40046 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

E. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 25,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: June 25, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S—Kentucky

2. Section 52.938 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.938 General conformity.

The General Conformity regulations

were submitted on November 10, 1995,

and adopted into the Kentucky State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The

Commonwealth of Kentucky

incorporated by reference regulations 40

CFR part 51, subpart W—determining

conformity of General Federal Actions

to State or Federal Implementation

Plans.

[FR Doc. 98–20007 Filed 7–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[SC–34–1–9816a: FRL–6129–9]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: South Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Sections

111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by the

State of South Carolina through the

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control (DHEC) on

January 14, 1998. The plan provides for

implementation and enforcement of the

Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to

existing Municipal Waste Combustors

(MWCs) with capacity to combust more

than 250 tons per day of municipal solid

waste (MSW). (See 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart Cb.)

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 25, 1998 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 26, 1998. If adverse

comment is received, EPA will publish

a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Gregory Crawford, EPA

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Reference file SC–34–9816. The Region

4 office may have additional

background documents not available at

the other locations.

Air Radiation Docket and Information

Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303, Gregory O. Crawford, 404/562–

9046.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, Bureau of

Air Quality Control, 2600 Bull Street,

Columbia, South Carolina 29201, 803/

734–4750.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory O. Crawford, Regulatory

Planning Section, Air Planning Branch,

Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management

Division, Region 4 Environmental

Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street,

Atlanta, Georgia, 30303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 19, 1995, pursuant to

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (the Act), EPA promulgated new

source performance standards (NSPS)

applicable to new MWCs and EG

applicable to existing MWCs. The NSPS

and EG are codified at 40 CFR Part 60,

Subparts Eb and Cb, respectively. (See

60 FR 65387.) Subparts Cb and Eb

regulate the following: particulate

matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide,

hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen,

carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium,

mercury, and dioxins and

dibenzofurans.

On April 8, 1997, the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40047

and Eb as they apply to MWC units with

capacity to combust less than or equal

to 250 tons per day of MSW (small

MWCs), consistent with their opinion in

Davis County Solid Waste Management

and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d

1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108

F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a result,

subparts Eb and Cb apply only to MWC

units with individual capacity to

combust more than 250 tons per day of

MSW (large MWC units).

Under section 129 of the Act, EG are

not Federally enforceable. Section

129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to

submit to EPA for approval, plans that

implement and enforce the EG. State

plans must be at least as protective as

the EG, and become Federally

enforceable upon approval by EPA. The

procedures for adoption and submittal

of state plans are codified in 40 CFR

Part 60, Subpart B. EPA originally

promulgated the Subpart B provisions

on November 17, 1975. EPA amended

Subpart B on December 19, 1995, to

allow the subparts developed under

section 129 to include specifications

that supersede the general provisions in

Subpart B regarding the schedule for

submittal of state plans, the stringency

of the emission limitations, and the

compliance schedules. (See 60 FR

65414.)

This action approves the plan

submitted by South Carolina to

implement and enforce Subpart Cb, as it

applies to large MWC units.

II. Discussion

South Carolina submitted to EPA on

January 14, 1998, February 5, 1998, and

March 6, 1998, the following in their

111(d)/129 plan for implementation and

enforcement of the EG for existing

MWCs under their direct jurisdiction in

the State of South Carolina: Legal

Authority; Enforceable Mechanism;

Inventory of MWC Plants/Units; MWC

Emissions Inventory; Emission Limits;

Compliance Schedule; Testing,

Monitoring, Recordkeeping and

Reporting Requirements; Demonstration

that the Public had Adequate Notice and

Opportunity to Submit Written

Comments; Submittal of Progress

Reports to EPA; and applicable State of

South Carolina statutes and rules of the

South Carolina DHEC. South Carolina

submitted its plan after the Court of

Appeals vacated Subpart Cb as it

applies to small MWC units. Thus, the

South Carolina plan covers only large

MWC units. As a result of the Davis

decision and subsequent vacatur order,

there are no EG promulgated under

sections 111 and 129 that apply to small

MWC units. Accordingly, EPA’s review

and approval of the South Carolina State

plan for MWCs addresses only those

parts of the plan which affect large

MWC units. Until EPA again

promulgates EG for small MWC units,

EPA has no authority under section

129(b)(2) of the Act to review and

approve state plans applying state rules

to small MWC units.

The approval of the South Carolina

State plan is based on finding that: (1)

the South Carolina DHEC provided

adequate public notice of public

hearings for the proposed rulemaking

and plan which allow the South

Carolina DHEC to implement and

enforce the EG for large MWCs, and (2)

the South Carolina DHEC also

demonstrated legal authority to adopt

emission standards and compliance

schedules applicable to the designated

facility; enforce applicable laws,

regulations, standards and compliance

schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain

information necessary to determine

compliance; require recordkeeping;

conduct inspections and tests; require

the use of monitors; require emission

reports of owners and operators; and

make emission data publicly available.

In the plan submittal, and as enclosed

in supplemental information, the South

Carolina DHEC cites the following

references for the legal authority: State

of South Carolina Attorney General’s

Opinion Regarding State Authority to

Operate the Title V Operating Permit

Program; the South Carolina Pollution

Control Act (South Carolina Code

Sections 48–1–10 through 48–1–350);

and Regulation 61–62.5, Standard 3

(Waste Combustion and Reduction), of

the South Carolina DHEC Air Pollution

Control Regulations and Standards. On

the basis of the Attorney General’s

Opinion, the statutes, and rules of the

State of South Carolina, the State plan

is approved as being at least as

protective as the Federal requirements

for existing large MWC units.

In the State plan, the South Carolina

DHEC cites all emission standards and

limitations for the major pollutant

categories related to the only designated

facility in the State of South Carolina

subject to these standards and

limitations, the Foster Wheeler

Charleston Resource Recovery Facility

(RRF). These standards and limitations

in the State plan are approved as being

at least as protective as the Federal

requirements contained in Subpart Cb

for existing large MWC units.

The South Carolina DHEC submitted

the compliance schedule and legally

enforceable increments of progress for

Foster Wheeler Charleston RRF. (This

portion of the plan has been reviewed

and approved as being at least as

protective as Federal requirements for

existing large MWC units.)

In the plan, South Carolina submitted

an emissions inventory of all designated

pollutants for Foster Wheeler Charleston

RRF. (This portion of the plan has been

reviewed and approved as meeting the

Federal requirements for existing large

MWC units.)

The South Carolina State plan

includes its legal authority to require

owners and operators of designated

facilities to maintain records and report

to their agency the nature and amount

of emissions and any other information

that may be necessary to enable their

agency to judge the compliance status of

the facility in the State plan. The South

Carolina DHEC also cites its legal

authority to provide for periodic

inspection and testing and provisions

for making reports of MWC emissions

data, correlated with emission standards

that apply, available to the general

public. The South Carolina DHEC

submitted the regulations to support the

requirements of monitoring,

recordkeeping, reporting, and

compliance assurance in the plan

submittal. (This portion of the plan has

been reviewed and approved as being at

least as protective as the Federal

requirements for existing large MWC

units.)

As stated in the plan, South Carolina

will provide progress reports of plan

implementation updates to the EPA on

an annual basis in conjunction with

reports required under § 51.321. These

progress reports will include the

required items pursuant to 40 CFR part

60, subpart B. (This portion of the plan

has been reviewed and approved as

meeting the Federal requirement for

State Plan reporting.)

Final Action

EPA is approving the above

referenced state plan because it meets

the Agency requirements. EPA is

publishing this rule without prior

proposal because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to

approve the revision should significant,

material, and adverse comments be

filed. This action will be effective

September 25, 1998 without further

notice unless the Agency receives

adverse comments by August 26, 1998.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments
40048 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period.

Only parties interested in commenting

on the direct final rule should do so at

this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on September 25,

1998 and no further action will be

taken.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Each request

for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as making any determination

or expressing any position regarding

South Carolina’s audit privilege and

penalty immunity law S.C. Code Ann.

Sections 4857–57–10 et. seq. (Supp.

1996) or its impact upon any approved

provision in the SIP, including the

revision at issue here. The action taken

herein does not express or imply any

viewpoint on the question of whether

there are legal deficiencies in this or any

other Clean Air Act program resulting

from the effect of South Carolina’s audit

privilege and immunity law. A state

audit privilege and immunity law can

affect only state enforcement and cannot

have any impact on federal enforcement

authorities. EPA may at any time invoke

its authority under the Clean Air Act,

including, for example, sections 113,

167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the

requirements or prohibitions of the state

plan, independently of any state

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen

enforcement under section 304 of the

Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by

a state audit privilege or immunity law.

I. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled Regulatory Planning and

Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

The final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks, because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

Executive Order 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This Federal

action approves pre-existing

requirements under Federal, State or

local law, and imposes no new

requirements on any entity affected by

this rule, including small entities.

Therefore, these amendments will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

E. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 25,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review, nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Municipal waste combustors,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR Part 62 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart PP—South Carolina

2. Section 62.10100 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(3) as

follows:

§ 62.10100 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) South Carolina Implementation

Plan for Existing Large Municipal Waste

Combustors, submitted on January 14,

1998, by the South Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control.

(c) * * *

(3) Existing municipal waste

combustors.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40049

3. Subpart PP is amended by adding

a new § 62.10150 and a new

undesignated center heading to read as

follows: Metals, acid gases, organic

compounds and nitrogen oxide

emissions from existing municipal

waste combustors with the capacity to

combust greater than 250 tons per day

of municipal solid waste.

§ 62.10150 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to existing facilities

with a municipal waste combustor

(MWC) unit capacity greater than 250

tons per day of municipal solid waste

(MSW) at the following MWC sites:

(a) Foster Wheeler Charleston

Resource Recovery Facility, Charleston,

South Carolina.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 98–19934 Filed 7–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[MN51–01–7276a; FRL–6128–8]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants; Minnesota; Control of

Landfill Gas Emissions From Existing

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is approving the Minnesota State Plan

submittal for implementing the

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill

Emission Guidelines. The State’s plan

submittal was made pursuant to

requirements found in the Clean Air Act

(Act). The State’s plan was submitted to

EPA on March 4, 1997, in accordance

with the requirements for adoption and

submittal of State plans for designated

facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

It establishes performance standards for

existing MSW landfills and provides for

the implementation and enforcement of

those standards. The EPA finds that

Minnesota’s Plan for existing MSW

landfills adequately addresses all of the

Federal requirements applicable to such

plans. If adverse comments are received

on this action, the EPA will withdraw

this final rule and address the

comments received in response to this

action in a final rule on the related

proposed rule, which is being published

in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register. A second public

comment period will not be held.

Parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. This

approval makes federally enforceable

the State’s rule that has been

incorporated by reference.

DATES: The ‘‘direct final’’ is effective on

September 25, 1998, unless EPA

receives adverse or critical comments by

August 26, 1998. Should EPA receive

adverse comments, a timely withdrawal

of the Direct Final Rule will be

published in the Federal Register to

inform the public that the rule will not

take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section , Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the proposed State Plan

submittal and EPA’s analysis are

available for inspection at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (Please telephone

Douglas Aburano at (312) 353–6960

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Aburano, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. EPA, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 353–6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Under section 111(d) of the Act, EPA

established procedures whereby States

submit plans to control certain existing

sources of ‘‘designated pollutants.’’

Designated pollutants are defined as

pollutants for which a standard of

performance for new sources applies

under section 111, but which are not

‘‘criteria pollutants’’ (i.e., pollutants for

which National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) are set pursuant to

sections 108 and 109 of the Act) or

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)

regulated under section 112 of the Act

(see 40 CFR 60.21(a)). As required by

section 111(d) of the Act, EPA

established a process at 40 CFR part 60,

subpart B, similar to the process

required by section 110 of the Act

(regarding State Implementation Plan

(SIP) approval) which States must

follow in adopting and submitting a

section 111(d) plan. Whenever EPA

promulgates a new source performance

standard (NSPS) that controls a

designated pollutant, EPA establishes

Emissions Guidelines (EG) in

accordance with 40 CFR 60.22 which

contain information pertinent to the

control of the designated pollutant from

those existing facilities that, but for their

construction prior to the proposal of the

NSPS, would be affected by the

standard (i.e., the ‘‘designated facility’’

as defined at 40 CFR 60.21(b)). Thus, a

State’s section 111(d) plan for a

designated facility must comply with

the EG for that source category as well

as 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

On March 12, 1996, EPA published

Emissions Guidelines for existing MSW

landfills (EG) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart

Cc (40 CFR 60.30c through 60.36c) and

NSPS for new MSW Landfills at 40 CFR

part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.750

through 60.759) (see 61 FR 9905–9929).

The pollutant regulated by the NSPS

and EG is MSW landfill emissions,

which contain a mixture of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), other

organic compounds, methane, and

HAPs. VOC emissions can contribute to

ozone formation which can result in

adverse effects to human health and

vegetation. The health effects of HAPs

include cancer, respiratory irritation,

and damage to the nervous system.

Methane emissions contribute to global

climate change and can result in fires or

explosions when they accumulate in

structures on or off the landfill site. To

determine if control is required,

nonmethane organic compounds

(NMOCs) are measured as a surrogate

for MSW landfill emissions. Thus,

NMOC is considered the designated

pollutant. The designated facility which

is subject to the EG is each existing

MSW landfill (as defined in 40 CFR

60.31c) for which construction,

reconstruction or modification was

commenced before May 30, 1991.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.23(a), States

were required to submit a plan for the

control of the designated pollutant to

which the EG applies within nine

months after publication of the EG (i.e.,

by December 12, 1996). If there were no

designated facilities in the State, then

the State was required to submit a

negative declaration by December 12,

1996.

On March 4, 1997, the State of

Minnesota submitted its ‘‘Section 111(d)

Plan for MSW Landfills’’ for

implementing EPA’s MSW landfill EG.

The following provides a brief

discussion of the requirements for an

approvable State plan for existing MSW

landfills and EPA’s review of

Minnesota’s submittal in regard to those

requirements. More detailed

information on the requirements for an

approvable plan and Minnesota’s

submittal can be found in the Technical

Support Document (TSD) accompanying

this document, which is available upon

request.