text:
Legal Status
This site displays a prototype of a "Web 2.0" version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO's govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Document Details
Document Statistics
Published Document
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for eighteen major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These sources are located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area (the Philadelphia area). EPA is approving these revisions to establish RACT requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on November 15, 2001.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.Start Further Info
Marcia Spink, (215) 814-2104 or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
I. Background
On September 20, 1995, April 16, 1996, May 2, 1996, July 2, 1997, July 24, 1998, December 7, 1998, April 9, 1999, and April 20, 1999, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NOX. This rulemaking pertains to eighteen of those sources. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of plan approvals and operating permits which impose VOC and/or NOX RACT requirements for each source. These sources are all located in the Philadelphia area and include: Amerada Hess Corp.; Amoco Oil Company; Cartex Corporation; Exxon Company, USA; GATX Terminals Corporation; Hatfield Quality Meats, Incorporated; J. L. Clark, Incorporated; Johnson Matthey, Incorporated; Kurz Hastings, Incorporated; Lawrence McFadden Company; Philadelphia Baking Company; Philadelphia Gas Works; PPG Industries, Incorporated; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA; The Philadelphian Condominium Building; Warner Company; and Webcraft Technologies, Incorporated.
On August 20, 2001, EPA published a direct final rule (66 FR 43502) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 43551) to approve these SIP revisions. On September 7, 2001, we received adverse comments on our direct final rule from the Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture). On September 26, 2001, (66 FR 49107), we published a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule did not take effect. We indicated in our August 20, 2001 direct final rulemaking that if we received adverse comments, EPA would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule (66 FR 43551). This is that subsequent final rule. A description of the RACT determination(s) made for each source was provided in the August 20, 2001 direct final rule and will not be restated here. A summary of the comments submitted by PennFuture germane to this final rulemaking and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document.
II. Public Comments and Responses
The Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) submitted adverse comments on the proposed rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on August 20, 2001 to approve case-by-case RACT SIP submissions from the Commonwealth for NOX and or VOC sources located in the Philadelphia area. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
A. Comment: PennFuture comments that EPA has conducted no independent technical review, and has prepared no technical support document to survey potential control technologies, determine the capital and operating costs of different options, and rank these options in total and marginal cost per ton of NOX and VOC controlled. In citing the definition of the term "RACT," and the Strelow Memorandum [Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, EPA, December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 (1997)], PennFuture appears to comment that in every situation, RACT must include an emission rate. PennFuture asserts that EPA should conduct its own RACT evaluation for each source, or at a minimum document a step-by-step review demonstrating the adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure that appropriate control technology is applied. The commenter also believes that EPA's failure to conduct its own independent review of control technologies has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of EPA's own RACT standard.
Response: On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121 and 129, thereby approving the definitions, provisions and procedures contained within those regulations under which the Commonwealth would require and impose RACT. Subsection 129.91, Control of major sources of NOXand VOCs, requires subject facilities to submit a RACT plan proposal to both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and to EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in accordance with subsection 129.92, entitled, RACT proposal requirements. Under subsection 129.92, that proposal is to include, among other information: (1) A list of each subject source at the facility; (2) The size or capacity of each affected source, and the types of fuel combusted, and the types and amounts of materials processed or produced at each source; (3) A physical description of each source and its operating characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential and actual emissions from each affected source with supporting documentation; (5) A RACT analysis which meets the requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), including technical and economic support documentation for each affected Start Printed Page 54937source; (6) A schedule for implementation as expeditiously as practicable but not later than May 15, 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting procedures proposed to demonstrate compliance with RACT; and (8) any additional information requested by the DEP necessary to evaluate the RACT proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the DEP will approve, deny or modify each RACT proposal, and submit each RACT determination to EPA for approval as a SIP revision.
The conditional nature of EPA's March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval did not impose any conditions pertaining to the regulation's procedures for the submittal of RACT plans and analyses by subject sources and approval of case-by-case RACT determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA stated that "* * * RACT rules may not merely be procedural rules (emphasis added) that require the source and the State to later agree to the appropriate level of control; rather the rules must identify the appropriate level of control for source categories or individual sources."
On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking determining that Pennsylvania had satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval. In that rulemaking, EPA removed the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations on a statewide basis. EPA received no public comments on its action and that final rule removing the conditional status of Pennsylvania's VOC and NOX RACT regulations became effective on June 18, 2001. As of that time, Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations retained a limited approval status. On September 6, 2001 (66 FR 46571), EPA proposed to remove the limited nature of its approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulation in the Philadelphia area. EPA received no comments on that proposal. Final action converting the limited approval to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the Philadelphia area or (2) for a sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR 13789).
EPA agrees that it has an obligation to review the case-by-case RACT plan approvals and/or permits submitted as individual SIP revisions by Commonwealth to verify and determine if they are consistent with the RACT requirements of the Act and any relevant EPA guidance. EPA does not agree, however, that this obligation to review the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania necessarily extends to our performing our own RACT analyses, independent of the sources' RACT plans/analyses (included as part of the case-by-case RACT SIP revisions) or the Commonwealth's analyses. EPA first reviews this submission to ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved generic rule when applying for and imposing RACT for a specific source. Then EPA performs a thorough review of the technical and economic analyses conducted by the source and the state. If EPA believes additional information may further support or would undercut the RACT analyses submitted by the state, then EPA may add additional EPA-generated analyses to the record.
While RACT, as defined for an individual source or source category, often does specify an emission rate, such is not always the case. EPA has issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) which states are to use as guidance in development of their RACT determinations/rules for certain sources or source categories. Not every CTG issued by EPA includes an emission rate. There are several examples of CTGs issued by EPA wherein equipment standards and/or work practice standards alone are provided as RACT guidance for all or part of the processes covered. Such examples include the CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, Gasoline service stations—Stage I, Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical products, External Floating roof tanks and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer manufacturing. (The publication numbers for these CTG documents may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt).
EPA disagrees with PennFuture's general comment that our failure to conduct our own independent review of control technologies for every case-by-case RACT determination conducted by the Commonwealth has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of our own RACT standard. PennFuture submitted comments specific to the case-by-case RACT determinations for two located in the Philadelphia area, namely for Kurz-Hastings and GATX Terminals Corporation. EPA summarizes those comments and provides responses in the final rule pertaining to those sources.
B. Comment: PennFuture comments that when EPA reviewed Pennsylvania's RACT program, it noted that Pennsylvania coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour "are some of the largest NOX emitting sources in the Commonwealth and in the Northeast United States" [63 FR 13789, 13791 (1998)] and as such should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93) to guarantee that sources would achieve quantifiable emissions reductions under the RACT program. PennFuture goes on to comment that because EPA has not conducted and documented a technical review of Pennsylvania case-by-case RACT submissions, EPA has not demonstrated that these large boilers are subject to "numeric emission limitations" under RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough RACT evaluation or review for each such source, and must document the application of numeric emission limits and quantifiable reductions for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of over 100 million Btu per hour.
Response: Circumstances may exist wherein a state could justify otherwise, however, in general, EPA agrees with PennFuture that coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93).
As provided in the response found in II. A, EPA does not agree that it must conduct its own technical analysis of each of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted for each RACT source in order to document that its RACT requirements include numeric emission limitations. That determination can be made by EPA when it reviews the plan approval, consent order, or permit issued to such a source as submitted by the Commonwealth as SIP revision. PennFuture's comment did not point to a specific instance where a RACT plan approval, consent order or permit imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour did, in fact, lack a numerical emission limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to PennFuture's comment, EPA has re-examined all of the case-by-case RACT SIP submissions made by the Commonwealth for such sources located in the Philadelphia area. That re-Start Printed Page 54938examination, combined with information provided by the Commonwealth, indicates that each case-by-case RACT plan approval, consent order and/or permit for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour includes a numeric emission limitation. A listing of each source, its plan approval, consent order and/or permit number and its numerical emission limitation has been placed in the Administrative Records for the case-by-case RACT rulemakings for the Philadelphia area.
C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that the Commonwealth has not adopted and submitted category RACT rules for all VOC source categories for which federal control technique guidelines (CTGs) have been issued. The commenter refers to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support Document (dated May 14, 2001), prepared by EPA in support of its proposed rule to redesignate the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area (66 FR 29270), to assert that EPA has failed to require the Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT rules for certain categories of sources. PennFuture specifically names source categories such as equipment leaks from natural gas/gas processing plants, coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries, and publically owned treatment works and asserts that the Commonwealth has neglected a statutory requirement to adopt category RACT regulations for these and 14 other unnamed VOC source categories.
Response: EPA has not issued CTGs for coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries and publically owned treatment works. The Appendix 1, referred to by the commenter, lists CTG covered categories as well as source categories taken from two STAPPA/ALAPCO documents entitled, "Meeting the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options" (September 1993) and "Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options" (July 1994). The categories referenced by PennFuture are not VOC categories for which EPA has issued CTGs, but were included in Appendix A as examples of some of the types of sources that could be subject to Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations. The Commonwealth is under no statutory obligation to adopt RACT rules for source categories for which EPA has not issued a CTG. In fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one of the categories to which the commenter explicitly refers.
The Act requires that states adopt regulations to impose RACT for "major sources of VOC," located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. This is referred to as the non-CTG VOC RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA disagrees that there is a statutory mandate that a state adopt a source category RACT regulation even for a source category where EPA has issued a CTG. There are two statutory provisions that address RACT for sources covered by a CTG. One provides that states must adopt RACT for "any category of VOC sources" covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. The other provides that states must adopt VOC RACT for all "VOC sources" covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long interpreted the statutory RACT requirement to be met either by adoption of category-specific rules or by source-specific rules for each source within a category. When initially established, RACT was clearly defined as a case-by-case determination, but EPA provided CTG's to simplify the process for states such that they would not be required to adopt hundreds or thousands of individual rules. See Strelow Memorandum dated December 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. EPA does not believe that Congress' use of "source category" in one provision of section 182(b)(2) was intended to preclude the adoption of source-specific rules.
Thus, where CTG-subject sources are located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act, the state is obligated to impose RACT for the same universe of sources covered by the CTG. However, that obligation is not required to be met by the adoption and submittal of a source category RACT rule. A state may, instead, opt to impose RACT for such sources in permits, plan approvals, consent orders or in any other state enforceable document and submit those documents to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions. This option has been exercised by many states, and happens most commonly when only a few CTG-subject sources are located in the state. The source-specific approach is generally employed to avoid what can be a lengthy and resource-intensive state rule adoption process for only a few sources that may have different needs and considerations that must be taken into account.
As stated earlier, there is one source category explicitly included in PennFuture's comment for which EPA has issued a CTG, namely natural gas/gas processing plants. The Commonwealth made a negative declaration to EPA on April 13, 1993, stating that as of that date there were no applicable sources in this category. Therefore, the Commonwealth did not adopt a category RACT regulation for natural gas/gas processing plants.
D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA correspondence [letter from Marcia Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, December 15, 1993] to the Commonwealth which states that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for the "automatic" selection or rejection of a control technology or emission limitation as RACT for a source or source category. With regard to the Pennsylvania DEP's intent to finalize a NOX RACT Guidance Document for implementation of its NOX RACT regulation, EPA's 1993 letter stated that the document could improperly be used to establish "bright line" or "cook-book" approaches, particularly for a regulation applicable to many source categories and suggested that if the guidance document must include dollar figures/ton, it provide approximate ranges by source category. PennFuture comments that DEP issued its "Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NOX Emissions," March 11, 1994, and on pp. 8-9 states that the acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, and that this figure applies to "all source categories." PennFuture notes that EPA later objected to the $1500 per ton methodology as "not generically acceptable to EPA" [letter from Thomas Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, June 24, 1997] and further stated in a Federal Register notice that a "dollar per ton threshold" is "inconsistent with the definition of RACT" [62 FR 43134, 37-38 (1997)].
PennFuture comments that EPA is proposing to approve RACT determinations based on a cost per ton method that EPA had previously rejected, and according to its own clearly expressed standard, EPA must not approve RACT determinations by Pennsylvania DEP that apply this $1500 per ton threshold. PennFuture asserts EPA must reject all Pennsylvania RACT determinations applying the standard of $1500 per ton, or any other "bright line" approach, as failing to follow EPA procedures established for Pennsylvania RACT.
Response: EPA still takes the position that a single cost per ton dollar figure may not, in and of itself, form the basis for rejecting a control technology, equipment standard, or work practice standard as RACT. The Technical Support Document prepared by EPA in support of its March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly Start Printed Page 54939indicates that the Commonwealth's document, "Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NOX Emissions." March 11, 1994, had not been included as part of the SIP submission of the Commonwealth's generic regulation and, therefore, had not been approved by EPA. EPA further notes that the Administrative Record of the March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789], in addition to the correspondence cited by PennFuture, also includes correspondence from DEP to EPA [letter from James Salvaggio, DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September 10, 1997] stating that DEP's RACT guidance document does not establish a maximum dollar per ton for determining the cost effectiveness for RACT determinations and notes that the DEP's $1500 per ton cost effectiveness is a target value and not an absolute maximum. For example, in its analyses of the cost effectiveness of RACT control options submitted by DEP as part of the case-by-case SIP revision for Peoples Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor Station's turbo charged lean burn IC engine (see the Administrative Record for 66 FR 43492), the Commonwealth included DEP interoffice memoranda (Thomas Joseph to Krishnan Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, Richard Maxwell, and Devendra Verma, July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to the $1500/ton dollar figure as being a guideline and not an upper limit. These memoranda explain that although PNG initially proposed intermediate original equipment manufacturer (OEM) combustion controls which would have reduced NOX emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 115 tons per year (by 55 %) at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP required the installation of an OEM lean combustion modification that reduced NOX emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 76 tons per year (by 69%) at a cost of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP's July 15, 1994 interoffice memorandum says of the PNG RACT determination which exceeded the cost effectiveness screening level of $1500 per ton "Tom's (Joseph) insistence for the next more stringent level of control than the company's chosen level in the case of PNG was consistent with EPA Region III's sentiment that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for an "automatic" rejection of a control technology as RACT for a source."
In no instance, has EPA proposed to approve a RACT determination submitted by the Commonwealth which was based solely on a conclusion that controls that cost more than $1500/ton were not required as RACT. As explained in the response provided in section II. A. of this document, EPA conducts its review of the entire case-by-case RACT SIP submittal including the source's proposed RACT plan and analyses, Pennsylvania's analyses and the RACT plan approval, consent order or permit itself to insure that the requirements of the SIP-approved generic RACT have been followed. These analyses not only evaluate and consider the costs of potential control options, but also evaluate their technological feasibility.
E. Comment: PennFuture comments that any emission reduction credits (ERCs) earned by sources subject to RACT must be surplus to all applicable state and federal requirements. Under Pennsylvania law, ERCs must be surplus, permanent, quantified, and Federally enforceable. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1). As to the requirement that ERCs be surplus, the Pennsylvania Code states: ERCs shall be included in the current emission inventory, and may not be required by or be used to meet past or current SIP, attainment demonstration, RFP, emission limitation or compliance plans. Emission reductions necessary to meet NSPS, LAER, RACT, Best Available Technology, BACT and permit or plan approval emissions limitations or another emissions limitation required by the Clean Air Act or the [Air Pollution Control Act] may not be used to generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs must surpass not only RACT requirements but a host of other possible sources of emission limits. PennFuture comments that some of the RACT evaluations at issue in the current EPA notices purport to establish RACT as a baseline for future ERCs. PennFuture does acknowledge that EPA notes in its boilerplate for the notices, that Pennsylvania and EPA have established a series of NOX-reducing rules, including the recent Chapter 145 rule, to reduce NOX at large utility and industrial sources. See, for example, 66 FR 42415, 16-17 (August 13, 2001). Because any ERCs must be surplus to the most stringent limitation applicable under state or federal law as described in the Pennsylvania Code provision set forth above, DEP and EPA must not approve ERCs unless they surpass all such limitations in addition to any limits set by RACT.
Response: EPA agrees with this comment by PennFuture. The approval of a case-by-case RACT determination, in and of itself, does not establish the baseline from which further emission reductions may be calculated and assumed creditable under the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR and ERC program. Moreover, EPA's review of the Pennsylvania DEP's implementation of its approved SIP-approved NSR and ERC program indicates that the Commonwealth calculates and credits ERCs in accordance with the SIP-approved criteria for doing so as outlined in PennFuture's comment. No source for which EPA is approving a case-by-case RACT determination should assume that its RACT approval alone automatically establishes the baseline against which it may calculate creditable ERCs.
F. Comment: PennFuture comments that as in the case with Pennsylvania Power—Newcastle, EPA should compare RACT proposals to applicable acid rain program emission limits and control strategies. PennFuture contends that EPA previously disapproved a RACT proposal for the Pennsylvania Power—Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 (1997); 63 FR 23668 (1998)] and that EPA did so on the basis that the acid rain program requires more stringent emission limits. PennFuture asserts that while EPA had originally proposed to approve this proposal, an analysis of comparable boilers and, especially, a comparison to Phase II emission limits under the acid rain program led EPA to conclude that the RACT proposal emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR at 43961]. Therefore, PennFuture contends that for sources subject to the acid rain program, EPA should consider emissions and control strategies for compliance with acid rain emission limits when evaluating proposals for compliance with RACT.
Response: Title IV of the Act, addressing the acid rain program, contains NOX emission requirements for utilities which must be met in addition to any RACT requirements (see NOX Supplement to the General Preamble at 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992). The Act provides for a number of control programs that may affect similar sources. For example, new sources may be subject to new source performance standards (NSPS), best available control technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). Other controls, under such programs as the acid rain program or the hazardous air pollutant program may also apply to sources. However, the applicability of these other requirements, which are often more stringent than RACT, do not establish what requirements must apply under the RACT program. While these programs may provide information as to Start Printed Page 54940the technical and economic feasibility of reduction programs for RACT, there is no presumption that acid rain controls should be mandated as RACT.
EPA stated in the final disapproval of the NOX RACT determination for PPNC [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion concerning average emission rates for boilers with respect to the acid rain program requirements were included in order to provide a context for EPA's proposed disapproval. EPA made clear in its August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers'—Newcastle (PPNC) RACT determination, that the basis for disapproval was a comparison between PPNC's boilers and other similar combustion units, not acid rain limits. In fact, EPA stated in the August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval that "Without additional knowledge or information, it would be erroneous and premature to conclude that the limits in the acid rain permit are RACT." [62 FR at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final disapproval for PPNC that it did not use acid rain permit limits, or Pennsylvania's participation in any other NOX control program, to determine PPNC RACT approvability [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has EPA intended to use participation in NOX control programs including acid rain, in determining RACT for PPNC or any other subject sources. EPA also stated that the April 30, 1998, PPNC disapproval was based on the absence of pertinent information regarding a computerized combustion optimization system through an enforceable permit, not comparison of acid rain permit limits.
G. Comment: PennFuture submitted comments specific to the case-by-case RACT determinations for two sources located in the Philadelphia area, namely for Kurz-Hastings, and GATX Terminals Corporation.
(1) Kurz-Hastings—PennFuture comments that the Kurz-Hastings plant is the second-highest VOC emitter in Philadelphia with the potential to emit 3400 tons per year of VOCs. PennFuture's comment recognizes that Kurz-Hastings' VOC-emitting processes (several printing machines) are subject to SIP-approved category RACT regulations and do not require a case-by-case RACT evaluation. PennFuture asserts, however, that Kurz-Hastings' own data show that annual emissions from these units are still one-third or more of its potential to emit, suggesting that VOC controls on these units are only modestly effective. PennFuture also comments that the case-by-case RACT evaluation of Kurz-Hastings' mixing room operations, rejects control technologies that are up to 99% effective in favor of minimal work-practice efforts. Therefore, PennFuture comments that the RACT determination for Kurz-Hastings merits close review by EPA to determine whether RACT requires a more effective control strategy for VOCs, and as at other plants, EPA must not approve this RACT proposal without conducting a thorough evaluation of available control technology.
Response: EPA disagrees with PennFuture's comments. The comment regarding the RACT requirements applicable to the printing machines at Kurz-Hastings are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Those printing machines are subject to a SIP-approved source category VOC RACT regulation adopted by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Graphic Arts CTG. The fact that compliance with that applicable regulation achieves an approximate 66 percent annual reduction in VOCs from Kurz-Hastings' printing machines does not require that a different or more stringent RACT be explored and imposed on this facility. With regard to fugitive emissions from the mixing room and clean-up operations, the work practice standards imposed on Kurz-Hastings for its mixing room and clean-up operations are consistent with RACT determinations routinely made and approved for such fugitive emission sources at graphic arts facilities. EPA's review of the SIP revision submitted for Kurz-Hastings indicates that the applicable SIP-approved definitions, provisions and procedures have been followed in imposing RACT for this facility.
(2) GATX Terminals Corporation—Citing Philadelphia Air Management Service (AMS) documents, PennFuture notes that GATX has the potential to emit 12,867 tons per year of VOC as a Bulk Terminal facility, and that its marine vessel loading unit has a potential to emit 3,520 tons of VOC per year. PennFuture then comments that the Philadelphia AMS's RACT review memorandum notes that a permit restriction limits emissions from this marine vessel loading operation to 59 tons per year in place of an add-on VOC control device. PennFuture goes on to note that, EPA promulgated a National Emission Standard for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations in 1995, which specifically established RACT for such sources at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart Y. PennFuture notes that the RACT evaluation submitted by GATX to AMS in 1994 noted the pendency of this rule, which requires capture of VOCs and routing for combustion or recovery at an efficiency of up to 98 percent (RACT Proposal for a Marine Tank Vessel Loading Terminal Facility, prepared for GATX Terminals Corporation by Versar, Inc., July 14, 1994, p. 12). PennFuture comments that AMS either overlooked this reference or chose not to require as RACT a highly effective control technology that, according to the GATX consultant, was "technically viable" at this plant. PennFuture, therefore, asserts that since EPA has promulgated a regulation specifically designating RACT for sources such as the GATX marine vessel loading operation, EPA must not approve a RACT proposal for this operation unless it includes the application of technology required by EPA in its regulation at 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart Y.
Response: EPA disagrees with PennFuture's comments regarding the marine vessel loading operation at GATX. The federal regulations cited by PennFuture were promulgated at 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart Y on September 19, 1995 (61 FR 48399) more than 3 months after the compliance date imposed in Act for major sources of VOC subject to non-CTG RACT. Moreover, the compliance date promulgated for the RACT standards of Subpart Y for sources such as GATX was two years beyond after the regulation's effective date. Most relevantly, the 59 ton per year annual limit imposed by AMS (and submitted by DEP on its behalf as a SIP revision) on GATX's marine vessel loading operation represents a 98.3 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the operation's 3,520 tons per year potential to emit which is at least as stringent as the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart Y. Moreover, GATX's RACT plan approval (PA-51-5003) requires the compliance with the 59 ton per year annual limit by the date imposed in Act for major sources of VOC subject to non-CTG RACT. Environmentally, there is no additional benefit that would result in disapproving the case-by-case RACT SIP submittal for GATX's marine vessel loading operation. Approval of the case-by-case RACT SIP revision for GATX in no way relieves the source from any otherwise applicable Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart Y.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the SIP revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NOX RACT for 18 major sources located in the Philadelphia area. EPA is approving Pennsylvania's RACT SIP submittals because the AMS and PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the Start Printed Page 54941criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The AMS and PADEP have also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for eighteen (18) named sources.
C. 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 December 31, 2001. 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 approving VOC and/or NOX RACT for eighteen sources located in the Philadelphia area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Hydrocarbons
- Incorporation by reference
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Ozone
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: October 15, 2001.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 52—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart NN—PennsylvaniaStart Amendment Part
2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(156) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
(156) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapter 129 pertaining to VOC and NOX RACT determinations for sources located in the Philadelphia area submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on September 20, 1995, April 16, 1996, May 2, 1996, July 2, 1997, July 24, 1998, December 7, 1998, April 9, 1999, and April 20, 1999.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letters submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection transmitting source-specific VOC and/or NOX RACT determinations, in the form of plan approvals and operating permits on September 20, 1995, April 16, 1996, May 2, 1996, July 2, 1997, July 24, 1998, December 7, 1998, April 9, 1999, and April 20, 1999.
(B) Plan approvals (PA), Operating permits (OP) issued to the following sources:
(1) Amerada Hess Corp., PA-51-5009, for PLID 5009, effective May 29, 1995.
(2) Amoco Oil Company, PA-51-5011, for PLID 5011, effective May 29, 1995.
(3) Cartex Corporation, OP-09-0076, effective April 9, 1999, except for the expiration date.
(4) Exxon Company, U.S.A., PA-51-5008, for PLID 5008, effective May 29, 1995.
(5) GATX Terminals Corporation, PA-51-5003, for PLID 5003, effective May 29, 1995.
(6) Hatfield, Inc., OP-46-0013A, effective January 9, 1997 (as revised Start Printed Page 54942October 1, 1998), except for the expiration date.
(7) J. L. Clark, Inc., OP-36-02009, effective April 16, 1999, except for the expiration date.
(8) Johnson Matthey, Inc., OP-15-0027, effective August 3, 1998 (as revised April 15, 1999), except for the expiration date.
(9) Kurz Hastings, Inc., PA-51-1585, for PLID 1585, effective May 29, 1995.
(10) Lawrence McFadden, Inc., PA-51-2074, for PLID 2074, effective June 11, 1997.
(11) Philadelphia Baking Company, PA-51-3048, for PLID 3048, effective April 10, 1995.
(12) Philadelphia Gas Works, PA-51-4921, for PLID 4921, effective May 29, 1995.
(13) PPG Industries, Inc., OP-23-0005, effective June 4, 1997, except for the expiration date.
(14) SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, OP-46-0035, effective March 27, 1997 (as revised October 20, 1998), except for the expiration date.
(15) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, OP-09-0010, effective April 9, 1999, except for the expiration date.
(16) The Philadelphian Condominium Building, PA-51-6512, for PLID 6512, effective May 29, 1995.
(17) Warner Company, OP-15-0001, effective July 17, 1995 except for the expiration date.
(18) Webcraft Technologies, Inc., OP-09-0009, effective April 18, 1996 (as revised October 15, 1998), except for the expiration date.
(ii) Additional Materials—Other materials submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in support of and pertaining to the RACT determinations for the sources listed in paragraph (c)(156)(i)(B) of this section.
[FR Doc. 01-26766 Filed 10-30-01; 8:45 am]


text:
(Phoenix, Ariz. – Feb. 9, 2009) Attorney General Terry Goddard today filed a judgment against Bayer Corporation resolving claims that the company misled women with television advertisements claiming that its popular oral contraceptive, Yaz, is effective for alleviating PMS.
This is Goddard's third enforcement action in the past year requiring a pharmaceutical company to make consumers aware of the true risks and limitations of drugs marketed on TV.
"As Attorney General, I am committed to protecting Arizonans' right to make informed decisions about their medical care," Goddard said. "I will aggressively pursue any company that deceives consumers and puts profit ahead of patient well-being."
Today's judgment settles allegations that two direct-to-consumer television ads for Yaz misrepresented the conditions that the drug is approved to treat. Bayer was alleged to have marketed Yaz to treat the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) though the drug was not approved to treat this condition. Bayer is also alleged to have promoted Yaz for treating types of acne that it is not approved to treat and exaggerating the positive effects Yaz has on acne.
The agreement with Bayer reached today by Goddard, 26 other state Attorneys General and the FDA requires the company to conduct a $20 million corrective advertising program to remedy misinformation from the misleading Yaz ads as well as to:
- Submit all future television "direct to consumers" Yaz advertisements to the FDA for review and comment prior to dissemination in the marketplace,
- Comply with all regulatory comments the FDA makes regarding the advertising,
- Clearly and conspicuously disclose exactly what the drug is FDA-approved to treat when referring to medical conditions and their symptoms in all Yaz print ads.
In 2007, Goddard and other state Attorneys General reached an agreement with Bayer following the company's alleged deceptive advertising, including non-disclosure of safety risks, of cholesterol lowering drug Baycol. Today's judgment resolves allegations that Bayer's marketing of Yaz violated that agreement as well as modifies the original agreement.
Consumers wanting more information on this case or consumer protection should contact the Attorney General's Office in Phoenix at 602.542.5763, in Tucson at 520.628.6504 or outside the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas at 1.800.352.8431. To file a complaint in person, the Attorney General's Office has satellite offices throughout the state with volunteers available to help. Locations and hours of operation are posted on the Attorney General's Web site, www.azag.gov. Consumers can also file complaints on line at the Attorney General's Web site.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bill Parcells often relays the story of the most important thing he learned from Al Davis.
"Nobody cares," Parcells told Bay Area media. "Nobody cares about your injuries or your problems. All they want to know on Monday is if you won."
It's a lesson NFL owners and the NFLPA (or whatever it is) would do well to heed.
Most NFL teams, including the 49ers, have issued statements to their fans, a subtle way of getting their message out and defending their strategy of locking out the players.
The alleged gag order during mediated collective bargaining was a joke. DeMaurce Smith, Jeff Pash and Roger Goodell could hardly wait to get behind a microphone to disparage the other side, and there was no shortage of leakers for ambitious reporters such as Mike Silver and Jim Trotter.
There hasn't been a peep out of Oakland. Davis, relegated to the background in part because he helped push forward the 2006 agreement which is the root cause of all the disagreement about how best to divide $9 billion, has had nothing to say.
Both sides would do well to follow his lead, because in this case, Davis is right.
Nobody cares.
Oh, the fans care deeply about football and want it every Sunday.
But they don't care about how the money is divided or which side gets the upper hand. The amount of time and effort the non-union as well as ownership has devoted to spin is a monumental waste of time that could be put to better use settling differences.
ESPN's Bill Williamson caught up with Raiders cornerback Stanford Routt for a quick Q&A.
Michael Huff is scheduled for free agency upon completion of a collective bargaining agreement, but immediately looked at the placement of kickoffs at the 35-yard line through silver and black glasses.
On his Twitter account, Huff predicted good things for Sebastian Janikowski but didn't seen overly concerned about Jacoby Ford, figuring the return specialist would just have to start a little deeper in the end zone.
Huff also wondered if he would be able to talk with Raiders coaches and/or scouts on hand for the pro day at Texas.
Whether Huff remains a Raider will depend on what other teams are willing to spend to get him. The fact that he's getting to free agency at all means they're prepared to lose him, and they even signed Hiram Eugene to a four-year contract with a nice raise just in case.
The Raiders usually strike quickly and with huge money on players they want to keep (Janikowski, Lechler, Asomugha, Seymour, Routt . . . )


text:
Oh, now it's finished. This is hardcore. I mean that there was so many questions left unanswered. I love this mysterious atmosphere. What happened to April? She can't be killed just like that - hell, she's the potagonist of The Longest Journey.
The moments in the game:
First when I entered bedroom in the lab. I had no idea why it was there and who was the patient but believe me - when I saw the doll house cold shivers run in my spine. A really well created atmosphere.
When I entered the basement of the hotel in Newport: Zoë is trespassing and I'm very nervous that something will happen to her. Zoë screams "Blood" and I'm like "Don't scare me like that!"
Crow meets April after eight years at the library. He fly on her shoulder and hug her using his wing - somehow really touching moment.
Great and complex story, good gameplay, reasonable problems and lot's of adventuring.


text:
Talvin Singh
Top SongsSee All
AlbumsSee All
Music VideosSee All
About Talvin Singh
Creator of an innovative fusion of Indian bhangra music and drum'n'bass electronica, Talvin Singh was classically trained on the tabla but rejected most of his learning when he founded the Anokha club night at East London's Blue Note. Singh grew up in Leytonstone, and though he began playing tabla at the age of five, he also liked to breakdance to electro and listen to punk rock. He was transplanted to India at the age of 16 to pursue a classical education, but later returned to Britain in the late '80s and began picking up work as a musician, with a diverse cast of artists -- Sun Ra, Björk, Future Sound of London, Siouxsie & the Banshees, and the Indigo Girls, among others.
By late 1995, Singh founded Anokha, the club night where drum'n'bass DJs and Asian punk bands went head to head with the amped-up sounds of his tabla and percussion. Guest spots by LTJ Bukem and others made Anokha a Monday night hot spot in London, and Singh signed to Island for an Anokha compilation including several of his own productions. He also worked as a remixer before issuing his proper solo debut, OK. in late 1998. ~ John Bush
- London, England
- Electronic
- 1970
Similar ArtistsSee All


text:
While Sony may not have had the best Q3, Kaz Hirai isn't letting that get him down, as he sets his sights high for the future of Sony Corp. and the PlayStation brand in particular. During Sony's quarterly financial call, Hirai shared his intentions to take the PlayStation brand to the number one spot in the industry.
In addition to placing a huge emphasis on Sony's gaming division, Hirai also pledged to build upon their camera and mobile lines as these three pillars will be the primary focus of the company moving forward. For those that didn't get the memo, Kaz Hirai will be taking over Howard Stringer's current position as president and CEO of Sony this April.
Kaz undoubtedly has one heck of a hill to climb, as Sony saw a net loss of over $2 billion during its third quarter. With the PlayStation Vita set to release outside of Japan later this month alongside a massive lineup of impressive day-one launch titles, let's hope this new portable brings Sony the success it needs.


text: Our members There are many ways to get involved with our work around standards. You can join our global community and work with us to set and raise standards. You can also sign up to benefit from using these standards at discounted prices. That's because we have committee members and Subscribing members – and both are incredibly valuable to our business. Here's why.


text:
Erin over at Gluten Free with a Purpose did a cool post on 7 things about her & asked if anyone wanted to participate & to their own. I think this is cool, so here is my "7 Things".
First, a picture of me.
Now, onto my stuff. Things you may not know about me.
1. I was a gymnast growing up. I started gymnastics at 5 and continued in it until I was 14 or so. I wanted to be just like Nadia & Mary Lou Retton. Obviously, that didn't happen. 😉
2. I was born in Newport, Rhode Island. My Dad was in the Navy, so that is where we lived the 1st 2 years of my life.
3. My 2nd toe is longer than my big toe. This was all fine & good until I started running and now seems to be causing some issues. Stupid feet!
4. I love to read. We are on vacation right now & I brought no less than 10 books. Aaron laughed at me. I am already done with one & half way through the 2nd book and we have only been here 3.5 days. Plus, I like choices.
5. I never used to be a morning person, but am now. I am up at 4:25 AM to hit the gym by 5 AM on weekdays. What a difference from 10 – 15 years ago!
6. I took violin lessons as a child. When in middle school, I was 2nd chair in the orchestra/band.
7. I never sang in front of people (well, except when forced in church choir as a child) until about 6 or 7 years ago. Now I won't stop! LOL! And, I really can't sing!
Well, there you have it. 7 things that you didn't know about me before and may not care that you know now! LOL!
As Erin said, I am not going to tag anyone, but I would love it if you would participate & then let me know so I can check out your 7 things.
Filed under: Family | 10 Comments »


text:
Watch Bill Gates giving a simple explanation on how foreign aid has made the world a much better place for everyone. And yes, apparently Bill Gates hates PowerPoint just like the rest of humanity.
Here's a more detailed look on how developing countries have changed during the past century by Hans Rosling—a great statistician who is also a genius communicator. It's a must watch:


text:
FITCHBURG � A Fitchburg man was ordered held on $50,000 cash bail Wednesday on drug trafficking and other charges after police said they found 145 grams of cocaine in his barricaded Clarendon Street home.
Margarito Guerrero, 47, of 137 Clarendon St., was charged with cocaine trafficking, possession of a large capacity firearm, improper storage of a large capacity firearm and possession of a firearm and ammunition without an FID card.
According to court documents, at 7:30 Wednesday morning, police entered Mr. Guerrero's home with a search warrant. The home was heavily barricaded and Mr. Guerrero was home.
He was arrested without incident.
Police said they found 145 grams of cocaine, a Smith & Wesson 9 mm handgun containing 16 rounds of ammunition, $2,330, packing materials, cutting agents and a digital scale. They also found paperwork and a passport that link Mr. Guerrero to the home.
The handgun and ammunition were found hidden under a kitchen cabinet counter near the sink and the gun wasn't secured properly, court documents said.


text:
Happy Birthday Cake
Happy Birthday Cake – Get Free Printable Happy Birthday Images here. Please check Printable Images Templates with Cakes, Candles, Flowers UK, US, Canada, Singapore, Australia and NZ. Something interesting about Birthday : Happy Birthday Cake I will try to serve you best HD Imges which would be fit with you Own Requirement. Birthday is very important role… Read More »


text:
About Eva
Eva Madeleina's expertise with flowers combine with her passion for arranging them to drive the success behind her floral design company, Towers of Flowers. From her primary office in Staten Island, Eva works closely with her clients during every step to meet and exceed their expectations.
With a team of professional designers and over a decade of experience, sophisticated and inspiring arrangements are her specialty. The reviews and reputation speak for themselves.
Your special event may come once in a lifetime - make the right choice, and let Eva show you why.


text:
Outgoing Speaker Bill O'Brien must be working hard to hide his delight as state Democrats start embarrassing themselves before even taking office and control of the New Hampshire House.
First, it was a felon still on probation who may be forced to quit if she doesn't do so voluntarily even before taking the oath. Now, it turns out a Nashua state representative-elect has to call it quits because on election day he was in the process of moving to Florida.
To all this, O'Brien replied in cool fashion, "It doesn't speak well for the Democrats recruiting efforts if they could not identify better candidates for State Representative than convicted felons who have not completed their sentence and people who truly live out of state. These sad episodes paint the entire House in a bad light and demonstrate the need to get back to electing individuals who are committed to serving the people honorably."
Of course, it could be argued this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. After all, some of the shenanigans during O'Brien's tenure as Speaker of the House didn't seem all that focused on "serving the people honorably."
But, O'Brien will soon be history as far as legislative leadership goes, thus the focus will turn to the party which preached purity as it condemned Republicans in wholesale fashion. Unfortunately, voters bought the broad-brush approach and literally swept out the good Republicans with the bad.
The irony, for anyone who doesn't see it clearly, is that in booting the Republicans en masse voters had the wool pulled over their eyes by the state Democratic Party. To read press releases from Chairman Ray Buckley over the past two years one would think the soul of the Republican Party was black as coal, and the Democrats' as white as the driven snow.
Well, neither is the case — as voters are beginning to see. Exactly what that means when it comes time to file nonsensical bills of Democratic making is yet to be seen. But, if the brief glimpse of what the Democratic tsunami brought to Concord is any indication, Speaker-in-Waiting Terie Norelli is going to get a taste of the same medicine her party fed to Republicans for the past two years and perhaps the dessert served up on Nov. 6.
Unfortunately, while that may be politically satisfying retribution it won't do much for state finances and getting the economy back on track.
It may be time for payback
Outgoing Speaker Bill O'Brien must be working hard to hide his delight as state Democrats start embarrassing themselves before even taking office and control of the New Hampshire House.


text:
Last December, Melissa Cann's heart dropped when she saw a TV news report that the bodies of four unidentified women in their 20s were discovered in the thick undergrowth along a secluded beach on Long Island, just an hour away from the frenzy of New York City. The bodies, which were found within 500 feet of each other, were all in various states of decomposition and stripped of their jewelry, identification, purses, and clothing. It appeared that they had been killed elsewhere, robbing detectives of valuable clues.
At the time, police suspected that one of the possible victims, Megan Waterman, had disappeared after advertising for clients on Craigslist. Waterman was last seen with her boyfriend at a hotel in Hauppauge, New York. It didn't take long for detectives to decide they were looking at the grisly work of a serial killer.
Cann's sister, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, had gone missing from her Manhattan hotel room nearly three years earlier, in July 2007. Police had subsequently linked her phone activity to a cell phone tower on Long Island. In 2008, police helicopters and cadaver dogs had scoured the same marshy, desolate area, but found no signs of Brainard-Barnes, a sweet-faced brunette with a passion for poetry.
The day after the serial killer story hit the news, Cann received a phone call from her mother. Her mom told her that the police had called her: The New York City detective handling Maureen's missing-persons case was forwarding her file to the Suffolk County Police Department, the lead police agency in charge of the serial killer investigation.
"I was dying inside," Cann, a 26-year-old mother of four, told The Daily Beast. "It was the most horrible month. Not knowing. It was like a Band-Aid over a wound that had to be ripped off."
"I will always be in contact with these families. I look at them as if they are my family. We are connected now and forever."
Cann believed that her sister's case was most likely linked to the other women, and she decided to reach out. Could their families provide her with some clues to her own sister's disappearance? She went on Facebook and tracked down Megan Waterman's family. Her message to them was simple and sensitive, from one victim's kin to another.
"I know how this may feel because I too have someone close to me missing," she wrote. "My sister, her name is Maureen Brainard-Barnes and she has been missing for 3 1/2 years."
She didn't know it at the time, but that Facebook message would be the first correspondence of dozens that would eventually bring together a group of grieving women and men who had apparently lost a loved one to the killer. "I think of [Melissa] as my sister and my best friend now," said Waterman's mother, Lorraine Ela. "We are all in the same situation and the other families need all the support they can also get."
When all the bodies had been identified in January—a month later—Cann and Ela began contacting the families of those women, too. A series of improbable friendships, born of violent tragedy, began to take root.
"We are always going to be bonded by this," said Cann. "I know it's a bad situation, but we will always have this bond. We are there for each other. I knew they would be the only ones who would understand what I am going through. We became each other's support system."
The residents of the Oak and Gilgo Beach communities live on a quiet stretch of land. A narrow parkway cuts through the beach here, with only sand dunes and brush on each side. Every five miles or so, the bungalows and beach houses of a gated community rise from behind those dunes, but mostly there is emptiness—no restaurants, no street life. The silence and desolation once seemed like tranquility, but have now been replaced by an air of eerie suspense ever since the bodies began showing up—eight women, now confirmed.
"Every time you look at the dunes, you wonder how many bodies are out there," said Thomas Moehringer, who lives in a more populated town nearby but races cars in the parking lot at Gilgo Beach. "You look at everybody, even the county workers and you think, is it him?"
Moehringer said he won't let his daughter walk on the beach by herself anymore, something she used to do all the time. "It was a place that was so tranquil and peaceful and they've changed it," said his daughter, Kristin Moehringer, 25.
The bodies and subsequent months-long investigation have inspired a sort of gallows humor amongst the locals. "We live in a crime scene, what are we gonna do?" asked Gustav Coletti, 75.
Coletti's house was the one that sparked the search that led to the grim discoveries. "I was in there shaving in the bathroom at 5 in the morning. She was banging on the door: 'Help me! Help me!'"
He came out of the bathroom, his two parrots, Chico and Zero, squawking loudly. A young woman later identified as missing person Shannan Gilbert came inside. "She just stood there and I dialed 911," Coletti said. Then she ran away and fell halfway down the stairs. She went to a neighbor's and banged on the door as well. That neighbor didn't open the door, so she hid under Coletti's boat.
Coletti stepped outside and said he saw a car driving slowly down the street. "I came down and looked at him and said, 'Where do you think you're going?' He said we were at a party at the [john's] house and a girl got upset.'"
Glbert, who it turned out had—like Waterman and the other victims—advertised for clients on Craigslist, then ran out from under the boat, Coletti went after her, and that was the last time she was seen. Later, Jersey City Police issued a missing person poster and described Gilbert as suffering from a bipolar disorder and being a user of cocaine and prescription drugs.
In December, they declared that the john was not a suspect. Gilbert, whose disappearence sparked the search that led to the first set set of remains, is still listed as missing.
But the subtle signs that a serial killer was on the loose surfaced on July 9, 2007, when Cann's sister, a former blackjack dealer in Connecticut and divorced mother of two, vanished without a trace. Cann's brother and husband went to New York searching for clues. No one recognized Maureen Brainard-Barnes.
In late 2007, Cann persuaded the Manhattan Missing Person's Unit to take over her sister's case. They tracked Maureen's last cell phone signal to Long Island. "She had never been to Long Island," said Cann. "The cops kept asking me if Maureen ever went to Long Island. I spoke to my sister's roommate who worked with her and she said she never went to Long Island… I know that my life will never be the same after this."
Meanwhile, 24-year-old Melissa Barthelemy, who dreamed of becoming a cosmetologist, was last seen on July 10, 2009, sitting on a curb outside the Bronx basement apartment she shared with her five cats. She moved to New York in 2007 and told her family she was stripping at a club. They had no idea that she was advertising on Craigslist.
Eight days after Melissa's disappearance, her sister, Amanda, began to receive calls, about one each week. The caller ID indicated the call came from Melissa's cellphone. The man wanted to know if the person on the line was Melissa's little sister. "The whole year I continued to pay for the phone bill," Melissa's mother, Lynn, told The Daily Beast. "It was only turned on when the guy would turn it on, when he made the phone calls. He would only keep it on for three minutes."
The police traced the calls to cellular towers in Times Square and Madison Square Garden, but got nowhere. Lynn said they received five more calls, the last one on August 26, 2009. "The last call, he said he killed her," and he hung up.
Then, on June 5, 2010, Megan Waterman, who had a young daughter, vanished without a trace from the hotel room she was sharing with her boyfriend in Hauppauge, on Long Island. Waterman, a native of Portland, Maine, advertised on Craigslist under the name Lexi. Lorraine Ela, Megan's mother, said her daughter had logged onto Craigslist at 12:05 a.m. on the night she went missing, and that video cameras showed her leaving the hotel at 1:30 a.m. She never returned.
Ela said that when the maids went to clean the room the following morning they discovered the clothes of both her daughter and her boyfriend, Akeem.
The last girl to disappear was Amber Lynn Costello, a North Carolina native who was living in her apartment in North Babylon when she went missing on Sept. 2, 2010. After the news broke about the four women, Cann went on her Facebook quest.
After finding Lorraine Ela, she then found Shannan Gilbert's sister, who replied in January. "She just simply wrote, 'Are you Maureen's sister?'" Cann said. "I wrote back, 'Yes I am Maureen's sister,' and we became friends."
Tracking down the other families proved to be more difficult, but Cann eventually found them in late February and early March. "I found the girls' obituaries," she said. "I did not want to find them that way. But I knew I needed to find them and reach out to them."
"I told Melissa that we are the girls' voices, and if it isn't for us they won't find out who did this to them," said Ela. "If we don't keep these girls' names out there and push and push to find out who did this they will never find out and they will keep these four girls' cases on the back burner. That is the reason why I haven't stopped. I have seen so many cases where cops are gung ho at the beginning and they eventually back off and I don't want that for my daughter and these other women."
They talk regularly on the phone, text-message daily, and send messages via Facebook. In June, the families of the four victims including Gilbert's sister will meet for the first time for a candlelight vigil at the spot near Gilgo Beach where their loved ones' bodies were discovered.
"I am not going to be at ease with myself until I go where Megan was found to say my goodbyes there," said Ela.
"We want to bring beauty back to where that was," said Cann. "I will always be in contact with these families, no matter what. I look at them as if they are my family. We are connected now and forever."
Christine Pelisek is staff reporter for The Daily Beast, covering crime. She previously was a reporter at the LA Weekly, where she covered crime for the last five years. In 2008, she won three Los Angeles Press Club awards, one for her investigative story on the Grim Sleeper.
Roja Heydarpour is an editor at The Daily Beast. She has reported for the The New York Times and The Times-Tribune.


text:
Spice 1 Takes Ice-T's Side. Disses Soulja Boy "Niggas Would Look For You & Hunt Yo Azz Down & Take Yo Head Off"
Spice 1 DISSES Soulja Boy in this PUSHIN' THE BAY TV exclusive
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Allow me to preface my article with a recent accident: A maintenance technician was nearly killed when the tilt cylinder hose assembly that was made by an untrained technician unexpectedly failed, causing the mast to tilt forward and stop a few feet from a steel structure. The victim was apparently spared from severe injury, and possibly death, for two reasons. First, he was wearing a safety harness. Second, the out-of-control mast did not strike the steel structure.At the time of the accident the forklift was apparently being used in strict accordance with OSHA regulations.
Regulatory groups and manufacturers have developed what they refer to as "safe" methods for lifting personnel with a forklift (OSHA 1926.602) — or if you will, licensing forklift owners and operators to use their forklifts as crossover vehicles. In addition to transporting cargo, they can be used as "mobile elevating work platforms for personnel."
OSHA's committees did, however, mandate a few stipulations:
1. The work platform must be equipped with standard guardrails or equivalent means, and must be firmly secured to the lifting carriage or forks.
2. The hydraulic system must be designed such that the lift mechanism will not drop faster than 135 ft (41 m) per minute in the event of a failure in any part of the system.
3. The operator must be in the driving seat while workers are on the platform.
4. The operator must be in the driving seat while raising or lowering the platform.
5. The forklift must not travel from point to point with the work platform elevated at a height greater than 4 ft (1.22 m) while the platform is occupied. When necessary, an occupied platform can be moved as long as the forklift is "inched" at a very low speed.
6. The area between the person on the platform and the mast must be guarded to prevent contact with chains or other pinch points.
The preceding stipulations are well-founded. However, could the regulatory groups and manufacturers have overlooked other critical elements that could cause or contribute to the uncontrolled descent of a forklift's lift or tilt mechanisms?
OSHA's 135 ft/min descent rate rule is preposterous because it is impossible to control the descent rate of the lift mechanism "in the event of a failure in any part of the system." Here are a few examples of failures that could cause uncontrolled descent of a forklift's lift mechanism:
• lift chain failure,
• cylinder retaining pin failure,
• cylinder internal seal failure,
• cylinder rod failure,
• mast guide wear-plate wear, or
• hose failure.
Most of these failures are caused by inadequate maintenance training, poor or non-existent service and repair, or forklift abuse.
Like apples to oranges
From a design point of view, comparing forklifts to aerial platforms is like comparing apples to oranges! The fundamental purpose of a forklift is to transport cargo with the added convenience of self-loading and unloading with the aid of hydraulics. The fundamental purpose of an aerial work platform is to elevate and transport personnel within the guidelines of safe operation.
Forklifts and aerial platforms both share similar hydraulic components from an operational point of view. However, an aerial platform designer has an additional design responsibility — to make sure the platform cannot fail under any circumstances.
An aerial platform has many hydraulic safety valves that are not usually incorporated into a forklift's hydraulic system design. This makes a forklift inherently unsafe for use in elevating or transporting people. Forklift manufacturers aren't shy about warning of the consequences of using their products for this purpose.
Forklifts do not have redundant safety components or systems to specifically protect the rider in the event of the unexpected failure of a critical hydraulic or mechanical component. On the other hand, aerial platform designers focus heavily on platform reliability and machine stability, which makes safety the nucleus of aerial platform design. Accordingly, aerial platforms have redundant safety components and systems for the specific purpose of protecting the rider should unexpected failure of a critical hydraulic component occur.
Using a forklift as an aerial platform puts the rider's life in the hands of the forklift driver. A conventional aerial platform, on the other hand, places the rider in control of all vehicle functions, including propulsion and steering. (For a case history about this, find the colored sidebox on page three.)
The weakest link
However, the issue of forklift safety extends beyond the boundaries of forklift design. It relies heavily on the qualifications and training of forklift maintenance personnel. The most powerful argument against using a forklift as an aerial platform has to do with the education and training — or lack thereof — of maintenance personnel.
Safe and predictable forklift operation (OSHA 29CFR1910.178O) can only be achieved if a forklift is expertly maintained. It is nearly impossible to meet OSHA's requirements if the people responsible for maintaining the forklift are untrained — especially on systems as critical as hydraulics. It's ironic, then, that more than 98% of the people in the U.S. who maintain, service, and repair hydraulic systems and components are not properly trained.
OSHA 29CFR1910.1780 is a law mandating that operators be certified in the safe operation of a forklift. It requires hands-on and formal classroom training. However, the mechanics responsible for the safe and proper operation of a forklift are ignored by all regulatory groups, including the owners and operators of forklifts.
So why aren't mechanics held to the same standard as operators? Moreover, why do the regulatory groups and manufacturers look the other way with respect to training and certification of mechanics?
Flying is a relative term
To avoid an unimaginable toll on human life due to crashes born of poor repair and maintenance practices brought about by untrained personnel, the federal government — the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — passed into law a bill that made it a federal crime for untrained/unauthorized personnel to perform any service or repair work on an airplane. The "flying public" feels safe thanks to "Uncle Sam."
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the aerial platform industry — it's a veritable "free-for-all." Literally anyone, regardless of training or experience is permitted to service and repair all types of personnel lifting mechanisms — including forklifts, cranes, basket trucks, etc.
When a person is elevated by means of a forklift, basket-truck or an aerial platform, that person is, for all intents and purposes, "flying." Ironically, the life and limb of these "pilots" is generally in the hands of people who have little or no training!
Needless to say there must be a reason why the regulatory groups and manufacturers — the people who never in the course of their work have to risk their lives "flying" these unreliable and unsafe machines — cow-towed to corporate America and allowed them to make a forklift a "crossover" vehicle. Could the reason be green in nature — money?
The vast majority of people who maintain, service and repair forklifts, and especially forklift hydraulic systems, have absolutely no formal training. This leaves the majority of forklifts highly susceptible to accidents, which could result in severe injury, death, or substantial property damage.
In my very strong opinion, the regulatory organizations and manufacturers made a very serious oversight when they ignored a critical aspect of safe and reliable forklift operation — the mechanic.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Equally as critical is the poor state of maintenance, in general, of forklifts. They are generally maintained on the basis of if it ain't broke don't fix it. Here's why:
Inadequate maintenance —Forklift maintenance is generally performed on the basis of crisis management. Machines are typically run into the ground and only then do they get the attention they need — maybe! Repairs are seldom done properly because maintenance personnel are generally not empowered to make decisions. Supervisors usually dictate how repairs should be executed, with the main objectives being cost and time rather than quality and reliability.
Furthermore, less than 1% of the hydraulic components on a forklift are removed for proactive maintenance. Instead, they are maintained on a fail-first basis. Unfortunately, this problem is not unique to the forklift industry. The vast majority of hydraulic systems operating in plants and on mobile machines operate until a failure occurs.
A low priority— When a forklift is sidelined, production is usually unaffected. Most plants usually have a backup forklift or can rent one if needed. Therefore, maintenance and production supervisors and managers make little time to schedule service on non-critical machines such as forklifts.
Equipment abuse — Forklifts are generally abused. Forklift operators routinely spin the tires and shift the drive into reverse (or forward) while the vehicle is traveling in the opposite direction. Most forklifts show multiple scrapes, dents, and other body damage from repeated collisions. The term unreliable is synonymous with neglect. Neglected machinery will inevitably break down unexpectedly.
Misconceptions — Don't be fooled by dual cylinders. A pair of cylinders may seem to provide a redundancy if a hydraulic line fails or a certain type of mechanical failure occurs in one cylinder. However, the "good" cylinder will not keep the platform upright. The lines that supply oil to the cylinders are connected in parallel. This means the failure of any transmission line that routes fluid between the control valve and the cylinders will result in a total loss of that system's motion control, leaving the rider's fate up to the laws of gravity!
I cannot agree with OSHA's and manufacturers' decision to permit forklifts to be used as substitutes for aerial platforms. Thus, the Fluid power safety Institute issues the following warning:
Using a forklift as a work platform is inherently dangerous and can lead to accidents, which could result in severe injury, death, and substantial property damage.
The regulatory groups and manufacturers appear to have ignored critical safety elements in their haste to kowtow to industry. There are, and always will be, inherent risks associated with using a forklift for any purpose other than what it's intended to be — a cargo carrying vehicle — unless it undergoes extensive design changes to incorporate all the features needed to make it fail-safe. Moreover, regulatory groups and manufacturers should focus on the state of forklift, crane, and aerial lift maintenance training.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that regardless of how well a vehicle driver is trained, his/her safety — and the safety of those who work around the equipment — lies squarely on the shoulders of the maintenance mechanic.
A forklift is as safe and reliable as the people who service and repair it, regardless of how well the operator is trained.
The Fluid Power Safety Institute invited (via e-mail on October 8, 2007) two major forklift manufacturers to participate in this safety alert, specifically on the issue of descent rates in the event of an unexpected failure. To-date, these manufacturers — Toyota and Hyster — have ignored our attempt to open dialogue on these critical issues.
Rory McLaren is Founder and Director of The Fluid Power Safety Institute, Salt Lake City, which presents safety-based hydraulic workshops. Find a schedule at www.fluidpowersafety.com.
Case history: worker falls when cylinder lowers independent of lift-mechanism
An electrician asked the forklift driver to hoist him to the ceiling to attend to a defective light, which was at an elevation of approximately 20 ft (6 m) from the factory floor. He used a pallet as a work platform.
The driver was sitting in the forklift receiving instructions from the electrician. While the electrician was busy attending to the light, the forklift driver apparently struck up a conversation with a colleague.
A short while later, the electrician shouted to the forklift driver to lower him to the ground. The driver, without looking up, responded by activating the lever to lower the platform. However, he continued with the conversation.
A minute or so went by and the electrician repeated his request for the driver to lower him to the ground.
This prompted the driver to glance forward. To his horror, the lift mechanism's cylinder rod was completely lowered while the platform remained aloft.
The forklift driver, realizing the gravity of the situation, (the slightest movement could cause the platform to come crashing down) immediately activated the control valve hoping to raise the cylinder rod to meet the platform.
Unfortunately, the electrician became impatient and turned around to see why the operator was not responding to his commands. His moving caused the mast sections to realign. The driver watched in horror as the platform came crashing down to the concrete floor below (Figure 2).
As a result of the fall the electrician suffered severe back injury and multiple bruises.
Note: On certain forklift models mast wear guides can wear out and cause the mast section(s) to temporarily seize while the lift-mechanism is at maximum elevation. This situation can leave the "rider" vulnerable to a serious free-fall accident because the lift-mechanism's lift cylinder(s) can lower independently of the lift-mechanism.
The OSHA descent-rate rule appears to apply to all forklifts regardless of type, age, or condition. Many forklifts do not have hydraulic safety valves (velocity fuses) integrated in the lower port of the mast cylinder(s). Consequently a hose failure, for whatever reason, can cause the lift mechanism to "free-fall," leaving the rider susceptible to severe injury or death.
The regulatory groups and manufacturers appear to have overlooked problems associated with an unexpected failure of a forklift's mast tilt mechanism, which also operates with hydraulic cylinders.
A forklift's tilt angle averages 3º forward and 3º backwards from center. The distance of lateral travel at the top of a fully raised mast is approximately 6 ft (1.83 m). This number varies according to maximum lift-mechanism height and maximum tilt angle.
The unexpected failure of a tilt cylinder hose or mechanical part could result in a very serious accident. For example, a forklift is being used to elevate a person to a height in a building to replace a broken light bulb. While the person is working overhead one of the hydraulic hoses in the tilt cylinder circuit unexpectedly fails causing the mast assembly to lurch forward uncontrollably throwing the lift mechanism against the structure. The person cannot be thrown from the device because, according to OSHA regulation, he/she is securely harnessed. However, his/her body is thrown against the side of an adjacent structure violently, which could cause severe injury or death.


text:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., amplified the need to reform the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all at the same time to shrink the government's footprint in the mortgage finance market.
Warren questioned a panel of housing experts during a hearing titled, "Addressing FHA's Financial Condition and Program Challenges," at the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Development on Thursday, commenting that the FHA is not the only large actor receiving taxpayer backup.
"We've got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are creating a huge problem and to some extent the Veteran's Administration as well as when we think about underwriting and insurance pricing," Warren said.
Professor of International Economic Policy Phillip Swagel of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy agreed with Warren, noting that changes at the FHA would effect both government-sponsored enterprises.
Swagel noted that you can't fix the solvency of the FHA and not worry about the agency's mission.
On a similar note, President David Stevens of the Mortgage Banker's Association urged the reform of all three firms, specifying that it should be done "in concert with each other."
"One move shouldn't create an arbitrary bubble on the other end of the scale," Stevens said.
However, the biggest challenge that remains is getting policy regulators on board at the same time to shrink FHA and the GSEs dominance in the mortgage industry.
President Teresa Bazemore of Radian Guaranty noted that an important difference between the FHA and the GSEs is that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have private capital in the form of mortgage insurance and until the private market can make a significant comeback in the market reform is a long ways off.
Similarly, President Sarah Wartell of the Urban Institute agreed with Bazemore, noting that until private capital is ahead of the government, ensuring monetary stability in the mortgage market, reform consensus will not emerge.
"To constrain FHA's box without knowing the private capital amount it will delay the date of a reasonable reform and allow loans to slip through the cracks," Wartell said.
Regardless, Warren noted that even if a political consensus doesn't emerge in the near future, a continued drive towards reform of the FHA and GSEs is needed.
"We have to keep pushing," the senator concluded.


text:
Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled in the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 in the face of a blaze so intense that it drove temperatures as high as 2,000fWhat is already clear is that the jet plane fuel played a somewhat different though still critical role from some experts had speculated.
For example, after the planes slammed into the towers, the fireballs that burst over Lower Man-hattan consumed perhaps a third of the 38,000 liters of jet fuel on board each plane, but did little structural damage themselves, the report says.
Like a giant well of lighter fluid, though, the remaining fuel burned within minutes, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo over several floors and igniting the catastrophic inferno that brought down the towers.
Under normal circumstances, fire suppression systems are designed to allow a high-rise blaze to burn itself out before the building collapses. But the report concludes that there were across-the-board failures in the fire suppression systems inside the towers, raising disturbing questions about the safety and integrity of other tall buildings in out-of-control fires. But the ultimate significance of those failures is extremely difficult to gauge, the report says, because the extraordinary circumstances of attacks.
In fact, besides just setting the fires, the impact of the jets may have jarred loose the light, fluffy fireproofing that had been sprayed on steel columns, and flying debris almost certainly sliced through the vertical pipes that supplied water for the hoses and sprinklers.
Because of those uncertainties, the report says, the possibility of changes to building codes and engineering practices should receive extensive further study, a step the federal government is already planning, with a US$16 million, two-year inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology now getting underway. The report's final version may recommend specific changes in building codes and standards.
The report is also significant for what it does not include. With the exception of a few torn, contorted steel beams from 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building on the site that also burned and suffered localized collapses because the beams failed where they were bolted together, not a single piece of evidence collected from the piles of debris contributed in a meaningful way to the report's conclusions.
That gap could intensify criticism of an early decision by the city to recycle steel from the trade center rather than make it immediately available for collection and analysis by the team. Some 60 pieces of trade center steel are being sent to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the continuing investigation, so it is possible that future analysis of the steel remnants could provide additional answers.
The draft report also does not contain any discussion of what could, potentially at least, become an explosive new issue in attempts to explain why the south trade tower, though struck after the north tower, fell first. That issue involves a program, started after the 1993 bombing of the towers, to increase the the thickness of the fireproofing on the lightweight steel joists that held up the floors in the trade center.