[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58112-58114]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0939 ]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; M/V DAVY CROCKETT, Columbia River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is extending the enforcement period of a
safety zone established on the waters of the Columbia River surrounding
the remaining cofferdam at the M/V DAVY CROCKETT removal sight at
approximate river mile 117. The original safety zone was established on
January 28, 2011. The safety zone is necessary to help ensure the
safety of the response workers and maritime public from the hazards
associated with the ongoing worksite cleanup operations. All persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Columbia River or
his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR from September 20, 2011
through October 31, 2011. This rule is effective with actual notice for
purposes of enforcement on September 1, 2011. This rule will remain in
effect through October 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0939 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0939 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail BM1 Silvestre Suga, Waterways Management
Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-
9319, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because to do so would be contrary to public
interest. The safety zone is immediately

necessary to help ensure the safety of the response workers and the
maritime public due to the ongoing worksite cleanup operations.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because the safety zone is
immediately necessary to help ensure the safety of the response workers
and the maritime public due to the ongoing worksite cleanup operations.

Background and Purpose

    The remaining cofferdam at the M/V DAVY CROCKETT removal sight is
located on the Washington State side of the Columbia River at
approximately river mile 117. The Coast Guard, other state and federal
agencies, and federal contractors are continuing a worksite cleanup
following the removal of M/V DAVY CROCKETT. The cleanup operations
require a minimal wake in the vicinity of the cofferdam to help ensure
the safety of response workers. Only authorized persons and/or vessels
can be safely allowed in the worksite cleanup area.
    A 300 ft safety zone is necessary to keep vessels clear of the
ongoing worksite cleanup in and around the cofferdam. The previous 300
ft safety zone will expire on August 31, 2011.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is extending the enforcement of the safety zone
created by this rule until October 31, 2011. The safety zone will cover
all waters of the Columbia River encompassed within the following four
points: Point one at 45[deg]34'59.74'' N/122[deg]28'35.00'' W on the
Washington bank of the Columbia River then proceeding into the river to
point two at 45[deg]34'51.42'' N/122[deg]28'35.47'' W, then proceeding
upriver to the third point at 45[deg]34'51.02'' N/122[deg]28'07.32'' W,
then proceeding to the shoreline to the fourth point on the Washington
Bank at 45[deg]34'56.06'' N/122[deg]28'07.36'' W, then back along the
shoreline to point one. Geographically this encompasses all the waters
within an area starting at approximately 300 ft upriver from the
cofferdam cleanup site extending to 300 ft abreast of the cofferdam
cleanup site and then ending 300 ft down river of the cofferdam cleanup
site.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    The Coast Guard has made this determination based on the fact that
the safety zones created by this rule will not significantly affect the
maritime public because the areas covered are limited in size and/or
have little commercial or recreational activity. In addition, vessels
may enter the safety zones with the permission of the Captain of the
Port, Columbia River or his designated representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities some of which may
be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
operate in the areas covered by the safety zones created in this rule.
The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the areas covered are
limited in size. In addition, vessels may enter the safety zones with
the permission of the Captain of the Port, Columbia River or his
designated representative.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not

an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental
risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect
children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the creation of safety zones. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-175 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-175  Safety Zone; M/V DAVY CROCKETT Cleanup site,
Columbia River.

    (a) Location: The following area is a safety zone:
    (1) All waters of the Columbia River encompassed within the
following four points: Point one at 45[deg]34'59.74'' N/
122[deg]28'35.00'' W on the Washington bank of the Columbia River then
proceeding into the river to point two at 45[deg]34'51.42'' N/
122[deg]28'35.47'' W, then proceeding upriver to the third point at
45[deg]34'51.02'' N/122[deg]28'07.32'' W, then proceeding to the
shoreline to the fourth point on the Washington Bank at
45[deg]34'56.06'' N/122[deg]28'07.36'' W, then back along the shoreline
to point one. Geographically this encompasses all the waters within an
area starting at approximately 300 ft upriver from the cofferdam
cleanup site extending to 300 ft abreast of the cofferdam cleanup site
and then ending 300 ft down river of the cofferdam cleanup site.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no person may enter or remain in the safety
zone created in this section or bring, cause to be brought, or allow to
remain in the safety zone created in this section any vehicle, vessel,
or object unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Columbia River
or his designated representative.
    (c) Enforcement Period. The safety zone created in this section
will be in effect from September 1, 2011 through October 31, 2011
unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port, Columbia River.

    Dated: August 30, 2011.
B.C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2011-24146 Filed 9-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District,

Rule 4653, Adhesives and Sealants

Prepared by: Adrianne Borgia

Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel

	September 2011

RULE IDENTIFICATION -

Agency:	San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD)

SIP Approved Rule:	Rule 4653 – Adhesives

Adopted –December 20, 2007

Submitted- March 7, 2008

EPA Approved – October 15, 2009 (74 FR 52894)

Previous Submitted Rule: Rule 4653 – Adhesives

Adopted – September 17, 2009

Submitted - May 17, 2010

Subject of this TSD:	Rule 4653 – Adhesives and Sealants

	Amended – September 16, 2010

Submitted – April 5, 2011

RULE SUMMARY - SJVUAPCD Rule 4653, Adhesives and Sealants, is a rule
amended to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
the application of adhesive products, sealant products and associated
solvent cleaning operations. The rule describes related recordkeeping,
reporting, and monitoring requirements and test methods for determining
various VOC content and emissions.  The submitted changes to Rule 4653
are largely made to adopt the new content limits of the 2008 CTG prior
to the effective date of January 1, 2011. Changes from the approved SIP
submittal include:

Changed the title from “Adhesives” to “Adhesives and Sealants”
and included sealant products, as needed, in each section.

Added several definitions in Section 3.0 to clarify the current rule, to
add sealant products and to include new adhesives categories to the rule
language.

Clarified exemptions, added sealant exemptions and sales restrictions
and included effective dates for complying with the rule limits in
Section 4.0.

Revised Section 5.0 Table 1, adding columns for VOC limits for effective
dates through December 31, 2010 and after January 1, 2011.

Added Section 5.0 Table 2 indicating lower VOC limits for adhesives
effective January 1, 2012.

Revised Section 5.0 Table 3 to include VOC limits for adhesives
effective January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012. Added Reinforced Plastic
and Fiberglass categories.

Included Section 5.0 Tables 4 and 5 for sealant and sealant primer
limits.

Added Airless Spray to the list of application in Section 5.2.

Revised the requirement for transfer efficiency of any new application
methods to be equivalent to the efficiency of the HVLP method instead of
at least 65%.

Added Section 5.3, Work Practices for Adhesive and Sealant Products.

Revised Table 6, VOC Limits for Organic Solvents Used in Cleaning
Operations, to list only the September 21, 2008 limits.

Replaced the section for Solvent Storage and Disposal Requirements with
a Work Practices for Solvent Cleaning.

Added Section 5.8, Sell-through of Adhesives and Sealants and Section
5.9, Prohibition of Specification.

Removed the requirement of daily records of all adhesives, primers and
solvents used in each operation and added the requirement to record the
VOC content of all sealant materials stored at a stationery source.

Clarified labelling requirements in Section 6.2 to include all three
requirements and to add sealant products, effective January 1, 2012.

EPA EVALUATION - The following criteria were used to evaluate the
submitted rule.

1.	Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988), the Little
Bluebook (Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001), and State Implementation
Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) were used to help
evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for
enforceability.

Stringency – EPA’s Control Technique Guideline (CTG) titled
“Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives” (EPA-453/R-08-005, September 2008), CARB’s RACT/BARCT
guidance titled, “Determination of Reasonably Available Control
Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Adhesives
and Sealants” (December 1998), SJVUAPCD’s 2009 RACT SIP
Demonstration (April 16, 2009),and other state and local rules for this
category were used to help evaluate the RACT requirements of CAA
§182(b)(2).

SIP Relaxation - We have evaluated this SIP revision to determine
whether it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable
requirement of  CAA §110(l) or modify any SIP-approved control
requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA §193).

Enforceability – The recordkeeping of coatings and control system
parameters, test methods and other requirements generally ensure that
the submitted rule can be enforced.  Since section 6.1.1 of the rule
requires records of the VOC content of all adhesive materials, solvents
and sealant materials used and stored, we do not believe the absence of
a requirement of a materials listing makes the rule unenforceable.
However, Rule 4653 could be improved by adopting language similar to
that of BAAQMD Rule 8-51 which specifies a requirement for
manufacturer’s product number, mix ratios of components in the product
used, and final VOC content as applied.

Stringency – Rule 4653 closely resembles the 2008 CTG for
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (EPA-453/R-08-005) and CARB’s
Determination of RACT and BARCT for Adhesives and Sealants (December
1998), which we believe are generally reliable sources for identifying
RACT. In addition, several adhesive and sealant categories in Rule 4653
have VOC limits lower than the CTG.

Further, Rule 4653 is generally as stringent as analogous requirements
in Bay Area (BAAQMD Rule 8-51(7-16-02)) and South Coast (SCAQMD’s Rule
1168 (1-7-2005)), and we are not aware of more stringent requirements
adopted elsewhere. For these reasons, we believe Rule 4653 implements
RACT and complies with CAA §182(b) (2).

SIP Relaxation – The VOC limits for several categories, effective
January 1, 2012, were reduced significantly. These categories include
Multi-purpose Construction Adhesive, Ceramic Tile Adhesive, Cove Base
Installation, Single-ply Roof Material Installation and Contact
Adhesive, ABS Welding Adhesive, Plastic Cement Welding Adhesive Primer,
Other Plastic Cement Welding Adhesive and Plastic Foam. Consequently we
believe that the submitted rule is more stringent than the version
previously approved into the SIP.

We propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply
with CAA §193 and CAA §110 and part D requirements, because the SIP
revision would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that
the requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and the
submitted SIP revision is more stringent than the rule previously
approved into the SIP.

RULE DEFICIENCIES – We have not identified any deficiency in Rule 4653
sufficient for EPA to propose less than a full approval.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION - The following
revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are
recommended for the next time the rule is amended.

Please consider making the following changes to definitions in Section
3.0:

CARB’s definition of airless spray in the 1991 Automobile Refinishing
Coating compliance assistance program states that the Airless Spray
operates under high fluid pressure between 1500 and 3000 psi. Please
verify if the larger range indicated in the definition in Subsection 3.9
is accurate.

Please clarify whether cove base should be included in the Floor
Covering Installation definition of Subsection 3.43.

In Subsection 3.85, for accuracy, we recommend that you add “as
determined by ASTM Method E260-96.” after “distensibility.” as
SMAQMD has done in their definition of plasticizer.

For clarity, please add the following statement to Subsection 4.1.6:
Effective on and after January 1, 2011, users must comply with the
applicable requirements of Section 4.2.

For completeness, and to be consistent with Section 5.7, please revise
Subsection 4.3.2 to be: “Adhesive products and sealant products sold
to any person who complies with the requirements of Section 5.1 or
5.4.”

Consider the possibility of lowering the limits in Table 2 of Section
5.1:

The CARB Determination of RACT and BARCT for Adhesives and Sealants has
a technology forcing standard limit of 250 g/l for the Sheet Applied
Rubber Installation category. Since, by definition, this seems to be the
same as Rule 4653’s category, Rubber Vulcanization Adhesive/Primer,
consider the possibility of lowering this limit to 250 g/l.

The Motor Vehicle Weatherstrip Adhesive should be included in the “All
other Substrates” category of Table 3. Consider lowering this limit to
the 250 g/l limit indicated on Table 3.

BAAQMD’s Rule 8-51 limits the VOC for Immersible Product Manufacturing
to 650 g/l. Since the definition of BAAQMD’s Immersible Product
Manufacturing is comparable to SJVUAPCD’s Elastomeric Adhesive, it
would seem possible that the limit for Elastomeric Adhesive can be
lowered from 750 g/l to 650 g/l.

Consider lowering the limit for PVC Welding adhesive to 500 g/l which is
consistent with the CTG.

Based on the Table in the 2009 SJUAPCD RACT SIP rule analysis (page
3-309 through 4-311), SCAQMD’s Rule 1168 has lower limits in four
categories:

Ceramic Tile Installation - SCAQMD has a 65 g/l limit compared to
SJVUAPCD’s 130 g/l limit.

Cove Base Installation - SCAQMD has a 50 g/l limit compared to
SJVUAPCD’s 150 g/l limit.

Multipurpose Construction - SCAQMD has a 70 g/l limit compared to
SJVUAPCD’s 200 g/l limit.

Top and Trim Installation - SCAQMD has a 250 g/l limit compared to
SJVUAPCD’s 540 g/l limit.

The VOC limit for the cleaning solvent for the Surface Preparation Prior
to Rubber Vulcanization Process indicated in Table 6 of Section 5.5 is
850 g/l. The CARB Determination of RACT and BARCT for Adhesives and
Sealants does not have a comparable category. We recommend the District
consider lowering the limit for this category.

The CARB guidance recommends a material list complete with catalysts,
reducers or other components used and the mix ratio. Please consider
adding this in subsections <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> to complete the
information available.

For clarity, please revise subsections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> to include
“adhesive products and sealant products...” in the recordkeeping
requirements.

Please make the following changes for clarity and consistency as defined
in the Little Bluebook:

Per CARB Determination of RACT/BARCT for Adhesives and Sealants, Test 24
is applicable for non-aerosol adhesives. Please consider adding
“non-aerosol” before “adhesive products” in Subsection 6.3.1.

CARB recommends SCAQMD Method 305-91, Determination of VOC in Aerosol
Applications, June 1993, or ARB Method 310, Determination of VOC in
Consumer Products and reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating
Products, June 22, 2000, for determining the VOC content of aerosol
adhesives. Please refer to these test methods for aerosol adhesive and
sealant products in Section 6.3.

CARB recommends SCAQMD Method 316A-92, Determination of VOC in Materials
Used for Pipes and Fittings, October 1996, for any plastic cement
adhesives or primers. Please refer to this test method for plastic
cement adhesive products in Section 6.3.

The 2008 CTG recommends that the procedure for determining VOC content
for reactive adhesives in Appendix A of the NESHAP for surface coating
of plastic parts (40 CFR 63, PPPP) be used for reactive adhesives. The
manufacturer’s formulation data is acceptable but, if there is a
disagreement between manufacturer’s formulation data and the results
of the subsequent test, the test results should be used unless the
facility can demonstrate  that the manufacturer’s data are correct.
Please consider adding a test procedure for reactive adhesives, with the
appropriate caveat for variations between test results and
manufacturer’s data, in Section 6.3.

In Subsection 6.3.3, the ARB method 422 reference should have the date
of the EPA-approved version which is Sept. 12, 1990.

EPA ACTION - EPA staff recommends a full approval of Rule 4653 pursuant
to CAA §110(k) (3) and §301(a).

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES –

SJVAPCD Rule 4653, Adhesives and Sealants, as submitted on September 16,
2010.

SJVAPCD Rule 4653, Adhesives, as submitted on September 17, 2009.

Control Technique Guideline (CTG) titled “Control Techniques
Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives” (EPA-453/R-08-005,
September 2008)	 HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200809_voc_epa453_r-08-005_m
iscellaneous_industrial_adhesives.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/200809_voc_epa453_r-08-005_mi
scellaneous_industrial_adhesives.pdf .

CARB’s RACT/BARCT guidance titled, “Determination of Reasonably
Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology for Adhesives and Sealants” (December 1998)

	 HYPERLINK "http://www.arb.ca.gov/ractbarc/adhfinal.pdf"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ractbarc/adhfinal.pdf .

SJVUAPCD’s 2009 RACT SIP Demonstration (April 16, 2009).

“Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988.

“Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001.

( PAGE  11 (


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11890-11893]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 342, 343, and 357

[Docket No. RM17-1-000; Docket No. RM15-19-000]

Petition for a Rulemaking of the Liquids Shippers Group, Airlines
for America, and the National Propane Gas Association; Revisions to
Indexing Policies and Page 700 of FERC Form No. 6

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking; denial of
petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
withdrawing its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR)
considering potential modifications to the Commission's policies for
evaluating oil pipeline indexed rate changes and certain additions to
the annual reporting requirements in FERC Form No. 6, page 700.
Additionally, the Commission denies the petition for rulemaking filed
by certain shippers seeking changes to page 700 reporting requirements.

DATES: The ANOPR published on November 2, 2016, at 81 FR 76315 (2016)
is withdrawn as of February 28, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adrianne Cook, (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Monil Patel, (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Andrew Knudsen, (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. On October 20, 2016, the Commission issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) in Docket No. RM17-1 seeking comment
regarding potential modifications to the Commission's policies for
evaluating oil pipeline indexed rate changes and certain additions to
the FERC Form No. 6, page 700 (page 700) annual reporting
requirements.\1\ Prior to the ANOPR, on April 20, 2015, certain
shippers filed a petition for rulemaking in Docket No. RM15-19
requesting that the Commission require oil pipelines to provide
additional information on page 700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revisions to Indexing Policies and Page 700 of FERC Form No.
6, 81 FR 76315 (Nov. 2, 2016), 157 FERC ] 61,047 (2016) (ANOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. For the reasons set forth below, we exercise our discretion to
withdraw the ANOPR and to terminate the proceeding in Docket No. RM17-
1. We also deny the shippers' petition for rulemaking.

I. Background

    3. In 2015, the Liquids Shippers Group,\2\ Airlines for America,\3\
and the National Propane Gas Association \4\ (collectively, the Joint
Shippers) filed a petition for rulemaking in Docket No. RM15-19 seeking
to expand certain annual filing requirements related to the summary
cost of service contained on page 700. Specifically, the Joint Shippers
requested that the Commission require oil pipelines to disaggregate the
total company data currently reported on page 700 and to file
supplemental page 700s containing summary cost of service for (a) crude
and product systems and (b) each ``rate design'' segment. The Joint
Shippers' proposal also requested that all interested parties be given
access to the workpapers used to prepare page 700. Staff held a
technical conference on July 30, 2015, to discuss the Joint Shippers'
petition with the petitioners, pipelines, and interested parties. The
Commission received subsequent comments in September 2015 and October
2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Liquids Shippers Group consists of the following crude oil
or natural gas liquids producers: Anadarko Energy Services Company,
Apache Corporation, Cenovus Energy Marketing Services Ltd.,
ConocoPhillips Company, Devon Gas Services, L.P., Encana Marketing
(USA) Inc., Marathon Oil Company, Murphy Exploration and Production
Company-USA, Noble Energy Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.,
and Statoil Marketing & Trading (US) Inc.
    \3\ Airlines for America is a trade association representing
cargo and passenger airlines, including Alaska Airlines, Inc.,
American Airlines Group (American Airlines and US Airways), Atlas
Air, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Federal Express Corporation,
Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways Corp., Southwest Airlines Co.,
United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Parcel Service Co.
    \4\ The National Propane Gas Association is a national trade
association of the propane industry with a membership of
approximately 3,000 companies, including 38 affiliated state and
regional associations representing members in all 50 states.
    \5\ Comments and reply comments were filed by the Association of
Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL); Joint Shippers (National Propane Gas
Association, Airlines for America, a consortium of major air
carriers, and Valero Energy and Supply); the Liquids Shippers
(Anadarko Energy Services Company, Apache Corporation, Cenovus
Energy Marketing Services Ltd., ConocoPhillips Company, Devon Gas
Services LP, Encana Marketing (USA) Inc., Marathon Oil Company,
Murphy Exploration and Production Company USA, Noble Energy Inc.,
Pioneer Natural Resources USA Inc., and Statoil Marketing and
Trading (US) Inc); Explorer Pipeline Company; Magellan Midstream
Partners LP; Marathon Pipe Line LLC; Shell Pipeline Company LP;
Plains Pipeline LP; SFPP L.P. (SFPP); NuStar Logistics LP;
Enterprise Products Partners LP; and Buckeye Pipe Line Company, LP
(Buckeye).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The October 2016 ANOPR resulted from the Commission's ongoing
assessment of its oil pipeline policies, including evaluation of page
700 reporting requirements following the Joint Shippers' petition. In
the ANOPR, the Commission sought comment regarding potential
modifications to its policies for reviewing protests and complaints
against oil pipeline index rate filings. In addition, the Commission
sought comment regarding potential modifications to the data reporting
requirements reflected on page 700. Initial comments were filed in
January 2017 \6\ and reply comments were filed in March 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Initial comments were filed by R. Gordon Gooch, Delek
Logistics Partners, LP, Kinder Morgan, Inc., Buckeye Partners, L.P.,
Suncor Energy Marketing Inc., NuStar Logistics, L.P. and NuStar
Pipeline Operating Partnership L.P., Shell Pipeline Company, LP,
Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Magellan Midstream Partners L.P.,
The Texas Pipeline Association, Indicated Shippers, Marathon Pipe
Line LLC, Plains All American, L.P., Colonial Pipeline Company,
Enbridge Inc., Sinclair Oil Corporation, the Liquids Shippers Group,
AOPL, APV Shippers (Airlines for America, National Propane Gas
Association, and Valero Marketing and Supply Company), and the
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
    \7\ Reply comments were filed by Magellan Midstream Partners
L.P., APV Shippers, Indicated Shippers, the Liquid Shippers Group,
the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, AOPL Enbridge, Inc,
Colonial Pipeline Company, and R. Gordon Gooch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    5. Upon review of the record developed in this proceeding, we are
not persuaded to proceed with the changes considered in either the
ANOPR or the Joint Shippers' petition.
    6. Regarding the Joint Shippers' petition, the Commission
previously identified concerns with the petition's proposal for (a)
requiring supplemental page 700s for different rate design segments \8\
and (b) requiring pipelines to provide page 700 workpapers to
shippers.\9\ We continue to believe that this information--which would
effectively require every oil pipeline regulated by the Commission to
file a detailed cost of service every year--is unnecessary and
inconsistent with the purposes of the page 700 preliminary screen \10\
in the Commission's simplified and streamlined indexing regime.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ANOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,047 at PP 31-33.
    \9\ Id. P 48. In the ANOPR, the Commission also explained: ``The
current data on page 700 allows a shipper to compare (a) a
pipeline's revenues to its total cost of service and (b) changes to
a pipeline's total cost of service.'' Id. This is the data needed to
challenge an index rate as well as for a cost-of-service challenge.
The Commission also noted that requiring workpapers raised potential
confidentiality concerns, including ``(a) shipper information
protected by section 15(13) of the ICA, which prohibits disclosure
of an individual shipper's movements and (b) the pipeline's
competitive business information.'' Id. P 49. Although we decline to
require workpapers, we note that page 700 includes additional data
on lines 1-8 that provide significant detail regarding the
pipeline's cost of service.
    \10\ The Commission has stated that the total company data on
page 700 merely serves as a preliminary screening tool to evaluate
pipeline rates and that ``[p]age 700 information alone is not
intended to show what a just and reasonable rate should be.''
Revisions to Page 700 of FERC Form No. 6, Order No. 783, 144 FERC ]
61,049, at P 4 (2013) (internal citations omitted). The level of the
just and reasonable rate can be determined upon a subsequent
investigation, most likely at hearing before an administrative law
judge.
    \11\ Indexing simplifies and streamlines ratemaking procedures
by allowing a particular pipeline's rates to deviate from its
particular costs and by using a broad industry-wide inflationary
measure as opposed to costly individual cost-of-service proceedings.
Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to Energy Policy Act
of 1992, Order No. 561, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,985, at 30,948
(1993), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 561-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,000 (1994), aff'd sub nom. Ass'n of Oil Pipe
Lines v. FERC, 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (AOPL I). As the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
explained, requiring an individualized cost-of-service evaluation
for each pipeline would be inconsistent with the simplification
mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Ass'n of Oil Pipe Lines
v. FERC, 281 F.3d 239, 244 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (AOPL II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whereas this proposal would provide some minimal benefit to
shippers, under our simplified indexing regime, it would impose
considerable industry-wide cost upon pipelines.\12\ After carefully
weighing these factors, and considering other avenues available to
shippers, as discussed below, we reaffirm our earlier rejection of this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Moreover, the burden associated with segmentation is not a
one-time burden. In addition to the annual record-keeping
requirements, as pipelines add capacity, spin-off assets, and
otherwise evolve, the pipelines would need to re-evaluate their rate
design segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. We also deny the Joint Shippers' request for supplemental page
700s that separately report crude oil and product pipeline system cost-
of-service data. After further consideration of this proposal as part
of the ANOPR proceeding, we conclude that imposing such an annual cost-
of-service reporting obligation is unnecessary for the purposes of a
preliminary screen in the Commission's simplified indexing regime.
Segmentation of page 700 by crude and product would apply to a limited
number of pipeline filers.\13\ Furthermore, shippers can use the data
already on Form No. 6 \14\ and their

knowledge of the pipeline system to support any cost-of-service
complaints. The record does not support imposing this additional annual
reporting requirement on pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Our decision to deny the Joint Shippers' request is
supported by the fact that there are only a limited number of page
700 filers (6.9 percent or 15 total filers) that transport
significant quantities (greater than 10 percent of total pipeline
capacity) of both crude oil and petroleum products as reflected on
Form No. 6, page 601.
    \14\ Regarding cost-of-service complaints, Form No. 6 already
provides separate crude and product data for several costs,
transportation revenues, and throughput. Pages 302-303 of Form No. 6
include separate crude and product cost data for salary and wages,
fuel and power, outside services, rentals, insurance, taxes, and
depreciation. Pages 300-301 of Form No. 6 separate revenues
associated with crude transportation from revenues associated with
product transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We also decline to adopt the proposal contemplated in the ANOPR
that pipelines file supplemental page 700s for non-contiguous and major
rate design systems.\15\ As a general matter, such filings would not
provide shippers with the information needed to evaluate each pipeline
system on a cost-of-service basis.\16\ However, despite providing
limited benefits, these filings would involve some of the same
complexity as full rate design segmentation, requiring the pipeline to
allocate costs to different parts of its system either by direct
assignment or via some other allocation method.\17\ Given this
additional complexity, we conclude that requiring these supplemental
page 700s filings would not be appropriate for the purposes of a
preliminary screen in the Commission's simplified indexing ratemaking
regime that relies upon industry-wide costs and not the pipeline's
individual cost of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ANOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,047 at P 28 (defining major pipeline
systems as ``large pipeline systems (at least over 250 miles) that
serve markets (either origin or destination) different from the
remainder of the pipeline's system'' and ``separate pipeline systems
(even those below the 250-mile threshold) established by a final
Commission order in a litigated rate case'').
    \16\ Much like the total company data, the partial segmentation
proposals may commingle costs from multiple rate design systems or
from parts of the system using different rate methodologies (such as
indexed, market-based, and settlement rates).
    \17\ See id. PP 35-42 (explaining how these proposals would
require additional data on page 700 to address allocation issues);
AOPL Initial Comments, Docket No. RM17-1, Van Hoecke Decl. at 25
(Jan. 18, 2017) (explaining allocation of costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Finally, regarding the ANOPR's proposal to disaggregate revenue
and throughput data between cost and non-cost based-rates,\18\ we find
that this proposal would be overly complex, and therefore, not
consistent the Commission's simplified and streamlined indexing regime.
Furthermore, the ANOPR's proposal to disaggregate revenue and
throughput data between cost and non-cost based rates could lead to
misleading comparisons of the pipeline's indexed rates on one portion
of the pipeline system to the costs of the entire pipeline.\19\
Although the ANOPR sought to propose ways in which the data could
nonetheless be useful,\20\ we conclude that the potential distortion
caused by such an ``apples to oranges'' comparison supports not
imposing this disaggregation of revenue and throughput data as an
annual, industry-wide reporting requirement. These issues are better
addressed in individual cost-of-service complaint proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ANOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,047 at PP 43-46.
    \19\ For example, a contractual committed rate could apply to
the newer part of the pipeline system for which the rate base has
not depreciated. In contrast, the cost-based rates may apply to
older, legacy parts of the system in which the rate base has
depreciated. Id. at n.65. In acknowledging this mismatch, the
Commission specifically stated that it did not intend to use the
disaggregated revenues under the Commission's indexing regime, which
is the primary regime for setting pipeline rates. Id. P 46.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In declining to adopt these additional reporting obligations on
page 700, we seek to preserve the intent of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 to ensure a simplified ratemaking regime. While these changes to
page 700 would require pipelines to provide more cost-of-service
information in their annual filings, the Commission's primary oil
pipeline ratemaking regime is indexing, not cost of service.\21\ Since
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Commission has periodically expanded
the information that pipelines must report on page 700,\22\ and we are
concerned about further expanding this reporting requirement in
circumstances where, as here, we believe that it would provide minimal
benefits to shippers while expanding the burden and complexity under
our indexing regime. Rather than imposing another additional annual
industry-wide reporting requirement, we prefer less burdensome and less
complex options that are consistent with the Energy Policy Act of
1992's mandate for simplified rate regulation. For example, as an
alternative to establishing an industry-wide reporting requirement,
under the Commission's current policies, shippers are able to file
cost-of-service complaints and, once such a complaint is filed, an oil
pipeline may be required to provide more specific data than the
contents of page 700 upon a shipper's complaint against the pipeline's
rates.\23\ Furthermore, in responding to a cost-of-service complaint,
the Commission will consider arguments beyond the total company cost-
of-service data on page 700, and this more expansive evaluation could
include claims by shippers that the pipeline's segments are obscuring
over-recoveries. In such circumstances, the Commission will set such
issues of material fact for hearing.\24\ We believe this approach more
appropriately balances pipeline and shipper interests under our
simplified indexing regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ AOPL II, 281 F.3d at 244.
    \22\ As promulgated in 1994, page 700 included only four lines:
(1) Total costs, (2) revenues, (3) barrels, and (4) barrel-miles.
Cost-of-Service Reporting and Filing Requirements for Oil Pipelines,
Order No. 571, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,006, at 31,168-69 (1994),
aff'd, AOPL I, 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Page 700 subsequently
expanded to include depreciation expense, amortization of deferred
earnings, rate base, rate of return, return on rate base, income tax
allowance, and total cost of service. Revisions to and Electronic
Filing of the FERC Form No. 6 and Related Uniform Systems of
Account, Order No. 620, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,115 (2000), reh'g
denied, Order No. 620-A, 94 FERC ] 61,130 (2001). The third
iteration of page 700 added additional information regarding rate
base, rate of return, return on trended original cost rate base, and
income tax allowance. Revisions to Page 700 of FERC Form No. 6,
Order No. 783, 144 FERC ] 61,049, at PP 29-40 (2013), reh'g denied,
Order No. 783-A, 148 FERC ] 61,235 (2014).
    \23\ See ConocoPhillips Co. v. SFPP, L.P., 137 FERC ] 61,005
(2011) (upon a cost-of-service complaint, requiring the pipeline to
provide system-specific data prior to further investigation at
hearing). Furthermore, if not available prior to the Commission's
investigation at hearing, the additional information sought by the
Joint Shippers' petition becomes available at an investigatory
hearing as part of the discovery process.
    \24\ The Commission applies a flexible standard when deciding
whether to set a cost-of-service complaint for hearing. See, e.g.,
Epsilon Trading LLC v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 164 FERC ] 61,202, at
PP 5, 50-51 (2018) (setting for hearing a cost-of-service complaint
where pipeline's page 700 showed revenues exceeding costs by 2.5
percent, but the complainants alleged reasonable grounds to suggest
that the cost components embedded in page 700 were not accurate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We also decline to adopt the proposals in the ANOPR for
modifying the Commission's policies for addressing protests and
complaints against index rate increases. However, the Commission
discusses some potential changes to these policies in our concurrent
order in HollyFrontier.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See HollyFrontier Ref. & Mktg. LLC v. SFPP, L.P., v 170
FERC ] 61,133 (2020). Among other things, that order, explains that
the substantially exacerbate test (which was one of the issues
discussed in the ANOPR) is arguably inconsistent with the objectives
of indexing, and proposes to eliminate the substantially exacerbate
test and replace it with the percentage comparison test. We also
plan to initiate a separate, generic proceeding in which we will be
requesting briefing from industry participants on (a) the proposal
to process complaints against index rate increases using the
percentage comparison test and to eliminate the substantially
exacerbate test and (b) the use of the 10 percent threshold level
when applying the percentage comparison test to complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to withdraw the ANOPR
and to terminate the proceeding in Docket No. RM17-1. Similarly, we
also deny the Joint Shippers' petition for rulemaking. We continue to
monitor and evaluate the Commission's oil pipeline policies, and value
the comments filed by participants in these proceedings. This input
will be considered in our ongoing effort to identify potential
enhancements to our regulatory policies and processes.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Glick is dissenting
with a separate statement attached.

    Issued: February 20, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to Indexing Policies and Page 700 of FERC Form      RM17-1-000
 No. 6..................................................
Petition for a Rulemaking of the Liquids Shippers Group,     RM15-19-000
 Airlines for America, and the National Propane Gas
 Association............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GLICK, Commissioner, dissenting:
    I am dissenting from today's order withdrawing the Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) and denying shippers' petition
for rulemaking, because the Commission must do more to ensure
shippers and the Commission have the information necessary to
protect against unjust and reasonable oil pipeline rates.\26\ It is
especially critical to provide shippers with adequate transparency
into pipeline costs, given that the Commission has chosen to rely
solely on shippers to ensure that pipeline rates are just and
reasonable, as required by the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).\27\
The Commission has the statutory authority to initiate its own cost-
of-service investigations into pipeline rates but has for decades
chosen not to do so.\28\ Instead of summarily terminating this
proceeding, the Commission should have proceeded with a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking aimed at enhancing pipelines' data reporting
requirements, so that the information available to shippers and the
public is useful both in the evaluation of index filings and for
cost-of-service rate challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Revisions to Indexing Policies and Page 700 of FERC Form
No. 6, 170 FERC ] 61,134 (2020) (Withdrawal Order).
    \27\ 49 App. U.S.C. 1(5) (1988).
    \28\ As the Commission explained in Order No. 561, the
Commission retains the responsibility to ensure rates are just and
reasonable under the ICA, and for this reason it ``will not
promulgate an explicit bar to Commission-initiated rate
investigations.'' Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Order No. 561, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
30,985, at 30,967 (1993). Nonetheless, the Commission explained
that, while it ``believes it is advisable to retain the authority to
investigate a rate on its own motion, it should make clear that it
does not contemplate invoking such authority except in the most
unusual circumstances.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is responsible for ensuring that the rates oil
pipelines charge are just and reasonable. Through the ANOPR, the
Commission sought to enhance the transparency of information
reported on FERC Form No. 6, page 700, to ensure the public can
effectively assess the reasonableness of oil pipeline rates and so
that the Commission can ``better fulfill its statutory obligations
under the ICA.'' \29\ As the Commission explained, a pipeline's
costs associated with providing one service may be ``fundamentally
different'' from the costs of providing another service.\30\ Because
the Commission's regulations only require pipelines to report
company-wide data, the information currently available to shippers
is at best, a rough approximation of the costs underlying a
particular shipper's rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Revisions to Indexing Policies and Page 700 of FERC Form
No. 6, 157 FERC ] 61,047, at P 5 (2016) (ANOPR Order).
    \30\ Id. P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ANOPR, the Commission proposed to require pipelines to
report more granular data, so that shippers could use the
information to compare the rate they are being charged ``with costs
that are more closely associated with that particular rate.'' \31\
The Commission stated that this information ``would be useful both
in the evaluation of index filings . . . and for cost-of-service
rate challenges to oil pipeline rates.'' \32\ However, in today's
order, the Commission does a complete about-face, withdrawing its
proposal on grounds that it is ``unnecessary and inconsistent'' with
the purposes of a ``preliminary screen.'' \33\ The Commission fails
to explain how the information currently available to shippers is
adequate for purposes of monitoring and challenging the justness and
reasonableness of oil pipeline rates, except to say that shippers
can use ``their knowledge of the pipeline system to support any
cost-of-service complaints.'' \34\ Moreover, while the Commission
notes the potential cost impact this ANOPR proposal may have on oil
pipeline companies, it appears to give scant consideration to the
benefit this additional information would have for ratepayers and
the public. Absent greater transparency into the costs underlying a
specific rate, shippers are left with no more than a pitiable choice
between the rate charged and a costly fishing expedition to obtain
the information they need to challenge the rate in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Withdrawal Order, 170 FERC ] 61,134 at P 6.
    \34\ Id. P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the Commission's historic practice of relying on
shippers to challenge rates rather than initiate its own
investigations where the rates charged may no longer be just and
reasonable, it is imperative that the Commission ensure shippers
have access to the information they need to carry out this essential
check. In today's order, the Commission fails to fulfill its last
remaining responsibility to ensure oil pipeline rates remain just
and reasonable.
    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

Richard Glick.
Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2020-04069 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Episode 6000 Data 50 40 30 20 10 Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID O XYLENE+ STYRENE, UG/ LO L  1.5  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID TERT BUTYLBENZENE, UG/ LTERT L 40 30 20 10 Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID TRANS 1,3 DICHLOROPROPENE, UG/ LTRANS L  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 12 10 8 6 4  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, UG/ L1,1,1 L 40 30 20 10 Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID P ISOPROPTOL+ 1,4 DCB, UG/ LP L  1.5  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 30 25 20 15 10 5  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID TETRACHLOROETHENE, UG/ LTETRACHLOROETHENE, L 20 15 10 5 Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID TRICHLOROETHENE, UG/ LTRICHLOROETHENE, L  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, UG/ L1,1,2,2 L 50 40 30 20 10 Page 11 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID SEC BUTYLBENZENE, UG/ LSEC L  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 80 60 40 20 0  1.5  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Organics, Method: 502.2 PIDOrganics, PID TOLUENE, UG/ LTOLUENE, L 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, UG/ L1,1,1,2 L 15 10 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHANE, UG/ L1,1,2 L  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Tue May 7 16: 45: 27 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 20 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, UG/ L1,1 L 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1 DICHLOROETHENE, UG/ L1,1 L  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 10 20 8 15 6 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1 DICHLOROPROPENE, UG/ L1,1 L 10 45 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2,3 TRICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2,3 L  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 50 40 15 30 10 20 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2,4 TRICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2,4 L 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2,4 TRIMETHYLBENZENE, UG/ L1,2,4 L  0.50.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  1 0 1 2 60 25 50 20 40 30 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2 DIBROMOETHANE, UG/ L1,2 L 15 20 10 10 5 0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2 L  <IP_ADDRESS>.01.52.0  1 0 1 2 15 Page 12 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,1 DICHLOROPROPANONE, UG/ L1,1 L 10 5 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 20 15 10 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2,3 TRICHLOROPROPANE, UG/ L1,2,3 L 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 10 8 6 4 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2 DIBROMO 3 CHLOROPROPANE, UG/ L1,2 L 1.0 1.5 2.0 6 5 4 3 2 1  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE, UG/ L1,2 L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 45: 41 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 7 6 5 4 3 2 1  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,2 DICHLOROPROPANE, UG/ L1,2 L 15 10 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,3 DICHLOROPROPANE, UG/ L1,3 L  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 14 12 10 8 6 4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 2,2 DICHLOROPROPANE, UG/ L2,2 L 8 6 4 2 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 2 HEXANONE, UG/ L2 L 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 14 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,3,5 TRIMETHYLBENZENE, UG/ L1,3,5 L 60 12 50 10 40 8 30 6 20 4 10 20  10 1 2  1012 Page 13 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,3 L 20 300 15 200 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1,4 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,4 L 100 5 0  1012  1012 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 1 CHLOROBUTANE, UG/ L1 L 12 15 10 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 2 BUTANONE, UG/ L2 L 8 6 5 4 2 <IP_ADDRESS>.0  1 0 1 2 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 2 CHLOROTOLUENE, UG/ L2 L 5 30 4 20 3 2 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 2 NITROPROPANE, UG/ L2 L 10 1 <IP_ADDRESS>  1 0 1 2 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 4 CHLOROTOLUENE, UG/ L4 L Tue May 7 16: 45: 54 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 40 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 4 ISOPROPYLTOLUENE, UG/ L4 L 8 30 6 20 4 10 2 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 4 METHYL 2 PENTANONE, UG/ L4 L  1 0 1 2 <IP_ADDRESS> 8 15 6 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 ACRYLONITRILE, UG/ LACRYLONITRILE, L 10 4 5 2 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 ALLYL CHLORIDE, UG/ LALLYL L 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 20 8 15 6 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 BROMOBENZENE, UG/ LBROMOBENZENE, L 4 52 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE, UG/ LBROMOCHLOROMETHANE, L  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 14 30 12 25 10 20 8 15 6 10 4 2 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 BROMOFORM, UG/ LBROMOFORM, L 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 BROMOMETHANE, UG/ LBROMOMETHANE, L 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 60 50 40 30 20 10 Page 14 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 ACETONE, UG/ LACETONE, L 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 50 40 30 20 10 0  10 12 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 BENZENE, UG/ LBENZENE, L 40 30 20 10 0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE, UG/ LBROMODICHLOROMETHANE, L 20 15 10 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CARBON DISULFIDE, UG/ LCARBON L  10 1 2 Tue May 7 16: 46: 07 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 8 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CHLOROACETONITRILE, UG/ LCHLOROACETONITRILE, L 60 50 15 6 40 30 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE, UG/ LCARBON L 4 20 5 210 0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2  1 0 1 2 Page 15 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CHLOROBENZENE, UG/ LCHLOROBENZENE, L 25 20 10 20 15 8 15 10 6 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CHLOROETHANE, UG/ LCHLOROETHANE, L Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CHLOROFORM, UG/ LCHLOROFORM, L 10 455 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CHLOROMETHANE, UG/ LCHLOROMETHANE, L  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 8 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHENE, UG/ LCIS L Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 CIS 1,3 DICHLOROPROPENE, UG/ LCIS L 8 15 6 6 10 4 4 5 2 2  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE, UG/ LDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE, L 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE, UG/ LDICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE, L 20 8 8 15 6 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 DIBROMOMETHANE, UG/ LDIBROMOMETHANE, L 6 10 44 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 DIETHYL ETHER, UG/ LDIETHYL L 2 5 2 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Tue May 7 16: 46: 21 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 1440 40 12 30 30 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 ETHYLBENZENE, UG/ LETHYLBENZENE, L 10 20 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 ETHYL METHACRYLATE, UG/ LETHYL L 8 20 6 10 10 4 02  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Page 16 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, L 40 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 HEXACHLOROETHANE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROETHANE, L 30 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 ISOPROPYLBENZENE, UG/ LISOPROPYLBENZENE, L 40 30 25 30 20 20 15 20 10 10 10 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 M+ P XYLENE, UG/ LM+ L  <IP_ADDRESS>.01.52.0  1 0 1 2  1 0 1 2 12 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 METHACRYLONITRILE, UG/ LMETHACRYLONITRILE, L 20 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 METHYL IODIDE, UG/ LMETHYL L 10 10 8 15 8 6 6 10 4 4 5 22 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER, UG/ LMETHYL L 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 20 30 30 15 20 20 10 10 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 METHYLACRYLATE, UG/ LMETHYLACRYLATE, L Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 METHYLENE CHLORIDE, UG/ LMETHYLENE L Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 METHYLMETHACRYLATE, UG/ LMETHYLMETHACRYLATE, L 5 00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Tue May 7 16: 46: 35 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 40 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 N BUTYLBENZENE, UG/ LN L Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 N PROPYLBENZENE, UG/ LN L 30 15 25 30 20 10 20 15 10 10 5 5 Page 17 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 NAPHTHALENE, UG/ LNAPHTHALENE, L  1 0 1 2  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 O XYLENE, UG/ LO L 30 50 20 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 PENTACHLOROETHANE, UG/ LPENTACHLOROETHANE, L 25 40 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 SEC BUTYLBENZENE, UG/ LSEC L 15 20 30 15 10 20 10 10 5 5 0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  1 0 1 2 35 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 STYRENE, UG/ LSTYRENE, L Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 TERT BUTYLBENZENE, UG/ LTERT L 50 40 30 40 25 30 3020 2015 20 10 10 10 5 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 TETRACHLOROETHENE, UG/ LTETRACHLOROETHENE, L  1 0 1 2  1 0 1 2  <IP_ADDRESS>.01.52.0 20 12 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 TOLUENE, UG/ LTOLUENE, L Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROETHENE, UG/ LTRANS L 8 15 10 6 8 10 64 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 TRANS 1,3 DICHLOROPROPENE, UG/ LTRANS L 4 5 2 2  1 0 1 2  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Tue May 7 16: 46: 48 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s TRANS 1,4 DICHLORO 2 BUTENE, UG/ LTRANS L Episode 6000 Data 35 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 15 10 5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 VINYL CHLORIDE, UG/ LVINYL L  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 1,2,4 TRICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2,4 L 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,3 L 80 20 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 TRICHLOROETHENE, UG/ LTRICHLOROETHENE, L 60 40 20 0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 40 30 20 10 Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 XYLENE ( TOTAL), UG/ LXYLENE L  10 1 2 20 15 10 5 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2 L 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 1,4 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,4 L 30 25 20 15 10 5  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Page 18 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 524.2Organics, 524.2 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE, UG/ LTRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE, L 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 1,2,3 TRICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2,3 L 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 1,2 DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE, UG/ L1,2 L 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,3,6 TRICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,3,6 L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 47: 02 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 80 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,4,6 TRICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4,6 L 25 50 20 40 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4,5 L 60 1530 40 20 10 20 10 5 000  2 1012  2 1012  2 1012 Page 19 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,4 DICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4 L 40 80 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4 L 30 30 60 20 20 40 10 10 20 0 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,4 DIMETHYLPHENOL, UG/ L2,4 L 00  2 1012  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,4 DINITROTOLUENE, UG/ L2,4 L 80 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2,6 DINITROTOLUENE, UG/ L2,6 L 25 60 20 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2 CHLORONAPHTHALENE, UG/ L2 L 50 60 40 15 40 30 10 20 20 5 10 000  2 1012  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2 CHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2 L 80 80 30 60 60 20 40 40 10 20 20 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2 NITROPHENOL, UG/ L2 L Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 2 PICOLINE, UG/ L2 L Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 3,3' DICHLOROBENZIDINE, UG/ L3,3' L 000  2 1012  2 1012  1 0 1 2 Tue May 7 16: 47: 16 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 20 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 4 BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER, UG/ L4 L 40 6 4 2 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 4 CHLORO 3 METHYLPHENOL, UG/ L4 L 25 20 15 10 5 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 ACENAPHTHENE, UG/ LACENAPHTHENE, L 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 ANTHRACENE, UG/ LANTHRACENE, L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BENZO( A) PYRENE, UG/ LBENZO( L Page 20 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 4 CHLOROPHENYLPHENYL ETHER, UG/ L4 L 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 ACENAPHTHYLENE, UG/ LACENAPHTHYLENE, L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BENZIDINE, UG/ LBENZIDINE, L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BENZO( B) FLUORANTHENE, UG/ LBENZO( L 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 4 NITROPHENOL, UG/ L4 L 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 ALPHA TERPINEOL, UG/ LALPHA L 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BENZO( A) ANTHRACENE, UG/ LBENZO( L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 47: 30 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 50 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BENZO( GHI) PERYLENE, UG/ LBENZO( L 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BIPHENYL, UG/ LBIPHENYL, L 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BIS( 2 CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER, UG/ LBIS( L 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 CARBAZOLE, UG/ LCARBAZOLE, L 10 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BENZO( K) FLUORANTHENE, UG/ LBENZO( L 40 8 30 6 20 4 10 2 0  1 0 1 2  2 1012 Page 21 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BETA NAPHTHYLAMINE, UG/ LBETA L 30 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BIS( 2 CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE, UG/ LBIS( L 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 00  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BIS( 2 CHLOROETHYL) ETHER, UG/ LBIS( L 20 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BIS( 2 ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE, UG/ LBIS( L 30 25 15 20 10 15 10 5 5 00  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LBUTYL L 6 5 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 CHRYSENE, UG/ LCHRYSENE, L 6 4 4 3 2 2 1 00  1012  1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DI N BUTYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDI L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 47: 44 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 12 2510 8 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DI N OCTYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDI L 20 6 15 4 10 25 00  1 0 1 2  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DI N PROPYLNITROSAMINE, UG/ LDI L 25 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DIBENZOFURAN, UG/ LDIBENZOFURAN, L 200 20 150 15 100 10 50 5 00  1 0 1 2  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DIBENZOTHIOPHENE, UG/ LDIBENZOTHIOPHENE, L 80 15 60 10 40 5 20 0 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDIMETHYL L 0  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DIPHENYL ETHER, UG/ LDIPHENYL L 20 80 15 60 10 40 20 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 FLUORANTHENE, UG/ LFLUORANTHENE, L 5 00  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 FLUORENE, UG/ LFLUORENE, L 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Page 22 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DIBENZO( A, H) ANTHRACENE, UG/ LDIBENZO( L 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DIETHYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDIETHYL L 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 DIPHENYLAMINE, UG/ LDIPHENYLAMINE, L 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 HEXACHLOROBENZENE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROBENZENE, L Tue May 7 16: 47: 58 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 100 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, L 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 INDENO( 1,2,3 CD) PYRENE, UG/ LINDENO( L 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N DOCOSANE, UG/ LN L 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N HEXACOSANE, UG/ LN L 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 6 5 4 3 2 1 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 ISOPHORONE, UG/ LISOPHORONE, L 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N DODECANE, UG/ LN L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N HEXADECANE, UG/ LN L 25 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE, L 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Page 23 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 HEXACHLOROETHANE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROETHANE, L 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N DECANE, UG/ LN L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N EICOSANE, UG/ LN L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE, UG/ LN L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 48: 12 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 80 100 80 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE, UG/ LN L 60 60 40 40 20 20 00  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N OCTACOSANE, UG/ LN L 40 8 30 6 4 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N TETRACOSANE, UG/ LN L 20 2 10 00  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N TETRADECANE, UG/ LN L 30 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 NAPHTHALENE, UG/ LNAPHTHALENE, L 80 60 20 40 10 20 00  2 1012  1 0 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 NITROBENZENE, UG/ LNITROBENZENE, L 100 40 80 30 60 20 40 1020 0 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 PENTACHLOROPHENOL, UG/ LPENTACHLOROPHENOL, L 0  2 1012  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 PHENANTHRENE, UG/ LPHENANTHRENE, L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Page 24 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N OCTADECANE, UG/ LN L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 N TRIACONTANE, UG/ LN L 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 P CYMENE, UG/ LP L 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 PHENOL, UG/ LPHENOL, L Tue May 7 16: 48: 26 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s PHENOL, 2 METHYL 4,6 DINITRO, UG/ LPHENOL, L Episode 6000 Data 80 60 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 1,2,3 TRICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2,3 L 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 1,2 DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE, UG/ L1,2 L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,3,6 TRICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,3,6 L 80 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 PYRENE, UG/ LPYRENE, L Page 25 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 0Organics, 0 STYRENE, UG/ LSTYRENE, L 25 60 20 40 15 10 20 5 00  2 1012  2 1012 30 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 1,2,4 TRICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2,4 L 30 20 20 10 10 00  2 1012  1 0 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,2 L 25 150 20 15 100 10 50 5 0 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,3 L 0  1 0 1 2  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 1,4 DICHLOROBENZENE, UG/ L1,4 L 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4,5 L 0  1 0 1 2  2 1012 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4,6 TRICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4,6 L 30 Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 48: 40 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DICHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4 L 50 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DINITROTOLUENE, UG/ L2,4 L 50 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 CHLOROPHENOL, UG/ L2 L 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 3,3' DICHLOROBENZIDINE, UG/ L3,3' L Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DIMETHYLPHENOL, UG/ L2,4 L 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 40 30 20 10 0  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,6 DINITROTOLUENE, UG/ L2,6 L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 NITROPHENOL, UG/ L2 L 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 4 BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER, UG/ L4 L 150 100 60 50 Page 26 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Relative Standard Deviation Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, UG/ L2,4 L 50 0  10 1 2 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 CHLORONAPHTHALENE, UG/ L2 L 40 30 20 10 0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 PICOLINE, UG/ L2 L 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 4 CHLORO 3 METHYLPHENOL, UG/ L4 L Tue May 7 16: 48: 54 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 15 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 4 CHLOROPHENYLPHENYL ETHER, UG/ L4 L 25 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ACENAPHTHYLENE, UG/ LACENAPHTHYLENE, L 80 60 40 20 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZIDINE, UG/ LBENZIDINE, L 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( B) FLUORANTHENE, UG/ LBENZO( L Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 4 NITROPHENOL, UG/ L4 L 10 5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 60 40 20 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ALPHA TERPINEOL, UG/ LALPHA L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( A) ANTHRACENE, UG/ LBENZO( L 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( GHI) PERYLENE, UG/ LBENZO( L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Page 27 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ACENAPHTHENE, UG/ LACENAPHTHENE, L 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ANTHRACENE, UG/ LANTHRACENE, L 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( A) PYRENE, UG/ LBENZO( L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( K) FLUORANTHENE, UG/ LBENZO( L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 49: 08 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 50 30 15 40 20 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BETA NAPHTHYLAMINE, UG/ LBETA L 10 0  101 2 50 40 30 20 10 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIS( 2 CHLOROETHYL) ETHER, UG/ LBIS( L 0  2 10 1 2 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LBUTYL L 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DI N BUTYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDI L 30 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIPHENYL, UG/ LBIPHENYL, L 10 Page 28 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIS( 2 CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE, UG/ LBIS( L 20 5 10 0 0  2 1012  1 0 1 40 25 Relative Standard Deviation 30 20 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIS( 2 CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER, UG/ LBIS( L 10 0  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 CARBAZOLE, UG/ LCARBAZOLE, L 80 60 40 20 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DI N OCTYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDI L 20 15 10 5 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIS( 2 ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE, UG/ LBIS( L 0  2 10 1 2 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 CHRYSENE, UG/ LCHRYSENE, L 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DI N PROPYLNITROSAMINE, UG/ LDI L Tue May 7 16: 49: 22 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s 2 Episode 6000 Data 15 20 40 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIBENZO( A, H) ANTHRACENE, UG/ LDIBENZO( L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 25 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIETHYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDIETHYL L 20 15 10 5 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIPHENYLAMINE, UG/ LDIPHENYLAMINE, L 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 HEXACHLOROBENZENE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROBENZENE, L Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIBENZOFURAN, UG/ LDIBENZOFURAN, L 10 5 0  10 1 2 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE, UG/ LDIMETHYL L 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 FLUORANTHENE, UG/ LFLUORANTHENE, L 25 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, L Page 29 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIBENZOTHIOPHENE, UG/ LDIBENZOTHIOPHENE, L 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 15 10 5 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIPHENYL ETHER, UG/ LDIPHENYL L  10 1 2 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 FLUORENE, UG/ LFLUORENE, L 30 25 20 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE, L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 49: 36 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 12 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 HEXACHLOROETHANE, UG/ LHEXACHLOROETHANE, L 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N DECANE, UG/ LN L 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N EICOSANE, UG/ LN L 50 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE, UG/ LN L 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 INDENO( 1,2,3 CD) PYRENE, UG/ LINDENO( L 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N DOCOSANE, UG/ LN L 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N HEXACOSANE, UG/ LN L 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE, UG/ LN L 10 8 6 4 2 0  10 1 2 Page 30 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ISOPHORONE, UG/ LISOPHORONE, L 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N DODECANE, UG/ LN L 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N HEXADECANE, UG/ LN L 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N OCTACOSANE, UG/ LN L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 49: 50 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data 8 100 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N OCTADECANE, UG/ LN L 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N TRIACONTANE, UG/ LN L 15 10 5 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 P CYMENE, UG/ LP L 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PHENOL, UG/ LPHENOL, L Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N TETRACOSANE, UG/ LN L 6 4 2 0  2 10 1 2 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 NAPHTHALENE, UG/ LNAPHTHALENE, L 50 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PENTACHLOROPHENOL, UG/ LPENTACHLOROPHENOL, L 50 40 30 20 10 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PHENOL, 2 METHYL 4,6 DINITRO, UG/ LPHENOL, L 80 60 40 20 0  2 10 1 2 Page 31 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N TETRADECANE, UG/ LN L 50 40 30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 NITROBENZENE, UG/ LNITROBENZENE, L 6 4 2 0  10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PHENANTHRENE, UG/ LPHENANTHRENE, L 25 20 15 10 5 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PYRENE, UG/ LPYRENE, L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 50: 04 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s Episode 6000 Data Page 32 of 32 Relative Standard Deviation vs Spike Concentrations ( Log 10 Scale)

30 20 10 0  2 10 1 2 Organics, Method: 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 STYRENE, UG/ LSTYRENE, L Relative Standard Deviation Tue May 7 16: 50: 18 2002 Log 10 of Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd3. s


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3437]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2808-017]

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC; Notice of Availability of
Final Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for subsequent license for the Barker's Mill
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Little Androscoggin River in
Androscoggin County, Maine, and has prepared a Final Environmental
Assessment (FEA) for the project. The project does not occupy federal
land.
    The FEA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the project, and concludes that licensing the
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the FEA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Karen Sughrue at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 6, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02081 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2003 SUBJECT: Sulfonated Oleic Acid Report of the Antimicrobials Division Toxicology Endpoint Selection Committee.

FROM: Timothy F. McMahon, Ph. D. Chair, ADTC Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

Michelle Centra, Pharmacologist Executive Secretary, ADTC Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

THROUGH: John Redden, Roger Gardner, Stephen Dapson, Ph. D., Karen Hamernik, Ph. D., Melba Morrow, D. V. M., Sanyvette Williams Foy, D. V. M, Jonathan Chen, Ph. D., Timothy Leighton, Najm Shamim, Ph. D., Deborah Smegal PC Codes: 079604 On February 25, 2003, the Antimicrobials Division Toxicology Endpoint Selection Committee ( ADTC) reviewed the available Toxicology data for sulfonated oleic acid and discussed endpoint selection for use as appropriate in occupational/ residential exposure risk assessments. The potential for increased susceptibility of infants and children from exposure to sulfonated oleic acid was also evaluated by the committee in order to meet the statutory requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. The conclusions drawn at this meeting are presented in this report. 2 Committee Members in Attendance Members present were: Timothy F. McMahon, Ph. D. Stephen Dapson, Ph. D.; Jonathan Chen, Ph. D.; Timothy Leighton; John Redden; Karen Hamernik, Ph. D., Michelle Centra,

Member( s) in absentia: Roger Gardner, Ph. D.; Sanyvette Williams, D. V. M.; Melba Morrow, D. V. M., Najm Shamim, Ph. D.

Data Evaluation / Report Presentation Timothy F. McMahon, Ph. D.

Toxicologist 3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE ( Signature indicates concurrence unless otherwise stated)

Stephen Dapson Jonathan Chen Roger Gardner Karen Hamernik Tim Leighton ________________________

Tim McMahon ( chair)

Melba Morrow John Redden Sanyvette Williams Foy Deborah Smegal _______________________

OTHER ATTENDEES: 4 Introduction Sulfonated oleic acid ( CAS Reg. nos. 68443 05 0 and 67998 94 1) is currently registered for use on milking equipment, food processing, handling, and storage areas, breweries, milk processing plants, meat processing plants, and beverage processing plants. The active ingredient consists of two chemical constituents, one as the primary ingredient ( 9 octadecenoic acid, sulfonated sodium salt, Cas Reg no. 68443 05 0) and the other as a by product ( octadecanoic acid, sulfo, sodium salt, 67998 94 1). Only two end use products are currently registered: AFCO Low Foam Tops and PER VAD. Both of these end use products contain sulfonated oleic acid at 2.6 5%, with higher percentages of phosphoric acid in the formulation. There are two registrants for sulfonated oleic acid, Alex C. Fergusson, Inc. and Diversey Corp.

Physical/ Chemical Properties Table 3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Oleic Acid Sulfonates Physical and Chemical Property 9 Octadecenoic acid ( 9Z), sulfonated, sodium salt 68443 05 0 Oleic acid, sulfonated, sodium salt ( octadecanoic acid, sulfo, sodium salt) 67998 94 1 9 Octadecenoic acid ( 9Z), sulfonated ( sulfonated oleic acid) 68988 76 1 Molecular Formula C18H33NaO5S C18H35NaO5S C18H34O5S Molecular Weight 384.51 386.52 363 Water Solubility, mg/ L ( dispersible) 608 2 Vapor Pressure, mmHg < 1 x 10 6 2.29 x 10 20, estimated < 1 x 10 6 Henry =

s Law Constant, atmm3 mole < 1 x 10 8 8.75 x 10 12 < 1 x 10 8 Log Kow 2.29 2.51, estimated 4.44 Log Koc 2.92 2.92 2.92 Log BCF 1.85, estimated 1.85, estimated 1.85, estimated Melting point, 0C 312 311.7 219 Boiling point, 0C > 400 712 > 400 5 Table 3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Oleic Acid Sulfonates Physical and Chemical Property 9 Octadecenoic acid ( 9Z), sulfonated, sodium salt 68443 05 0 Oleic acid, sulfonated, sodium salt ( octadecanoic acid, sulfo, sodium salt) 67998 94 1 9 Octadecenoic acid ( 9Z), sulfonated ( sulfonated oleic acid) 68988 76 1 Structure O O S O O Na+

Sulfonated Oleic acid, sodium salt O O O S O O O Na O O S O O O Dietary Exposure and Risk The Food and Drug Administration has established several food additive clearances for sulfonated oleic acid. Specifically, the following are noted:

172.860, 21 CFR: The food additive fatty acids may be safely used in food and in the manufacture of food components ... and meets the following specifications: free of chick edema factor, unsaponifiable matter does not exceed 2 percent..

172.862: The food additive oleic acid derived from tall oil fatty acids may be safely used in food and as a component in the manufacture of food grade additives in accordance with the prescribed conditions, as long as 1) the quantity added to food does not exceed the amount reasonably required to accomplish its intended physical, nutritive, or other technical effect in food, and 2) when intended for use in or on food it is of appropriate food grade and is prepared and handled as a food ingredient.

176.200, defoaming agents: oleic acid, sulfonated, sodium salt: without limitation, can be used safely as components of articles intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food.

178.1010( b)( 12): A An aqueous solution containing the sodium salt of sulfonated oleic acid... In addition to use on food processing equipment and utensils, this solution may be used on glass bottles and other glass containers intended for holding milk.@

In addition to these clearances, the Agency =

s Inert Ingredient Focus Group ( IIFG) has also performed reassessment of tolerance exemptions for several fatty acids ( July, 2002), including oleic acid. The conclusion of this assessment is that fatty acids as a group are of low toxicity, are metabolized by the body into compounds that serve as energy sources and components of cells, 6 and there is no harm to the general population including infants and children when exposed to these compounds. The exposure levels encountered from the pesticidal use of sulfonated oleic acid are insignificant in comparison to levels of fatty acids encountered normally in the human diet. Therefore there is no risk of concern from dietary exposure.

Non dietary exposure The primary uses of sulfonated oleic acid as an antimicrobial pesticide are in food processing/ handling/ storage areas. As such, potential exposure is expected to be primarily through the diet if such exposure occurs. Non dietary exposure through dermal and inhalation contact may be expected, but sulfonated oleic acid has no appreciable vapor pressure at ambient temperatures, and oleic acid has been found to be only a mild dermal irritant at high doses. Therefore, at the exposures expected from the food processing uses, risk is expected to be negligible.

Conclusions The ADTC considered the fact that the registered uses for sulfonated oleic acid may result in residues in food. It was recognized, however, that clearances for use of sulfonated oleic acid up to 200 ppm are allowed by the Food and Drug Administration for food processing equipment and glass bottles for milk. This level of clearance is orders of magnitude greater than the Agency =

s level of concern for indirect food uses of antimicrobial pesticides ( i. e. > 200 parts per billion) so it is apparent that sulfonated oleic acid is of a low order of toxicity. Further, the ADTC recognized that sulfonated oleic acid is similar to oleic acid itself. The fatty acids as a group have been assessed with respect to safety by the Agency =

s IIFG workgroup ( July 31, 2002 assessment from Kathryn Boyle and Kerry Leifer, co chairs), and it is concluded from that analysis that the fatty acids have a safe history of use as natural components of many foods, as direct food additives, and as cosmetic ingredients. Fatty acids are processed by known metabolic pathways within the body and are necessary for normal cellular functioning. Further, comparison of the chemistry of sulfonated oleic acid as compared to the non sulfonated oleic does not reveal significant differences. As the exposures anticipated from the indirect food uses ( as well as non dietary dermal and/ or inhalation exposure) are insignificant in comparison to levels encountered for fatty acids in the normal human diet, use of these chemicals in pesticide products is unlikely to pose any significant hazard to the general population or to any subgroup including infants and children. Therefore, there are no toxicity endpoints of concern for this chemical.