Document o9Kk9GXeJa7Op5ERK6zeG0ekg

6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 (EPA-HQ-OAR-20I6-0442; FRL-XXXX-XX-OAR| RIN 206O-AT57 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry: Alternative Monitoring Method AGENCY; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ACTION; Direct final rule. STMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to amend the National Emission Standards for I la/ardous Air Pollutants f rom the Portland Cement Manufacturing Induslrs. 1 his direct final rule provides a compliance alternative tor sources that would otherwise be required to use a hydrogen chloride (HCl) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance with the HCI emissions limit. This compliance alternative is needed due to the current unavailability of the 1 1(1 calibration gases used for CEMS quality assurance purposes. RATES: i his rule is eftecthe on (Insert date ! 2 days after date of publication in the federal Register! without further notice, unless the EPA receives significant adverse comment b\ (Insert date 10 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. If the EPA receives significant adverse comment., we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit >our comments, identified by Docket II) No. EPA-IKM)AR-2016-0442. at hup: inni'.regulations.gov. follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00001 Page 2 of 14 consider to he Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio. \ ideo. etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The I IP.A will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i. e., on the Web. cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full FPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit hup:. wmr2.epu.poY dockets commentinp-epu-t lockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Mr. Brian Storey. Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number; (PI1)) 541-1103; fax number; (010) 541-5450; and email address: storey, hrion a epa.pov, St PPLF.MEM'AR\ INFORMATION: Orpanizution of This Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. (ieneral Information A. Why is the HPA using a direct final rule? B. Does this direct final rule apply to me? What should I consider as 1 prepare my comments for the FIFA? II. What are the amendments made by this direct final rule? III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866; Regulator} Planning and Review and Executive Order 13503: Improving Regulation and Regulator} Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (REA) I). I in funded Mandates Reform Act (l A1RA) E. Executive Order 13132: federalism E. Executive Order 13 1 75: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal (iovernments Ci, Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00002 Page 3 of 14 II. Executive Order 1321 1: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply. Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (N I I'AA) J. executive Order 12898: f ederal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. C.cneral Information A, Why is the EPA itsiny a direct final rule? The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rale because we view this as a noncontroversial action and do not anticipate significant adverse comment. 1 lowever. in the "Proposed Rules" section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, if the EPA receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document If the EPA receives significant adverse comment on all or a distinct portion of this direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that some or all of this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. B. Does this direct fund ride apply to me? Categories and entities potentially regulated In this direct final rule include: Categorv Portland cement manufacturing facilities 1 North American Industry Classification System. NAICS Code1 327.310 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00003 Page 4 of 14 This table is not intended to be exhaustive, hut rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this direct final rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63,1340, If you have questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13. C. What should / consider as 1 prepare my comments for the EPA? Do not submit information containing Oil to the EPA through http: tnnr.regulations,yov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to he CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that >ou mail to the TPA. mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CDR< )M the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete \ersion of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI. a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CF R part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: ()AQPS Document Control Officer (C4Q4-02), ITS. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442. II. What are the amendments made b\ this direct final rule? Under the rule published in 2013 (78 FR 10006. February 12, 2013), the owner or operator of a kiln subject to the emission limits for 11CT in 40 CFR 63.1343 may demonstrate compliance by one of the following methods: 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00004 Page 5 of 14 Option 1 - An owner or operator of a kiln may demonstrate compliance by operating a GEMS meeting the requirements of performance specification (PS) 15, PS-18, or any other PS for HC1 GEMS in appendix B to part 60, with compliance based on a 30-kiln operating day rolling average. ()ption 2 - If the kiln is controlled using a wet scrubber, tray tower, or dry scrubber, the owner or operator, as an alternative to using a GEMS, may demonstrate compliance with the 1IG1 limit using one of two options, described below. Under t >ptinn 2. a performance test must be conducted by the owner or operator using Method 321. While conducting the Method 321 performance test (note Method 321 is the ! IC'l slack testing performance method required by this rule), the owner or operator must simultaneous!} measure a control device parameter in order to establishe a site-sped lie parameter limit that must be continuous!} monitored to determine compliance. If the kiln is controlled using a wet scrubber or tra> tower, the owner or operator must also monitor the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid How rate and pll during the 11GI performance test. If the kiln is controlled using a dry scrubber, the sorbent injection rate must be monitored during the performance test. As an alternative under Option 2. the owner or operator may establish sulfur dioxide (S( U) as the operating parameter by measuring S(U emissions using a GEMS simultaneously with the Method 321 test and establishing the site-specific S( U limit that must then be continuously monitored to determine compliance with the HCl limit. The 2013 rule requires that if a source chooses to tor is required to) monitor 11(1 emissions using a GEMS (Option 1). they must do so in accordance with PS-1 5, PS-18, or any other PS for I IC'l GEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. (See 40 GI R part 60. appendix B.) Quality assurance procedures for 11G1 GEMS require that they be capable of reading HCl 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00005 Page 6 of 14 concentrations that span a range of possible emission levels below as well as above expected HCl emission concentrations. These quality assurance procedures require the use of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable calibration gases for HCL Following our decision to create PS-18 and Procedure 6 for 11(1 continuous monitoring in 2012. the HP A worked with NIST and commercial gas vendors on development of NfSTtraeeabie I (Cl gas standards to support the PS-1 K in the 2013 rulemaking. While some of the low 11(1 concentration ( 10 parts per million, or ppm) NIST-traceable gases have been available on a limited basis since 2013. the full range ol'IICl concentrations required to support all 11(1 emissions monitoring technologies (including integrated path that requires concentrations 100 times higher) are not widclv available at this time. The approach used by NIST in 2013 was to certifv the Research (ias Material (R(iM) cylinders as primary gas standards. These cylinders contain HCl gas and are provided to NIST by vendors for NIST certification, and subsequently used by the vendors as transfer standards to prepare the (ias Manufacturer Intermediate Standards (GMIS). The (iMIS cylinders are then used to produce NIST-traceable gas cylinders that are sold commercially,1 The initial approach used by NIST to certify the RGM cylinders was not viable in the long term as the instrumentation used by NIST largeh depleted the HCl RGM gas volume, leaving little gas in the c\ Under for the vendors to use in preparing GMIS materials. Because of this concern. NIST initiated development of an improved RGM certification procedure. The development has been hampered by the challenges presented in handling 11(1 gas. 11(1 gas is extremely reactive and difficult to handle in both gas cylinders and analytically. As such, it has taken considerable time ' EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay ami ('crtification of <fuscous ('alihration Standards. I IS. HP A. Office of Research and Development. HPA 600 R-12 531. May 2012. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00006 Page 7 of 14 for NIST to optimize the analytical equipment and approach to achieve the necessary uncertainty requirements (e,g,. <1 percent uncertainty). In addition, the commercial establishment of NIST-traceable gases is dependent on collaboration between NIS 1' and the specialty gas vendors. There arc a limited number of vendors providing the stable, accurate, low and high concentration cylinder gases to NIST to certify as ROMs. Once the ROMs are available, the specialty gas vendors must complete a series of procedures to establish the certainty of their products which adds to the time to achieve wide commercial availability. As a result, on July 25. 2016 (XI PR 4X356). the f PA provided an additional compliance alternative for sources that would otherwise be required to use an 11(1 C'PMS (Option 1). The alternative was provided for a period of 1 year. In the alternative, the 11(1 ('PAIS was still required to be installed and operated, but actual compliance with the 11(1 emissions limit was determined by a three-run stack test. The 11(1 ('HMS still provided a continuous readout of 11(1 emissions, but because the (TMS was tun calibrated with the required NIST-traceable calibration gases, the 11(1 measurement was not considered to he sufliciently accurate on an absolute basis lor compliance. However, it was found to be sufficient to indicate any relative change in 11(1 emissions occurring subsequent to the compliance test. Therefore, the 11(1 (T MS under the compliance alternative functioned as a continuous parameter monitoring system (C'PMS). as in the ease of the particulate matter (PM) I'PMS requirement (see 78 PR 10014 10015, 10019-10020, February 12. 2013). It is the EPA's understanding that the availability of NIST-traceable calibration gases for HC1 has not changed since the compliance alternative approval in 2016. Thus, the EPA intends 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00007 Page 8 of 14 to extend the use of this compliance alternative until such time as the NIST-traceable calibration gases for I ICI become readily available. I `rider this extension of the compliance alternative, the owner or operator will demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test using Method 321 and will monitor compliance with an operating parameter limit through use of the 11CI C'HMS operating as a 1 IC'l C'PMS. for the I K'l t'PMS. the owner or operator will use the average IICI CPMS indicated output, typically displayed as parts per million by volume (ppmv), wet basis HC1 recorded at in-stack oxygen concentration during the HC1 performance test to establish the operating limit. To determine continuous compliance with the operating limit, the owner or operator will record the indicated HCl CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and use all the HCl CPMS data, except data obtained during times of monitor malfunctions. Thus, continuous compliance with the operating limit will be demonstrated by using all valid hourly average data collected by the HCl CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (indicated ppm) on a 30-kiln operating day rolling a\ era go basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. An exceedance of the kiln 30-day operating limit would trigger evaluation of the control system operation and resetting the operating limit based on a new correlation with performance testing, for kilns with inline raw mills, performance testing and monitoring I ICI to establish the site specific operating limit must be conducted during both raw mill on and raw mill off conditions. As is the case for the PM CPMS requirements (see 40 C1R 63.1340(b)( 1 )(i)k this alternative for HCl compliance monitoring includes a seating factor of 75 percent of the emission standard as a benchmark (2.25 ppmv, dry basis at 7-percent oxygen). Sources that choose this 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00008 Page 9 of 14 option will conduct a Method 321 test to determine compliance with the HC1 emissions standard and during this testing will also monitor their 1 lt'1 CPMS output in indicated ppm to determine where their 1 1(1 CPMS output would intersect 75 percent of their allowed IK'l emissions, and set their operating level at that ppm output. This scaling procedure alleviates re-testing concerns for sources that operate well below the emission limit and provides greater operational flexibility while assuring continuous compliance with the 11(1 emission standard, for sources whose Method 321 compliance tests place them at or above 75 percent of the emission standard, their operating limit is determined by the average of three Method 321 test runs (for sources with no inline raw mill) or the time weighted average of six Method 321 test runs (for kilns with inline raw mills). By adopting a scaling factor as well as the use of 30 days of averaged HC1 CPMS measurements, the parametric limit in no way imposes a stringency level higher than the level of the 11(1 emissions standard and will avoid triggering unnecessary retests for many facilities, especialh for the lower-emitting sources. Hi. Statutory' and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at hap; ' www2.epa.gov laws-regulations laws-and-cxeculive-onlers. A. Executive Order 12X66: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563; Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulator}' action and was. therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. li. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulation 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00009 Page 10 of 14 (4(1 (T'R part 63. subpart LI.I.) and has assigned OMR control number 2060-0416. This action does not change the information collection requirements. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not ha\e a signi(leant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RLA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action does not create any new requirements or burdens and no costs are associated with this direct final action. I), i infunded Mandates Reform Act (l 'MR. 11 1 his action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in l MR A. 2 l .S.C. ) 531 1538. and does not significant!} or uniquely affect small go\ernments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the stales, on lire relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the \arious levels of government. /'. Fxecalivc Order 13 i T ('on.su/talion and ("oordination with Indian Tribal (invernments This action does not have tribal implications, as speeilied in Hxecutivc Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The HPA is aware of one tri bally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to 40 (TR part 63, subpart I.LI. that will be subject to this direct final rule. 1 lowever. the provisions of this direct linal rule are not expected to impose new or substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments since the provisions in this direct final rule are extending the use of an alternative to the HC1 monitoring provisions, including an option 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00010 Page 11 of 14 which provides operational flexibility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildrenfrom Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of "covered regulatory action" in section 2 202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. II, Executive Order 13211: Actions ('oneerning Regulations Thai Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Esc Tliis action is not subject to Executive Order 1321 I because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. /, Rational Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (RTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. ./. Executive Order I2H9H: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12868 (56 FR 7626. February 16. 1664), 1 his action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the env ironmenl. K. (. 'ongresstonal Review Act t( RA> 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00011 Page 12 of 14 This action is subject to the CRA. and the 1 PA will submit a rule report to each 1 louse of the Congress and to the Comptroller (ieneral of the l fitted States. This action is not a "major rule" as defined b> 5 C.S.C. 804(2). 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00012 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From tin* Portland Cement Manufacturing Industn: Alternate e Monitorin'* Method ' Pace 1 ' of!4 ' List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection. Administrative practice and procedures. Air pollution control. Hazardous substances. Intergovernmental relations. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. JUN 19 20Jr Dated: 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00013 Page 14 of 14 For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending title 40. chapter I. part 63 of the Code of f ederal Regulations (CI R) as follows: PARI 63 -- NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart LLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 2. Section 63,1340 is amended by deleting paragraph (bM6K\)(11) to read as follows: 63.1349 Performance testing requirements, * ** * * (H)* * * ## # * 3. Section 63.1350 is amended bv adding paragraph < 1)(4) to read as follows: 63.1350 Monitoring requirements. * ** * * (j)* * * ** * (4) If\ou monitor continuous performance through the use of an 11C1 t'PMS according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (Ci) of 63,1346, for any exceedance of the 30-kiln operating day IIC1 C'PMS average value from the established operating limit. \ou must: * ** * * 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004866-00014 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 |EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442; FRL-XXXX-XX-OAR] RIN 2060-AT57 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry: Alternative Monitoring Method AGENCY; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SI MM ARY: I lie Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Prom the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. In the "Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final rule, without a prior proposed rule, that temporarily revises the testing and monitoring requirements for hydrochloric acid (IK'i) due to the current unavailability ol'llCl calibration gases used for quality assurance purposes. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. DATES: Written comments muss he received by [Insert date 10 days after date of publication in the Federal Register!ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket 11) No. KPA-1 i(M)AR-2() 16-0442. at hup; snnr.n'pa/uihms.puY. Follow the online instructions for submilling comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.go\. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CB1) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004867-00001 Page 2 of4 written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (/>.. on the Web. cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about C'BI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http;1 www2.epa.gov Jackets. commentmg-epa-Jackets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr, Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (PI9) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-5450: and email address: storcy.hrhma cpa.gov, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule? This document proposes to take action on amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. We have published a direct final rule to amend 40 (TR part 63. subpart 1,1.1.. by revising the testing and monitoring requirements for HO in the "Rules and Regulations*' section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If wc receive no adverse comment, we util not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct portion of the direct final rule, we will withdraw dial portion of the rule and it will not take effect. In this instance, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004867-00002 Page 3 of 4 If" we receive adverse comment on a distinct provision of the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. The provisions that arc not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out in the direct final rule, notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. The regulatory text for this proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for this proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in the ''Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register. II. Does this action apply to me? Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule include: Categon Portland cement manufacturing facilities 1 North American Industry Classification Svstem. NAICS Code1 327310 T his table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather prov ides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004867-00003 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturinu Industry: Alternative Monitoring Method Page 4 of 4 III. Statutory and Executive Orders For a complete discussion of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the "Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register. Dated: JUN 19 2017 Administrator. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00004867-00004