59918 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 

Thus, creative policy, certificate and 

ratemaking approaches may encourage 

storage development. Examples of these 

approaches are: 

—Re-examining current cost-based 

pricing flexibility. 

—Re-examining criteria for storage 

market-based rates. 

—Re-examining certificate review and 

service policies. 

B. Investment in Storage and Pipeline 

Infrastructure 

How do existing Commission policies 

impact the development of new storage 

or pipeline infrastructure? The 

Commission would like to hear a 

discussion from entities that have 

recently developed new storage or 

pipeline projects. The Commission is 

also interested in hearing from parties 

that have recently canceled or 

postponed the development of new 

storage or pipeline infrastructure. The 

discussions should focus on how the 

decisions to develop these projects were 

impacted by existing Commission 

policies. 

C. Need for Uncommitted Reserve 

Storage and Pipeline Capacity 

Would a program for creating more 

uncommitted reserve storage and 

pipeline capacity be useful? In the next 

several years, the natural gas industry 

could experience increased capacity 

constraints and service interruptions or 

outages associated with facility 

inspection compliance activities 

required by the Department of 

Transportation. Also, recent experience 

with colder than normal weather has 

shown that certain regions’ pipeline 

infrastructure is very near maximum 

capacity during such times. Other 

regions may approach their pipeline 

infrastructure’s maximum capacity 

during peak electric generation seasons. 

What actions, if any, should the 

Commission take to create more 

uncommitted reserve storage and 

pipeline capacity? Further, if 

uncommitted reserve storage and 

pipeline capacity is needed, what level 

of ‘‘reserve margin’’ might be 

appropriate? What options could be 

used to recover the costs of such 

capacity reserve margins? Should 

certain costs of uncommitted reserve 

storage and pipeline capacity be given 

presumptive rolled-in rate treatment in 

pipeline rate cases, or should cost 

tracking mechanisms for these types of 

costs be developed? 

D. Changing Roles of Industry Segments 

and Commodity Price Volatility 

As the natural gas industry matures 

and experiences more service 

unbundling down to end use levels, the 

various service provider roles will 

continue to change/evolve. One trend 

that seems to be emerging is a 

preference to purchase gas supplies at 

hubs in market areas, and a 

corresponding desire to shed upstream 

capacity commitments. This market 

evolution may have service implications 

depending on who holds upstream 

capacity contracts, and may lead to 

additional service balancing issues for 

supply aggregators and end users alike 

and increased commodity price 

volatility. Many local distribution 

companies (LDCs) are still redefining 

their role in the industry—will they 

continue their supply aggregation 

functions or will they become local 

‘‘pipes’’ companies? When marketers 

were on the rise in many states, LDCs 

wanted to shed upstream capacity and 

supply aggregation roles in favor of 

having marketers handling these roles. 

Also, we believe that electric generators 

may be reluctant to commit to long-term 

capacity obligations, preferring to rely 

on downstream gas markets. In general, 

increased reliance on downstream 

markets as a substitute for capacity 

commitments may tend to increase 

seasonal commodity price volatility. 

The Commission is interested in 

hearing views on how much seasonal 

commodity price volatility the industry 

and consumers can tolerate? Are 

customers and the industry, in general, 

willing to contract for the additional 

storage and pipeline capacity that may 

be necessary to mitigate commodity 

price volatility? Would we be better 

served with more storage and pipeline 

capacity as insurance against 

commodity price volatility? 

II. Open Forum 

In addition to addressing the above 

mentioned issues, the Commission also 

seeks input from industry 

representatives and interested 

individuals regarding other issues they 

believe are ripe for Commission 

consideration in shaping its future 

natural gas industry regulatory policies. 

III. Participation 

The conference will be held on 

October 21, 2004 at the Commission’s 

headquarters, 888 First Street, NE., in 

Washington, DC beginning at 9 a.m. 

(EST) in the Commission’s Meeting 

Room. The public is invited to attend. 

Anyone interested in being considered 

as a speaker to present their views at the 

conference should contact Richard 

Foley at (202) 502–8955 or at 

Richard.Foley@ferc.gov by October 12, 

2004. Requests to speak should include 

information concerning the issue or 

issues the participant would like to 

speak on. Time constraints may not 

allow all requests to speak to be 

fulfilled. Persons requesting to speak on 

the same topic, with the same views, 

may be asked to consolidate their 

remarks through a single representative. 

We will issue further details on the 

conference, including the agenda and a 

list of participants, as plans evolve. 

Interested parties are urged to watch for 

further notices providing more 

information on the conference. You may 

register online at http://www.ferc.gov/

docs-filing/esubscriptions.asp to be 

notified via e-mail of new issuances and 

filings related to these dockets. 

The conference will be transcribed. 

Those interested in acquiring the 

transcript should contact Ace Reporters 

at (202) 347–3700 or (800) 336–6646. 

Transcripts will be placed in the public 

record ten days after the Commission 

receives the transcripts. Additionally, 

Capitol Connection offers the 

opportunity for remote listening and 

viewing of the conference. It is available 

for a fee, live or over the Internet, via 

C-Band Satellite. Persons interested in 

receiving the broadcast, or who need 

information on making arrangements 

should contact David Reininger or Julia 

Morelli at Capitol Connection (703–

993–3100) as soon as possible or visit 

the Capitol Connection Web site at 

http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu

and click on ‘‘FERC.’’

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–2506 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7824–5] 

Request for Applications for Essential 

Use Exemptions to the Production and 

Import Phaseout of Ozone Depleting 

Substances Under the Montreal 

Protocol for the Years 2006 and 2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Through this action, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is requesting applications for essential 

use allowances for calendar years 2006 

and 2007. Essential use allowances 

provide exemptions to the production 

and import phaseout of ozone-depleting 

substances and must be authorized by 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer. The U.S. Government will use 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 59919

1 58 FR 29410, May 20, 1993; 58 FR 52544, 

October 18, 1994; 60 FR 54349, October 23, 1995; 

61 FR 51110, 0 30, 1996, 62 FR 51655, October 2, 

1997; 63 FR 42629, August 10, 1998; 64 FR 50083, 

September 15, 1999; 65 FR 65377, November 1, 

2000; and 200166 FR 56102, November 6, 2001.

the applications received in response to 

this notice as the basis for its 

nomination of essential use allowances 

at the Seventeenth Meeting of the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (the Protocol), to be held in 2005.

DATES: Applications for essential use 

exemptions must be submitted to EPA 

no later than November 5, 2004 in order 

for the U.S. Government to complete its 

review and to submit nominations to the 

United Nations Environment 

Programme and the Protocol Parties in 

a timely manner.

ADDRESSES: Send two copies of 

application materials to: Scott Monroe, 

Stratospheric Protection Division 

(6205J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. (For 

applications sent via courier service, use 

the following direct mailing address: 

1310 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20005.) Confidentiality: Application 

materials that are confidential should be 

submitted under separate cover and be 

clearly identified as ‘‘trade secret,’’

‘‘proprietary,’’ or ‘‘company 

confidential.’’ Information covered by a 

claim of business confidentiality will be 

treated in accordance with the 

procedures for handling information 

claimed as confidential under 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B, and will be disclosed 

only to the extent and by means of the 

procedures, set forth in that subpart. 

Please note that data will be presented 

in aggregate form by the United States 

as part of the nomination to the Parties. 

If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the information when it is 

received by EPA, the information may 

be made available to the public by EPA 

without further notice to the company 

(40 CFR 2.203).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Monroe at the above address, or by 

telephone at (202) 343–9712, by fax at 

(202) 343–2363, or by e-mail at 

monroe.scott@epa.gov. General 

information may be obtained from 

EPA’s stratospheric protection Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/ozone.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Background on the Essential Use 

Nomination Process 

II. Information Required for Essential Use 

Applications for Production or 

Importation of Class I Substances in 2006 

and 2007

I. Background—The Essential Use 

Nomination Process 

As described in previous Federal 

Register (FR) documents,1 the Parties to 

the Protocol agreed during the Fourth 

Meeting in Copenhagen on November 

23–25, 1992, to accelerate the phaseout 

schedules for Class I ozone-depleting 

substances. Specifically, the Parties 

agreed that non-Article 5 Parties (that is, 

developed countries) would phase out 

the production and consumption of 

halons by January 1, 1994, and the 

production and consumption of other 

class I substances (under 40 CFR part 

82, subpart A), except methyl bromide, 

by January 1, 1996. The Parties also 

reached decisions and adopted 

resolutions on a variety of other matters, 

including the criteria to be used for 

allowing ‘‘essential use’’ exemptions 

from the phaseout of production and 

importation of controlled substances. 

Decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of 

the Parties details the specific criteria 

and review process for granting 

essential use exemptions.

Decision IV/25, paragraph 1(a), states 

that ‘‘* * * a use of a controlled 

substance should qualify as ‘‘essential’’

only if: (i) It is necessary for the health, 

safety or is critical for the functioning of 

society (encompassing cultural and 

intellectual aspects); and (ii) there are 

no available technically and 

economically feasible alternatives or 

substitutes that are acceptable from the 

standpoint of environment and health.’’

In addition, the Parties agreed ‘‘that 

production and consumption, if any, of 

a controlled substance, for essential uses 

should be permitted only if: (i) All 

economically feasible steps have been 

taken to minimize the essential use and 

any associated emission of the 

controlled substance; and (ii) the 

controlled substance is not available in 

sufficient quantity and quality from the 

existing stocks of banked or recycled 

controlled substances * * *.’’ Decision 

XII/2 taken at the twelfth meeting of the 

Parties states that any CFC metered dose 

inhaler (MDI) product approved after 

December 31, 2000, is nonessential 

unless the product meets the criteria in 

Decision IV/25, paragraph 1(a).

The first step in obtaining essential 

use allowances is for the user to 

consider whether the use of the 

controlled substance meets the criteria 

of Decision IV/25. If the essential use 

request is for an MDI product, that 

product must also meet the criteria of 

Decision XII/2. The user should then 

send a completed application in order to 

notify EPA of the candidate use and 

provide information for U.S. 

Government agencies and the Protocol 

Parties to evaluate that use according to 

the criteria under the Protocol. 

Upon receipt of the essential use 

exemption application, EPA reviews the 

information provided and works with 

other interested Federal agencies to 

determine whether it meets the essential 

use criteria and warrants being 

nominated by the United States for an 

exemption. In the case of multiple 

exemption requests for a single use, 

such as for MDIs, EPA aggregates 

exemption requests received from 

individual entities into a single U.S. 

request. An important part of the EPA 

review of requests for CFCs for MDIs is 

to determine that the aggregate request 

for a particular future year adequately 

reflects the total market need for CFC 

MDIs and expected availability of CFC 

substitutes by that point in time. If the 

sum of individual requests does not 

account for such factors, the U.S. 

Government may adjust the aggregate 

request to better reflect true market 

needs. 

Nominations submitted by the United 

States and other Parties are forwarded 

from the United Nations Ozone 

Secretariat to the Montreal Protocol’s 

Technical and Economic Assessment 

Panel (TEAP) and its Technical Options 

Committees (TOCs), which review the 

submissions and make 

recommendations to the Protocol Parties 

for essential use exemptions. Those 

recommendations are then considered 

by the Parties at their annual meeting 

for final decision. If the Parties declare 

a specified use of a controlled substance 

as essential, and issue the necessary 

exemption from the production and 

consumption phaseout, EPA may 

propose regulatory changes to reflect the 

decisions by the Parties, but only to the 

extent such action is consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

Applicants should be aware that 

essential use exemptions granted to the 

United States under the Protocol in 

recent years have been limited to 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for metered 

dose inhalers (MDIs) to treat asthma and 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 

and methyl chloroform for use in 

manufacturing solid rocket motors. As 

of January 1, 2005, methyl chloroform 

will no longer be eligible for essential 

use allowances under section 604(d)(1) 

of the Act. EPA is consulting with the 

Department of Defense to identify 

mission-critical uses for which methyl 

59920 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 

chloroform or other ozone-depleting 

substances may be needed in the future. 

The timing of the process described 

above is such that in any given year the 

Parties review nominations for essential 

use exemptions from the production 

and consumption phaseout intended for 

the following year and subsequent 

years. This means that, if nominated, 

applications submitted in response to 

today’s notice for an exemption in 2006 

and 2007 will be considered by the 

Parties in 2005 for final action. 

The quantities of controlled ODSs that 

are requested in response to this notice, 

if approved by the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol in 2005, will then be 

allocated as essential use allowances 

(EUAs) to the specific U.S. companies 

through notice and comment 

rulemaking, to the extent that such 

allocations are consistent with the Act. 

EUAs for the year 2006 will be allocated 

to U.S. companies at the end of 2005, 

and EUAs for the year 2007 will be 

allocated at the end of 2006. 

II. Information Required for Essential 

Use Applications for Production or 

Importation of Class I Substances in 

2006 and 2007 

Through this action, EPA requests 

applications for essential use 

exemptions for all class I substances, 

except methyl bromide, for calendar 

years 2006 and 2007. (EPA requests and 

considers applications for critical use 

exemptions for methyl bromide through 

a separate process.) This notice is the 

last opportunity to submit new or 

revised applications for 2006. This 

notice is also the first opportunity to 

submit requests for 2007. Companies 

will have an opportunity to submit new, 

supplemental, or amended applications 

for 2007 next year. All requests for 

exemptions submitted to EPA must 

present information as prescribed in the 

current version of the TEAP ‘‘Handbook 

on Essential Use Nominations’’ (or 

‘‘handbook’’), which was published in 

June 2001. The handbook is available 

electronically on the Web at http://

www.teap.org, or at http://www.epa.gov/

ozone. 

In brief, the TEAP Handbook states 

that applicants must present 

information on: 

• Role of use in society; 

• Alternatives to use; 

• Steps to minimize use; 

• Steps to minimize emissions; 

• Recycling and stockpiling; 

• Quantity of controlled substances 

requested; and 

• Approval date and indications (for 

MDIs).

First, in order to obtain complete 

information from essential use 

applicants for CFC MDIs, EPA requires 

that any person who requests CFCs for 

multiple companies make clear the 

amount of CFCs requested for each 

member company. Second, all essential 

use applications for CFCs must provide 

a breakdown of the quantity of CFCs 

necessary for each MDI product to be 

produced. This detailed breakdown of 

EUAs will allow EPA and the Food and 

Drug Administration to make informed 

decisions on the amount of CFC to be 

nominated by the U.S. Government for 

the years 2006 and 2007. Third, all new 

drug application (NDA) holders for CFC 

MDI products produced in the United 

States must submit a complete 

application for essential use allowances 

either on their own or in conjunction 

with their contract filler. In the case 

where a contract filler produces a 

portion of an NDA holder’s CFC MDIs, 

the contract filler and the NDA holder 

must determine the total amount of 

CFCs necessary to produce the NDA 

holder’s entire product line of CFC 

MDIs. The NDA holder must provide an 

estimate of how the CFCs would be split 

between the contract filler and the NDA 

holder in the allocation year. This 

estimate will be used only as a basis for 

determining the nomination amount, 

and may be adjusted prior to allocation 

of EUAs. Since the U.S. Government 

cannot forward incomplete or 

inadequate nominations to the Ozone 

Secretariat, it is important for applicants 

to provide all information requested in 

the Handbook, including the 

information specified in the 

Supplemental Research and 

Development form (page 45). 

The accounting framework matrix in 

the handbook entitled ‘‘Table IV: 

Reporting Accounting Framework for 

Essential Uses Other Than Laboratory 

and Analytical’’ requests data for the 

year 2004 on the amount of ODS 

exempted for an essential use, the 

amount acquired by production, the 

amount acquired by import, the amount 

on hand at the start of the year, the 

amount available for use in 2004, the 

amount used for the essential use, the 

quantity contained in exported 

products, the amount destroyed, and the 

amount on hand at the end of 2004. 

Because all data necessary for 

applicants to complete Table IV will not 

be available until after January 1, 2005, 

companies should not include this chart 

with their EUA applications in response 

to this notice. Instead, companies 

should provide the required data as 

specified in 40 CFR 82.13(u)(2). EPA 

must compile companies’ responses to 

complete the U.S. CFC Accounting 

Framework for submission to the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol by the end of 

January. 

EPA anticipates that the Parties’

review of MDI essential use requests 

will focus extensively on the United 

States’ progress in phasing out CFC 

MDIs, including efforts by 

pharmaceutical companies to research, 

develop, and market non-CFC products. 

Accordingly, applicants are strongly 

advised to present detailed information 

on this subject. Applicants should 

submit their exemption requests to EPA 

as noted in the ADDRESSES section 

above.

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

Jeffrey R. Holmstead, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 04–22487 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[AMS–FRL–7824–6] 

California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Notice of 

Within-the-Scope Determinations for 

Amendments to California’s HeavyDuty Vehicle and Engine Standards for 

1995 Urban Bus and 1998 NOX

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice Regarding Within-theScope Determinations. 

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) requested that EPA 

confirm CARB’s finding that 

amendments to its heavy-duty diesel 

powered vehicles and engines 

regulations, including its 1998 NOX

standards, are within-the-scope of a 

prior waiver of Federal preemption 

issued under section 209(b) of the Clean 

Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b). In a 

separate request CARB sought EPA 

confirmation that CARB’s finding that 

amendments to its heavy-duty diesel 

powered vehicle and engine regulations, 

including its 1995 urban bus standards, 

are within-the-scope of a prior waiver of 

Federal preemption. EPA in this notice 

has made the requested confirmation for 

the amendments in CARB’s requests.

ADDRESSES: The Agency’s Decision 

Document, containing an explanation of 

the Assistant Administrator’s decision, 

as well as all documents relied upon in 

making that decision, including those 

submitted to EPA by CARB, are 

contained in the public docket. The 

official public docket is the collection of 

materials that is available for public