[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60190-60193]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-11-000]

East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Lewis Creek Amendment Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Lewis Creek Amendment Project
(Project). The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making
process to

determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity. East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC (East Cheyenne) is seeking
authorization to amend the certificate previously issued in FERC Docket
No. CP10-34-000 for the East Cheyenne Gas Storage Project in Logan
County, Colorado. Specifically East Cheyenne seeks authorization to
combine the working gas capacity and cushion gas capacity for the West
Peetz and Lewis Creek Storage Fields and utilize the same maximum
bottom-hole pressure, thus eliminating separately certified capacities
for each field. East Cheyenne requests this amendment because recent
(updated) geologic information shows that the West Peetz and Lewis
Creek D-sands in the storage field are a single integrated reservoir.
As part of this consolidation, East Cheyenne would reconfigure certain
natural gas facilities in the Lewis Creek portion of the Project; and
expand the buffer zone of the Project.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before January 8, 2018.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on October 27, 2017, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP18-11-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    East Cheyenne provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know? This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow
these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
eRegister. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please
select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP18-11-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    East Cheyenne proposes to amend its current certificated Project
by:
    1. Reconfiguring the Injection/Withdrawal (I/W) wells in the Lewis
Creek portion of the Project by converting one existing non-
jurisdictional well to an I/W well (LC-D021) and collocating on the
existing, non-jurisdictional well pad five directionally drilled I/W
wells (LC-D022, LC-D023, LC-D024, LC-D025, and LC-D026).
    2. combining the certificated maximum working gas and cushion gas
capacities of the West Peetz and Lewis Creek Storage Fields,
eliminating the separate certificated West Peetz and Lewis Creek
working and cushion gas capacities and reallocating cushion gas
capacity as working gas capacity;
    3. decreasing the total cushion gas capacity to 12.1 billion cubic
feet and increasing the total working gas capacity to 22.5 billion
cubic feet; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ East Cheyenne states that there would be no changes proposed
to the injection and withdrawal capacities for the Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. eliminating the currently certificated maximum bottom-hole
pressure distinction between the West Peetz Storage Field (2,353 pounds
per square inch absolute [PSIA]) and the Lewis Creek Storage Field
(1,900 PSIA) and applying a maximum bottom-hole pressure of 2,353 PSIA
uniformly across the single, integrated storage reservoir;
    5. reconfiguring the pipelines originally certificated for the
Lewis Creek Storage Field by:
    a. Reducing the diameter of the previously authorized 20-inch-
diameter Lewis Creek natural gas mainline pipeline to a 16-inch-
diameter pipeline; and
    b. reconfigure the 16-inch-diameter Lewis Creek natural gas
mainline and the 6-inch-diameter water disposal pipeline as the Lewis
Creek produced water mainline to connect directly to the reconfigured
I/W wells LC-D021 through LC-D026 on the single LC-D021 well pad.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ East Cheyenne would no longer require the unconstructed
natural gas and produced water laterals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. reconfiguring the monitoring wells originally certificated for
the Lewis Creek Storage Field. Eight monitoring wells are currently
certificated in the Lewis Creek Storage Field: Two are existing and in
service, (LC-M001 and LC-M002) and six are authorized but unconstructed
(LC-M003, LC-M005 through LC-M009). LC-M003 would be relocated and
installed as a new well (LC-M003 was previously authorized to be
converted from an existing non-jurisdictional well). East Cheyenne
would install one new monitoring well, LC-M004. There would be no
change to monitoring wells LC-M005 and LC-M006. East Cheyenne would
relocate and convert three existing non-jurisdictional wells to
monitoring wells, LC-M007, LC-M008, LC-M009, for a total of nine wells
to monitor the D-Sands in the Lewis Creek Storage Field; and

    7. Eliminating the currently certificated, but unconstructed
produced water disposal well (LC-W002), well pad, and appurtenant
facilities certificated for the Project.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The changes along with the pipelines, wells, well pads, and access
roads that East Cheyenne no longer requires as a result of the
reconfiguration of the Lewis Creek portion of the certificated Project,
would result in a reduction in the overall land requirements for the
Project on the order of 55 acres associated with construction and 35
acres for operation. Land requirements for the amended Project would
include land to be used temporarily for construction and land to be
retained during operations as aboveground facility sites in the Lewis
Creek storage field (well pads and access roads). The current land
requirements for the amended Project is on the order of 53 acres for
construction and 14 acres for operation.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\4\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We, us, and our refer to the environmental staff of the
Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     endangered and threatened species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\5\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\6\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

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

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the
``Document-less Intervention Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's website. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three

digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP18-11). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: December 8, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27223 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Developing an Emissions Trading Program for Regional Haze Dr. David Harrison Senior Vice President May 6, 2005  1

Overview  Background and Objectives  Potential Gains from Emissions Trading  Lessons from Experience with Emissions Trading  Key Elements of an Emissions Trading Program for Regional Haze  Next Steps  2 Background and Objectives  3

Background

NERA Economic Consulting   Firm of about 500 professionals with 10 offices in U. S.

and six offices abroad   Extensive experience assisting public and private groups with regard to emissions trading programs,

including Acid Rain, RECLAIM, NOX SIP Call and most recently EU program for CO2

Regional Haze Regulations   EPA Proposed Rule provides regulatory framework and guidelines for BART   EPA supports use of a regional trading program instead of source by source BART determination  4

Presentation Objectives 1. Clarify emissions trading and the nature of its potential gains 2. Provide lessons from experience in previous emissions trading programs 3. Outline the major features of a trading program for regional haze

Note that we do not consider how the overall cap/ budget should be set 4. Identify next steps in deciding whether to pursue the emissions trading option  5 Potential Gains from Emissions Trading  6

What is Emissions Trading?

 Flexibility to find and to choose the lowest cost means for reducing emissions  Allows plants to transfer emission reductions from relatively high cost plants to lower cost plants  Works only when costs differ among plants  Assumes requirement to reduce emissions and effective enforcement  7

Potential Environmental and Economic Gains from Emissions Trading  Environmental gains   Emission budget must achieve greater visibility progress than BART   " Cap" provides greater certainty that the visibility progress actually will take place  Economic gains   Cost savings from trading ( relative to uniform " command and control" approach)

  Dynamic incentives to develop cost effective technologies  8

Potential Cost Savings from Flexibility Under Emissions Trading  Each facility has three major options 1. Reduce to level set by initial allocation (" standard")

2. Reduce more and sell allowances 3. Reduce less and buy allowances  The additional options ( 2 and 3) translate into lower overall cost of meeting the cap  Key reason: facilities differ in the marginal costs of reducing emissions  9

Marginal Cost of Meeting a Hypothetical Standard at Two Plants $ 500 $ 3,000 $ 0 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 2,000 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,500 Plant I (" Low Cost") Plant II (" High Cost")

Marginal Cost of Control ($

per Ton)  10

Gains to Plants from Trade of a Single Emission Allowance $ 0 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 2,000 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,500 Plant I (" Low Cost") Plant II (" High Cost")

Marginal Cost of Control ($

per Ton) Gain to I Gains to II Market " Price"

($ 2,000)  11

Gains are Shared Among Sellers (" low cost") and Buyers (" high cost")

Buyer of allowance gains $ 1,000   Face higher costs of control   Gain $ 1,000 from buying allowance ($ 2,000) rather than reducing ($ 3,000)

Seller of allowance gains $ 1,500   Have lower costs of control   Gain $ 1,500 from selling allowance ($ 2,000) that only costs $ 500 to " produce"

Sum: Overall gain of $ 2,500 split between buyer and seller   Full trading is more complicated; but this simple example illustrates the basic nature of the gains and their split between buyers and sellers  12 Lessons from Experience with Emissions Trading  13

Three Major Emissions Trading Programs Reviewed 1. SO2 Allowance Trading ( Acid Rain Program)

  Most prominent program 2. RECLAIM NOx and SO2 Trading Programs   Illustrate how to include multiple sectors 3. Northeast NOx Budget Program   Illustrates how to include multiple states Note: all are " cap and trade" programs   Other trading programs include credit based programs and emissions averaging programs.  14

Acid Rain Trading Program  Best known emission trading program  Widely regarded as success and prototype for other programs  Program to reduce SO2 emissions from existing electric generating plants  Passed in 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments  15

Basic Elements of Acid Rain Trading Program

National cap on SO2 emissions from electric generating plants

Phase 1: 1995 1999   Cap reduced emissions by 3.5 million tons per year   263 largest emitters

Phase 2: 2000

  Cap reduced emissions by about 9 million tons per year   Covers virtually all generating units  16

Considerable Concerns When Program Developed

Cost savings may not materialize   Regulated utilities incentives?

  Allowances not " property right"

  EPA oversight?

Environmental effects may be perverse   Adverse effects on the Northeast   No constraints on trading

Administrative costs may be excessive   Experience with EPA ET programs   New program  17

Concerns Not Borne Out in Experience

Active Market for SO2 Allowances   Generators did trade allowances   Restructuring in some states helped

Banking Substantial in Phase 1   Use of scrubbers lead to " overcontrol"

Environmental performance not perverse   Modeling suggests no increase in Northeast air pollution due to trading

Administrative costs not excessive   Evidence suggests costs of setting up and administering the program have been modest  18

Accelerated Reductions through Banking for Acid Rain Phase I Units 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Million tons SO 2 ALLOWANCES EMISSIONS  19

Prices for SO 2 Allowances Show an Efficient Market $ 0 $ 50 $ 100 $ 150 $ 200 $ 250 $ 300 $ 350 Jan 92 Jan 93 Jan 94 Jan 95 Jan 96 Jan 97 Jan 98 Jan 99 Jan 00 Jan 01 Jan 02 Ear ly Sales Cantor Fitzgerald Emission Exchange Fields ton EPA Auction Price (

nominal $/

ton) SO 2 Allowance Prices 1993 2003  20

Acid Rain Trading Estimated to Reduce Cost by About 50 Percent  Estimating cost savings complicated   Equivalent " command and control"

regulations?

 MIT careful study including all sources of cost savings   Spatial flexibility in Phase 1 and Phase 2   Temporal flexibility ( banking)

 Some evidence of overcontrol in Phase 1 that reduced savings somewhat  21

RECLAIM Program in Los Angeles

Cap and trade program developed at the same time as national acid rain program

More complex than acid rain trading   NOx and SO2   Many sectors, not just electric generators   Two trading zones, coastal and inland   Detailed allocation formulas

Did not include banking, creating problems in 2000 when prices increased substantially  22

NOx Emissions and RECLAIM Trading Credits ( RTCs) Over Time 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Compliance Year NOx Emissions (

tons/

yr) Total RTC Supply Reported Emissions RECLAIM NO RECLAIM NO X Emissions and RTC Supply, 1994 Emissions and RTC Supply, 1994 2000 ( tons/ year)

2000 ( tons/ year)  23

Dramatic Increase in RTC NOx Prices in 2000 $ 0 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 $ 22,500 $ 30,000 $ 37,500 $ 45,000 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 RTC Compliance Year Price ($/

ton) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 1999  24

High NOx Prices Triggered Backstop Provision  Price exceeded " trigger price" of $ 15,000 per ton  White Paper to evaluate causes  Major cause: increased demand by electric generation sources  Cost effective control options exist ( e. g., SCR) but cannot be installed quickly  25

2001 Changes in RECLAIM

Power plants separated temporarily from RECLAIM

Power plants pay mitigation fee   $ 15,000 per ton   Fees used to reduce emissions

Power plants must submit compliance plans

Temporary credit programs for mobile and area sources  26

Lessons from RECLAIM Experience in 2000  Uncertainty over allowance prices under cap and trade program  Mitigation fee similar to " safety valve"

recommended to avoid price spikes  Prices have declined and compliance plans have been submitted  Too early to determine full effects of the changes  27

Northeast NOx Budget Program

Provide cap and trade flexibility to reduce NOx   Power plants   Other large stationary sources

Covers summer ( May September) emissions

Three phases, two with caps   Phase 2: 55 65 percent reduction   Phase 3: 65 75 percent reduction

Requirements differ within the region  28

Implementation by Individual States  EPA Model Rule   Provides template for trading program   Allocation by states   Banking permitted, but use of banked emissions limited (" flow control")

 Considered different requirements for different days within the summer   No practical option  29

NO x OTC Prices Have Varied Considerably Market Price Index for the OTC NOx Budget Program  30

Early History Suggests NOx Budget Achieving Goals  Cost savings   Estimated at 30 percent  Market participation high   Eight states participated   15 percent of allowanced traded  Environmental performance good   Emissions reduced   No evidence of " wrong way trades"  31

Lessons from Emissions Trading Experience Can be Put in Five Categories 1. Economic performance 2. Environmental performance 3. Initial allocation and " equity"

4. Trading flexibility with banking 5. Enforcement and monitoring  32

Lesson 1: Economic Performance  Cap and trade programs have lowered the cost of meeting environmental goals   Best evidence is   50% cost savings in SO2 acid rain program ( relative to no trading)

 Significant trading in other programs implies cost savings  Evidence of some impetus for technological innovation ( e. g., scrubber technology)

 No evidence of excessive administrative costs  33

Lesson 2: Environmental Performance  Trading has enhanced   not compromised   achievement of environmental goals  Automatic " offset" for high cost situations instead of relaxed emissions standards  Banking accelerates emission reductions  Flexibility facilitates consensus on demanding environmental goals  34

Monitored reductions in wet sulfate deposition due to the Acid Rain Program 1989 91 1997 99  35

Lesson 3: Initial Allocation and Equity Concerns  Clear allocations critical to success   Must know " where you start"

  Allow for efficient markets to develop

Contentious and difficult because allowances have substantial value

Many different allocation methods applied, but without perceptible effect on economic or environmental performance

Allowance allocation can address equity and political concerns that arise in adoption and implementation  36

Lesson 4: Trading Flexibility with Banking  Temporal flexibility is undervalued but important  Provides incentive for early reductions in phased in programs  Provides flexibility in dealing with sourcespecific adjustment costs and unexpected cost shocks  RECLAIM's NOx experience illustrates importance of temporal trading  37

Lesson 5: Enforcement and Monitoring  Environmental integrity critical to success  Accurate emissions monitoring   Continuous emissions monitors ( CEMs) for large sources   Flexibility for lower cost options for smaller sources ( RECLAIM)

 Significant penalties for cheating   Provide for " true up" period  38

Summary: Key Lessons from Experience with Emissions Trading 1. Emissions trading has been successful in reducing the cost of meeting emissions targets 2. Emissions trading has enhanced achievement of environmental gains 3. Acceptable initial allocations can be set without impairing cost saving and environmental objectives 4. Banking has played a major rule in improving the economic and environmental performance of emissions trading 5. Accurate monitoring and enforcement are critical to the integrity of the programs  39

Prominent Successes Mean that Emissions Trading Has Become the Norm

CAIR   Provides for interstate cap and trade programs for NOx and SO2

Mercury Rule   Provides for interstate cap and trade program for mercury   Caveat: concern for " hot spots" in potential litigation

EU Emissions Trading Scheme   Establishes a EU wide cap and trade program for CO2  40

Key Elements of an Emissions Trading Program for Regional Haze  41

Application of Emissions Trading to Regional Haze

Successful examples suggest emissions trading is a promising approach

But, details matter!

Need to consider specific features of a program for regional haze   Specific elements identified and organized   Likely performance relative to technology oriented approach for all relevant sources   Note: the presentation does not consider the level of the cap,

but rather how to design and implement a trading program to achieve whatever cap is ultimately set

Existing information   EPA preamble in final Regional Haze rule ( July 1999)

  Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP) backstop Market Trading Proposal ( August 2003)

  CENRAP Emissions Trading Subgroup ( February 2005)  42

Trading Features Can Be Put into Three Broad Categories 1. Threshold Features   Facilities included   States included   Opt in possibilities   Cap/ budget and timing 2. Design Features   Initial allocation   Trading rules   " Hot spots" Trigger   Banking   Safety valve 3. Implementation Features   Monitoring/ reporting   Tracking/ registry   True up period   Compliance   Enforcement/ Penalties   Program audit  43

Facilities Included

BART eligible sources   26 specific source categories listed under CAA   Constructed/ placed in operation between August 1962 and August 1977 and potential to emit 250 tons or more of visibility impairing pollutant

Non BART eligible sources   Sources included to achieve " reasonable progress"

  E. g., WRAP includes facilities with SO2 emissions 100+ tons ( subject to case by case review) and new sources with potential to emit 100+ tons   Caveat: accurate measurement/ tracking necessary

Caveat: inclusion not required if installed BART and/ or source included in CAIR   But,

Emission requirements can be more stringent than BART

CAIR does not apply to facilities in Western states  44

States Included  States to be included   Cost savings greater with more states   Some elements ( e. g., allocation) can differ among states   Geographic differences among sources more important with larger trading area  Use of " model rule" can reduce the administrative costs to states of participating  45

Opt In Possibilities

Opt in candidates   Beyond those included specifically ( BART eligible and linked to " reasonable progress" requirement)

  Should influence regional haze to be considered

Gains from allowing opt in 1. Environmental gains if require " contribution to the environment" to opt in

Caveat: want to avoid " anyway reductions," i. e.,

reductions that would have occurred without opt in 2. Cost saving gains from introduction of additional credits  46

Cap/ Budget and Timing

Emission cap/ budget is limit on total emissions for sources in the program   Set separately for each state, with total cap depending upon which states participate   Many technical and legal issues related to setting the cap and determining its timing ( including " progress" milestones)

Technical considerations include   BART technologies and effectiveness   Growth projections   Emissions/ dispersion modeling

Legal considerations include   EPA forthcoming response to court remand related to 2002 American Corn Growers v. EPA decision invalidating EPA method of determining BART   WRAP response to February 2005 CEED v. EPA decision declaring WRAP determination of cap invalid under American Corn

Level and timing of overall cap are important considerations but they are not the focus of this presentation  47

Initial Allocation

Typically the most contentious element   Allocation of shares of fixed cap a " zero sum game"

  But sometimes confused with setting overall cap ( e. g.,

controversies in Europe over Member State NAPs)

State leeway to determine for in state facilities   Different formulas among states generally do not affect the success ( e. g., cost savings) of the program   Some complications could affect program performance ( e. g.,

new source set asides, updating)

Following slides provide information on:

1. Basic choices 2. Difference between facility allocation and control decision 3. Set asides and early action credits 4. Other complications related to allocations  48

Basic Allocation Choices  The table below summarizes basic allocation alternatives Free Auctioning Non updated Maximum 5%

Updating Other Emissions Product Output Fuel or other Inputs Capacity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Other Years Single Year Average Max Specific Data/ Formula Basic Allocation Type Metric Used Years Used  49

Framework for Considering Incentives for Firms to Control CO 2 Emissions $/ Ton Market Allowance Price Allocation Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Baseline Emissions Controlled Emissions  50

Why Grandfathered Allocations Don't Affect Firm Decisions on Emission Control

Two different allocation levels

    but facility emissions levels are the same

Note, however, that the distributional effects are very different!

Controlled Emissions Controlled Emissions CO 2 Emissions £ / Ton Market Allowance Price Allocation Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Baseline Emissions CO 2 Emissions £ / Ton Market Allowance Price Allocation Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Baseline Emissions $/ ton $/ ton  51

Set Asides and Early Action Credits

Set asides   Take some of the cap and use for specific circumstances   Frequently used for new sources

WRAP includes a new source set aside for both new sources and for existing sources that increase their capacity   Does not affect the overall cap, but does decrease the number of allowances allocated to direct participants

Early action credits   Provide allowances for reductions before the cap and trade program begins

WRAP includes early reduction bonus allowances ( below floor established in the plan) from 2003 to the program trigger year   Early action credits create banked allowances that can be used to meet requirements   Increases the overall cap ( when the program takes effect)

  Procedures need to be developed to ensure that the credits represent " real reductions," i. e., reductions from business as usual emissions  52

Additional Allocation Issues Various other issues can arise in determining the initial allocation of allowances

Allocations to non emitters   E. g., " indirect emissions", " Sky Trust"

Relationship to other programs   Renewable programs, energy efficiency programs

Changes over time in allocation choices   E. g., shift in percentage of auctioned allowances

Other changes tied to allocations   E. g., Public Utility Commission decisions on electricity rates and " opportunity costs" of using " free" allowances  53

Trading Rules

Inter pollutant trading   Tentatively not allowed in WRAP   Possibility if equivalence ( visibility effects) can be determined

Trading across states/ geography   Consider whether to include geographic differences ( e. g., trading ratios depending on distance from Class I areas)

  Caveats:

( 1) need to keep system relatively simple to avoid high transactions costs ( and no trading)

( 2) Overlay of state specific controls may be better means of dealing with hot spots than restrictions or trading ratios

Interaction with CAIR   Co mingling of trading programs?  54

" Hot Spots" Trigger

Related to geographic restrictions on trading

Trigger mechanism for source specific BART if visibility at a particular Class 1 area is exceeded   " Certification of impairment" by federal land manager or state if visibility goals not met   Existing element in EPA's 1980 rulemaking provides precedent for this approach

Trigger would constrain the market and thus potentially reduces cost savings   Useful to clarify need for source specific BART as soon as possible   Mechanisms for early warning include public meetings to share information on possible concerns early in the implementation ( WRAP)  55

Banking

Allows facilities to use excess allowances to cover emissions in future years   Provides environmental/ economic gains

Flow controls possible   Limits number of banked allowances that can be used on 1: 1 basis   Beyond limit, some ratio required ( e. g., 2: 1)

  WRAP prohibits use of banked allowances for final compliance year ( 2018)

Consider whether flow controls necessary to avoid excessive emissions in a single year  56

Safety Valve

Represents a maximum value for the price per ton   Set to provide protection against unlimited allowance prices,

which can exceed the value of reductions   Revenue can be used to obtain emission reductions elsewhere ( e. g., South Coast Clean Air Investment Fund)

Allows for increases in emissions beyond the cap   Caveat: if revenues used to acquire emission reduction credits

Differs from penalty   Set on basis of " value" of emission reductions   No civil liability/ onus attached to exceedences

Differs from " trigger review"

  E. g., South Coast RECLAIM sets price of $ 15,000 per ton,

which triggers a review of the program  57

Monitoring

Monitoring actual emissions can be done with different techniques but different costs   Continuous emission monitors ( CEMs), most costly   Mass balance   Fuel meters

Required monitoring techniques   Useful to allow less costly techniques for smaller sources   E. g., WRAP allows for some flexibility for non Part 75 sources

Monitoring Plan   Clarify method and accuracy of monitoring information   Subject to initial certification and recertification to validate accuracy

Substitute data procedures   Required to provide for missing/ invalid data   Typically require use of maximum concentration/ flow rate values  58

Reporting

Account Representative   Selection of Account Representative with authority to submit legally binding information

Quarterly and annual emissions reports   Include information on emissions and allowances held/ used   Submitted within period ( e. g., 30 days of end of quarter or compliance year

Allowance Transfers   Submit relevant information on purchases/ sales ( e. g., serial numbers, names, dates)

  Use of allowances banked in previous years

Compliance Report   Submit within certain period ( e. g., 60 days) to show that allowances held are equal to or greater than emissions  59

Tracking/ Registry  Tracking system for ownership and transactions  Registry to provide information on emission allowances held by individual facilities subject to the cap and trade program   Include opt in sources  60

True Up Period  Provide period after the compliance year to allow for purchases/ sales  Typically 60 90 days  Avoids end of year problems   Inadvertent non compliance   Run up ( or run down) in price because of excess of buyers ( or sellers)  61

Compliance

Basic requirement: hold allowances ( by end of true up period) equal to or greater than total emissions ( as monitored/ reported)

Based upon data provided to program administrator 1. Monitoring data 2. Compliance account balance

Allowances ( serial numbers) retired based upon relevant emissions  62

Enforcement/ Penalties  Net debit ( after true up) triggers penalties   Emissions greater than allowances held  Penalties can include two types 1. " Make up" debits with some ratio ( e. g., 2: 1)

2. Financial penalty ( e. g., $ 5,000 per ton)

 Recorded/ enforced by agency administering the program   Could involve civil liability  63

Program Audit

Program reviews/ audits provide opportunities to review performance   Environmental performance   Administrative considerations   Cost savings achieved

Caveat: audit should not " second guess"

technology/ control choices   Interference with market choices would undermine the trading program

Part of ongoing effort to make sure that " performance equals promise"  64

Next Steps  65

Next Steps 1. Consider any general issues/ concerns with use of emissions trading for regional haze   Any general concerns?

  Issues left out?

2. Develop background information for the specific region   Distribution of sources and potential for " hot spots"

  Number/ characteristics of relevant sources   Likely cost effectiveness variations ( and thus gains from emissions trading)

  Likely monitoring/ administrative costs ( relative to BART/ other controls)

3. Develop evidence to decide whether emissions trading would be desirable   Likely visibility protection   Likely cost savings   Likely administrative costs ( or savings)  66

For more information, contact David. Harrison@ nera. com 617.621.2612


[Federal Register: December 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 70749]
[DOCID:fr06de06-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-76-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

November 29, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 22, 2006, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective
December 1, 2006:

Third Revised Sheet No. 380H
First Revised Sheet No. 380L

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

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20605 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 69 (Thursday, April 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20023-20027]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0020]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP13-001

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth NHTSA's decision and reasons for
denying a petition, Defect Petition (DP) (DP 13-001), submitted by Mr.
William Rosenbluth (petitioner) in a January 23, 2013 letter to the
Administrator of NHTSA (the ``Agency''). The petitioner requested that
the Agency open an investigation into the decoupling of the steering
intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 from the steering column assembly on
model year (MY) 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles (the ``Subject
Vehicles''). After reviewing materials furnished by the petitioner, the
manufacturer, and those already in its possession, NHTSA has concluded
that the evidence does not warrant further investigation of the issue
raised in the petition. The Agency accordingly has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Magno, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency
begin a proceeding to decide whether to issue an order determining that
a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect that
relates to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162;

49 CFR part 552. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency
conducts a review of the petition, material submitted with the
petition, and any additional information. 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR
552.8. The review may consist solely of a review of information already
in the possession of the Agency, or it may include the collection of
information from the motor vehicle manufacturer and/or other sources.
After considering the review and taking into account appropriate
factors, which may include, among others, allocation of Agency
resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of uncovering sufficient
evidence to establish a safety-related defect, and the likelihood of
success in any necessary enforcement litigation, the Agency will grant
or deny the petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR 552.8.

II. Petition Background Information

    On January 30, 2013, NHTSA received a petition requesting that the
Agency open a defect investigation submitted by Mr. William Rosenbluth
of Automotive Systems Analysis, Inc., located in Reston, Virginia. The
petition requested that the Agency investigate decoupling of the
steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 \1\ from the steering column
assembly in the Subject Vehicles. Mr. Rosenbluth's petition asserted
that his client's MY 2005 Toyota Prius (the ``Petition Vehicle'')
steering column linkage was improperly assembled at the time the
vehicle was manufactured by Toyota. Included with the letter were a
narrative from the Petitioner's client, Mr. Rosenbluth's documentation
relating to the Petition Vehicle, and a comparison to an exemplar
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.
(Toyota) used the terms ``intermediate shaft,'' ``steering
intermediate shaft,'' ``steering intermediate shaft assembly,''
``steering intermediate shaft No.2,'' ``steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2,'' and ``intermediate shaft No. 2 (upper)'' to refer
to the same part. The petitioner used the terms ``upper steering
intermediate shaft,'' ``steering upper intermediate shaft #2'',
``steering intermediate shaft No. 2'', ``upper steering column
intermediate shaft #2'' and ``upper steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2'' to refer to the same part. For consistency, the
Agency refers to the subject part as the ``steering intermediate
shaft assembly No. 2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Petition Vehicle--2011 Complaint to NHTSA

    The owner of the Petition Vehicle previously filed a complaint in a
Vehicle Owner's Questionnaire (VOQ) submitted to NHTSA (ODI Complaint
No. 10437229) on November 25, 2011, that was subsequently amended by a
December 7, 2011 email with attachments from the complainant. The
complainant stated that he heard a snapping sound coming from the
steering wheel while attempting to park at 5 mph on November 23, 2011.
The steering wheel then became loose and he could not steer the
vehicle, and the driver's airbag and all of the steering wheel mounted
controls were disabled.
    On October 19, 2012, an ODI investigator contacted the Petition
Vehicle owner by email regarding the VOQ he had filed and requested a
status update. The Agency has no record of receiving a response.

III. Summary of the Petition

    The narrative of events relied upon by the petitioner was reported
by the Petition Vehicle owner as follows:

    I had just turned left, and was straightening the wheels
(turning the wheel back right) [to enter a parking spot] when I
heard, and felt, a loud `snap' in the steering wheel, immediately
upon which I knew the steering wheel was disconnected and I could no
longer steer the car. Very, very fortunately, and only because I was
already nearly stopped, I was able to stop the vehicle without
incident. However, I immediately recognized that, had this happened
in almost any other scenario than being nearly parked, the outcome
would have been markedly different. The steering wheel is completely
loose, not controlling anything, and all the many steering wheel
controls are equally disconnected, including the driver's air bag
(SRS), something that I would have needed, but wouldn't have worked,
had I crashed into oncoming traffic or an Interstate median.
    Had I not decided to run a frivolous and unnecessary errand, I
would have otherwise been on the Interstate, rushing home for
Thanksgiving like many others, but now am merely stranded, in a
motel, far from home in Jacksonville, FL, wondering what to do next.
My low mileage (just 27,773 mi), seven year old Prius is still
parked, undriveable.

    On January 4, 2013, at the request of the vehicle owner, the
petitioner inspected the Petition Vehicle and observed that the
steering wheel could rotate multiple turns, in both directions, without
resistance or any change in the angle of the front wheels. Further
inspection revealed that the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2
was decoupled from the steering column assembly. The petitioner
concluded that the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 ``had not
been properly installed on the spline output of the steering column
assembly,'' leading to wear on the internal splines of the steering
intermediate shaft assembly No. 2. According to the petition, the
spline wear, evidenced by shards of spline material, allowed the shaft
to decouple from the steering column assembly.

Subject Power Steering System

    The subject power steering system is assisted by an electric motor
linked to the steering column assembly. Steering torque is transmitted
to a manual steering rack via a pair of intermediate shafts and a
sliding yoke assembly. Image 1 below illustrates the Toyota Prius
steering system and the components subjected to the two recalls.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AP20.001

Toyota's First Related Recall (06V188--Intermediate Shaft No. 2)

    On May 30, 2006, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report to
notify NHTSA of Special Service Campaign (SSC) 60C (NHTSA Recall
06V188) to recall 170,856 MY 2004-2006 Toyota Prius vehicles produced
between August 5, 2003, and November 10, 2005. The ``Description of
Problem'' contained in the report stated as follows:

    In the subject Prius vehicles equipped with an electric power
steering system, due to insufficient strength at the steering
intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 and sliding yoke which connects
the steering wheel to the steering gear box, there is a possibility
that the connection at the steering intermediate shaft assembly No.
2 or the intermediate extension shaft may become loose or the
steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 sleeve may develop a
crack under certain operating conditions where a large force is
repeatedly applied to the connection (such as when the wheel is
turned forcefully to the locked position at low speed or the tire
contacts roadside curbs while driving). In the worst case, if the
vehicle continues to be operated in this condition, the connection
may separate or the shaft sleeve may fracture, which could result in
the loss of steering control.

    Vehicle owners were notified to return their vehicles to any Toyota
dealer for replacement of the steering intermediate shaft assembly No.
2. The repair under SSC 60C (NHTSA Recall 06V188) required the old
shaft to be decoupled from the steering column assembly so that the new
replacement shaft could be connected to the steering column assembly.
As of Toyota's submission of its sixth and final required quarterly
report in 2007, the completion rate for this recall stood at 90%.

Toyota's Second Related Recall (12V537--Intermediate Shaft No. 1)

    On November 14, 2012, Toyota submitted a Defect Information Report
to notify NHTSA of Safety Recall C0T (NHTSA Recall 12V537), to recall
669,705 MY 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles produced from August 5,
2003, through March 30, 2009. This recall included vehicles within the
scope of NHTSA Recall 06V188, but also expanded the scope. The
Description of Problem contained in Toyota's submission is as follows:

    The steering shaft system of the subject vehicles consists of a
steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2, steering sliding yoke
sub-assembly, and steering intermediate (extension) shaft No. 1. Due
to insufficient hardness of the extension shaft supplied by JTEKT,
the splines which connect the extension shaft to the steering gear
box may deform if the steering wheel is frequently and forcefully
turned to the full-lock position while driving at a slow speed. This
may

create an increased backlash, and splines may eventually wear out
over time, which could result in loss of steering ability.

    Vehicle owners were notified by first-class mail to return their
vehicles to any Toyota dealer, which would ``inspect the extension
shaft, and, if the vehicle is equipped with an extension shaft produced
by JTEKT, the dealer will replace it with an improved one.''
    According to the Defect Information Report, only the steering
intermediate extension shaft No. 1 was affected by Safety Recall C0T.
The steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 was not affected and no
repairs to or removal of the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2
were specified in the recall procedure. As of Toyota's submission of
its sixth and final required quarterly report in 2014, the completion
rate for this recall was 78%. The vehicle service history provided by
Toyota to ODI indicates that this corrective action was not completed
on the Petition Vehicle.

IV. Toyota Response to ODI's Information Request

    To further assess the scope of the subject problem and to review
the recall remedy procedures for both safety recalls, ODI requested
information from Toyota. On June 4, 2013, ODI sent an Information
Request (IR) letter to Toyota concerning decoupling or separation of
the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 from the steering column
assembly in the Subject Vehicles. The petition and twelve potentially
related VOQs were enclosed. Twelve additional VOQs were received during
the Agency's review of the petition.
    With the exception of the vehicles referenced in the twelve ODI
VOQs enclosed with the IR letter and this petition, Toyota's IR
response indicated that it had not located any other information that
indicates a decoupling or separation of the steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 from the steering column assembly in the Subject
Vehicles.

V. ODI's Analysis

    To assess whether the Subject Vehicles demonstrate a risk of
steering detachment, ODI's review and analysis of this petition
included the following:
     Review of the petition and its enclosures;
     Review of the subject steering system layout;
     Analysis of the Petition Vehicle's history, including its
repair history;
     Review and follow-up of potentially related VOQs;
     Review and analysis of NHTSA Recalls 06V188 and 12V537;
and,
     Requests for and analysis of complaint, claim, field
report, service history, and warranty information from Toyota.
    ODI's analysis of these factors is outlined below.

Petition Vehicle History

Oct 2004......................  .................  Vehicle built (from
                                                    Petition).
Nov 2004......................  7 mi.............  Shipped to dealer,
                                                    titled (from Vehicle
                                                    History Report).
Dec 2006......................  10,623 mi........  Recall 06V188
                                                    conducted, unrelated
                                                    brake inspection
                                                    (from Petition).
Feb 2009......................  20,666 mi........  ``Body elec- minor''
                                                    repairs (from
                                                    Petition).
Nov 2010......................  22,698 mi........  Floor mat recall,
                                                    multiple repairs
                                                    (from Petition).
Nov 2011......................  27,773 mi........  Steering incident,
                                                    complaint to NHTSA
                                                    (from VOQ).

Potentially Related VOQs

    Excluding the petition (which duplicates the original complaint),
ODI identified twenty-five potentially related VOQs received from 2011
to date (averaging three annually with three received in 2019).
Eighteen of the complaints cited a complete decoupling between the
steering wheel and steering system. The seven additional complaints
cited precursor symptoms (clanking noises and play in the steering)
without the separation. Four of the seven received dealer diagnoses
that a portion of the steering shaft needed replacement. Two additional
complaints advised that they had experienced the symptom but were
uninterested in seeking repairs. Fourteen of the complaints (all of
which involved separations) were reported during parking maneuvers (at
or below 5 mph) with the remaining separation complaints taking place
at speeds between 10 and 25 mph. The complaints with the precursor
symptoms did not cite a specific vehicle speed. Seven of the most
recent nine complaints (CY16-19) involved vehicles with over 150,000
miles of service or prior collisions or salvage titles.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Specifically, these vehicles had the following mileage/
history: 161,000; 193,000; 217,029; 120,000; 146,000; mileage
unknown (salvage title); 101,000 (previous frontal collision
damage); 140,400 (previous rear collision damage); 186,600 (salvage
title).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the petition vehicle, four complaints (three
separations and one precursor) were attributed to Steering Shaft #2
separation and all took place an average of five years after receiving
the remedy for the 06V188 recall. Three of these occurred between
recall remedies, with the fourth occurring after both recall remedies.
All related incidents were compared (Table 1) to recall remedy dates
for the related safety recalls with no apparent pattern emerging to
point to a particular procedure or set of circumstances.

                          Table 1--Incident Timing Relative to Recall Remedy Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Symptom
                                                                 --------------------------------
         06V188 performed?                 Incident timing           Precursor    Steering wheel       Total
                                                                   (noise/play)      free-spin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.................................  After 12V537 remedy (no                   1               3               4
                                      06V188).
                                     Prior to any remedy........  ..............               4               4
Yes................................  Between 06V188 & 12V537                   2               4               6
                                      remedies.

                                     After both remedies........               4               7              11
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total..........................  ...........................               7              18              25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three potentially related crashes were considered and excluded from
these figures. The first incident involved a 2007 Prius losing control
on a curve while driving. It occurred in late 2013 not long after
receiving the 12V537 remedy. Multiple ODI follow-ups with the
complainant produced no further information. Circumstances and damage
descriptions of the vehicle indicate that a steering shaft was unlikely
to have caused the incident. The second collision occurred in late 2016
and the driver reported hearing a warning chime while driving followed
by the steering ``seizing to the right,'' leading to frontal impact of
a roadside pole. The subject vehicle was a 2007 Prius and the incident
took place over three years after receiving the 12V537 remedy. A
follow-up interview uncovered no further information. In the third, a
2009 Prius drove off the road in icy conditions in January 2017.
Neither the complaint description nor follow-up information gathered
from the complainant point to a steering shaft separation.

Safety Recall Procedures

    Recalls 06V188 and 12V537 were also reviewed to assess whether the
remedy procedures could have contributed to the condition experienced
and to assess the impact of any revisions. No discernible impact to
steering shaft integrity was identified in any of the procedures.

Additional Data From Toyota

    In addition to the VOQs, ODI asked Toyota in an IR letter to
identify any additional incidents of steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 having decoupled or separated from the steering column
assembly on MY 2004-2009 Toyota Prius vehicles that were contained in
Toyota's complaint, claim, field report and warranty data. No
additional incidents were identified.

Discussion

    A review of the petition indicates that the Petition Vehicle's
coupler for steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2 was partially
engaged to the steering column output shaft. The connection between the
output shaft and intermediate shaft No. 2 lacked integrity because the
output shaft was not fully engaged in the coupler and did not capture
the coupler pinch bolt. The petitioner stated that he had no knowledge
of any ``. . . intervening repair to the steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 between the time of vehicle manufacture and my
inspection. The recall procedure [for the lower intermediate steering
shaft No. 1] specifically instructs technicians to avoid any operations
on the steering intermediate shaft assembly No. 2.'' The petitioner
also stated, ``the steering column intermediate shaft assembly No. 2
separation is not part of the Toyota steering recall 12V537 or any of
its predecessor versions.'' The petitioner concluded, in his opinion,
that ``the Petition Vehicle steering column linkage was improperly
assembled at its original manufacturing point and thus contained a
latent manufacturing defect.''
    Toyota's vehicle service history for the Petition Vehicle shows
that NHTSA Recall 06V188 (SSC 60C) for steering intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 replacement was completed on December 12, 2006. Evidence
from the petition indicates that the coupler joining intermediate shaft
assembly No. 2 and the steering column output shaft may have been
improperly installed so the coupler pinch bolt was not engaged in the
corresponding notch in column output shaft when the recall remedy was
performed. This improper installation would lead to the kind of
abnormal and excessive wear shown in photographs attached to the
petition. When this wear reached a certain point, it would allow the
intermediate shaft coupler to separate from the steering column output
shaft. Since this occurred in the Petition Vehicle after performance of
the recall remedy for NHTSA Recall 06V188 and not before, the incident
is likely the result of a poorly performed recall repair and not the
assembly failure asserted by the petitioner.
    NHTSA also observes that the rate of related consumer complaints
(twenty-five over an eight-year period from a population of over
600,000 vehicles) is relatively low and does not appear to be
attributable to either recall action. ODI's review of consumer
complaints did not indicate any apparent trend regarding the alleged
failures occurring, relative to when the two recalls were performed, or
the circumstances under which the failures occurred. Post-Recall
12V537, the subject vehicle population has not exhibited a safety
defect trend relating to its steering shaft, with the few complaints
received involving high-mileage or damaged vehicles, suggesting
isolated vehicle repair errors. Given these conditions, the safety
recalls appear to have adequately addressed the safety defects within
the subject vehicles related to the steering shaft assembly, and
further investigation of the issue is not warranted at this time.

VI. Conclusion

    NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and
remedy of a defect if the Agency's investigation shows a defect in
design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents
an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9), 30118. Given the
absence of a defect trend in the complaint data and a thorough
assessment of the potential risks to safety presented in the petition,
it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of
a safety-related defect would be issued due to any investigation opened
as a result of granting this petition. Therefore, and upon full
consideration of the information presented in the petition and the
potential risks to safety, the petition is denied.
    The Agency retains the authority to revisit these issues if
warranted in the future if conditions change or new evidence arises.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR part 552; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-07400 Filed 4-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 70953]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Bioequivalence Recommendations for
Fluticasone Propionate; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Reopening of the Comment
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the
comment period for the notice of availability entitled ``Draft Guidance
for Industry on Bioequivalence Recommendations for Fluticasone
Propionate; Salmeterol Xinafoate'', published in the Federal Register
of September 10, 2013 (78 FR 55263). In that notice, FDA requested
public comment on the draft guidance. FDA is reopening the comment
period due to the inability of some commenters to submit comments
through the www.regulations.gov Web site from November 4, 2013, through
November 13, 2013, due to technical difficulties.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments to the docket by
December 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bhawana Saluja, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-643), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of September 10, 2013 (78 FR 55263), FDA
announced the notice of availability for the draft guidance entitled
``Draft Guidance for Industry on Bioequivalence Recommendations for
Fluticasone Propionate; Salmeterol Xinafoate.'' Interested persons were
given until November 12, 2013, to provide comments. The Agency is
reopening the comment period until December 11, 2013 to allow
interested persons additional time to submit comments.

II. Request for Comments

    Following publication of the September 10, 2013, notice of
availability, there were technical difficulties with the
www.regulations.gov Web site from November 4, 2013, through November
13, 2013, which would have prevented comments from being submitted.

III. How To Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 20, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-28394 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P