[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29682-29691]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12028]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0580; FRL-9911-42-OAR]
RIN 2060-AM09

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revision of the Venting
Prohibition for Specific Refrigerant Substitutes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, the Agency) is
amending the regulations promulgated as part of the National Recycling
and Emission Reduction Program under section 608 of the Clean Air Act.
EPA is amending those regulations to exempt certain refrigerant
substitutes, listed as acceptable subject to use conditions in
regulations promulgated as part of EPA's Significant New Alternative
Policy program under section 612 of the Act, from the prohibition under
section 608 on venting, release or disposal on the basis of current
evidence that their venting, release or disposal does not pose a threat
to the environment. Specifically, EPA is exempting from the venting
prohibition isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes
in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and
freezers, and propane (R-290), as a refrigerant substitute in retail
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only).

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0580. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy from the EPA
Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744,

and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hamlin, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Air and Radiation, MC 6205J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final action extends the exemption from
the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) to certain refrigerant
substitutes in certain end-uses for which EPA has found the refrigerant
substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions under CAA section 612
and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart G.
Specifically, EPA is exempting from the venting prohibition isobutane
(R-600a) and R-441A as refrigerant substitutes in household
refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers,
and propane (R-290), as a refrigerant substitute in retail food
refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only).

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What abbreviations and acronyms are used in this action?
II. How does the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program
work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements under section 608 of the
Clean Air Act?
    B. What are the regulations against venting, releasing or
disposing of refrigerant substitutes?
III. What factors did EPA consider in determining whether venting,
release or disposal poses a threat to the environment?
    A. Inherent Characteristics of These Substances
    B. Limits and Controls Under Other Authorities, Regulations or
Practices
IV. What is EPA's determination whether venting, release or disposal
poses a threat to the environment?
V. What revision to the venting prohibition is EPA finalizing today?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
VII. References

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Potentially regulated entities may include, but are not limited to,
the following.

  Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities, by North American Industrial
                   Classification System (NAICS) Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Description of
           Category                NAICS code       regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services......................            811412  Appliance repair and
                                                   maintenance.
Industry......................            333415  Manufacturers of
                                                   refrigerators,
                                                   freezers, and other
                                                   refrigerating or
                                                   freezing equipment,
                                                   electric or other;
                                                   heat pumps not
                                                   elsewhere specified
                                                   or included (NESOI);
                                                   and parts thereof.
Industry......................            445110  Supermarkets and other
                                                   grocery (except
                                                   convenience) stores.
Industry......................            445120  Convenience stores.
Industry......................    562920, 423930  Facilities separating
                                                   and sorting
                                                   recyclable materials
                                                   from non-hazardous
                                                   waste streams (e.g.,
                                                   scrap yards) and
                                                   merchant wholesale
                                                   distribution of
                                                   industrial scrap and
                                                   other recyclable
                                                   materials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To
determine whether your company is regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria contained in section 608
of the Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act) as amended, and relevant
implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F. If you have any
questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding section, FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What abbreviations and acronyms are used in this action?

ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAS--Chemical Abstracts Service
CBI--confidential business information
CFC--chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EO--Executive Order
FR--Federal Register
GWP--Global warming potential
HC--hydrocarbon
HCFC--hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--hydrofluorocarbon
IPR--industrial process refrigeration
LFL--lower flammability limit
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
ODP--ozone depletion potential
ODS--ozone-depleting substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
UL--Underwriters Laboratories
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC--volatile organic compound

II. How does the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program
work?

A. What are the statutory requirements under section 608 of the Clean
Air Act?

    Section 608 of the Act as amended, titled National Recycling and
Emission Reduction Program, requires EPA to establish regulations
governing the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) used
as refrigerants, such as certain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), during the service, repair, or
disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration (IPR),
including air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Section 608
also prohibits any person in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of an appliance or industrial process
refrigeration, from knowingly venting or

otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of such ODS used as
refrigerants therein in a manner which permits such substances to enter
the environment. This prohibition similarly applies to the venting,
release, or disposal of substitutes for such ODS used as refrigerants,
unless the Administrator determines that venting, releasing, or
disposing of such a substitute does not pose a threat to the
environment.
    Section 608 is divided into three subsections. Briefly, section
608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations to reduce the use and the
emissions of class I substances (e.g., CFCs and halons) and class II
substances (HCFCs) to the lowest achievable level and to maximize the
recapture and recycling of such substances. Section 608(b) requires
that the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) contain
standards and requirements for the safe disposal of class I and class
II substances. Finally, section 608(c) contains self-effectuating
provisions that prohibit any person from knowingly venting, releasing
or disposing of any class I or class II substances, and their
substitutes, used as refrigerants in appliances or IPR in a manner
which permits such substances to enter the environment during
maintenance, repairing, servicing, or disposal of appliances or IPR.
    EPA's authority for the requirements in this action is based on
section 608. As noted above, section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances to
``reduce the use and emission of such substances to the lowest
achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and recycling of such
substances.'' Section 608(a) further provides that ``[s]uch regulations
may include requirements to use alternative substances (including
substances which are not class I or class II substances) . . . or to
promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section [612] or any
combination of the foregoing.'' Section 608(c)(1) provides that,
effective July 1, 1992, it is ``unlawful for any person, in the course
of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or
industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise
knowingly release or dispose of any class I or class II substance used
as a refrigerant in such appliance (or industrial process
refrigeration) in a manner which permits such substance to enter the
environment.'' The statute exempts from this self-effectuating
prohibition ``[d]e minimis releases associated with good faith attempts
to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of such a substance. To
implement and enforce the venting prohibition,\1\ EPA, as codified in
its regulations, interprets releases to meet the criteria for exempted
``de minimis'' releases if they occur when the recycling and recovery
requirements of regulations promulgated under sections 608 and 609 are
followed. 40 CFR 82.154(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this action, EPA sometimes uses the shorthand ``venting
prohibition'' to refer to the section 608(c) prohibition of
knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II
substances, and their substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the Act extends
the prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to knowingly venting or otherwise
knowingly releasing or disposing of any refrigerant substitute for
class I or class II substances by any person maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of appliances or IPR. This prohibition applies
to any such substitute substance unless the Administrator determines
that such venting, releasing, or disposing ``does not pose a threat to
the environment.'' Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to
promulgate regulations to interpret, implement, and enforce this
venting prohibition, including authority to implement section 608(c)(2)
by exempting certain substitutes for class I or class II substances
from the prohibition when the Administrator determines that such
venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the
environment.

B. What are the regulations against venting, releasing or disposing of
refrigerant substitutes?

    Final regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Act,
published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling
program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the servicing
and maintenance of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances. In
the same 1993 final rule, EPA also promulgated regulations implementing
the section 608(c) prohibition on knowingly venting, releasing or
disposing of class I or class II controlled substances.\2\ These
regulations are intended to substantially reduce the use and emissions
of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A list of ozone-depleting substances is available in
Appendices A and B to Subpart A of Part 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed to implement and clarify the
requirements of section 608(c)(2) of the Act by clarifying how the
venting prohibition extends to substitutes for CFC and HCFC
refrigerants (63 FR 32044). EPA issued a final rule March 12, 2004 (69
FR 11946) and a second rule on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19273) clarifying
how the venting prohibition in section 608(c) applies to refrigerant
substitutes (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) in part or whole) during the maintenance, service, repair, or
disposal of appliances. These regulations implementing section 608's
recycling and emission reduction program were codified at 40 CFR part
82, subpart F. Before the amendments finalized in the present action,
the regulation at 40 CFR 82.154(a) stated in part that:

``[e]ffective June 13, 2005, no person maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or
otherwise release into the environment any refrigerant or substitute
\3\ from such appliances, with the exception of the following
substitutes in the following end-uses:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Substitute,'' as defined at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, is
``any chemical or product, whether existing or new, that is used by
any person as an EPA approved replacement for a class I or II ozone-
depleting substance in a given refrigeration or air-conditioning
end-use.'' 40 CFR 82.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or
in absorption units;
    ii. Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing
of hydrocarbons);
    iii. Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
chlorine and chlorine compounds);
    iv. Carbon dioxide in any application;
    v. Nitrogen in any application; or
    vi. Water in any application.
    (2) The knowing release of a refrigerant or non-exempt
substitute subsequent to its recovery from an appliance shall be
considered a violation of this prohibition. De minimis releases
associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover
refrigerants or non-exempt substitutes are not subject to this
prohibition. . . . ''

    As explained in EPA's earlier rulemaking concerning refrigerant
substitutes, EPA has not promulgated regulations requiring
certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment intended for
use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13, 2005). However, as
EPA has noted, the lack of a current regulatory provision should not be
considered as an exemption from the venting prohibition for substitutes
that are not expressly exempted in Sec.  82.154(a). Id. EPA has also
noted that, in accordance with section 608(c) of the Act, the
regulatory prohibition at Sec.  82.154(a) reflects the statutory
references to de minimis releases of substitutes as they pertain to
good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of non-
exempted substitutes. Id.

III. What factors did EPA consider in determining whether venting,
release or disposal poses a threat to the environment?

    Section 608(c)(2) extends the venting prohibition in section
608(c)(1) to substitutes for class I or class II substances, unless the
Administrator determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing
does not pose a threat to the environment.
    For purposes of section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, EPA considers two
factors in determining whether or not venting, release, or disposal of
a refrigerant substitute during the maintenance, service, repair or
disposing of appliances poses a threat to the environment. See 69 FR
11948 (March 12, 2004). First, EPA determines whether venting, release,
or disposal of the refrigerant substitute poses a threat to the
environment due to inherent characteristics of the refrigerant, such as
global warming potential. Second, EPA determines whether and to what
extent such venting, release, or disposal actually takes place during
the maintenance, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances, and
to what extent such venting, release, or disposal is controlled by
other authorities, regulations, or practices. To the extent that such
releases are adequately controlled by other authorities, EPA defers to
those authorities.
    In addressing the two factors mentioned in the paragraph above, the
analysis in the proposed rulemaking published on April 12, 2012 (78 FR
21871) discussed the potential environmental impacts and existing
authorities, practices, and controls for isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A
as substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination
refrigerators and freezers; and propane (R-290) as a substitute in
retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only). These
refrigerant substitutes and end-uses were evaluated and determined to
be acceptable subject to use conditions under SNAP in the December 20,
2011 final rule (76 FR 78838) (2011 SNAP rule).
    EPA received comments on the revisions to the venting prohibition
proposed on April 12, 2012, seeking clarification about the
applicability of the exemption to the venting prohibition to various
types of equipment not mentioned in the proposal. Three comments were
received asking whether the determination of an exemption to the
venting prohibition for isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A as substitutes in
household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and
freezers would also apply to ``household wine coolers'' and ``household
beverage centers'' and ``stand-alone ice makers designed for household
use.'' This final action exempts isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A as
refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and
combination refrigerators and freezers. The exemption under 608(c)(2),
as proposed and as it is being finalized with this action, applies only
to the uses that are acceptable subject to use conditions under the
2011 SNAP rule. The issue raised by the commenters concerns how the
SNAP listing is interpreted and the issue of these end uses was not
raised during the comment period for the 2011 SNAP rule. Under SNAP, we
have explained that ``household refrigerators, freezers and combination
refrigerators and freezers'' includes household refrigerators,
freezers, and combination refrigerator/freezers intended primarily for
residential use, although they may be used outside the home. Household
freezers only offer storage space at freezing temperatures, unlike
household refrigerators. See 76 FR at 78833. The 2011 SNAP rule also
notes that the two hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes can be used only
in refrigerators or freezers that meet all requirements listed in
Supplement SA to UL 250. Id. at 78837, codified at appendix R of
subpart G to 40 CFR part 82. To the extent that household wine coolers,
household beverage centers or stand-alone ice makers designed for
household use meet these conditions, they would fit within the end use
designed in the 2011 SNAP rule as ``household refrigerators, freezers
and combination refrigerators and freezers.''

A. Inherent Characteristics of These Substances

    Based on the analysis in the proposal for this action (April 12,
2012, 78 FR 21871), EPA finds that the venting, release, or disposal of
isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A as substitutes in household
refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers and
propane (R-290) as a substitute in retail food refrigerators and
freezers (stand-alone units only) does not pose a threat to the
environment based on the inherent characteristics of these substances,
as well as the limited quantities used in the relevant applications.
    In the proposal (April 12, 2012, 78 FR 21871), EPA provided an
analysis that focused on the environmental impacts identified as a
potential concern under SNAP (76 FR 78838) for these refrigerant
substitutes: Ozone depletion potential, global warming potential,
volatile organic compound (VOC) effects, and ecosystem risks. As
discussed in the proposal, this analysis was based in part on the fact
that the volume of hydrocarbons listed as acceptable with use
conditions under the 2011 SNAP rule that could be released from the
specific uses relevant to this exemption would be small. Based on this
analysis, EPA determines that the venting, release, or disposal of
isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A as substitutes in household
refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers and
propane (R-290) as a substitute in retail food refrigerators and
freezers (stand-alone units only) does not pose a significant threat to
the environment with respect to the inherent characteristics of these
substances.
    The discussion in the proposal also noted that in prior rulemakings
EPA evaluated the potential risks of fire from the use of hydrocarbons
as refrigerant substitutes in certain appliances, and engineering
approaches to avoid ignition sources from within the appliance. To
address flammability risks of hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, EPA
issued recommendations for their safe use in certain end-uses and
specified use conditions for some end-uses through SNAP rulemakings (59
FR 13044; 76 FR 78832).\4\ These SNAP rules rely on existing regulatory
requirements and industry standards and practices that protect workers,
the general population, and the environment from the flammability risks
from hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. EPA additionally provided
information about potential toxicity and occupational exposure of these
three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, noting that in prior actions
under SNAP, EPA had found that these hydrocarbons are unlikely to pose
such risks, when used according to the applicable use conditions or
regulations. EPA explained that the Agency believes that the
flammability risks and occupational exposures to hydrocarbons are
adequately regulated by Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), building, and fire codes at a local and national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Use conditions for hydrocarbons in certain refrigeration
end-uses are found at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G, appendix R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of EPA's proposed determination to exempt these
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes from the venting prohibition in
certain end uses, the proposal received comments from four commenters
agreeing with EPA's cited reasons for determining that

release into the environment would not pose a threat. The commenters
stated that it would be safer to vent the small amounts than to try to
recover them in a special container and to transport these substitutes
afterwards in larger containers.
    Three commenters also stated that the overall greenhouse gas impact
of all the activities involved in capture, transport, recycling or
destruction would generate greater greenhouse gas emissions than would
simply venting the small charge of hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes
in the appliances.
    One commenter supported EPA's proposed determination to exempt
venting, release, or disposal of these hydrocarbon refrigerant
substitutes because ``there are currently no commercially available
reclaim devices [sic] available in the US rated for use with
hydrocarbon or other flammable refrigerants'' and because the commenter
is unaware of facilities equipped to accept reclaimed hydrocarbon
refrigerants from a service company. EPA notes, however, that it does
not believe this commenter means ``reclaim devices'' and ``reclaimed
hydrocarbon refrigerants,'' as the proposed rule focuses on the release
of the three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes from appliances during
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances, and the
reclamation of refrigerants is a purification process often involving a
distillation column, to which refrigerant recovered from appliances is
transported in bulk. We believe that the commenter means ``recovery
devices'' and ``recovered hydrocarbon refrigerants.''
    Another commenter provided the following information in support of
EPA's proposed determination to exempt from the venting prohibition the
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes determined to be acceptable subject
to use conditions under the 2011 SNAP rule. This commenter stated that
the release of the amounts of hydrocarbon (HC) refrigerant approved for
residential equipment (57g) and commercial stand-alone equipment (150g)
is smaller than the amount contained in many individual aerosol cans
that are used every day in the United States. The total release from
the 2 billion aerosol cans sold in the U.S. each year ``are several
orders of magnitude higher than any releases of [the proposed]
refrigerant charges.''
    This same commenter also supports EPA's determination noting that
there can be energy savings of 12 to 55 percent from a unit using HC
refrigerants as compared to a unit using HFC refrigerants, with a much
greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions than the amount that
might be released during maintenance, servicing or repair.
    Finally, another commenter ``agrees that the release of HC based
refrigerants during the maintenance, service or repair would have a
negligible environmental impact.''
    EPA received two comments that question the determination that the
venting, release, or disposal of isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A as
substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination
refrigerators and freezers; and propane (R-290) as a substitute in
retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only) does
not pose a significant threat to the environment based on the inherent
characteristics of these substances. One commenter believes it is
necessary to have recapture or recycling requirements for HCs, because
safety risk still exists at end of life, recovery equipment designed
for flammable refrigerants is available, and recovered flammable
refrigerants can be re-used. EPA agrees that proper safe handling
practices should be followed for hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes,
both for disposal of appliances at the end-of-life and for the repair
and maintenance of appliances. EPA included recommendations on the safe
use and handling of hydrocarbons in the 2011 SNAP rule, and there are
also recommendations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, appendix R.
    The Agency supports the safe, economical and environmentally
beneficial recovery, recycling and reclamation (re-use) of all
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. However, at this time, EPA does
not agree that recovery equipment designed specifically to handle the
three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in this action is readily
available in the United States. Further, at this time, there are not
applicable standards in the U.S. for certification of recovery
equipment designed to handle these three hydrocarbon refrigerant
substitutes. EPA is not creating a recovery requirement at this time,
as it is not clear that it would be safer, economically practical or
environmentally beneficial to require the use of recovery equipment.
EPA further notes that the commenter did not identify an environmental
threat that is posed by the venting of these three hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes in the end-uses for which EPA has found them
acceptable subject to use conditions in the 2011 SNAP rule.
    Another commenter ``does not believe that there is improved safety
in venting flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants versus reclaiming
flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants.'' This commenter states ``it may be
more hazardous to vent flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants or flammable
hydrocarbon refrigerant/lubricant mixture into an uncontrolled
environment.'' This commenter states that because of the very low
minimum ignition energy (MIE) of hydrocarbon flammable refrigerants
(class 3 flammable under ASHRAE 2010), these refrigerants are easily
ignited by static electricity. EPA believes this concern about the
ignition of hydrocarbon refrigerants for these three hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes in the end uses at issue in this action was
addressed in the 2011 SNAP rule in which these hydrocarbon refrigerant
substitutes and end-uses were evaluated and determined to be acceptable
subject to use conditions under SNAP. In section ``B. Flammability'' of
part IV of that SNAP rule, titled ``What is the basis for EPA's final
action?'' the Agency describes the evaluation and conclusion for
approving these hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes for the specific
end-uses under the use conditions. The 2011 SNAP rule explains that,
``when the concentration of a flammable refrigerant reaches or exceeds
its [lower flammability limit] LFL in the presence of an ignition
source (e.g., a static electricity spark resulting from closing a door,
use of a torch during servicing, or a short circuit in wiring that
controls the motor of a compressor), an explosion or fire could
occur.'' 76 FR at 78837. The 2011 SNAP rule continues by stating that,
``To determine whether the three hydrocarbon refrigerants would present
flammability concerns for service and manufacture personnel or for
consumers, EPA reviewed the submitters' detailed assessments of the
probability of events that might create a fire, as well as engineering
approaches to avoid sparking from the refrigeration equipment. EPA also
conducted risk screens, available in the docket for this rulemaking,
evaluating reasonable worst-case scenarios to model the effects of the
sudden release of the refrigerants. The worst-case scenario analysis
for each of the three hydrocarbons revealed that even if the unit's
full charge were emitted within one minute, the concentration would not
reach the [lower flammability limits] LFL for that hydrocarbon.'' Id.
at 78839.
    The commenter also noted studies that ``show atomized lubricant
(lubricant that is released within refrigerant spray, such as under
venting conditions), is more flammable than liquid lubricant.'' EPA
considered such studies and the influence of the

lubricant on the lower flammability limits (LFLs) of the hydrocarbon
refrigerants in the specific end-uses when finding them acceptable
subject to use conditions under the SNAP program (see December 20,
2011; 76 FR 78832, sections ``D. Charge Size Limitation (Household
Refrigeration)'' and ``E. Charge Size Limitation (Retail Food
Refrigeration)'' and discussions of standards UL 250 and UL 471
regarding lubricant oil). In this rule, EPA determines that the three
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes do not pose a significant threat to
the environment when released from the relevant end uses under the use
conditions established in 2011 SNAP rule, taking into account this same
information about the atomized lubricant that was discussed regarding
the solubility of oil in establishing the acceptable use condition of
each charge size limit in the 2011 SNAP rule. Id. at 78845-78846.
    The commenter raised concerns that ``venting hydrocarbon
refrigerant may potentially carry lubricants dissolved with the
refrigerant . . . into the atmosphere.'' The commenter believes that an
exemption for venting, release, or disposal of the three hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes sends an incorrect message to the market on
best practices, and that this message is counter to ``responsible use
and handling.'' While EPA understands this perspective and agrees that
product stewardship is an important overall goal, the very small amount
of dissolved lubricant in the small hydrocarbon charge size established
as a limit for each of the end-use categories in the 2011 SNAP rule
will significantly mitigate the release into the environment and the
impact of any release into the environment of lubricants dissolved in
the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that may result from any
venting, release or disposal that may occur under this final action.
EPA also notes that many of the lubricants used with hydrocarbon
refrigerants, such as alkyl benzene and polyalkylene glycol, are
considered environmentally acceptable because they biodegrade easily as
noted in EPA's document on environmentally acceptable lubricants.\5\
After considering these two comments questioning EPA's determination in
this action, as well as the comments supporting that determination, we
believe that the venting, release, or disposal of these three
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes would not pose a significant threat
to the environment based on the inherent characteristics of these
substances, in light of the amounts that could be released under this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. EPA (2011), ``Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants,''
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater
Management, November 2011, EPA 800-R-11-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Limits and Controls Under Other Authorities, Regulations or
Practices

    In the proposal (78 FR 21871), EPA explained that the limits and
controls under other authorities, regulations or practices adequately
control the release of and exposure to the three hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes and mitigate risks from any possible release in
the end-uses specified in the 2011 SNAP rule. This conclusion is
relevant to the second factor mentioned above in the overall
determination of whether venting, release, or disposal of a refrigerant
substitute poses a threat to the environment--that is, a consideration
of the extent that such venting, release, or disposal is adequately
controlled by other authorities, regulations, or practices. As such,
this conclusion is another part of the determination that the venting,
release or disposal of these three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes
in the specified end uses under the 2011 SNAP rule does not pose a
threat to the environment.
    EPA notes that other applicable environmental regulatory
requirements still apply and are not affected by the determination made
in this action. As one example, state and local air quality agencies
may include VOC emissions reductions strategies in state implementation
plans developed to meet and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) that would apply to hydrocarbon refrigerant
substitutes. For instance, for those refrigerant substitutes that are
VOCs as defined in 40 CFR 50.100(s), a State might adopt additional
control strategies if necessary for an ozone nonattainment area to
attain the NAAQS for ozone.
    Several commenters supported the determination that the release of
the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes determined to be acceptable
subject to use conditions in specified end uses under the 2011 SNAP
rule does not pose a threat to the environment because of limits under
other authorities, such as OSHA requirements, as well as national and
local building and fire codes. These commenters believe the three
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in today's action should be exempt
from the venting prohibition because there are sufficient limits and
controls under other authorities, regulations or practices that
adequately control the release and exposure in the specific end-uses.
    One commenter requested an explanation of how ``knowingly venting
propane . . . would not be disposal of a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
261.21).'' The commenter is correct that propane refrigerant could
technically be characterized as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.21
specifying the characteristic of ignitability. However, this rule would
only allow for incidental releases of propane (R-290) found acceptable
subject to use conditions under the 2011 SNAP rule for use in retail
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only). These
releases would not be subject to RCRA requirements for the disposal of
hazardous waste as the release would occur incidentally during the
maintenance, service and repair of the equipment, and this would not
constitute disposal of the refrigerant charge as a solid waste, per se.
The Agency further notes that it discussed potential human health risks
from the release of propane in this end use in the 2011 SNAP rule, and
it provided information from that rule in the proposal for this rule.
See 76 FR at 78839 and 78 FR at 21874-75. In the 2011 SNAP rule, the
Agency considered the risk of asphyxiation to workers (store employees
and consumers), and evaluated a worst-case scenario and determined that
the charge size at issue was much smaller than the charge size that
would result in the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) for
hypoxia. 76 FR at 78839. The Agency also evaluated toxicity impacts
from the propane end use to workers, consumers, and the general public,
and found that propane in this end use did not pose a toxicity threat
based on either occupational exposures, as the time-weighted average
exposures were well below the industry and government exposure limits,
or on consumer exposures, as the time-weighted average exposures were
significantly lower than the NOAEL and/or the acute exposure guideline
level (AEGL). Id. Further, for the 2011 SNAP Rule EPA modeled exposure
risk to the general population for propane in this end use and
concluded that it was unlikely to pose a toxicity risk to the general
population when used according to the applicable use conditions or
regulations because modeled exposures were significantly lower than the
reference concentration. Id. In addition, in this action the Agency is
determining that these releases do not pose a threat to the
environment, as described elsewhere in this preamble.
    EPA received several comments that support the determination that,
in the words of one of the commenters,

``release of HC based refrigerants during the maintenance, service or
repair would have a negligible environmental impact'' in part, because
of limits and controls under other regulations and practices, such as
OSHA requirements and building and fire codes. However, one commenter
noted that ``requiring capture continues the best practice currently
being used and does not create another process dissimilar to the
current requirements for CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs and blends.'' This
commenter noted that, ``there are technologies which would facilitate
[recovery of HCs] . . . passive `draw through' processes such as
activated carbon adsorption capture [as] . . . one example. The process
is simple and can be used with the current equipment the service and
repair industry typically has available.'' EPA understands that this
process could be used, although there is no applicable standard in the
U.S. for how it would be implemented and it would create an additional
risk with the management of the activated carbon that has adsorbed the
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitute due to the aggregation of a larger
quantity of a material containing a flammable substance. EPA also
notes, as did other commenters, that the energy for implementing any
recapture process from the appliances and transporting it, and
reclaiming or disposing of the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitute,
especially a process using activated carbon adsorption capture or other
similar ``draw through'' substance that would then be sent for final
disposal, recovery or recycling of the material, would likely generate
greater greenhouse gas emissions than simply venting the very small
charges of the three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes from the
specified end-use appliances.
    One commenter suggested that, ``disposal of units containing HC
charges is vastly different than maintenance, service or repair.'' This
commenter went on to say that ``HC refrigerants should be recovered by
Certified Technicians prior to disposal to protect the recyling
industry and eliminate confusion to technicians and other personnel who
are not required to obtain EPA Certification to handle refrigerants.''
The Agency notes that certification of a technician is not required for
recovery of refrigerant during disposal of small appliances (see 40 CFR
82.156(a)), such as the household refrigerators, freezers and
refrigerator/freezer combinations addressed in this rule. At this time,
the regulatory requirements for technician certification at 40 CFR
82.156(a) are limited to recovery of ODS and ODS blends. However, EPA
believes employees at disposal facilities are very often certified
technicians or aware of EPA requirements regarding recovery of the
refrigerants from equipment during disposal. While a technician
certification is not required in order to use the exemption from the
venting prohibition in today's action, EPA encourages disposal
facilities to ensure that employees are familiar with how to safely
handle and vent the three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the
specified end uses addressed by today's rule. In addition, the
commenter provides no reason to believe that there is any potential
environmental threat from venting during disposal that would differ
from any potential environmental threat from venting during
maintenance, service or repair. In fact, today's action could reduce
the number of appliances that are disposed of while still charged with
these three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes because it will no
longer be prohibited to vent those refrigerant substitutes in the
specified end uses during maintenance, service, and repair. Thus, EPA
does not believe that it needs to address disposal separately in the
regulations finalized in this action.
    As a suggestion for protecting workers in the appliance recycling
industry the commenter proposed that ``units using flammable
refrigerants be marked in a manner that an end of life processing or
recycling facility can easily identify the hazard from a distance of 36
inches while looking at the back of the unit.'' With respect to the
comment regarding risks to workers during the disposal of equipment at
end-of-life, EPA agrees that flammability is a reason for caution
during disposal of appliances containing hydrocarbon refrigerant
substitutes. EPA notes that some of the use conditions in the 2011 SNAP
rule were required in order to address this potential risk. For
example, the labeling requirements and the requirement for coloring of
tubing will serve as notification to servicing and disposal personnel
that the appliance contains a flammable refrigerant substitute. The
labeling requirements in the 2011 SNAP final rule require an increased
lettering size as compared to the UL standards effective when that
final rule was issued (UL 2000, UL 2010) for the cautionary statement
about flammability that must be attached to the appliance to provide
even better notification to those involved in appliance recycling.
    For the reasons explained in this action and in the proposal (78 FR
21871), EPA concludes that release of and exposure to the three
hydrocarbon refrigerants during the maintenance, repair, servicing or
disposal of appliances is controlled by limits and controls under other
authorities, regulations or practices. EPA further concludes that those
limits and controls help mitigate risks to the environment that may be
posed by the venting, release or disposal of these three hydrocarbon
refrigerants during the maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing
of appliances.

IV. What is EPA's determination whether venting, release or disposal
poses a threat to the environment?

    Today EPA is finalizing a decision to exempt from the venting
prohibition three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that EPA listed
as acceptable subject to use conditions in the specified end uses under
the 2011 SNAP rule, as the EPA is determining that the venting,
release, or disposal of these substitutes does not pose a threat to the
environment. Specifically, EPA is exempting from the venting
prohibition isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes
in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and
freezers, and propane (R-290), as a refrigerant substitute in retail
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only). EPA received
seven comments supporting this decision. EPA addressed in this action
commenters' concerns regarding the release of the three hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes into the environment. The exemption to the
venting prohibition in this action does not apply to refrigerants that
are blends containing hydrocarbons and any amount of any CFC, HCFC,
HFC,\6\ or PFC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) also include Hydrofluoroolefins
(HFOs), which have at least one double bond between carbon atoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reviewed the potential environmental impacts of these three
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the end uses for which they are
listed as acceptable subject to use conditions under the 2011 SNAP
rule, as well as the authorities, controls and practices in place for
these three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. EPA also considered
the public comments on the proposal for this action. Based on this
review, EPA concludes that the release of these three hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes in these end uses is not expected to pose a
significant threat to the environment based on the inherent
characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in
the relevant applications. EPA additionally concludes that existing
authorities, controls, and practices help mitigate

environmental risk from the release of these three hydrocarbon
refrigerant substitutes in these end uses. In light of these two
conclusions, EPA is determining, in accordance with 608(c)(2), that
based on current evidence and risk analyses, the venting, release or
disposal of these hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes during the
maintenance, servicing, repairing or disposing of the relevant
appliances does not pose a threat to the environment. EPA is therefore
extending the regulatory exemption from the venting prohibition at 40
CFR Sec.  82.154(a)(1) to include these three hydrocarbons in the
specific end uses that were found acceptable subject to use conditions
under the 2011 SNAP rule.

V. What revision to the venting prohibition is EPA finalizing today?

    This rule exempts from the prohibition under section 608 of the Act
against knowing venting, releasing, or disposal of refrigerant
substitutes during the maintenance, servicing, repair or disposal of
appliances the three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the end
uses for which they were listed as acceptable subject to use conditions
under the 2011 SNAP rule: Propane, isobutane, and the hydrocarbon blend
R-441A.
    In this action the regulatory text is presented differently from
what appeared in the proposed rulemaking published on April 12, 2012
(78 FR 21871). These differences reflect modifications that EPA is
making in this action to the numbering and organization of the
regulations at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) to clarify the effective dates for
the exemptions under 82.154(a)(1). In particular, EPA is creating sub-
sections under 82.154(a)(1), to reflect the effective dates of
individual regulatory actions. The first sub-section, 82.154(a)(1)(i),
will preserve the effective date of June 13, 2005, reflecting the
Agency's prior action to create an exemption to the venting
prohibition. This action will be in the next sub-section,
82.154(a)(1)(ii), reflecting the Agency's decision regarding the three
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes for the specific end-uses listed as
acceptable subject to use conditions under the 2011 SNAP rule. These
revisions to the numbering and organization of the regulatory text do
not change the text of the regulatory provisions that were previously
codified at 82.154(a)(1) and are not intended to reopen or to change
the substance or effect of those regulations in any way, although the
text of those provisions is reprinted for clarity.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 5135; October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 (76
FR 3821; January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This action
is an Agency determination and revision of existing regulatory
provisions. It contains no new requirements for collecting information
or reporting. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations in subpart F of 40 CFR 82 under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0256. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is
primarily engaged in the repair and maintenance of appliances and
defined by NAIC code 811412 with annual receipts of less than 14
million dollars, or engaged in separating and sorting recyclable
materials from non-hazardous waste streams (e.g., scrap yards) and
defined by NAIC code 562920 and fewer than 100 employees, or merchant
wholesale distribution of industrial scrap and other recyclable
materials and defined by NAIC code 423930 with annual receipts of less
than 12.5 million dollars (based on Small Business Administration size
standards), (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This final rule is primarily deregulatory as it would exempt
persons from the prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air
Act, and as implemented by regulations at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), against
knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of
refrigerant substitutes during the maintenance, servicing, repair or
disposal of appliances for three specific hydrocarbon refrigerant
substitutes in specific end uses. We have therefore concluded that
today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This action is deregulatory in
nature and creates an exemption under section 608(c)(2) of the Act from
a statutory and regulatory requirement.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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 EO 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action is
deregulatory in nature and creates an exemption under section 608(c)(2)
of the Act from a statutory and regulatory requirement, which would
benefit any state, local, or tribal government to the extent that they
are affected. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this final rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This final rule is deregulatory
in nature and would create an exemption under section 608(c)(2) of the
Act that could be available for the tribal communities or Indian tribal
governments. Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to the EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in section III in the preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule exempting under section
608(c)(2) of the Act certain hydrocarbons from the venting prohibition
in certain end uses listed as acceptable subject to use conditions will
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because the
release of these three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes would not
pose a threat to the environment. This final action would not have any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective June 23, 2014.

VII. References

    The documents referenced in the final rule in which the three
hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in specific end-uses were evaluated
and determined to be acceptable subject to use conditions under SNAP in
the December 20, 2011 final rule (76 FR 78832), were also referenced in
the preamble of the proposed rule published on April 12, 2012 (78 FR
21871). All documents for these two previously published rules are
located in the Air Docket at the address listed in section titled
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0580 at http://www.regulations.gov. Listed below are only new
documents not previously cited in that previously published rule and
previously published proposal that were referenced in this action.

    EPA, 2011, ``Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants,'' United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater
Management, November 2011, EPA 800-R-11-002

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.

    Dated: May 15, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 82 is to be
amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for Part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671g.

0
2. Section 82.154 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  82.154  Prohibitions.

    (a)(1) No person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of

appliances may knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment
any refrigerant or substitute from such appliances, with the exception
of the following substitutes in the following end-uses:
    (i) Effective June 13, 2005,
    (A) Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in
absorption units;
    (B) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
hydrocarbons);
    (C) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
chlorine and chlorine compounds);
    (D) Carbon dioxide in any application;
    (E) Nitrogen in any application; or
    (F) Water in any application.
    (ii) Effective June 23, 2014:
    (A) Isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A in household refrigerators,
freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; or
    (B) Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers
(stand-alone units only).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-12028 Filed 5-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75713]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30628]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday,
December 8, 2010 at 10 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemption 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
December 8, 2010 will be:

An adjudicatory matter

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 1, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30628 Filed 12-2-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14671-14672]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-E-0405]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; ISTODAX

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for ISTODAX and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human drug product.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product ISTODAX
(romidepsin). ISTODAX is indicated for treatment of cutaneous T-cell
lymphoma in patients who have received at least one prior systemic
therapy. Subsequent

to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent
term restoration application for ISTODAX (U.S. Patent No. 4,977,138)
from Gloucester Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the Patent and Trademark
Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's
eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated September
30, 2010, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human
drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of ISTODAX represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark
Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
ISTODAX is 2,717 days. Of this time, 2,419 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 298 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: May 31, 2002. The applicant claims April 30, 2002, as the
date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.
However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was May 31,
2002, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: January
12, 2009. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for ISTODAX (NDA 22-393) was initially submitted on
January 12, 2009.
    3. The date the application was approved: November 5, 2009. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-393 was approved on November
5, 2009.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,523 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by May 16, 2011. Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period
by September 13, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.
    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available
on regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: February 14, 2011.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2011-6162 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12-15]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1111]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; On the Waters in Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on
the waters south of Kapoho Point and a nearby channel in Kailua Bay
within the Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This security zone
is necessary to ensure the safety of the President of the United
States, members of his official party, and other senior government
officials.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. (HST) on December 21, 2010
through 8 p.m. (HST) on January 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket USCG-2010-1111 are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1111 in the ``Keyword'' box,
and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Marcella Granquist,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to

comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) because the
Captain of the Port Honolulu (COTP) did not become aware of the need
for this temporary security zone in a timely manner to publish and seek
comments on a proposed rule and consider those comments before issuing
a rule that would be enforceable by December 21, 2010. Publishing an
NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public
interest since the occasion would occur before a notice-and-comment
rulemaking could be completed, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the
President of the United States, members of his official party, and
other senior government officials. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The COTP finds
that this temporary security zone needs to be effective by December 21,
2010, to ensure the safety of the President of the United States,
members of his official party, and senior government officials visiting
the Kailua Bay area on the eastern coast of Oahu, Hawaii.

Background and Purpose

    From December 21, 2010 through January 5, 2011, the President of
the United States, members of his official party, and senior government
officials will be residing near the Kailua Bay shoreline on Oahu,
Hawaii. This position is located adjacent to U.S. navigable waters in
the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. The Coast Guard is establishing
this security zone to ensure the safety of the President of the United
States, members of his official party, and senior government officials.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary security zone is effective from 10 a.m. HST on
December 21, 2010 through 8 p.m. HST on January 5, 2011. It is located
within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and
covers all U.S. navigable waters in the Kailua Bay on the west side of
a line connecting Kapoho Point and continuing at a bearing of 222[deg]
True to Namala Place Road; as well as the nearby channel from its
entrance at Kapoho Point to a point 150 yards along the channel to the
southwest of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge. This zone extends from
the surface of the water to the ocean floor. This zone will include the
navigable waters of the channel beginning at point 21[deg]25.6' N,
157[deg]45' W, then extending the channel way to 21[deg]25.6' N,
157[deg]44.6' W, then all the waters extending to 21[deg]25.5' N,
157[deg]44.4' W (Kapoho Point) with all the waters to the west of a
straight line to 21[deg]25' N, 157[deg]44.6' W (Namala Place), and then
extending back to the original point 21[deg]25' N, 157[deg]45' W.
Additionally, three (3) yellow buoys will be placed in proximity of the
security zone along the east coastline and one (1) yellow buoy will be
placed as visual aids for mariners and the public to approximate the
zone.
    In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165,
subpart D, no person or vessel will be permitted to transit into or
remain in the zone except for authorized support vessels, aircraft and
support personnel, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the
Port or the District Commander. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative
permitted by law, may enforce the zone. Vessels, aircraft, or persons
in violation of this rule would be subject to the penalties set forth
in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
This expectation is based on the limited duration of the zone, the
limited geographic area affected by it, and that the general public
will be permitted to transit the security zone as necessary but will
not be permitted to loiter.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We expect that there will be little to no impact to small
entities due to the narrow scope, nature of this security zone, and
that the general public will be permitted to transit the security zone
as necessary but will not be permitted to loiter. Additionally, before
and during the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue verbal
maritime advisories, and distribute a written notice to waterway users
and online at http://homeport.uscg.mil/honolulu.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation because implementation of this
security zone will not result in any: (1) Significant cumulative
impacts on the human environment, (2) substantial controversy or
substantial change to existing environmental conditions, (3) impacts
which are more than minimal on properties under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, or (4) inconsistencies with any
Federal, State, local laws or administrative determinations relating to
the environment.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine security, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-215 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-215  Security Zone; On the Waters in Kailua Bay, Oahu,
HI.

    (a) Location. The following area, within the Honolulu Captain of
the Port Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor is a temporary security zone: All waters in Kailua Bay
to the west of a line connecting the following points beginning at
Kapoho Point and thence westward at a bearing of 222[deg] True to the
shoreline at Namala Place Road; in addition the adjacent channel
beginning at Kapoho Point, and continuing thence to a point 150 yards
down the channel way and ending southwest of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road
Bridge. This zone will include the navigable waters of the channel
beginning at point 21[deg]25' N, 157[deg]45' W, then extending the
channel way to 21[deg]25.6' N, 157[deg]44.6' W, then all the waters
extending to 21[deg]25.5' N, 157[deg]44.4' W (Kapoho Point) with all
the waters to the west of a straight line to 21[deg]25' N,
157[deg]44.6' W (Namala Place), and then extending back to the original
point 21[deg]25' N, 157[deg]45' W.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 10 a.m. HST on
December 21, 2010, through 8 p.m. HST on January 5, 2011.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing security
zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply.
    (2) Entry, transit, or anchoring within the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Honolulu or the District Commander.
    (d) Notice of enforcement. The Captain of the Port Honolulu will
cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this
section to be made by verbal broadcasts and written notice to mariners
and the general public.
    (e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative
permitted by law, may enforce the security zone described in this
section.
    (f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the
requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel
upon finding that application

of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of
maritime security.
    (g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: December 16, 2010.
J.M. Nunan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2010-33120 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11899]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0105]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel JOE GRIFFIN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel JOE GRIFFIN as
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on February
2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0105 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed under Title 33
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued
for the offshore supply vessel JOE GRIFFIN. Full compliance with 72
COLREGS and the Inland Rules Act would hinder the vessel's ability to
operate as designed. The horizontal distance between the forward and
aft masthead lights may be 21'-10''. Placing the aft masthead light at
the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section
84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light
location directly over the cargo deck where it would interfere with
loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I,
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: February 23, 2010.
J. W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-5385 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P