[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35655-35657]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12849]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6672; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-022-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report that the grounding jumper between the
environmental control system (ECS) bracket and the current return
network (CRN) strap near passenger 1 left and 1 right entry doors was
not bonded correctly during manufacturing. This proposed AD would
require changing the configuration of the grounding jumpers connecting
the ECS brackets and CRN straps; measuring the bond resistance; and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to prevent an incorrectly bonded jumper between the
ECS bracket and the CRN strap, which does not provide proper grounding
to the door frames at door 1 left and 1 right. If a fault occurs, an
electrical shock hazard can exist to passengers and flight crew and
could result in personal or fatal injury.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6672.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6672; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan Shanley, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6672;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-022-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report that the grounding jumper between the ECS
bracket and the CRN strap near passenger1 left and 1 right entry doors
was not bonded correctly during manufacturing. Engineering
documentation did not include applying an electrical bond between the
ECS bracket and CRN strap. The existing bond configuration does not
ground the door frame structure in the event of an electrical equipment
fault. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an electrical
shock hazard to passengers and flight crew and could result in personal
or fatal injury.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530025-00, Issue
001, dated July 17, 2014. The service information describes procedures
for changing the configuration of the grounding jumpers connecting the
ECS brackets and CRN straps; measuring the bond resistance; and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. For information on the
procedures, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6672.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that
(1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the
nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD
could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective
actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on  U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation......................  6 work-hours x $85 per               $100             $610           $3,660
                                     hour = $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-6672; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-022-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 18, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB530025-00, Issue 001, dated July 17, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the grounding jumper
between the environmental control system (ECS) bracket and the
current return network (CRN) strap near passenger 1 left and 1 right
entry doors was not bonded correctly during manufacturing. We are
issuing this AD to prevent an incorrectly bonded jumper between the
ECS bracket and the CRN strap, which does not provide proper
grounding to the door frames at door 1 left and 1 right. If a fault
occurs, an electrical shock hazard can exist to passengers and
flight crew and could result in personal or fatal injury.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Grounding Jumper Revision

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Change the
configuration of the grounding jumpers connecting the ECS brackets
and CRN straps, including measuring the bond resistance and doing
all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB530025-00, Issue 001, dated July 17, 2014. Do
all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Brendan Shanley,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12849 Filed 6-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US

07/18/2007 04:43 PM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

Re: fax number

see below

Marjorie C. Jones

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Air Benefit and Cost Group, Mail Code C439-02

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

RTP, NC 27711

voice:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Shipping/receiving: 4930 Old Page Rd.

Durham, NC 27709

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 07/18/2007 04:07 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

fax number

Hi Ron/Margie,

Do you have a fax number that I could use?

Rob


[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53445-53454]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-25]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664; FRL-8969-7]
RIN 2060-AP11

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Substitute in the Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to review alternatives for ozone-depleting substances and to
approve of substitutes that do not present a risk more significant than
other alternatives that are available. Under that authority, the
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program of EPA proposes to
expand the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting
substances (ODS). The substitute addressed in this proposal is for the
motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) end-use within the refrigeration
and air-conditioning sector. EPA proposes to find HFO-1234yf
acceptable, subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-12 in
motor vehicle air conditioning. The proposed substitute is a non ozone-
depleting gas and consequently does not contribute to stratospheric
ozone depletion.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2009, unless
a public hearing is requested. Comments must then be received on or
before January 4, 2010. Any party requesting a public hearing must
notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 29, 2009. If a hearing is
held, it will take place on November 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0664, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, Room 3334, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0664. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Docket Facility 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proposed rule, contact Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs; Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC
20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number,<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Notices and rulemakings
under the SNAP program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regulations.html. For copies of
the full list of SNAP decisions in all industrial

sectors, contact the EPA Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-
1996.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed action, if finalized, would
provide motor vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers an additional
refrigerant option for motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems.
The refrigerant discussed in this proposed action is a non ozone-
depleting substance.

Table of Contents

I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory Background
    A. Rulemaking
    B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
    C. Petition Process
    D. 90-day Notification
    E. Outreach
    F. Clearinghouse
    G. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612
II. EPA's Proposed Decision on HFO-1234yf
III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives
IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO-1234yf
    A. Atmospheric Effects and Related Health and Environmental
Impacts
    B. General Population Risks from Ambient Exposure to Compounds
with Direct Toxicity and to Increased Ground-Level Ozone
    C. Ecosystem Risks
    D. Occupational Risks
    E. Consumer Risks
    F. Flammability
    G. Cost and Availability of the Substitute
    H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall Impacts on Human Health and
the Environment
V. HFO-1234yf MVAC System Proposed Use Conditions
VI. Additional Information Requested
VII. Section 609 Requirements for HFO-1234yf
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    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 and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
IX. References

I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 and implementing
regulations are:

A. Rulemaking

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon)
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently
or potentially available.

B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of
acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of acceptable
substitutes may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/
index.html and the lists of unacceptable substitutes, acceptable
substitutes subject to use conditions and acceptable substitutes
subject to narrowed use limits may be found at 40 CFR part 82 subpart
G.

C. Petition Process

    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in
accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny
a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the
revised lists within an additional six months.

D. 90-day Notification

    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a
chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not
less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into
interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class
I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the
producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

E. Outreach

    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall, where
appropriate, seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities
and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in
identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances
in key commercial applications.

F. Clearinghouse

    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to maintain a public
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

G. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR
13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable
substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G. These sectors include: Refrigeration and air conditioning;
foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion
protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and
tobacco expansion. These sectors compose the principal industrial
sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.
    For the purposes of SNAP, the Agency defines a ``substitute'' as
any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process,
whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for a class
I or class II substance in a sector that has historically used ODS.
Anyone who produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health
and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before
introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an
alternative. CAA section 612(e); 40 CFR 82.176(a). This requirement
applies to substitute manufacturers, but may include importers,
formulators, or end-users, when they are responsible for introducing a
substitute into commerce.
    You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the
appropriate Federal Register citations at EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web
site at: http:// www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html. This information is
also available from the Air Docket (see ADDRESSES section above for
contact information).

II. EPA's Proposed Decision on HFO-1234yf

    EPA proposes that hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)-1234yf \1\ is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 \2\ in new motor vehicle air conditioning
systems (passenger cars and trucks), subject to use conditions. EPA
proposes the following use conditions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ HFO-1234yf is also known as HFC-1234yf, R-1234yf or 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoroprop-1-ene, CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1.
    \2\ CFC-12 is also known as dichlorodifluoromethane, R-12, or
Freon[reg]-12, CAS Reg. No. 75-71-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the passenger compartment
do not result in HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above the lower
flammability limit (LFL) \3\ of 6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless stated otherwise, flammability limits discussed here
are by volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the engine compartment or
vehicle electric power source storage areas do not result in HFO-1234yf
concentrations at or above the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of time;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate protective
devices, isolation and/or ventilation techniques in areas where
processes, procedures or upset conditions such as leaks have the
potential to generate HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in
proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle electric power sources and exhaust
manifold surfaces;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must use unique fittings to be
identified pursuant to SAE standard J639 and subject to EPA approval;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must include a detailed label
identifying the refrigerant and that the refrigerant is flammable;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must have a high-pressure
compressor cutoff switch installed on systems equipped with pressure
relief devices; and
     Manufacturers must conduct and keep on file Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739.
    The proposed decision for HFO-1234yf applies to new MVAC systems
only in passenger cars and trucks. We have previously determined that
use of flammable refrigerants (which would include HFO-1234yf) in
existing equipment as a retrofit is unacceptable (40 CFR part 82,
subpart G, appendix B). We seek comment on whether these use conditions
should be more protective or should be less protective.

III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives

    To determine whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable as
a replacement for class I or II compounds, the Agency evaluates
substitutes according to the criteria in Sec.  82.180(a)(7). The Agency
considers, among other things, toxicity, flammability, potential for
occupational and general population exposure, and environmental effects
including ozone depletion potential, atmospheric lifetime, impacts on
local air quality and climate as well as ecosystem effects of the
alternatives.
    This proposal reflects additional information on flammable
refrigerants in MVAC systems that has become available since the HFC-
152a September 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 55140) and 2008 final rule (73
FR 33304), as well as EPA's latest understanding of all the available
information. These additional or revised considerations include the
increased proportion of new hybrid and electric vehicle sales in the
U.S., passenger compartment volume, and improved assumptions for
modeling exercises. In this rulemaking, HFO-1234yf risks are considered
in relation to the risks associated with HFC-134a and other approved
SNAP MVAC alternatives. HFC-134a is the predominant ODS refrigerant
substitute used in passenger vehicle MVAC systems. Other SNAP-approved
MVAC substitutes have not been implemented by car manufacturers or car
air conditioning system manufacturers.
    The EPA's SNAP program does not require that new substitutes be
found risk-free to be found acceptable. In reviewing the acceptability
of proposed substitutes, EPA considers how each substitute can be used
within a specific end-use and the resulting risks and uncertainties
surrounding potential health and environmental effects.

IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO-1234yf

    In the following section, HFO-1234yf is evaluated in terms of the
SNAP criteria defined in Sec.  82.180(a)(7).

A. Atmospheric Effects and Related Health and Environmental Impacts

    HFO-1234yf has an ozone-depletion potential (ODP) of nearly zero
\4\ (Papadimitriou, 2007). By comparison, CFC-12 has an ODP of 1.0 and
HFC-134a has an ODP of 0 (WMO, 2006). Generally, the other approved
SNAP MVAC substitutes have an ODP of less than 0.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is
currently reviewing the ODP of HFO-1234yf and we will place this
information in the docket if it becomes available during the course
of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The global warming potential (GWP) of HFO-1234yf is 4, based on a
100 year time horizon (Papadimitriou, 2007), compared to a value of 1
for carbon dioxide. For basis of comparison, CFC-12 has a GWP of 10,890
and HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430 (WMO, 2006). The other SNAP-approved
MVAC refrigerants generally have a GWP greater than 1000. HFO-1234yf
has an atmospheric lifetime of only 11 days (Papadimitriou, 2007),
compared to 100 years for CFC-12 and 14.0 years for HFC-134a. Thus, in
terms of direct refrigerant emissions, HFO-1234yf would have a
significantly smaller impact on climate compared to the ozone depleting
substance it replaces and other common alternatives available in the
same end use.
    The Agency believes sufficient technical information is available
on the ODP and GWP of HFO-1234yf, but the Agency welcomes additional
comment on the ODP and GWP values described above. The Agency would
give the greatest weight to peer-reviewed, published papers on HFO-
1234yf as supporting evidence for discussion on ODP and GWP.
    We note that one concern about HFO-1234yf atmospheric effects is
trifluoroacetic acid (CF3COOH, TFA). TFA is produced from
atmospheric oxidation of HFO-1234yf. EPA understands that the oxidation
of HFO-1234yf yields >90% TFA, which is significantly higher than the
yield of TFA from HFC-134a and other approved SNAP MVAC substitutes.
TFA is naturally occurring, but at certain levels is toxic to aquatic
life forms.
    Initial analysis indicates that the projected maximum TFA
concentration in rainwater should not result in a significant risk of
aquatic toxicity. TFA concentration in rainwater was investigated
because it is difficult to predict what the actual TFA concentrations
will be. This is because concentrations of environmental contaminants
in most fresh water bodies fluctuate widely due to varying inputs and
outputs to most ponds, lakes, and streams. Also, use of rainwater TFA
concentration as a point of comparison is more conservative than
comparing TFA concentrations in water bodies because TFA is expected to
be diluted in most freshwater bodies. The exception to this is vernal
pools and similar seasonal water bodies that have no significant
outflow capacity (ICF, 2009).
    After taking into account the nature of HFO-1234yf degradation and
the

resulting TFA concentration in rainwater; regional precipitation
patterns; the geology of closed aquatic systems; and no observed effect
concentrations (NOEC) for TFA, TFA production resulting from HFO-1234yf
emissions is not expected to pose significant harm to aquatic
communities in the near future. Additional research is necessary to
determine if significant TFA loading is occurring in vernal pools near
major populations (ICF, 2009). EPA is aware of studies to evaluate wet
deposition effects that are underway at the National Institute of
Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) based in Japan. Their
results on wet deposition were not available at the time of this
proposal's drafting, but EPA will consider any relevant findings by
AIST that become available in a final version of this regulation and
will provide an opportunity for additional public comment if the
relevant findings suggest EPA should change its proposed determination.
    Concerns about dry deposition of TFA also exist. Initial analysis
indicates that it may be somewhat of a concern for photosynthesis (ICF,
2009). EPA is aware of studies to evaluate dry deposition effects that
are underway at AIST. Their results on dry deposition were not
available at the time of this proposal's drafting, but EPA will
consider any relevant findings by AIST that become available in a final
version of this regulation and will provide an opportunity for
additional public comment if the relevant findings suggest EPA should
change its proposed determination. The AIST findings will be posted in
the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664) when they are available.
    The Agency believes sufficient technical information on the TFA
deposition from HFO-1234yf is available for the basis of this proposal;
however, the Agency welcomes additional comment on HFO-1234yf's
environmental and atmospheric effects. The Agency will give the
greatest weight to published, peer-reviewed studies. The Agency
requests comment on the impact of increased abundance of TFA resulting
from the use of HFO-1234yf as an MVAC refrigerant in the U.S., and the
potential impacts of U.S. and worldwide use of HFO-1234yf as an MVAC
refrigerant. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
informed EPA that a follow-on study of the Papadimitriou 2007 work is
under way. EPA anticipates the results of this study will be published
and be made publicly available before the Agency issues a final rule on
the acceptability of HFO-1234yf under the SNAP Program. If the study
becomes available, EPA will consider that information in determining
how to move forward on this proposed determination for HFO-1234yf.
    Currently available analysis on the atmospheric and local air
quality impacts of HFO-1234yf assumes an emissions rate very similar to
HFC-134a. This assumption leads to a very conservative emission rate
because it is highly likely HFO-1234yf will have a lower leak rate
compared to HFC-134a because HFO-1234yf will cost approximately ten
times more than HFC-134a. There will be an economic basis for
conserving and preventing the release of HFO-1234yf. But the same logic
implies that the market adoption of this alternative may not be high,
resulting in even lower total emissions. We seek comment on whether it
is appropriate to analyze environmental impacts of HFO-1234yf based on
the current emission rate for HFC-134a in MVAC, and if not, what
emission rate EPA should use in our environmental analyses.

B. General Population Risks From Ambient Exposure to Compounds With
Direct Toxicity and to Increased Ground-Level Ozone

    Toxicity:
    EPA's New Chemicals Program, mandated by Section 5 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), conducted a premanufacture review of
HFO-1234yf. This review assessed the potential environmental and human
health risks associated with the substance (Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-
0918). Based on test data on HFO-1234yf, EPA has human health concerns
for developmental toxicity and lethality via inhalation exposure.
    The Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) Committee of the
American Industrial Hygiene Association has established a WEEL of 500
parts per million (ppm) by volume on an eight-hour time-weighted
average (TWA) for HFO-1234yf. See docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664 for the
WEEL Committee rationale. The Committee established a WEEL of 1,000 ppm
by volume on an eight-hour TWA for HFC-134a.
    In terms of cardiotoxicity, HFC-134a is a cardiac sensitizer at
75,000 ppm with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 50,000
ppm. HFO-1234yf is negative in the cardiac sensitization test at
exposures of up to 120,000 ppm. (See ``Acute Cardiac Sensitization
Study of HFO-1234ze and HFO-1234yf in Dogs'' in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0664).
    Ground-level Ozone:
    HFO-1234yf could impact local air quality (LAQ) through formation
of ground-level ozone. Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP)
describes a compound's potential to form ground-level ozone. HFO-1234yf
has a higher POCP than the predominant MVAC refrigerant, HFC-134a. HFO-
1234yf has a POCP comparable to ethylene; ethylene is an alkene.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel Special Report, alkenes ``have the
potential to significantly influence ozone formation on the urban and
regional scales.'' Papadimitriou et al. (2007) indicate that, ``studies
are needed to quantify the degradation of [HFO-1234yf] under
atmospheric conditions for OH- and Cl- atom-initiated chemistry to
fully evaluate the impact of these compounds and their degradation
products on climate and air quality.''
    An initial assessment says that HFO-1234yf could potentially
increase ground level ozone by >1-4% in certain areas, which may affect
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone
(ICF, 2009). The reader should note ground-level ozone formation is
highly variable and depends on several factors, such as availability of
chemical inputs, and sunlight and heat. EPA notes that HFO-1234yf is
defined as a volatile organic compound under Clean Air Act regulations
(see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient
air quality standards. The Agency requests comment on the LAQ impacts
of HFO-1234yf use as an MVAC refrigerant in the U.S. and globally. The
Agency would give the greatest weight to peer-reviewed, published
papers for comments on LAQ impacts. As stated earlier, NOAA's follow-on
study of HFO-1234yf is expected before the Agency issues a final rule
on the acceptability of HFO-1234yf under the SNAP Program. In the
meantime, the Agency requests comment on whether a >1-4% increase in
ground level ozone is significant.

C. Ecosystem Risks

    See discussion under Atmospheric Effects and Related Health and
Environmental Impacts.

D. Occupational Risks

    Occupational risks could come about during the manufacture of the
refrigerant, initial installation of the refrigerant at the car
assembly plant or servicing of the MVAC system. The

TSCA New Chemicals Program review of HFO-1234yf determined that
significant industrial or commercial worker exposure is unlikely due to
CAA section 609 technician training, the use of CAA section 609
certified refrigerant handling equipment, and other protective
measures. Therefore, the proposed manufacture, processing, and use of
HFO-1234yf are not expected to present an unreasonable risk to workers.
More details can be found at the New Chemicals Program's docket for
HFO-1234yf, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918, and in the memorandum, ``Risk
Assessment: P070601 Reflecting Deliberations and Decisions from the 3/
4/09 Dispo[sition] Meeting'' in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664 and EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2008-0918.
    In regards to flammability, with proper mitigation and training,
the frequency of exposure to flammable HFO-1234yf concentrations in
service situations can be managed. Based on feedback from certified
MVAC service technicians, EPA believes that the flammability potential
of HFO-1234yf is within the range of other substances that automotive
service technicians encounter routinely (See docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0488-0017). Training, mitigation, and limiting the frequency of
exposure can reduce any potential risks to the technicians. Input from
technicians confirms this perspective. Some car manufacturers have
suggested that new training for HFO-1234yf should be required for all
MVAC technicians. EPA requests comment on whether additional training
for service technicians on HFO-1234yf should be required so that they
are knowledgeable about the different hazards associated with working
on HFO-1234yf MVAC systems compared to the two systems currently in
use--i.e., CFC-12 or HFC-134a systems. Any specific training
requirements would be adopted in a follow-up Section 609 rulemaking. At
this point, EPA recommends, but does not propose to require, additional
training and requests input on the need for required training for
persons using HFO-1234yf in an MVAC service/maintenance/disposal
scenario.

E. Consumer Risks

    Risks to consumers as vehicle occupants have been evaluated, in the
context of HFO-1234yf's flammability and toxicity.
    Based on American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34 testing, HFO-1234yf's lower
flammability limit (LFL) is 6.2% and upper flammability limit is 12.3%
(Gradient, 2008), making this refrigerant less flammable than HFC-152a,
the only flammable SNAP-approved MVAC refrigerant. Depending on the
charge size of an HFO-1234yf MVAC system, which can range from as
little as 400 grams to as much as 1600 grams (ICF, 2008a), it is
possible in a worst case scenario to reach a flammable concentration of
HFO-1234yf inside the passenger compartment.
    In terms of toxicological concerns, the TSCA New Chemicals Program
review of HFO-1234yf determined that potential consumer (passenger)
exposure from refrigerant leak into the passenger compartment of a
vehicle is not expected to present an unreasonable risk. However,
consumer exposure from filling, servicing, or maintaining MVAC systems
without professional training and the use of CAA Section 609 certified
equipment may cause serious health effects. Therefore, to prevent this
risk EPA is also promulgating a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under
section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918). This SNUR would
require submission of a Significant New Use Notice to EPA at least 90
days before commencing an activity that is designated as a significant
new use of HFO-1234yf.

F. Flammability

    The proposed upper limit of occupant exposure to HFO-1234yf
protects against the possibility of flammability. It is important to
note that when burned or exposed to high heat, HFO-1234yf like all
fluorocarbons, including CFC-12 and HFC-134a, forms acid byproducts
including hydrofluoric acid (HF)--a severe respiratory irritant.\5\ The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)--8-hour occupational exposure limit--
for HF at 3 ppm which is the upper allowable limit for worker exposure.
Passenger exposure to HF could occur as a result of a leak in the
presence of an ignition source. EPA's approach in setting use
conditions is to prevent any fire risk associated with HFO-1234yf use
in MVAC systems, which would also prevent any potential passenger
exposure to HF. EPA understands that there is work currently underway
that examines the issue of pre-ignition HF formation. If those studies
indicate the potential for significant pre-ignition HF formation, EPA
will consider that information in determining how to move forward with
this proposed rule. Additionally, EPA welcomes any comment on that
study or other studies of which EPA is not aware that address the
potential for pre-ignition HF formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These decomposition products have a sharp, acrid odor even
at concentrations of only a few parts per million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flammable Concentrations Inside the Passenger Compartment
    SAE International commissioned a risk assessment of HFO-1234yf in
MVAC systems (Gradient, 2008) based on the analytical framework
developed by EPA and the U.S. Army in a 2006 alternative refrigerant
risk analysis (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2). The risk assessment
incorporated the results of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling
(by DuPont) of an HFO-1234yf leak into the passenger compartment.
DuPont conducted a limited assessment of refrigerant leakage into the
passenger compartment by modeling the first 200 seconds of a leak into
the passenger compartment. Based on their analysis, at least one of
their simulations (idle vehicle, low fan, 0.5mm orifice leak, and
recirculation mode), led to exceeding the HFO-1234yf LFL inside the
passenger compartment. To supplement these results, SAE International
updated the modeling results with field test assessments of leaking
refrigerant into the passenger compartment of Renault/PSA/Fiat and
General Motors medium and small size cars. The test results show that
there are some scenarios where the LFL was exceeded (Gradient, 2009).
According to the SAE International risk assessment report, there is ``a
potential ignition hazard if a smoking-related ignition source is
present'' (Gradient, 2008). However, the report references a separate
field study performed by Exponent where an experimental release of HFO-
1234yf was released into the passenger and engine compartment of a
large vehicle, a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria (Exponent, 2008). In this
field study, tested releases of HFO-1234yf did not produce
concentrations above the LFL. However, given the fact that flammable
conditions can come about in the passenger compartment, particularly in
medium and small size cars, the Agency believes it is prudent to
propose a use condition that addresses a possible ignition hazard.
    The Agency requests public comment on the SAE International/DuPont
and Exponent reports. Specifically, the Agency requests comment on the
appropriateness of the simulated charge size that was used by each
report. The SAE International/DuPont report simulated a 2001 Ford Crown
Victoria with a 691 gram HFO-1234yf charge. The Exponent report used a
1997 Ford Crown Victoria with a charge size of 693

grams. The 1997 and 2001 Ford Crown Victorias were originally designed
with approximately 966 gram and 1097 grams HFC-134a charge size systems
(MACS, 2005). Honeywell presentations have indicated the HFO-1234yf
charge size is 90-95% of a HFC-134a charge size (Honeywell, 2008).
Based on the original refrigerant charge size of these Crown Victorias,
the HFO-1234yf charge sizes, in both simulations, are not consistent
with the 90-95% HFC-134a charge sizes described in Honeywell
presentations and the Crown Victorias are undercharged. Charge size is
an important element in determining the probability of a flammable
concentration. EPA requests comment on whether the charge sizes used in
the DuPont and Exponent simulations are consistent with the actual
charge sizes that would need to be used in MVAC for these vehicles.
    The Agency also requests comment on the use of a large-size car as
a worst-case car scenario for a MVAC risk assessment. Based on an
analysis done in 2004-2005, the EPA/U.S. Army risk assessment (Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2) concluded large passenger cars
provided the highest ratio of refrigerant charge to interior
compartment volume, and large passenger cars were broadly
representative of the world fleet. Since that analysis was performed,
there is data to indicate the sales of small cars have increased, and
such sales are likely to continue to increase given a manufacturing
shift towards smaller cars (ICF, 2008b). A recent analysis showed
higher ratios of refrigerant charge to interior compartment volume in
small trucks and two-seaters, compared to the large car used in SAE's
risk assessment (ICF, 2008a). A higher ratio of refrigerant charge to
interior compartment volume could lead to more occurrences of flammable
concentrations.
Flammable Concentrations in the Engine Compartment
    According to the SAE International report, ``the highest value
measured in the engine compartment (87,000 ppm) suggests a potential
ignition hazard'' (Gradient, 2008). Although an engine compartment
field test suggested that it was not possible to ignite HFO-1234yf
(Dupont 2008), temperatures that could ignite the refrigerant exist on
the exhaust manifold. Most car manufacturers cover the exhaust manifold
with a heat shield, but this is not a requirement. EPA requests comment
on the proposed use condition that requires protective devices under
the vehicle hood to avoid any flammable concentrations of refrigerant
coming into the vicinity of hot exhaust manifold surfaces.
    Hybrid and electric vehicle sales in the U.S. have dramatically
increased over the past decade (ICF, 2008b). To address this change in
the market, EPA considered the potential for another ignition source
from the electric power source in hybrid and electric cars that is not
present with gasoline-only vehicles. According to DuPont and
Honeywell's Guidelines for Use and Handling of HFO-1234yf, ``isolation
techniques or other suitable methods should be used to prevent battery
and power system sparks/arc. In areas where processes, procedures or
upset conditions such as leaks have the potential to generate flammable
HFO-1234yf vapor-in-air concentrations in proximity to hybrid vehicle
electric power sources, isolation and/or ventilation should be used.''
(DuPont/Honeywell, 2008).
    In addition, current hybrid vehicles with HFC-134a MVAC systems use
polyolester (POE) oil as a system lubricant, primarily because
polyalkylene glycol (PAG) oils are conductive and can lead to shorts.
It is not clear if HFO-1234yf MVAC systems can work with the POE oil
that is needed for hybrid vehicles. The EPA requests comment on whether
the flammability of HFO-1234yf combined with PAG/POE oils may create a
larger concern under the hood of hybrid and electric vehicles.
    EPA is aware of SAE International activities to develop a standard
on specific risk mitigation strategies to avoid flammable
concentrations under the hood. An excerpt from the latest draft of a
standard that covers this topic is available in the docket. EPA
requests comment on using such an SAE J standard as a use condition to
protect against flammable concentrations under the hood. If SAE adopts
a standard that reflects a different intent than in the current draft
and if EPA determines to include such a different standard as a use
condition, EPA would consider whether further comment is needed before
it issued a final rule with that use condition.
Other Flammable Refrigerants and Risk Mitigation
    Hydrocarbon refrigerants are unacceptable (prohibited) in MVAC
systems under the SNAP program and are specifically prohibited in
several states. Hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon blends must not be used in
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems.
    The use conditions described in this action are specific to HFO-
1234yf and do not apply to other flammable refrigerants. HFO-1234yf is
less flammable and has a higher LFL than HFC-152a, and the proposed use
conditions for HFO-1234yf would not be adequate for HFC-152a. However,
the interior passenger compartment risk mitigation strategies described
in the HFC-152a proposed and final rules (71 FR 55140 and 73 FR 33304,
respectively) can be protective risk mitigation strategies for HFO-
1234yf. EPA refers to the previous discussions on HFC-152a risk
mitigation strategies for manufacturers to consider when deciding what
risk mitigation strategies might be used if HFO-1234yf is found
acceptable subject to use conditions.

G. Cost and Availability of the Substitute

    Definitive costs for the refrigerant have not been shared with the
Agency. Based on estimates from Honeywell and DuPont, the cost of HFO-
1234yf will be, at least initially, approximately $40-60/pound
(Weissler, 2008). The cost of the refrigerant will depend on several
factors, including, but not limited to, how much refrigerant will be
available for sale, the quality of the refrigerant, and where the
refrigerant is manufactured. The cost of HFO-1234yf will likely be more
than HFC-134a because the HFO-1234yf manufacturing process requires
more energy and more steps than HFC-134a.
    The manufacturers of HFO-1234yf state the chemical can be available
when the market requires it. At the moment there are no dedicated HFO-
1234yf manufacturing plants.

H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall Impacts on Human Health and the
Environment

    On the whole, EPA proposes that the conditioned use of HFO-1234yf
does not present a significantly larger risk to human health and the
environment compared to HFC-134a, the predominant ODS refrigerant
substitute in passenger vehicle MVAC systems and other SNAP-approved
MVAC refrigerant alternatives, and in many cases likely poses less
risk. Use conditions are necessary to address the flammability concerns
associated with use of HFO-1234yf. If it is determined that there are
possible atmospheric effects of HFO-1234yf, those would be controlled
by Clean Air Act Section 608 and Section 609 regulatory requirements
that prohibit the venting, or release, of refrigerant during the
service, maintenance and disposal of refrigeration and A/C equipment.
EPA welcomes comment on this proposal; the Agency prefers peer-
reviewed,

published papers for supporting documentation on comments concerning
technical issues.
    The conditions we are proposing for the safe use of HFO-1234yf are
outlined below.

V. HFO-1234yf MVAC System Proposed Use Conditions

Use Conditions for HFO-1234yf

    EPA proposes to find HFO-1234yf acceptable with use conditions in
new MVACs as a substitute for CFC-12. This proposed determination is
limited to MVAC systems on passenger cars and light-duty trucks; this
proposed determination does not include any other MVAC systems,
including those on buses, trains, boats, off-road equipment, or other
vehicles. The submission did not specifically request use in these
other MVAC systems and the risks associated with these MVAC systems
have not been evaluated.
    EPA proposes to find HFO-1234yf acceptable with the following use
conditions:
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the passenger compartment
do not result in HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above the lower
flammability limit (LFL) of 6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the engine compartment or
vehicle electric power source storage areas do not result in HFO-1234yf
concentrations at or above the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of time;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate protective
devices, isolation and/or ventilation techniques in areas where
processes, procedures or upset conditions such as leaks have the
potential to generate HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in
proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle electric power sources and exhaust
manifold surfaces;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must use unique fittings to be
identified pursuant to SAE standard J639 and subject to EPA approval;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must include a detailed label
identifying the refrigerant and that the refrigerant is flammable;
     HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must have a high-pressure
compressor cutoff switch installed on systems equipped with pressure
relief devices; and
     Manufacturers must conduct and keep on file Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739.
    EPA requests public comment on the proposed use conditions for HFO-
1234yf. Amongst other topics, EPA requests comment on whether interior
passenger compartment limits to HFO-1234yf should apply only when the
vehicle ignition is `on.'

General SNAP MVAC Use Conditions

    On October 16, 1996, EPA promulgated a final rule (61 FR 54029)
establishing certain conditions on the use of any refrigerant used as a
substitute for CFC-12 in MVAC systems (appendix D to subpart G of 40
CFR part 82). That rule provides that EPA would list new refrigerant
substitutes in future notices of acceptability and all such
refrigerants would be subject to the use conditions stated in that
rule. Therefore, EPA is establishing a use condition that unique
fittings must be identified pursuant to SAE standard J639 adopted in
2009 and approved by EPA.

VI. Additional Information Requested

    The Agency seeks comments on topics related to HFO-1234yf that are
beyond the scope of this Section 612 proposed rulemaking regarding use
of HFO-1234yf in new MVAC systems, but which could be relevant to
future actions on HFO-1234yf as a substitute refrigerant. Please send
information on any of the following issues to Margaret Sheppard,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Retrofit Use of HFO-1234yf

    The Honeywell submission requested SNAP review of HFO-1234yf in new
MVAC applications only. Honeywell did not petition the Agency to review
retrofit use of HFO-1234yf. The Agency has not fully evaluated the
safety issues associated with using HFO-1234yf to service existing CFC-
12 or HFC-134a designed MVAC systems. EPA rules prohibit the use of
flammable refrigerants in retrofit systems. 40 CFR part 82, subpart 2,
App. B (61 FR 54029). Any person interested in using HFO-1234yf in
retrofit systems would need to petition EPA to change the existing
unacceptable determination. Such an option would require a separate
SNAP submission and evaluation by EPA. EPA suspects that car
manufacturers are the best qualified, and likely the only qualified
entity to undertake such an application given the complexities of going
to HFO-1234yf. The Agency requests comment on whether retrofit kits can
effectively meet the requirements identified in this proposal for new
MVAC systems and if retrofits have a detrimental impact on the MVAC
system fuel efficiency. The Agency also specifically requests comments
from car manufacturers on retrofitting existing MVAC systems to HFO-
1234yf.

Retrofitting HFO-1234yf MVAC Systems to Other Alternative Refrigerants

    Individuals, service shops, or manufacturers might consider
refilling or charging MVAC systems designed for HFO-1234yf with another
refrigerant. The Agency has not evaluated the safety issues associated
with retrofitting HFO-1234yf MVAC systems with other MVAC refrigerants
previously approved under SNAP. Because other refrigerants may be less
expensive, the Agency is concerned that consumers may consider
retrofitting HFO-1234yf systems to use other refrigerants. The use
conditions proposed for HFO-1234yf are specific to the properties of
this chemical, and would not be protective of fire hazards that may
come about from, for example, hydrocarbon refrigerant (HCR) that is
more flammable. HCRs are more flammable than HFO-1234yf. Besides the
safety concerns of retrofitting to another refrigerant, the practice
could lead to increased refrigerant emissions because of materials
compatibility or/and leakage due to hose permeation.
    This practice may come about if the price of HFO-1234yf is high, or
if there is limited supply of HFO-1234yf. EPA requests comments on this
type of retrofitting, and provisions that need to be made to address
this issue, particularly in the context of SNAP's general requirement
for unique fittings for each unique SNAP listed refrigerant.

VII. Section 609 Requirements for HFO-1234yf

    Service equipment, technician certification and end-of-life
disposal specifications will be addressed in a follow-on rulemaking(s)
under Section 609 of the Clean Air Act.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' It raises novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed rule is an Agency
determination. It contains no new requirements for reporting. The only
recordkeeping requirement involves customary business practice. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control numbers 2060-0226 (EPA ICR No. 1596.05). This Information
Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting
and record keeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: submission
of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test
marketing activity, record keeping for substitutes acceptable subject
to use restrictions, and record-keeping for small volume uses. This
proposed rule requires minimal record-keeping of studies done to ensure
that MVAC systems using HFO-1234yf meet the requirements set forth in
this rule. Because it is customary business practice that automotive
systems manufacturers and automobile manufacturing companies conduct
and keep on file failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) on any
potentially hazardous part or system, we believe this requirement will
not impose an additional paperwork burden.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The 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 as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; for NAICS code 336111 (Automobile manufacturing), it is <1000
employees; for NAICS code 336391 (Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning
Manufacturing), it is <750 employees; (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 this proposed rule on
small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. The
requirements of this proposed rule impact car manufacturers and car air
conditioning system manufacturers only; none of these businesses
qualify as small entities. Additionally, car manufacturers and car air
conditioning system manufacturers are not mandated to move to HFO-
1234yf MVAC systems. EPA is simply listing HFO-1234yf as an acceptable
alternative with use conditions in new MVAC systems. This rule allows
the use of this alternative to ozone depleting substances in the MVAC
sector and outlines the conditions necessary for safe use. By approving
this refrigerant under SNAP, EPA provides additional choice to the
automotive industry which, if adopted, would reduce the impact of MVACs
on the global environment. This rulemaking does not mandate the use of
HFO-1234yf as a refrigerant in new MVACs.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This
regulation applies directly to entities that manufacture MVAC systems
with the proposed substitute, and not to governmental entities. This
proposed rule does not mandate a switch to this substitute, but rather
adds to the list of available substitutes from which a manufacturer may
choose; consequently, there is no direct economic impact on entities
from this rulemaking. Also, production-quality HFO-1234yf MVAC systems
are not manufactured yet. Consequently, no change in business practice
is required by this proposed rule. This action provides additional
technical options allowing greater flexibility for industry in
designing consumer products. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule 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. As noted above,
this proposed regulation would not apply to any governmental entity.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
in any one year.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This proposal 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 Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directly
to entities that manufacture MVAC systems with the proposed substitute
and not to governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect one or more Indian
tribes, the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes because this regulation applies
directly to entities that manufacture MVAC systems with the proposed
substitute and not to governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
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 IV of this proposed rule.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to HFO-
1234yf.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action would impact manufacturing
alternative MVAC systems. Preliminary information indicates that these
new systems will have similar fuel efficiency compared to currently
available MVAC systems. Therefore, we conclude that this rule is not
likely to have any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or
use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 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 proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use the SAE International standard J639, which addresses
requirements for safety and reliability for HFO-1234yf systems. SAE
International is the international standard setting body for motor
vehicle requirements. SAE International standards are globally
recognized and adopted by all major car manufacturers and system
suppliers. These standards can be obtained from http://www.sae.org/
technical/standards/.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify other potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations; HFO-
1234yf is a non ozone-depleting substance with a low GWP. Based on the
toxicological and atmospheric work described earlier, HFO-1234yf will
not have any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This NPRM proposes to require specific use
conditions for MVAC systems, if car manufacturers chose to make MVAC
systems using this low GWP refrigerant alternative.

IX. References

    The documents below are referenced in the preamble. All documents
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-
2008-0664 at http://www.regulations.gov.

References

Dupont and Honeywell. Guidelines for Use and Handling of HFO-1234yf
(v8.0).
Exponent. 2008. HFO-1234yf Refrigerant Concentration and Ignition
Tests in Full-Scale Vehicle Passenger Cabin and Engine Compartment.
Gradient Corporation. 2008. Risk Assessment for Alternative
Refrigerant HFO-1234yf.
Gradient Corporation. 2009. Risk Assessment for Alternative
Refrigerants HFO-1234yf and R-744 (CO2).
ICF International. 2008a. Air Conditioning Refrigerant Charge Size
to Passenger Compartment Volume Ratio Analysis.
ICF International. 2008b. Revised Characterization of U.S. Hybrid
and Small Car Sales (Historical and Predicted) and Hybrid Vehicle
Accidents.
ICF International. 2009. Revised Draft Assessment of the Potential
Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on
Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology & Economic
Assessment Panel Special Report. 2006. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer
and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons
and Perfluorocarbons. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/
sroc.htm.
Interior Climate Control Standards Committee of SAE International.
2009. Excerpt from draft HFO-1234yf Engine Compartment Safety
Standard.
Minor, B., 2008. CRP-1234: CFD Modeling of a Large Car--Final
Report.
Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide. 2005. A/C & Cooling
System Specifications: 1995-2006.
Papadimitriou, V., R.K. Talukdar, R.W. Portmann, A.R. Ravishankara,
and J.B. Burkholder. 2007. CF3CF=CH2 and (Z)-CF3CF=CHF: Temperature
dependent OH rate coefficients and global warming potentials.
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 9: 1-13.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. World Meteorological
Organization. Available at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/
ozone_2006/ozone_asst_report.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Risk
Analysis for Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning.
Weissler, P., 2008. Consensus Building on Refrigerant Type.
Automotive Engineering International. 9: 30-32.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 13, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

    2. The first table in Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82 is amended
by adding one new entry to the end of the table to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes

                                Refrigerants-Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Application                Substitute          Decision            Conditions             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle  HFO-1234yf as a    Acceptable         Engineering strategies  Additional
 Air Conditioning (New            substitute for     subject to use     and/or devices must     training for
 equipment in passenger cars      CFC-12.            conditions.        be incorporated into    service
 and trucks only).                                                      the system such that    technicians
                                                                        leaks into the free     recommended.
                                                                        space \1\ of the
                                                                        passenger compartment
                                                                        do not result in HFO-
                                                                        1234yf concentrations
                                                                        of 6.2% v/v or above
                                                                        in any part of the
                                                                        free space \1\ inside
                                                                        the passenger
                                                                        compartment for more
                                                                        than 15 seconds.
                                                                       Engineering strategies  Observe Pre-
                                                                        and/or devices must     manufacture
                                                                        be incorporated into    Notice (PMN)
                                                                        the system such that    regulatory
                                                                        leaks into the engine   decision.
                                                                        compartment or
                                                                        vehicle electric
                                                                        power source storage
                                                                        areas do not result
                                                                        in HFO-1234yf
                                                                        concentrations of
                                                                        6.2% v/v or above for
                                                                        any period of time.
                                                                       HFO-1234yf MVAC
                                                                        systems must
                                                                        incorporate
                                                                        protective devices,
                                                                        isolation and/or
                                                                        ventilation
                                                                        techniques in areas
                                                                        where processes,
                                                                        procedures or upset
                                                                        conditions such as
                                                                        leaks have the
                                                                        potential to generate
                                                                        HFO-1234yf
                                                                        concentrations at or
                                                                        above 6.2% v/v in
                                                                        proximity to exhaust
                                                                        manifold surfaces and
                                                                        hybrid/electric
                                                                        vehicle electric
                                                                        power sources.
                                                                       Manufacturers must
                                                                        adhere to all the
                                                                        safety requirements
                                                                        listed in the Society
                                                                        of Automotive
                                                                        Engineers (SAE)
                                                                        Standard J639
                                                                        (adopted 2009),
                                                                        including unique
                                                                        fittings and
                                                                        flammable refrigerant
                                                                        warning label and
                                                                        high-pressure
                                                                        compressor cutoff
                                                                        switch and pressure
                                                                        relief devices.
                                                                       Manufacturers must
                                                                        conduct and keep on
                                                                        file Failure Mode and
                                                                        Effect Analysis
                                                                        (FMEA) on the MVAC as
                                                                        stated in SAE J1739
                                                                        (adopted 2009).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ Free space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the
  ducting in the HVAC module.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-25106 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 78353]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14544-000]

Hydro Green Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On August 5, 2013, Hydro Green Energy, LLC, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Vandenberg West
Project to be located near Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara
County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 30-foot-
high, 4,450-foot-long upper earthen embankment constructed with rubber
sheet and asphalt lining; (2) an upper reservoir having a total/usable
storage capacity of 7,104 acre-feet at normal maximum operation
elevation of 1,200 feet above mean sea level; (3) seven 7,500-foot-long
by 10-foot-diameter steel lined penstocks; (4) a 500-foot-long, 250-
foot-diameter concrete lined tailrace; (5) a concrete and steel lined
pressure shaft; (6) seven 193-megawatt, reversible variable-speed pump-
turbines; (7) a new powerhouse and substation located approximately 100
feet below ground and approximately 250 feet long by 75 feet wide by
100 feet high; (8) a vertical access tunnel approximately 400 feet high
and 30 feet in diameter; (9) a breakwater constructed from precast
concrete tetrapods; and (10) a new single-circuit 230-kilovolt
transmission line approximately 20 miles in length. The estimated
annual generation of the Vandenberg West Project would be approximately
3,952 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark Stover, Hydro Green, LLC, 900 Oakmont
Lane, Suite 310, Westmont, IL 60559; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 709.
    FERC Contact: Mary Greene; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14544-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14544) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30828 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19487]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2539-033]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice Rejecting Rehearing
Request

April 12, 2007.
    On February 15, 2007, the Commission issued an order on offer of
settlement and issuing new license. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.,
118 FERC ] 61,101. On March 19, 2007, Adirondack Hydro Development
Corporation and Green Island Power Authority, jointly, filed a request
for rehearing in this proceeding.
    Under section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.
825l(a)(2000), a request for rehearing may be filed only by a party to
the proceeding. Green Island is not a party to this proceeding.\1\
Therefore, the request for rehearing is rejected as to Green Island
Power Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 28, 2006, the Secretary denied Green Island's late
motion to intervene in the School Street relicensing proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing
by the Commission of this rejection notice must be filed within 30 days
of the date of issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713
(2006).

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7313 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses: External Review Draft. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. Available at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0516-01.pdf/$File/EE-0516-01.pdf>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur - Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139. December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. April. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf >.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009b. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment -- RTP Division. December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).  2009c. 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. June. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-09/019F. January. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January. Available at < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Summary of Expert Opinoins on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related Mortality: Technical Support Document. Compiled by Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benefits.html>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010d.  Lowest Measured Level (LML) Assessment for Rules without Policy-Specific Air Quality Data Available: Technical Support Document. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benefits.html>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).  2010e. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Transport Rule.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.  July.  Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).  2010f. Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document: Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 454/R-10-001.  February.  Available at at <http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/454r10001.pdf>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2004.  Advisory on Plans for Health Effects Analysis in the Analytical Plan for EPA's Second Prospective Analysis  -  Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990-2020. Advisory by the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis. EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-04-002. March. Available at at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/08E1155AD24F871C85256E5400433D5D/$File/council_adv_04002.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2007. SAB Advisory on EPA's Issues in Valuing Mortality Risk Reduction. EPA-SAB-08-001. October. Available at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4128007E7876B8F0852573760058A978/$File/sab-08-001.pdf >.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009a. Review of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-unsigned.pdf>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. Consultation on EPA's Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment. EPA-COUNCIL-09-009. May. Available at at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/723FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-009-unsigned.pdf>.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2008. "Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes." Effective August 22, 2008. <http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_
tablepdf.pdf>.
Viscusi, V.K., and J.E. Aldy. 2003. "The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World." Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1):5-76.
Wade, S.H. 2003. "Price Responsiveness in the AEO2003 NEMS Residential and Commercial Buildings Sector Models." <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/elasticity/pdf/buildings.pdf>.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 35307]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12372]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0274; FRL-10010-07]

Issuance of an Experimental Use Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an experimental use permit (EUP) to Oxitec,
Ltd to test efficacy of OX5034 Aedes aegypti mosquitoes expressing
tetracycline Trans-Activator Variant (tTAV-OX5034) protein for control
of wild Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for
experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the
limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action Apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0274, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. EUP

    EPA has issued the following EUP:
    93167-EUP-2. Issuance. Oxitec, Ltd., c/o Wiley Rein 1776 K Street
NW, Washington, DC 20006. This EUP allows the use of 0.0115 pounds
(5193.56 mg) of the insecticide active ingredient tTAV-OX5034 protein
on 6,600 acres to evaluate the control of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. The
program is authorized only in the States of Florida and Texas. The EUP
is effective from April 30, 2020 to April 30, 2022.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 27, 2020.
Robert McNally,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-12372 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P