by direct measurement; and the data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T) shall be reported for all flow RATAs in which a default wall effects adjustment factor is applied; and
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(H) Data and results of RATAs (or RAAs) that are aborted or invalidated due to problems with the reference method or operational problems with the unit and data and results of linearity checks that are aborted or invalidated due to operational problems with the unit; and
(I) Supplementary RATA (or RAA) information required under § 75.59(a)(7)(i) through § 75.59(a)(14), as applicable, except that: The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) and the data under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through (M) shall, as applicable, be reported for flow RATAs in which angular compensation (measurement of pitch and/or yaw angles) is used and for flow RATAs in which a site-specific wall effects adjustment factor is determined by direct measurement; and the data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T) shall be reported for all flow RATAs in which a default wall effects adjustment factor is applied; and
(iii) If a Hg-diluent monitoring system is used to quantify Hg mass emissions, the average Hg emission rate during the quarter (lb/10
(iv) Ounces of Hg emitted during quarter and cumulative ounces of Hg emitted in the year-to-date (rounded to the nearest tenth); and
(v) Unit or stack operating hours for quarter, cumulative unit or stack operating hours for year-to-date; and
(vi) Reporting period heat input (if applicable) and cumulative, year-to-date heat input.
(2)
(i) The designated representative shall certify that the monitoring plan information in each quarterly electronic report (
(ii) The designated representative shall submit and sign a compliance certification in support of each quarterly emissions monitoring report based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the unit's emissions are correctly and fully monitored. The certification shall state that:
(
(
(3)
20. Appendix A to 40 CFR part 75 is amended by revising the title of section 1.1 and revising the second sentence of section 1.1 introductory text to read as follows:
* * * Select a representative measurement point or path for the monitor probe(s) (or for the path from the transmitter to the receiver) such that the SO
21. Appendix A to part 75 is further amended by adding new sections 2.1.7 through 2.1.7.4 and 2.2.3 to read as follows:
Determine the appropriate span and range value(s) for each Hg pollutant concentration monitor, so that all expected Hg concentrations can be determined accurately.
(a) The maximum potential concentration depends upon the type of coal combusted in the unit. For the initial MPC determination, there are three options:
(1) Use one of the following default values: 9 μg/dscm for bituminous coal; 10 μg/dscm for sub-bituminous coal; 16 μg/dscm for lignite, and 1 μg/dscm for waste coal,
(2) You may base the MPC on the results of site-specific emission testing using the Ontario Hydro method, if the unit does not have add-on Hg emission controls or a flue gas desulfurization system, or if you test upstream of these control devices. A minimum of 3 test runs, two hours (or more) in duration, are required, at the normal operating load. Use the highest total Hg concentration obtained in any of the tests as the MPC; or
(3) You may base the MPC on 720 or more hours of historical CEMS data, if the unit does not have add-on Hg emission controls or a flue gas desulfurization system (or if the CEMS is located upstream of these control
(b) If a Hg-diluent monitoring system is used to quantify Hg mass emissions, calculate (for purposes of missing data substitution) the maximum potential Hg emission rate (MER), in lb/10
(c) For the purposes of missing data substitution, the fuel-specific or site-specific MPC values defined in paragraph (a) of this section apply to units using sorbent trap monitoring systems.
For units with FGD systems that significantly reduce Hg emissions (including fluidized bed units that use limestone injection) and for units equipped with add-on Hg emission controls (
(a) For each Hg monitor, determine a high span value, by rounding the MPC value from section 2.1.7.1 of this appendix upward to the next highest multiple of 10 μg/dscm.
(b) For an affected unit equipped with an FGD system or a unit with add-on Hg emission controls, if the MEC value from section 2.1.7.2 of this appendix is less than 20 percent of the high span value from paragraph (a) of this section, and if the high span value is 20 μg/dscm or greater, define a second, low span value of 10 μg/dscm.
(c) If only a high span value is required, set the full-scale range of the Hg analyzer to be greater than or equal to the span value.
(d) If two span values are required, you may either:
(1) Use two separate (high and low) measurement scales, setting the range of each scale to be greater than or equal to the high or low span value, as appropriate; or
(2) Quality-assure two segments of a single measurement scale.
For each affected unit or common stack, the owner or operator shall make a periodic evaluation of the MPC, MEC, span, and range values for each Hg monitor (at a minimum, an annual evaluation is required) and shall make any necessary span and range adjustments, with corresponding monitoring plan updates. Span and range adjustments may be required, for example, as a result of changes in the fuel supply, changes in the manner of operation of the unit, or installation or removal of emission controls. In implementing the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, data recorded during short-term, non-representative process operating conditions (
(a) The guidelines of section 2.1 of this appendix do not apply to Hg monitoring systems.
(b) Whenever a full-scale range exceedance occurs during a quarter and is not caused by a monitor out-of-control period, proceed as follows:
(1) For monitors with a single measurement scale, report 200 percent of the full-scale range as the hourly Hg concentration until the readings come back on-scale and if appropriate, make adjustments to the MPC, span, and range to prevent future full-scale exceedances; or
(2) For units with two separate measurement scales, if the low range is exceeded, no further action is required, provided that the high range is available and is not out-of-control or out-of-service for any reason. However, if the high range is not able to provide quality assured data at the time of the low range exceedance or at any time during the continuation of the exceedance, report the MPC until the readings return to the low range or until the high range is able to provide quality assured data (unless the reason that the high-scale range is not able to provide quality assured data is because the high-scale range has been exceeded; if the high-scale range is exceeded follow the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this section).
(c) Whenever changes are made to the MPC, MEC, full-scale range, or span value of the Hg monitor, record and report (as applicable) the new full-scale range setting, the new MPC or MEC and calculations of the adjusted span value in an updated monitoring plan. The monitoring plan update shall be made in the quarter in which the changes become effective. In addition, record and report the adjusted span as part of the records for the daily calibration error test and linearity check specified by appendix B to this part. Whenever the span value is adjusted, use calibration gas concentrations that meet the requirements of section 5.1 of this appendix, based on the adjusted span value. When a span adjustment is so significant that the calibration gases currently being used for daily calibration error tests and linearity checks are unsuitable for use with the new span value, then a diagnostic linearity test using the new calibration gases must be performed and passed. Use the data validation procedures in § 75.20(b)(3), beginning with the hour in which the span is changed.
Design and equip each mercury monitor to permit the introduction of known concentrations of elemental Hg and HgCl
22. Appendix A to part 75 is further amended by:
a. Adding a new paragraph (c) to section 3.1;
b. Revising section 3.2; and
c. Adding new sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.3.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) The calibration error of a Hg concentration monitor shall not deviate from the reference value of either the zero or upscale calibration gas by more than 5.0 percent of the span value, as calculated using Equation A-5 of this appendix. Alternatively, if the span value is 10 μg/dscm, the calibration error test results are also acceptable if the absolute value of the difference between the monitor response value and the reference value, | R−A | in Equation A-5 of this appendix, is ≤1.0 μg/dscm.
(a) For SO
(b) For CO
(1) The error in linearity for each calibration gas concentration (low-, mid-, and high-levels) shall not exceed or deviate from the reference value by more than 5.0 percent as calculated using equation A-4 of this appendix; or
(2) The absolute value of the difference between the average of the monitor response values and the average of the reference values, | R−A | in equation A-4 of this appendix, shall be less than or equal to 0.5
(c) For Hg monitors:
(1) The error in linearity for each calibration gas concentration (low-, mid-, and high-levels) shall not exceed or deviate from the reference value by more than 10.0 percent as calculated using equation A-4 of this appendix; or
(2) The absolute value of the difference between the average of the monitor response values and the average of the reference values, | R-A | in equation A-4 of this appendix, shall be less than or equal to 1.0 μg/dscm, whichever is less restrictive.
(3) For the converter check required under § 75.20(c)(1)(vi), the measurement error shall not exceed 5.0 percent of the span value at any of the three gas levels.
[For Alternative #1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(a) The relative accuracy of a Hg concentration monitoring system or a sorbent trap monitoring system shall not exceed 20.0 percent. Alternatively, for affected units where the average of the reference method measurements of Hg concentration during the relative accuracy test audit is less than 5.0 μg/dscm, the test results are acceptable if the difference between the mean value of the monitor measurements and the reference method mean value does not exceed 1.0 μg/dscm, in cases where the relative accuracy specification of 20.0 percent is not achieved.
[For Alternative #2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(a) The relative accuracy of a Hg concentration monitoring system or a sorbent trap monitoring system shall not exceed 20.0 percent. Alternatively, for affected units where the average of the reference method measurements of Hg concentration during the relative accuracy test audit is less than 5.0 μg/dscm, the test results are acceptable if the difference between the mean value of the monitor measurements and the reference method mean value does not exceed 1.0 μg/dscm, in cases where the relative accuracy specification of 20.0 percent is not achieved. For sorbent trap monitoring systems, these specifications apply both to RATAs and to RAAs.
(b) The relative accuracy of a Hg-diluent continuous emission monitoring systems shall not exceed 20.0 percent. Alternatively, for affected units where the average of the reference method measurements of Hg emission rate during the relative accuracy test audit is less than 5.5 lb/10
Hg concentration monitoring systems, Hg-diluent monitoring systems, and sorbent trap monitoring systems shall not be biased low as determined by the test procedure in section 7.6 of this appendix.
23. Appendix A to part 75 is further amended by revising the second sentence in the first paragraph of the introductory text of section 4 and revising the second paragraph of the introductory text of section 4 to read as follows:
* * * These systems also shall have the capability of interpreting and converting the individual output signals from an SO
Data acquisition and handling systems shall also compute and record monitor calibration error; any bias adjustments to SO
24. Appendix A to part 75 is further amended by adding new section 5.1.9 to read as follows:
For calibration error tests and linearity checks of Hg pollutant concentration monitors, elemental mercury standards shall be used. For the converter checks required under § 75.20(c)(1)(vi) and section 2.6 of appendix B to this part, HgCl
25. Appendix A to part 75 is further amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of the introductory text to section 6.2 ;
b. Adding new paragraph (g) to section 6.2;
c. Revising the second sentence of section 6.3.1;
d. Revising the fifteenth sentence (by replacing the words “SO
e. Revising the first sentence of section 6.5;
f. Revising the first sentence of section 6.5(a) and adding a new third sentence;
g. Revising the second sentence of section 6.5(c);
h. Revising section 6.5(g);
i. Revising section 6.5.1(a);
j. Revising section 6.5.1(b);
k. Adding new paragraph (c) to section 6.5.6;
l. Revising the first sentence and adding two sentences at the end of section 6.5.7(a); and
m. Revising sections 6.5.7(b) and 6.5.10.
The revisions read as follows:
Check the linearity of each SO
(g) For Hg monitors, follow the guidelines in section 2.2.3 of this appendix in addition to the applicable procedures in this section 6.2 when conducting linearity checks using elemental mercury calibration standards and when performing the converter checks required under § 75.20(c)(1)(vi) using HgCl
* * * In all other cases, measure the calibration error of each SO
* * * For the NO
Perform the required relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) as follows for each CO
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph or in § 75.21(a)(5), perform each RATA while the unit (or units, if more than one unit exhausts into the flue) is combusting the fuel that is a normal primary or backup fuel for that unit (for some units, more than one type of fuel may be considered normal,
(c) * * * For units with add-on SO
(g) For each SO
(a) Perform the required relative accuracy test audits for each SO
(b) For the initial certification of a gas or Hg monitoring system and for recertifications in which, in addition to a RATA, one or more other tests are required (
(c) For Hg monitoring systems, use the same traverse points that are used for the gas monitor RATAs.
(a) Conduct the reference method tests so they will yield results representative of the pollutant concentration, emission rate, moisture, temperature, and flue gas flow rate from the unit and can be correlated with the pollutant concentration monitor, CO
(b) To properly correlate individual SO
The following methods from appendix A to part 60 of this chapter or their approved alternatives are the reference methods for performing relative accuracy test audits: Method 1 or 1A for siting; Method 2 or its allowable alternatives in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter (except for Methods 2B and 2E) for stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate; Methods 3, 3A, or 3B for O
26. Appendix A to part 75 is further amended by:
a. Revising the title of section 7.3 and the first sentence of the introductory text of section 7.3;
b. Revising the introductory text of section 7.6;
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) of section 7.6.5 and adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b); and
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) of section 7.6.5 and adding two new sentences at the end of paragraph (b); and
d. Revising paragraph (f) in section 7.6.5.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Analyze the relative accuracy test audit data from the reference method tests for SO
Test the following relative accuracy test audit data sets for bias: SO
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(b) For single-load RATAs of SO
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
(b) For single-load RATAs of SO
(f) Use the bias-adjusted values in computing substitution values in the missing data procedure, as specified in subpart D of this part, and in reporting the concentration of SO
27. Appendix B to part 75 is amended by adding sections 1.5 through 1.5.6 to read as follows:
Include procedures for inscribing or otherwise permanently marking a unique identification number on each sorbent trap, for tracking purposes. Keep records of the ID of the monitoring system in which each sorbent trap is used, and the dates and hours of each Hg collection period.
Explain the procedures used to perform the leak checks when a sorbent trap is placed in service and removed from service. These procedures must be consistent with Method 324, Determination of Vapor-Phase Flue Gas Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources Using Dry Sorbent Trap Sampling. Also explain the other QA procedures used to ensure system integrity and data quality, including, but not limited to, dry gas meter calibrations, verification of moisture removal, and ensuring air-tight pump operation. In addition, the QA plan must include the data acceptance and quality control criteria in section 9.0 of Method 324.
Explain the chain of custody employed in transporting and analyzing the sorbent traps. Keep records of all Hg analyses. The analyses shall be performed in accordance with Method 324.
The QA Plan shall include documentation that the laboratory performing the Method 324 analyses on the carbon sorbent traps is certified by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to have a proficiency that meets the requirements of ISO 9000.
State, and provide the rationale for, the minimum acceptable data collection time for each sorbent trap. Include in the discussion such factors as the Hg concentration in the stack gas, the size and capacity of the sorbent traps, and the minimum mass of Hg required for the Method 324 analysis.
Keep records of the procedures and details peculiar to the sorbent trap monitoring systems that are to be followed for relative accuracy test audits, such as sampling and analysis methods.
28. Appendix B to part 75 is further amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence in section 2.1.1 introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.1.4;
c. Revising the first sentence of section 2.2.1;
d. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a) of section 2.3.1.1 and adding a new second sentence to paragraph (a);
e. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.3.1.3;
f. Revising paragraph (i) of section 2.3.2;
g. Revising section 2.3.4;
h. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b) of section 2.4;
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
i. Adding new section 2.6;
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
i. Adding new sections 2.6 and 2.7;
j. Revising Figure 1;
k. Revising Figure 2.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Except as provided in section 2.1.1.2 of this appendix, perform the daily calibration error test of each gas and Hg monitoring system (including moisture monitoring systems consisting of wet- and dry-basis O
(a) An out-of-control period occurs when the calibration error of an SO
Unless a particular monitor (or monitoring range) is exempted under this paragraph or under section 6.2 of appendix A to this part, perform a linearity check, in accordance with the procedures in section 6.2 of appendix A to this part, for each primary and redundant backup SO
(a) Except for Hg monitoring systems and as otherwise specified in § 75.21(a)(6) or (a)(7) or in section 2.3.1.2 of this appendix, perform relative accuracy test audits semiannually,
(a) For SO
(i) Each time that a hands-off RATA of an SO
Except as otherwise specified in section 7.6.5 of appendix A to this part, if an SO
(b) Except as provided in section 2.3.3 of this appendix, whenever a passing RATA of a gas monitor or Hg monitoring system is performed, or a passing 2-load (or 2-level) RATA or a passing 3-load (or 3-level) RATA of a flow monitor is performed (irrespective of whether the RATA is done to satisfy a recertification requirement or to meet the quality assurance requirements of this appendix, or both), the RATA frequency (semi-annual or annual) shall be established based upon the date and time of completion of the RATA and the relative accuracy percentage obtained.
[For Alternatives # 1 and # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
For each Hg pollutant concentration monitor, perform the converter check described in § 75.20(c)(1)(vi) once in every month in which there are at least 168 unit or stack operating hours.
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
For affected units with average Hg emissions > 9 lbs/yr for the 3 calendar years used to allocate the Hg allowances, if the owner or operator elects to use sorbent trap monitoring systems to quantify Hg emissions, a 3-run relative accuracy audit (RAA) of each sorbent trap monitoring system shall be performed in each QA operating quarter (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) following initial certification, except for a quarter in which a full RATA is performed. The load level and data validation provisions of sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.2 of this appendix apply to the RAAs.
[For Alternative # 1 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
[For Alternative # 2 in Section II.B.3 of Appendix A to the Preamble]:
29. Appendix F to part 75 is amended by adding section 9 to read as follows:
9.1 Use the procedures in this section to calculate the hourly Hg mass emissions (in ounces) at each monitored location, for the affected unit or group of units that discharge through a common stack.
9.1.1 To determine the hourly Hg mass emissions when using a Hg concentration monitoring system or a sorbent trap monitoring system and a flow monitor, use the following equation:
9.1.2 If a Hg-diluent monitoring system is used to determine the Hg mass emissions, first calculate the hourly Hg emission rate, in units of lb/10
(a) If the diluent gas (O
(c) Round off the calculated Hg emission rate to three decimal places.
9.1.3 Using the Hg emission rate from section 9.1.2 of this appendix, calculate the hourly Hg mass emissions using the following equation:
9.2 Use the following equation to calculate quarterly and year-to-date Hg mass emissions in ounces:
9.3 If heat input rate monitoring is required, follow the applicable procedures for heat input apportionment and summation sections 5.3, 5.6 and 5.7 of this appendix.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This notice provides information to public housing agencies (PHAs), multifamily owners and agents, and members of the public regarding proposed changes to the 47 definitions in the physical condition Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions that is an appendix to the PHAS notice on the physical condition scoring process. The 47 definitions proposed to be changed are those that have been identified as causing the greatest inconsistency among contract inspections. These proposed changes would affect the physical condition inspection process for both multifamily and public housing properties.
Comment Due Date: April 15, 2004.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time weekdays at the above address.
The Office of Public and Indian Housing, Real Estate Assessment Center (PIH-REAC), Attention: Wanda Funk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024-2135; telephone the PIH-REAC Technical Assistance Center at (888) 245-4860 (this is a toll free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additional information is available from the PIH-REAC Internet site at
This notice proposes changes to 47 definitions in the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions that is an appendix to the PHAS Notice on the Physical Condition Scoring Process, as provided in HUD's regulations that govern the PHAS. (See 24 CFR part 902, and especially § 902.24). The 47 definitions proposed to be changed are those that have been identified as causing the greatest inconsistency among contract inspections. These proposed changes would effect the physical condition inspection process for both multifamily and public housing properties
The Conference Report 106-988 (Conference Report) accompanying HUD's Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-377, approved October 27, 2000), directed the Department to, among other things, continue to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of the PHAS system, in particular the physical condition inspection protocol. HUD was also to perform a statistically valid test of PHAS, conduct a thorough analysis of the results, and have the methodology and results reviewed by an independent expert before taking any adverse action against a PHA based solely on its PHAS score. The Department retained the Louis Berger Group (the contractor) to conduct the review of the methodology and results of the statistically valid test.
The findings of the contractor's study concluded that the physical condition inspection protocol is repeatable and reliable. A report, entitled the “Review and Assessment of the REAC Study of the Physical Assessment Sub-System (PASS) Process”, which addressed the issues raised in the Conference Report was provided to HUD's Committee on Appropriations on March 1, 2001. The contractor issued a final report in June 2000. The contractor also identified 47 definitions in the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions as causing the greatest inconsistency among inspections. As noted earlier, the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions is included as an appendix to the PHAS Notice on the Physical Condition Scoring Process. The last version of this notice, which included the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions, was published in the
HUD held informal meetings with multifamily and public housing industry representatives, housing advocacy representatives and governmental representatives to seek their input regarding ways to revise and improve the 47 definitions identified by the contractor. After the contractor issued its final and supplemental report in June 2001, and a HUD review team evaluated the proposed definition changes during July and August 2001, HUD issued preliminary comments that either agreed with the changes, recommended modifications, or advised leaving certain definitions unchanged. HUD and the contractor then completed the first revision to the physical inspection software based on the input from the HUD review team.
From 2001 to 2002, HUD and the contractor met with representatives from the multifamily industry, the public housing industry, and HUD's own public housing staff to hold informal discussions on proposed changes to various definitions in the Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions. Informed by these discussions, HUD drafted this proposed revision to the 47 definitions.
The proposed revisions to the 47 definitions that resulted from these meetings are now being published for public comment for a 30-day period. The revisions are included as Appendix 1 to this notice, which lists the 47 definitions identified by the contractor showing the original definition and the proposed definition.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA amends the regulations governing airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning: electrical equipment; nickel cadmium battery installation and storage; electrical cables; design and installation of electronic equipment; and fire protection of electrical system components. Adoption of these amendments eliminates significant regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, without affecting current industry design practices.
This amendment becomes effective April 15, 2004.
Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone 425-227-2315; facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (
(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's web page at
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at
You can also request a copy from the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591 [(202) 267-9680]. Be sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within our jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document you may contact your local FAA official or the person listed under
This final rule responds to recommendations of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. It amends six sections of the regulations governing airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning: electrical installation, nickel cadmium battery installation and storage; electrical cables; design and installation of electronic equipment; and fire protection of electrical system components. The FAA proposed these changes in four notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The notices and the affected sections are listed in the table below.
In these notices you will find a history of the problems and discussions of the safety considerations supporting our course of action. You also will find a discussion of the current requirements and why they do not adequately address the problem. We also refer to the recommendations of the ARAC we relied on in developing the proposed rule. The NPRMs also discuss each alternative that we considered and the reasons for rejecting the ones we did not adopt.
The background material in the NPRM also contains the basis and rationale for these requirements and, except where we have specifically expanded on the background elsewhere in this preamble, supports this final rule as if it were contained here. That is, any future discussions regarding the intent of the requirements may refer to the background in the NPRM as though it was in the final rule itself. It is therefore not necessary to repeat the background in this document.
In the United States, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 25 contains the airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category airplanes. Manufacturers of transport category airplanes must show that each airplane they produce of a different type design complies with the appropriate part 25 standards.
In Europe, Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25 contains the airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category airplanes. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe developed these standards, which are based on part 25, to provide a common set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. Thirty-seven European countries accept airplanes type certificated to the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.
Although part 25 and JAR-25 are similar, they are not identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25
Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit the aviation industry economically but also preserve the necessary high-level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to “harmonize” their respective aviation standards.
After beginning the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and accommodating different administrative procedures was neither sufficient nor adequate to make noticeable progress towards fulfilling the harmonization goal. The FAA identified the ARAC as an ideal vehicle for helping to resolve harmonization issues, and in 1992, the FAA tasked ARAC to undertake the entire harmonization effort.
Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization, there remain many regulatory differences between part 25 and JAR-25. The current harmonization process is costly and time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has expressed a strong desire to finish the harmonization program as quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and finally to establish one acceptable set of standards.
Recently, representatives of the FAA and JAA proposed an accelerated process to reach harmonization, the “Fast Track Harmonization Program.” The FAA initiated the Fast Track Harmonization Program on November 26, 1999 (64 FR 66522). This rulemaking has been identified as a “fast track” project.
Further details on ARAC, and its role in the harmonization rulemaking activity, and the Fast Track Harmonization Program can be found in the tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the first NPRM published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements for Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 36978, June 12, 2000).
The new European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) was established and formally came into being on September 28, 2003. The JAA worked with the European Commission (EC) to develop a plan to ensure a smooth transition from JAA to the EASA. As part of the transition, the EASA will absorb all functions and activities of the JAA, including its efforts to harmonize JAA regulations with those of the U.S. This rule is a result of the FAA and JAA harmonization rulemaking activities. It adopts the more stringent requirements of the JAR standards. These JAR standards have already been incorporated into the EASA “Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes” CS-25, in similar if not identical language. The EASA CS-25 became effective on October 17, 2003.
On May 17, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 01-04, 66 FR 27582) entitled, “Electrical Installation, Nickel Cadmium Battery Installation, and Nickel Cadmium Battery Storage.” In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend three sections of 14 CFR part 25 regarding airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning electrical equipment and installations to harmonize the standards with those of the associated JAR-25. In the NPRM, the proposed title of § 25.1353 is incorrect. This final rule corrects the title of § 25.1353 to read “Electrical equipment and installations.” For electrical equipment installations, the FAA proposed to add text from the associated JAR to harmonize the requirements, and to clarify the intent of this regulation. For nickel cadmium batteries, the FAA proposed to expand the applicability of the regulation to all nickel cadmium battery sizes, regardless of their capabilities. In addition, the FAA proposed to adopt the associated JAR Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) material for both electrical equipment and nickel cadmium battery installations.
The FAA received four comments in response to the proposed rule. Two of the four commenters support the proposed changes. The other two commenters disagreed with the cost estimates in the proposal, as discussed below.
1. These harmonized rules will, in general, not be applicable to existing airplanes or modifications to existing airplanes that were certified to earlier amendment levels as defined on the Type Certificate Data sheet. An exception may be new derivative airplane models or modifications to existing models that are deemed significant enough to require application of later amendment levels per 14 CFR 21.101.
2. It is anticipated that any modifications or retrofit changes that require a showing of compliance to the harmonized rules for nickel cadmium batteries §§ 25.1353(c)(5) and (c)(6) will, in general, not require compliance to later amendments.
3. The requirements for temperature sensing, monitoring, and warning, in general apply to batteries that have high enough energy sources to be a hazard, and are typically main airplane batteries or APU start type batteries. Main airplane batteries (which have engine ignition as a stand-by load) or APU start batteries already are required to have this sensing and monitoring functionality.
4. This regulation will not be applicable to flashlights or emergency lighting equipment (dry cell type batteries as they generally have low energy-charging type systems (trickle charge)); unless there were to be new designs or new technologies that warrant this type of battery monitoring and sensing due to potentially hazardous effects.
5. Harmonization of § 25.1353(a) with JAR 25.1353(a) provides consistency with existing rules, § 25.1431, and with the harmonized § 25.1309. The intent of both rules is the same in that the airplane is required to be designed with electrical interference effects that have no unsafe effects on the airplane, systems, or occupants. This rule provides further definition in terms of the level of safety or probability of failure that is required. The main difference between § 25.1353(a) and JAR 25.1353(a) is the use of the term “extremely remote,” which is defined as follows:
This is further supported by the Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) 25.1353(a), “Acceptable Means of Compliance and Interpretation,” Section Two of the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR-25).
The FAA has adopted the JAR ACJ material as an acceptable means of showing compliance with the revision to § 25.1353(a) and has developed an Advisory Circular (AC). The FAA will publish a Notice of Availability in the
On May 15, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 01-03, 66 FR 26942) entitled, “Electrical Cables.” In the NPRM, the FAA proposed harmonizing the standards by revising the regulation to adopt the text of the associated JAR-25. The proposed revision would specify a design action to be taken, and remove the possibility that a designer may not consider a critical installation design condition.
The FAA received one comment to both Notice No. 01-03 and Notice No. 01-07. The commenter fully supports the proposal.
On May 15, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 01-07, 66 FR 26956) entitled, “Design and Installation of Electronic Equipment on Transport Category Airplanes.” In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise § 25.1431 to add a new paragraph (d) that would be parallel to JAR-25.1431(d). The proposal would provide one location in the regulations that explicitly addresses requirements related to electrical power supply transients, clarify the objective of the other related regulations in part 25, and harmonize 14 CFR part 25 with the associated JAR-25.
The FAA received one comment to both Notice No. 01-03 and Notice No. 01-07. The commenter fully supports the proposal.
On May 15, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 01-06, 66 FR 26964) entitled, “Fire Protection of Electrical System Components on Transport Category Airplanes.” In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise § 25.869(a), concerning the protection of electrical system components, to adopt the more stringent language in the parallel JAR-25.
The FAA received three comments in response to the proposed rule. Two of the commenters agree with the proposal and recommend its adoption. The third commenter suggested a change to the applicability of the rule, as discussed below.
There is currently no FAA advisory material related to the standard. However, the FAA has developed AC 25.869-1X, “Electrical System Fire and Smoke Protection.” It contains guidance on this subject and includes, with some modification, the material currently in the JAA's ACJ 25.869. The FAA will publish a Notice of Availability in the
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule:
1. Has benefits that do justify its costs, is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in the Executive Order, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
2. will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
3. reduces barriers to international trade; and,
4. imposes no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
The (DOT) Order 2100.5, “Regulatory Policies and Procedures,” prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis
Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the 14 CFR and the European JAR certification standards to market transport category airplanes in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification requirements raises the cost of developing new transport category airplanes often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering the cost of airplane development, and making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and airplane manufacturers have been working to create, to the maximum possible extent, a single set of certification requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. As discussed previously, these efforts are referred to as harmonization. This final rule results from the FAA's acceptance of ARAC harmonization working group recommendations. Members of the ARAC working groups agreed that the requirements of this rule will not impose additional costs to U.S. manufacturers of part 25 airplanes.
Specifically, this final rule requires:
1. Revising §§ 25.1353(a), (c)(5), and (c)(6), and 25.869(a) to adopt the “more stringent” requirements currently in those same sections of JAR-25;
2. adding § 25.1353(d) to adopt JAR 25.1353(d) in its entirety; and,
3. adding a new § 25.1431(d) to incorporate the “more stringent” requirement of paragraph 25.1431(d) of the JAR.
We consider that this rule will neither reduce nor increase the requirements beyond those that are already met by U.S. manufacturers to satisfy European airworthiness standards.
As this rule neither increases nor decreases certification requirements beyond those already in existence, we have determined there will be no cost associated with this rule to part 25 manufacturers. We have not tried to quantify the benefits of this amendment beyond identifying the expected harmonization benefit. This amendment eliminates an identified significant regulatory difference (SRD) between part 25 and JAR-25 wording. Eliminating the SRD will provide for a more consistent interpretation of the rules and, thus, is an element of the potentially large cost savings of harmonization.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the sale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final action will have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” as defined in the Act.
If we find the action will have a significant impact, we must do a “regulatory flexibility analysis.” If, however, we find the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we are not required to do the analysis. In this case, the Act requires that we include a statement that provides the factual basis for our determination.
We have determined that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for two reasons:
First, the net effect of the final rule is regulatory cost relief. The amendment requires that new transport category airplane manufacturers meet just the “more stringent” European certification requirement, rather than both the United States and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect to meet this standard as well as the existing part 25 requirements.
Second, all United States manufacturers of transport category airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane manufacturers. Those U.S. manufacturers include: The Boeing Company, Cessna Aircraft Company, Gulfstream Aerospace, Learjet (owned by Bombardier Aerospace), Lockheed Martin Corporation, McDonnell Douglas (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner Corporation.
The FAA received no comments that differed with the assessment given in this section. Since this final rule is cost relieving and there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA Administrator certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
This rule is consistent with the Trade Agreement Act as the European standards are the basis for these U.S. regulations.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfounded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.”
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, there are no current or new requirements for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.
The FAA analyzed this final rule and the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications.
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this final rule applies to the certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Because no comments were received regarding this regulation affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, we will apply the rule in the same way that it is being applied nationally.
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make these regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the regulations clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain unnecessary technical language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
• Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
• Is the description in the final rule preamble helpful in understanding the regulations?
Please send your comments to the address specified in the
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this final rule qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
The FAA has assessed the energy impact of this final rule in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Public Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. We have determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.
(a) * * *
(4) Insulation on electrical wire and electrical cable installed in any area of the airplane must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with the applicable portions of part I, appendix F of this part.
(a) Electrical equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed so that operations of any one unit or system of units will not adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other electrical unit or system essential to the safe operation. Any electrical interference likely to be present in the airplane must not result in hazardous effects upon the airplane or its systems except under extremely remote conditions.
(c) * * *
(5) Each nickel cadmium battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of individual cells.
(6) Nickel cadmium battery installations must have—
(i) A system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically so as to prevent battery overheating; or
(ii) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
(iii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.
(d) Electrical cables and cable installations must be designed and installed as follows:
(1) The electrical cables used must be compatible with the circuit protection devices required by § 25.1357 of this part, such that a fire or smoke hazard cannot be created under temporary or continuous fault conditions.
(2) Means of permanent identification must be provided for electrical cables, connectors and terminals.
(3) Electrical cables must be installed such that the risk of mechanical damage and/or damage caused by fluids, vapors, or sources of heat, is minimized.
(d) Electronic equipment must be designed and installed such that it does not cause essential loads to become inoperative as a result of electrical power supply transients or transients from other causes.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.
Final rule.
On August 19, 2003, FRA published an interim final rule making a technical clarification to the locomotive headlight and auxiliary light provisions contained in § 229.125(a) and (d) of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The purpose of the modification was to codify FRA's longstanding acceptance of lamps used in locomotive headlights and auxiliary lights. FRA believes that the clarification is consistent with both FRA's intent when issuing the requirements related to locomotive headlights and auxiliary lights and FRA's enforcement policies related to those provisions. FRA also believes that the clarification furthers FRA's goal of facilitating the use of advanced technologies and enhances FRA's safety enforcement program by recognizing specific types of lamps it considers acceptable for use in headlights and auxiliary lights. This final rule retains the technical clarifications made in the interim final rule with minor changes for consistency and clarity.
This final rule is effective March 16, 2004.
•
•
•
•
•
Charles L. Bielitz, Mechanical Engineer, FRA Office of Safety, RRS-14, 1120 Vermont Avenue NW., Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6314), or Thomas J. Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6036).
On August 19, 2003, FRA published an interim final rule making a technical clarification to the locomotive headlight and auxiliary light provisions contained in 49 CFR 229.125(a) and (d).
Prior to the mid-1990s, the primary lamp used in road locomotive headlights throughout the industry was the 200-watt lamp, which produces a mean luminous intensity that is well in excess of 200,000 candela at the center of its beam, with all production samples having a minimum luminous intensity of 200,000 candela. In the early to mid-1990s, with the advent of locomotive auxiliary lights, the railroad industry began using the 350-watt lamp in both headlight and auxiliary light fixtures. Controlled testing of auxiliary lights performed for FRA by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) in 1995 used regular production 350-watt lamps. A single 350-watt lamp tested by the U.S. Coast Guard for the Volpe test, as well as data supplied by the lamp vendor, showed a center beam luminous intensity well in excess of 250,000 candela, but it has since been determined that these data were not representative of typical lamp production. At present, most new locomotives are equipped with the 350-watt lamps in both the headlight and auxiliary light fixture. Due to normal variations in production processes, the vast majority of 350-watt lamps produced since 1994 do not produce 200,000 candela. The current production (2001 through mid-2003) of 350-watt lamps is centered at approximately 160,000 candela. Although most 350-watt lamps do not meet the 200,000 candela requirements related to headlights and auxiliary lights contained in 49 CFR 229.125(a) and (d) before their revision through the Interim Final Rule, FRA has accepted and will continue to accept the use of 350-watt lamps in both headlight and auxiliary light fixtures for the reasons discussed below. In this preamble, reference to a section or numbered part is to a section or numbered part in title 49 of the CFR. In order to clarify FRA's continued acceptance of the use of these lamps and to incorporate existing enforcement guidance, FRA issued the Interim Final Rule amending the regulatory provisions contained in part 229 to specifically address the use of these types of lamps in both headlight and auxiliary light locations. This final rule retains the amendments made in that Interim Final Rule with minor changes for consistency and clarity.
In response to the Interim Final Rule, FRA received comments from three organizations: the Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division of the Transportation Communications International Union (BRC), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). The concerns raised by the AAR and the LIRR were similar in that they both sought additional relief from the requirements related to the handling of a locomotive that experiences the failure of one lamp in a dual 350-watt lamp headlight. The
As the modifications contained in the Interim Final Rule and retained in this final rule were intended merely to clarify FRA's intent when issuing the final rule related to auxiliary lights and incorporate existing FRA enforcement policies related to locomotive headlights and auxiliary lights, FRA initially issued the technical clarifications as an Interim Final Rule with a request for comments. The Interim Final Rule made clear that the clarifications were intended to reinforce FRA's continued acceptance of locomotive lamps which have been used throughout the industry for nearly a decade.
With this said, FRA wishes to make clear that the issuance of an immediately effective interim final rule is a very rare procedural action used by the agency. FRA believes that due to the historical development and enforcement of the provisions involved that it was necessary to issue an immediately effective interim final rule to ensure continued, consistent, and unambiguous enforcement of the headlight and auxiliary light provisions contained in the regulations. FRA fully agrees with the BRC that substantive rule changes should not be made through such a regulatory vehicle and that such an action would violate the Administrative Procedure Act. FRA welcomes the BRC's continued vigilance of its regulatory activities and appreciates the organization's participation and input in all areas of its enforcement program to ensure the safety of the nation's railroads.
The comments of both the AAR and the LIRR seek additional latitude with regard to the handling of a locomotive that utilizes two PAR-56, 350-watt, 75-volt (350-watt) lamps to achieve the 200,000 candela headlight requirement when one of the two lamps becomes inoperative. The AAR seeks to have the provisions related to movement of locomotives with defective auxiliary lights contained at § 229.125(g) applied to locomotives that experience the failure of one or more of the 350-watt lamps utilized in a locomotive's headlight. Similarly, the LIRR seeks to have the regulation amended to permit a locomotive with one inoperative 350-watt lamp in the headlight, found during or after the performance a calendar-day inspection, to continue in revenue service until the next calendar-day inspection. Both these commenters base their requests on the fact that one operative 350-watt lamp is still available in the headlight and that the auxiliary lights mounted on the locomotive will provide additional illumination in front of the locomotive and would not compromise safety.
The Interim Final Rule made clear that FRA will consider a locomotive with a dual-lamp headlight fixture that is equipped with two PAR-56, 350-watt, 75-volt lamps to meet the 200,000-candela requirement contained in § 229.125(a), provided both lamps are operative. The preamble to the Interim Final Rule further stated that if either lamp in such a configuration became inoperative, the locomotive was to be handled in accordance with the movement-for-repair provisions contained in § 229.9.
The purpose of the technical amendments made to the locomotive headlight requirements in the Interim Final Rule was to clarify the alternative methods by which the existing 200,000 candela requirement could be achieved based on the design of locomotive headlight fixtures and the type of lamps used in those fixtures. Because the purpose of the clarifying amendments was to merely incorporate longstanding enforcement policies related to locomotive headlights into the regulation, FRA proceeded directly to an interim final rule with a request for comments. In FRA's opinion, the additional latitude sought by the AAR and LIRR regarding the handling of a locomotive with a headlight fixture not capable of producing 200,000 candela would constitute a substantive change to the existing regulation. With the concerns of the BRC in mind, FRA believes that to make such a substantive change in a rulemaking proceeding, intended to be a technical clarification of the existing regulation, would clearly violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, although there may be some merit to the requests made by the AAR and the LIRR, FRA does not believe this rulemaking is the proper forum in which to address the issues. While their comments may have merit when considering locomotives with auxiliary lights aimed parallel to the centerline of the locomotive and burning steadily, Part 229 permits auxiliary lights to be aimed up to 15 degrees of the centerline and permits auxiliary lights to flash.
In addition to the specific relief sought by AAR and LIRR, both parties' comments contain information and suggestions for FRA. LIRR's comments note that qualification testing of a 350-watt lamp conducted in late-2001 indicated that the lamp could successfully illuminate a person at 800 feet. The results of this testing were not included with the comments, and FRA is not aware of these tests. A similar test that was reviewed by FRA produced inconclusive results, at best. Moreover, the old performance standard from which the existing 200,000-candela requirement is derived required the headlight to illuminate a
AAR's comments also urge FRA to convene a group of technical experts to develop a permanent illumination standard for headlights and auxiliary
The regulatory provisions related to locomotive headlights are contained at § 229.125(a) through (c). These requirements were included in the regulations when part 229 was added to the Code of Federal Regulations in 1980.
In the 1979 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the 1980 final rule, FRA explained that the approach contained in § 230.231 for determining intensity was imprecise and unscientific. Section 230.231 used a vague performance standard to describe the intensity, which read as follows:
Subsequent to the issuance of the final rule, FRA developed informal enforcement guidance for its field inspectors related to when a locomotive's headlight should be considered inoperative. The guidance was eventually included in FRA's Motive Power and Equipment (MP&E) Enforcement Manual distributed in July of 1992.
As noted above, in the early to mid-1990s, the industry began widespread use of the 350-watt lamps in both headlight and auxiliary light fixtures. The vast majority of 350-watt lamps produced since 1994 do not produce 200,000 candela. The current production of the 350-watt lamps is centered at approximately 160,000 candela. Furthermore, data provided to FRA do not definitively establish that an individual 350-watt lamp meets the underlying performance standard, discussed above, on which the 200,000-candela requirement was based. Moreover, FRA is not comfortable applying an old and somewhat subjective performance standard in place of the more precise and scientific standard that was adopted several decades ago. Therefore, because most 350-watt lamps do not individually produce the luminous intensity specified in the existing regulation, FRA believed it was necessary to clarify its existing enforcement guidance and specifically modify the regulation to reflect its position regarding the use of 350-watt lamps in locomotive headlight fixtures.
In the Interim Final Rule, consistent with FRA's existing enforcement guidance related to the headlight provisions contained in § 229.125(a), FRA asserted that it would continue to interpret the term “headlight,” as used in this provision, to mean the entire headlight fixture whether it is comprised of either one or more lamps. Thus, the requirement contained in this provision to produce 200,000 candela is to be determined by the luminous intensity of the entire headlight fixture. Although a single 350-watt lamp, as described above, generally does not produce 200,000 candela, data clearly establish that the beams of two 350-watt lamps in a dual-lamp headlight easily produce well in excess of 200,000 candela once the two beams overlap sufficiently, which occurs within a few feet in front of the fixture.
In view of the above, the Interim Final Rule made clear that FRA will consider a locomotive with a dual-lamp headlight fixture that is equipped with two PAR-56, 350-watt, 75-volt lamps to meet the 200,000-candela requirement contained in § 229.125(a), provided both lamps are operative. If either lamp in such a configuration becomes inoperative, the locomotive is to be handled in accordance with the movement-for-repair provisions contained in § 229.9. Similarly, the Interim Final Rule made clear that FRA will continue to consider a headlight fixture equipped with a single operative PAR-56, 200-watt, 30-volt lamp to meet the intensity requirement of § 229.125(a) because such a lamp is capable of individually producing 200,000 candela. This final rule retains the amendments made in the Interim Final Rule to the regulatory language contained in § 229.125(a) to specifically include the interpretations and clarifications discussed above. It should be noted that FRA expects railroads to have some method or procedure in place which notifies the operating crew and mechanical employees of the type of lamps being utilized in the locomotive headlight fixture in order that the locomotive can be properly handled for repairs, if necessary.
The regulatory provisions related to locomotive auxiliary lights are found at § 229.125(d) through (h) and § 229.133. These requirements were added to the
As part of the auxiliary light rulemaking, FRA's Office of Research and Development, through Volpe, studied the impact of auxiliary lights as alerting devices to improve locomotive conspicuity. The final report on this study was issued in July of 1995 under Report Number DOT/FRA/ORD-95-13 (Volpe Report). The report is part of FRA Docket No. RSGC-2 and is available online at:
Based on FRA's review of the Volpe Report and its supporting data and in light of data subsequently provided by General Electric Company (GE), FRA believes that use of either a 350-watt lamp or a 200-watt lamp in locomotive auxiliary lights meets FRA's intent when issuing the regulations pertaining to such fixtures. A review of the Volpe Report establishes that the lamps tested in the headlight, ditch light, and crossing light systems were all PAR-56, 350-watt, 75-volt lamps.
Although the report notes that two 350-watt lamps sampled for luminous intensity produced peak intensity reading in excess of 200,000 candela, there is no indication in the report that those specific lamps were ever used in any of the subsequent testing. One of these measurements was on an isocandela plot supplied to Volpe by Quest Corporation, the lamp vendor, based on data supplied by GE, the lamp manufacturer, and the second was from a test conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard for Volpe.
In addition to the fact that the 350-watt lamp was used in the Volpe tests, FRA also believes that the 350-watt lamp currently being used in the industry provides equal, if not greater, benefits when used in auxiliary light fixtures than a 200-watt lamp capable of producing 200,000 candela. The primary purpose of locomotive auxiliary lights is to enhance the visibility of the front-end locomotive of a train from the perspective of a driver of a motor vehicle approaching a grade crossing.
Although a 350-watt lamp does not generally produce a maximum beam candle power (MBCP) in excess of 200,000 candela, these lamps do produce a greater luminous intensity over a broader angle off the beam centerline than the traditional 200-watt lamp capable of producing a MBCP in excess of 200,000 candela. In fact, the available data clearly establish that the currently produced 350-watt lamp has a higher light intensity at any angle greater than 3.5 degrees off the centerline when compared to the more traditional 200-watt lamp used on older locomotives. Thus, the 350-watt lamps are particularly well suited for use in auxiliary light locations, which are primarily intended to be seen by motorists well away from an approaching grade crossing. Consequently, FRA believes that available data support a determination that the 350-watt lamp currently being produced and which has been permitted to be used in most newer locomotive auxiliary light fixtures since the mid-1990s, actually enhances the ability of a motorist to detect an oncoming train.
In addition to the supporting data, FRA also notes that it has accepted the use of both 200-watt and 350-watt lamps since they began being used in auxiliary light fixtures beginning in the early to mid-1990s. It should also be noted that grade crossing accidents, deaths, and injuries have dropped sharply since the introduction of the 350-watt auxiliary lights in the mid-1990s. Furthermore,
In order to reflect FRA's intent when issuing the regulations related to auxiliary lights and to incorporate FRA's existing enforcement posture with regard to the use of 350-watt lamps, the Interim Final Rule amended the regulatory provisions relating to the auxiliary light provisions contained at § 229.125(d)(2) to specifically permit the continued use of 350-watt lamps. FRA received no specific substantive objections to the clarifying amendments made in the Interim Final Rule. Therefore, this final rule retains the clarifying amendments made in the Interim Final Rule with minor changes for consistency and clarity. FRA continues to believe this modification is necessary to ensure that there is no misunderstanding by either the regulated community or its field inspectors with regard to FRA's position. The modification makes clear that FRA will accept the use of either a lamp capable of producing at least 200,000 candela (a PAR-56, 200-watt, 30-volt lamp) or a lamp capable of producing a minimum of 3,000 candela at 7.5 degrees and a minimum of 400 candela at 20 degrees from the centerline of the locomotive when the lamp is aimed parallel to the tracks (either a PAR-56, 200-watt, 30-volt lamp or a PAR-56, 350-watt, 75-volt lamp). The light intensities specified in the Interim Final Rule and retained in this final rule are based on the luminous intensity produced at those angles by a PAR-56, 200-watt, 30-volt lamp (according to data supplied by GE) when such a lamp is aimed parallel to the tracks. FRA continues to believe this is the most appropriate measure because the agency has interpreted the regulations as permitting this light intensity since their inception. Thus, acceptance of a lamp that produces an equivalent or greater intensity at these critical angles is consistent with the intent and purpose of the auxiliary light provisions when originally prescribed and is consistent with FRA's goal of promoting and facilitating new technologies. In furtherance of this goal, FRA also notes that, although the modification made to the regulation by the Interim Final Rule and retained in this final rule identifies specific lamps as meeting the specified criteria, the modification also acknowledges that lamps of equivalent design and capable of producing equivalent light intensities would be considered acceptable by FRA.
Although there are provisions contained in §§ 229.133 and 238.443 that reference the use of lamps producing at least 200,000 candela, FRA does not intend to change any of the language contained in those provisions at this time. Section 229.133 contains interim locomotive conspicuity measures that were incorporated into the regulations in 1993 while the final provisions related to locomotive auxiliary lights were being developed.
The requirements related to Tier II passenger equipment also contain a requirement that Tier II power cars be equipped with headlights that produce at least 200,000 candela.
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency docket 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
This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures. The modifications retained in this final rule are not considered significant because they are intended merely to clarify FRA's intent when issuing the final rule related to auxiliary lights and to incorporate existing FRA enforcement policies related to locomotive headlights and auxiliary lights. The economic impact of the modifications and clarifications contained in this final rule will not generally affect the cost of compliance with the existing regulations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule does not change any of the information collection requirements contained in the original regulatory provisions being amended.
FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with its “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
FRA believes it is in compliance with Executive Order 13132. Because the modifications retained in this document either clarify existing regulatory requirements, codify existing enforcement policy, or are consistent with FRA's intent when issuing the original regulatory provisions, this document will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule will not have federalism implications that impose any direct compliance costs on State and local governments.
Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency “shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).” Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement” detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Because the modifications retained in this document either clarify existing regulatory requirements, codify existing enforcement policy, or are consistent with FRA's intent when issuing the original regulatory provisions, this document will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency (normally published in the
Auxiliary lights, Headlights, Locomotives, Railroad safety.
49 U.S.C. 20102-03, 20107, 20133, 20137-38, 20143, 20701-03, 21301-02, 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), (m).
(a) Each lead locomotive used in road service shall have a headlight that produces a peak intensity of at least 200,000 candela. If a locomotive or locomotive consist in road service is regularly required to run backward for any portion of its trip other than to pick up a detached portion of its train or to make terminal movements, it shall also have on its rear a headlight that produces at least 200,000 candela. Each headlight shall be arranged to illuminate a person at least 800 feet ahead and in front of the headlight. For purposes of this section, a headlight shall be comprised of either one or two lamps.
(1) If a locomotive is equipped with a single-lamp headlight, the single lamp shall produce a peak intensity of at least 200,000 candela. The following lamps meet the standard set forth in this paragraph (a)(1): a single operative PAR-56, 200-watt, 30-volt lamp; or an operative lamp of equivalent design and intensity.
(2) If a locomotive is equipped with a dual-lamp headlight, a peak intensity of at least 200,000 candela shall be produced by the headlight based either on a single lamp capable of individually producing the required peak intensity or on the candela produced by the headlight with both lamps illuminated. If both lamps are needed to produce the required peak intensity, then both lamps in the headlight shall be operational. The following lamps meet the standard set forth in this paragraph (a)(2): a single operative PAR-56, 200-watt, 30-volt lamp; two operative PAR-56, 350-watt, 75-volt lamps; or operative lamp(s) of equivalent design and intensity.
(d) * * *
(2) Each auxiliary light shall produce a peak intensity of at least 200,000 candela or shall produce at least 3,000 candela at an angle of 7.5 degrees and at least 400 candela at an angle of 20 degrees from the centerline of the locomotive when the light is aimed parallel to the tracks. Any of the following lamps meet the standard set forth in this paragraph (d)(2): an operative PAR-56, 200-watt, 30-volt lamp; an operative PAR-56,350-watt,