[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21236-21237]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-126-000]

American Midstream (Midla), LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on March 28, 2014, American Midstream (Midla),
LLC, 1400 16th Street, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80202-5994, filed in
Docket No. CP14-126-000, a prior notice request, pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.216(b)(2) of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act, and Midla's blanket certificate issued in Docket No.
CP82-539, for authorization to abandon two portions of its pipeline
system: The ``T-32 System'' in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana which
consists of Midla's T-32, T-63 and T-64 Lateral lines; and, the ``Baton
Rouge System'' which consists of the welded portions of Midla's T-1 and
T-1 Loop lines plus its T-55, T-61, and TH-5 Lines; one delivery meter
on a non-contiguous pipeline (the T-62 Line); three additional non-
contiguous meter stations; and one section of non-contiguous pipeline
(the T-61 Line), all located in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, to
its affiliate, Mid-Louisiana Gas Transmission, LLC (MLGT). Midla states
that MLGT intends to operate the laterals as a Hinshaw Pipeline. The
filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that
enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is
added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll

free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Dennis J. Kelly, Senior Attorney for Midla, 1400 16th Street, Suite
310, Denver, CO 80202-5994, or call at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: April 7, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08401 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


September 16, 2003 1 RISK SCREEN ON THE USE OF SUBSTITUTES FOR OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING End Use: All HCFC and R 502 End Uses Refrigerant: SUVA ® 407C or R 407C This risk screen contains no Clean Air Act ( CAA) Confidential Business Information ( CBI) and, therefore, can be disclosed to the public.

1. INTRODUCTION Stratospheric ozone depleting substances ( ODS) are being phased out of production in response to a series of diplomatic and legislative efforts, including the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( CAAA). The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), as authorized by Section 612 of the CAAA, has developed a program to evaluate the human health and environmental risks posed by alternatives to ODS. The main purpose of EPA's program, called the Significant New Alternatives Policy ( SNAP) program, is to identify acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for ODS in specific end uses.

EPA's decision on the acceptability of a substitute is based largely on the findings of a screening assessment of potential human health and environmental risks posed by the substitute in specific applications. EPA has already screened a large number of substitutes in many enduses within all of the major ODS using sectors, including refrigeration and air conditioning; solvent cleaning; foam blowing; aerosols; fire extinguishing; adhesives, coatings, and inks; and sterilization. The results of these risk screens are presented in a series of background documents that are available in this docket.

The purpose of this report is to supplement EPA's background document on the refrigeration and air conditioning sector1 ( hereinafter referred to as the Background Document) by adding to the list of potential substitutes for specific end uses of R 502 and HCFC blends in this sector. The reader is referred to this reference for an additional discussion of different methodologies used to conduct risk screens. The potential risks associated with use of the constituents of this blend in the refrigeration and air conditioning end use have been examined at length in the Background Document.

1 EPA 1994. Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994. September 16, 2003 2 Occupational exposure modeling was performed to ensure that use of the proposed blend in the applications listed above did not pose unacceptable risk to workers. Consumer exposure modeling was performed to examine potential catastrophic releases for each of the chemical constituents of the proposed blend.

Section 2 of this report summarizes the results of the risk screen for the proposed substitute blend listed in Table 1. The remainder of the report is organized similarly to the Background Document: Section 3 presents the toxicity values used for the risk screen, Section 4 presents the results of the atmospheric assessment, Sections 5 and 6 discuss occupational and general population exposures, respectively. Section 7 discusses consumer exposure, Section 8 addresses flammability concerns, and Section 9 discusses potential increases in atmospheric releases of volatile organic compounds ( VOCs).

TABLE 1. PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE BLEND Refrigerant Blend ( Trade Name) Constituents Percent by Weight CAS Number HFC 32 ( also known as difluoromethane) 23 75 10 5 HFC 125 ( also known as pentafluorethane) 25 354 33 6 SUVA ® 407C HFC 134a ( also known as 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane) 52 811 97 2 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS SUVA ® 407C is recommended for SNAP approval for all the proposed end uses. EPA's risk screen indicates that the use of the proposed substitute will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the continued use of R 502 and most HCFC blends. No significant risks to workers or consumers are estimated based on occupational and consumer exposure modeling. Additionally, general population exposure to the substitute is expected to be below levels of concern for noncancer risks. 1 For applications of this and all other refrigerants, EPA recommends that American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers ( ASHRAE) Standards 15 and 34 be followed.

1 There is no promulgated Cancer Slope Factor for any of the components of this refrigerant. Further, based on similarity to other highly metabolized compounds of low toxicity ( 1,1, difluoroethane), there are no current data to indicate that these compounds would be carcinogenic. September 16, 2003 3 3. TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES FOR SUBSTITUTES To assess potential health risks from exposure to this substitute for ODS in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, EPA identified the relevant toxicity threshold values, including available occupational exposure limits ( OELs), for comparison to modeled exposure concentrations for different scenarios. For the occupational exposure analysis provided in this risk screen, potential risks from chronic worker exposure were evaluated by comparing exposure concentrations to values derived by EPA, namely acceptable exposure levels ( AELs). Potential risks from short term occupational exposures were also evaluated through comparison with values derived by EPA, namely short term exposure levels ( STELs). Reference concentrations ( RfCs) were used to assess risks to the general population from exposure to ambient air releases and to assess potential risks associated with chronic consumer exposures. The OELs and RfCs used for this assessment are shown in Table 2. EPA's approach for identifying or developing these values is discussed in Chapter 3 of the Background Document.

TABLE 2. TOXICITY THRESHOLD VALUES AEL ( Long term Exposure) STEL ( Short term Exposure) a Cardiotoxic LOAEL Cardiotoxic NOAEL Reference Concentration ( RfC) Chemical ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm mg/ m3 HFC 32 1,000 4,000 350,000 300,000 24b 51 HFC 125 1,000 4,000 100,000 75,000 Not Available Not Available HFC 134a 1,000 4,000 80,000 40,000 19.17 80 Source: AIHA 1999, NRC 1996, Hardy et al. 1992, EPA 1993, EPA 1995, PAFT 1996. aTLV STEL ( Threshold Limit Value Short Term Exposure Limit), a workplace standard sometimes used as a level of concern for emergency response. A chemical's TLV STEL is the maximum time weighted average concentration of that chemical in the air to which workers may be exposed for up to 15 minutes. bCurrently there is no RfC available for HFC 32. In the absence of an RfC, a value of 24 ppm is proposed, which is essentially the AIHA WEEL of 1,000 ppm which was converted to an exposure period for the general population and to which was applied an uncertainty factor to account for sensitive subpopulations ( e. g., children, elderly). Therefore, the equation used is the following: 1000 x 8 hours/ 24 hours x 5 days/ 7 days x 1/ 10 = 24 ppm. According to PAFT, HFC 32 has very low acute and subchronic inhalation toxicity, is not a developmental toxicant, and is not mutagenic. Therefore, we do not believe additional uncertainty factors need to be applied.

ACGIH = American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; AIHA = American Industrial Hygiene Association; STEL = Short Term Exposure Level; LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level; NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level; WEEL= Workplace Environmental Exposure Level; AEL = Acceptable Exposure Level; NA= Not Available September 16, 2003 4 4. ATMOSPHERIC MODELING This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to atmospheric integrity posed by the use of SUVA ® 407C in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. The ODP, GWP, and ALT of the proposed substitute are presented in Table 3.

The environmental impacts resulting from use of SUVA ® 407C are generally in the range of those predicted for other substitutes examined in the Background Document, hence EPA believes that the substitute is substantially less harmful to the ozone layer than the continued use of CFCs or HCFCs. The GWP for this blend is within the range of other SNAP approved alternatives for the proposed end uses.

TABLE 3. ODP, GWP, AND ALT FOR PROPOSED REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SUBSTITUTES SUBSTITUTE ODP 100 Year GWP ( relative to CO2) ALT ( years)

HFC 32 0 650 6 HFC 125 0 3,800 32.6 HFC 134a 0 1,600 13.6 Source: WMO 1998.

5. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND RISK SCREENING ANALYSIS Occupational exposure modeling was performed for the components of the proposed blend to ensure that use of the blend does not pose an unacceptable risk to workers. The highest 8 hour estimated exposure for HFC 134a in all proposed end uses for both manufacture and disposal was 222.7 ppm. For HFC 125, the highest 8 hour estimated exposure for all proposed end uses was 189.3 ppm, and for HFC 32, the highest 8 hour estimated exposure was 218.4 ppm. All of the 8 hour exposure values fall well below 1,000 ppm, the AEL of all three chemicals, and therefore pose no health risks in occupational settings.

The highest 15 minute estimated exposure for HFC 134a in all proposed end uses for both manufacture and disposal was 1,718 ppm. For HFC 125, the highest 15 minute estimated exposure was 542 ppm, and, the highest 15 minute estimated exposure for HFC 32 was 745 ppm. The 15 minute exposure values for the three substitute components are all well below the STEL of 3,000 ppm for both manufacture and disposal. September 16, 2003 5 The analysis concluded that occupational exposure to any of the constituents in the SUVA ® 407C blend, HFC 134a, HFC 125, and HFC 32, is not expected to pose unacceptable risks to workers.

6. GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE This section screens potential risks to the general population from exposure to ambient air releases of the substitutes examined in this report. Releases occurring during use of the refrigerant in a factory or small mechanic shop are examined in this section. The methodology used for refrigerant screening was identical to the one used in the general population exposure analysis described in Chapter 7 of the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Background Document. Although modeling results for HFC 32 are not available in the Background Document, a thorough review of HCFC and HFC substitutes by end use is provided including specific data for HFC 134a and HFC 125 ( EPA 1994). Table 4 shows that for each substitute, all end uses had exposure concentrations at least two orders of magnitude below the reference concentrations, even using conservative screening assumptions. The RfC of HFC 32 of 24 ppm is close to the RfC of many HCFC and HFC substitutes reviewed in the background document, and the exposure concentration of HFC 32 should also be similar to these substitutes. The fenceline exposure concentrations, based on the amount of CFC substitute released during manufacture, installation, operation, servicing, and disposal, would be similar for HFC 32 and other HCFC and HFC substitutes because they are used in the same end uses and the chemicals have similar chemical and physical properties. These results suggest that the highest exposure concentration for HFC 32 would also be significantly lower than the RfC for the compound. Thus, releases of HFC 32 along with HFC 125 and HFC 134a ( as shown in Table 4) during manufacture, end use, and disposal, are not expected to pose a health risk to the general population. September 16, 2003 6 TABLE 4. REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS FOR REFRIGERATOR SUBSTITUTES IN COMPARISON TO EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS Substitute RfC ( ppm) Highest Exposure Concentration/ RfC Ratio Associated End Use/ Site HCFC 22 14 9.7 E 03 Central A/ C and Home Heat Pumps/ Factory HCFC 123 2 1.0 E 02 High Pressure Centrifugal Chillers/ Factory HCFC 124 50 1.1 E 03 Retail Food Stand Alone/ Factory HCFC 141b 20 2.1 E 04 Low Pressure Centrifugal Chillers/ Factory HCFC 142b 10 3.2 E 03 Refrigerators and Freezers/ Factory HFC 23 2 8.1 E 02 Central A/ C and Home Heat Pumps/ Factory HFC 125 2 4.9 E 02 Central A/ C and Home Heat Pumps/ Factory HCFC 134a 20 1.4 E 03 Central A/ C and Home Heat Pumps/ Factory HFC 143a 20 6.9 E 03 Central A/ C and Home Heat Pumps/ Factory HFC 152a 15 9.5 E 03 Windows A/ C Units/ Salvage Yard HFC 227ea 2 1.1 E 02 Refrigerators and Freezers/ Factory 7. CONSUMER OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS This section presents estimates of potential consumer exposures to alternative refrigerants used in home appliances. An assessment of chronic exposure resulting from routine refrigerant leaks and short term exposure resulting from catastrophic leaks are detailed below.

7.1 Routine Leaks The Background Document assessed risks to consumers from chronic exposure to leakage from home appliances ( refrigerators, freezers, dehumidifiers, central air conditioners, home heat pumps, and window air conditioners). The potential noncarcinogenic risk to consumers from chronic exposure was assessed by comparing the modeled exposure concentrations to the RfCs for each refrigerant. September 16, 2003 7 The results reported in the Background Document indicate that chronic consumer exposure concentrations resulting from routine leakage, are well below the RfCs for HFC 134a ( 84 mg/ m3), HFC 125 ( 10 mg/ m3), and HFC 32 ( 51 mg/ m3). Therefore, routine refrigerant leaks are unlikely to pose a threat to consumer health.

7.2 Catastrophic leaks A risk screening analysis was also performed that specifically examined exposure concentrations resulting from catastrophic releases for each of the chemical constituents of the proposed blend. This analysis was conducted because the results of the modeling of catastrophic releases for all the components of SUVA ® 407C for all the proposed consumer end uses are not available in the Background Document. Furthermore, unlike the analysis presented in the Background Document, this analysis provided an opportunity to examine the effects of diffusivity on exposure concentrations, as discussed below. Estimates of acute/ short term consumer exposures resulting from catastrophic leakage of refrigerant from residential refrigerators and air conditioners were examined. The analysis was undertaken to determine the 15 minute TWA for each component of the blend, which was then compared to the STEL and cardiotoxic NOAEL value to assess the risk to consumers.

" Worst case" initial scenarios were developed for each of the equipment types. The first scenario involves a window air conditioning unit leak into a bedroom, where an individual would spend time while the refrigerant was being released ( i. e., sleeping). The second scenario is a central air conditioning unit leak into a basement. An individual would enter the room and close the door.

In the two scenarios, the leaking gas fills the volume of the enclosed room and is essentially stratified into two distinct layers. This stratification is considered since the refrigerant gases are denser than air and will settle in higher concentrations closer to the ground with lower concentrations achieved as the distance from the floor increases. This distinction is important because children, a particularly vulnerable segment of the population, breathe air that is closer to the ground. Furthermore, a sleeping individual, as in the scenario involving a release from a window air conditioning into a bedroom, is normally positioned to breathe air from close to the ground. In order to simulate the concentration gradient that will occur because of the weight differential between refrigerant and air, it is assumed that 95 percent of the leaked refrigerant mixes evenly into the bottom 0.4 meter of the room, and the rest of the refrigerant mixes evenly in the remaining volume ( Kataoka 1999). Exposure concentrations for the scenarios were calculated using the box model described in the Background Document, which was adapted to estimate concentrations on a minute by minute basis.

The chemical composition of the refrigerant in the form of a weight percentage for each of its components, the molecular weight of each component, the dimensions of the enclosed space and the amount of refrigerant released ( assumed to be 90% of the charge size) were used to September 16, 2003 8 calculate the concentration of released refrigerant in the enclosed area. The room size and air conditioning unit charge size for each scenario are as follows:

  Bedroom scenario: The bedroom size was assumed to be 41 m3 ( EPA 1994). The charge size for the window mounted air conditioning unit was 567 g ( AHAM 1996).

  Basement scenario: The size of the basement was assumed to be 102 m3 ( EPA 1994). The charge size for the central air conditioning unit was 4.5 kg ( UNEP TOC 1994).

Refrigerant concentrations were modeled under two air change scenarios believed to represent the range of potential flow rates for a home, assuming flow rates of 2.5 and 4.5 air changes per hour ( ACH) ( Sheldon 1989). Additional simplifying assumptions have been made for these calculations. First, the rooms are assumed to be empty, with no cabinets, furniture or fixtures. Second, there is no applied air motion ( i. e., no fan or motion of people).

Consumer exposure concentrations estimated from accidental releases of window air conditioners are below STEL and NOAEL values. However, for the central air conditioning systems, the consumer exposure concentrations exceed the STEL values for HFC 125, HFC 134a, and HFC 32. For the lower stratum in the basement scenario, with an air exchange rate of 2.5, modeled consumer exposures were up to three times greater than the STEL values for blend constituents. However, because accidental releases are one time exposures, exceedances of the STEL values do not necessarily indicate a significant risk of harm to consumers. STELs are intended to serve as short term exposure limits in occupational settings in which workers are exposed to the chemical in question on a daily basis; they do not represent limits for a single exposure in a lifetime. The effect of a one time exposure can be more accurately evaluated by comparing the exposure concentration to the cardiotoxicity NOAEL. The 15 minute TWAs of the refrigerant blend components are well below their respective cardiotoxicity NOAELs ( see Tables 5 and 6). Because these CS values were developed using epinephrine induced dogs, they represent a state of physiological sensitivity that is not indicative of the normal human situation. It is noted that in the absence of epinephrine, the components of SUVA ® 407C are incapable of inducing cardiac sensitization. Thus, the NOAEL values are conservative upper limits for shortterm exposure to a consumer.

Additionally, the model used to calculate the exposure concentrations presented in Tables 5 and 6 relies upon several conservative assumptions. In an actual catastrophic release, only a portion of the refrigerant charge may be released, and the ventilation rates and mixing ratios may be much higher than those assumed for this analysis. Moreover, in the event that a highly unusual catastrophic release does occur, it is unlikely that the refrigerant will leak into the basement, but rather will leak outside at the compressor.

Given the conservative nature of the risk screen process and the fact that the calculated 5 minute TWAs of the refrigerant blend components are well below the cardiotoxicity NOAELs, September 16, 2003 9 EPA does not believe that accidental releases from equipment containing SUVA ® 407C would pose a significant risk to consumers.

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SHORT TERM CONSUMER EXPOSURE FOR THE COMPONENTS OF SUVA ® 407C ( WINDOW UNIT)

Baseline Flow Rate = 4.5 ACH Baseline Flow Rate = 2.5 ACH Lower stratum Upper stratum Lower stratum Upper stratum Chemical STEL ( Short term Exposure)

( ppm) Cardiotoxic NOAEL/ LOAEL ( ppm)

15 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm)

HFC 32 4,000 300,000 2,559 26 3,328 34 HFC 125 4,000 75,000 1,205 12 1,567 16 HFC 134a 4,000 40,000 2,948 30 3,834 40 TABLE 6. ESTIMATED LEVELS OF SHORT TERM CONSUMER EXPOSURE FOR THE COMPONENTS OF SUVA ® 407C ( CENTRAL AC)

Baseline Flow Rate = 4.5 ACH Baseline Flow Rate = 2.5 ACH Lower stratum Upper stratum Lower stratum Upper stratum Chemical STEL ( Short term Exposure)

( ppm) Cardiotoxic NOAEL/ LOAEL ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm) 15 minute TWA ( ppm)

HFC 32 4,000 300,000 5,258 54 10,419 108 HFC 125 4,000 75,000 2,476 26 4,907 51 HFC 134a 4,000 40,000 6,059 63 12,005 124 .

7.3 Asphyxiation The risk of asphyxiation for the chosen " worst case" scenarios was investigated for the SUVA ® 407C refrigerant. This analysis does not consider those conditions that are likely to occur that would reduce the levels to which individuals would be exposed, such as open doors or windows, fans operating, conditioned airflow ( either heated or cooled), or even openings at the September 16, 2003 10 bottom of doors that allow air to flow in and out. As such, the assumed " worst case" scenario is highly unlikely.

For the first scenario ( release from a window unit in a bedroom), the corresponding maximum charge necessary for 16 percent oxygen in the lower stratum is 0.57 kg. Charge requirements to reach the same effect in the upper strata would be even higher because of the larger volumes there. These values are significantly larger than the total charges in the scenarios and thus represent no risk of asphyxiation or impaired coordination. For the second scenario ( release from a central air conditioning unit in a basement), a maximum charge of approximately 3.22 kg R 407C would be required to displace oxygen to 16%. Therefore the central air conditioning unit with an assumed charge size of 4.5 kg fails the basement test. Although the model indicates that this refrigerant blend fails the basement test, the conservative nature of the asphyxiation model indicates that the blend will not lead to significant human health concerns. The model assumes that the entire refrigerant charge is released, and the model does not take into account ventilation or circulation. In an actual catastrophic release, only a portion of the refrigerant charge may be released, and even marginal ventilation/ circulation rates would likely ensure that oxygen concentrations would stay above the 16% threshold. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the use of SUVA ® 407C in this end use poses a significant risk of asphyxiation to consumers.

8. FLAMMABILITY ANALYSIS It is important to consider the flammability of substances when investigating their acceptability for use as refrigerants since substitutes that are flammable could pose safety concerns to workers. As reported in the submission, SUVA ® 407C has been classified by ASHRAE 34 and Underwriters Laboratory as nonflammable, and thus poses no danger of flame propagation.

9. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ( VOC) ANALYSIS HFC 125, HFC 134a., and HFC 32 have been exempted from listing as VOCs under CAA regulations ( 40 CFR § 51.000). September 16, 2003 11 REFERENCES AHAM. 1996. Household Appliance Industry HFC Consumption Assumptions. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Chicago. June 3, 1996.

American Industrial Hygiene Association. The AIHA 1999 Emergency Response Planning Guidelines and Workplace Environmental Exposure Level Guides Handbook. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Fairfax, VA 1999.

Collins, M. A., G. M. Rusch, F. Sato, P. M. Hext and R. J. Millischer. 1995. 1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane repeat exposure inhalation toxicity in the rat, developmental toxicity in the rabbit, and genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 25: 271 280.

Dupont 2001. " Material Safety Data Sheet; SUVA 407C." Available at: http:// msds. dupont. com/ msds/ pdfs/ EN/ PEN_ 09004a2f8000656e. pdf EPA. 1993. IRIS website. http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ 0683. htm.

EPA. 1994. " SNAP Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning." Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994.

EPA. 1995. IRIS website. http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ 0656. htm.

Hardy, C. J., P. C. Kiernan, I. J. Sharman, and G. C. Clark. 1992. Assessment of cardiac sensitisation potential in dogs. Comparison of HFC 125 and Halon 13B1. Huntingdon Research Centre. Report No. ALS 11/ 920116.

Kataoka. 1999. " Allowable Charge Limit of Flammable Refrigerants and Ventilation Requirements." Draft Proposal. O. Kataoka/ Daikin/ Japan, June, 1999.

National Research Council. Toxicity of Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons: HFC 134a and HCFC 123 Subcommittee to Review Toxicity of Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons, Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, 130 pages, 1996.

Programme for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing. ( PAFT). 1996. Website http:// www. afeas. org/ paft/

Sheldon, L. S., et al. 1989. " An Investigation of Infiltration and Indoor Air Quality." New York State Energy Research & Development Authority, Report 90 11.

UNEP TOC. 1994. 1994 Report of the UNEP Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee, 1995 Assessment.

WMO 1998. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, 1998. World Meteorological Organization's Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project. Table 10 8.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 1, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19148

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of  United Air Lines, Inc.  filed 1/26/05 to:

XX  Amend exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 U.S. C. 40109 to permit United
to display its designator code on flights operated not only by Lufthansa
and other carriers that operate flights on Lufthansa’s behalf, but
also on flights operated by its other foreign code-share partners  on
the following services:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between points in the United States and points worldwide on a
third-country code-share basis pursuant to blanket code-sharing
statements of authorization approved by the Department, and to integrate
this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority.

Applicant rep:  Jeffrey A. Manley<PHONE_NUMBER>)   DOT Analyst: Sylvia
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see remarks below)

The exemption authority granted was effective when taken:    March 1,
2005, through  January 24, 2007 (coextensive with the authority
previously granted on January 24, 2005, in this Docket).

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

                              Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreements
between the United States and the homelands of United’s foreign
code-share partners listed in this Notice.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	   XX  Conditions attached to the relevant blanket statements of
authorization

2

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon United rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless United notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carriers(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in United’s authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by United, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for United in a competitive carrier selection
proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the
authority at issue.

We note that United has conducted a safety audit on all of its named
foreign air carrier code-share partners and affiliates under the
Department’s Code Share Safety Program, and the FAA has advised that
it has reviewed the relevant audit program and found the program to be
acceptable.

The exemption authority granted here is for operations with the foreign
code-share partners and affiliates named above.  Should United and any
new code-share partner be granted statements of authorization, United
will need to apply for exemption authority to the extent necessary to
permit United to display its code on flights operated by the new
code-share partners.

________________________________________________________________________
____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major federal action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

																	  05/2004

 These carriers include Lufthansa CityLine, Air Dolomiti, Condor
Flugdienst, and PrivatAir.

 Air New Zealand Limited; All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd (ANA); Asiana
Airlines, Inc.; Austrian Airlines, Osterreichische Luftverkehrs AG;
Lauda Air Luftfahrt GmbH; Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A. (LOT);
Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS); Singapore Airlines Limited; and
Tyrolean Airways, Troler Luftfahrt GmbH d/b/a Austrian arrows.

 See Notices of Action Taken dated August 6, 1999 (Docket OST-99-6013,
United-Air New Zealand); August 7, 1998 (Undocketed, United-ANA);
December 19, 2002 (Docket OST-2002-13320, United-Asiana); March 13, 2000
(Docket OST-2000-6803, United-Austrian); March 22, 2001 (Docket
OST-2000-7751, United-Lauda); April 19, 2004 (Docket OST-2004-17468,
United-LOT); May 24, 1999, (Docket OST-99-5251, United-SAS); October 17,
2000 (Docket OST-2000-7696, United-Singapore); and

March 22, 2001 (Docket OST-2000-7751, United-Tyrolean).

 Of course, the U.S. carriers will need to have conducted code-share
safety audits of their foreign partners prior to receipt of authority
for such code-share services.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59879]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23983]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1102; EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0782; FRL-9714-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; PBR and PTIO

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve six Permit-by-Rule provisions, a
Permit to Install and Operate program, two permanent exemptions from
the Permit to Install requirement and a general permit program as
additions to Ohio's State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has requested these rule
revisions to make its air pollution permit program more efficient.
Approving these additions will make the Permits by Rule, Permits to
Install and Operate and general permits federally enforceable. Because
these rule revisions will make Ohio's air permit program more efficient
while continuing to protect human health and the environment, EPA is
taking direct final action to approve the revisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-1102; EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0782, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Kaushal Gupta, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Kaushal Gupta, Environmental Engineer, Air
Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaushal Gupta, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 20, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-23983 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


What Factors Influence the Size of the Estimated Benefits of This Rule?
The estimated monetized benefits of the draft NSPS are substantial. While several factors contribute to the size of these benefits, the two most influential are: (1) the level of expected emission reductions and (2) the dollar per-ton estimate used to monetize the benefits. Following our meeting on August 21, 2013, we reviewed the key inputs used in estimating the benefits, and conclude that they are still appropriate. Note that the estimates of emission reductions are based on the best available data and are more likely to be understated than overstated. The dollar per ton estimate is also based on the best available data and is slightly greater than the median estimate for all sectors.
The estimated benefits are directly proportional to the expected emission reductions for the options outlined in the draft NSPS versus the baseline per type of heater affected. Not surprisingly, the anticipated reductions are greatest for heaters than have not yet been regulated by a national standard.

Emission reductions from unregulated heaters will be significant
Unlike adjustable burn rate wood stoves, which reduced their emissions by more than 70% under the 1988 NSPS, many heaters not yet subject to federal standards remain dirty even today. Under the 2013 draft NSPS, these heaters (e.g. single-burn-rate stoves, hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces), would need to make sizeable  -  yet relatively easy and very cost-effective  -  "catch-up" emission reductions as they move from the current little or no control status to today's best systems of emission reduction, which often achieve a 90-95% reduction.
The estimated numbers of heaters that would be affected in 2014 are large:
      * 84,000 wood stoves;
      * 27,000 single-burn-rate stoves;
      * 87,000 pellet stoves ;
      * 27,000 forced-air furnaces; and
      * 9,000 hydronic heaters.

Unregulated heaters currently are less than 27% of annual sales but account for over 96% of the emission reductions and benefits. (See Figure 7-2 on page 7-11 of the RIA.)  The emission reductions that would be required for these previously unregulated heaters will yield benefits that outweigh those from affected heaters covered under the 1988 rule  -  even though significantly more of the previously affected heaters are sold each year. This is attributable to both that most of the unregulated heaters are still dirty and that the hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces have larger burn rates. A single hydronic heater or forced-air-furnace burns much more wood than a single woodstove, because they are designed to heat whole houses, whereas wood stoves tend to be room heaters.

Note: We conservatively assume for the baseline that 100% of new adjustable burn rate stoves already meet the tighter Washington State 1995 emission limits and that 80% of new pellet stoves already meet Alternative Approach Step 2. If our estimates are too conservative and fewer stoves meet these limits already, emission reductions from the draft NSPS will be larger.

Wood smoke emissions contribute to violations of the PM2.5 standards. Numerous U.S. counties have annual and/or daily ambient air quality levels that approach or are above the PM2.5 NAAQS and have significant contributions from wood smoke emissions. See cover note and spreadsheet provided on August 16, 2013.

Emissions inventory estimates are based on best available data

As discussed during the August 21, 2013 presentation on emission estimates, the emission inventory estimates are based on the following equation: E= n (number of appliances) x b (burn rate) x d (density of wood) x EF (emission factor). The inventory estimates use the best available data for each of these variables. For example, the estimates start with American Housing Survey data and are improved when better, more detailed data are available via regional or state or multi-county special surveys focused on wood combustion appliances.

In addition, the NSPS analyses for this proposal use more detailed annual sales data from the Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association, market analyses and projections by Frost & Sullivan, data from Internet searches of manufacturer websites, and confidential business information from manufacturers of specific types of appliances (such as forced-air furnaces, hydronic heaters, and single-burn-rate stoves). Sales vary considerably from year to year with variations in the economy, housing starts, and oil prices. For example, pellet stove sales were 141,000 in 2008 and 46,000 in 2009. We adjusted for the slow economy in 2009 and 2010 and then used growth projections of 2% to match current published real GDP projections by the Conference Board in November 2012. (See Chapter 4 of the RIA.) The growth rate assumption is not as large a factor as some other factors, i.e., if we were to assume 0% growth, the emission reduction would only be 35% less and would still be significant in many states and local areas.

The baseline and options use the same estimates for number/proportion of appliances. We are not aware of any reason why manufacturers would overestimate numbers of appliances affected when characterizing the magnitude of the emission problems, but if they did, the emission reductions (and costs) would be reduced proportionally. For example, if the sales of single-burn-rate stoves were only half of the estimate the manufacturers provided us, the emission reductions would be half of the values presented in the RIA, but would still be significant to the states and local agencies that are very concerned about these sources. To the degree that manufacturers shift production to cleaner appliances already in the marketplace, the emission reductions would be higher (and costs would be lower).

The New York State Office of the Attorney General, NESCAUM and others have stated that hydronic heater sales are much larger than our estimates, which are based on industry data. However, we believe our estimates better reflect the significant declines in annual sales that occurred after 2007, when EPA launched its voluntary hydronic heater program, several states developed emissions regulations and numerous local authorities banned new hydronic heaters amid increasing concerns about emissions.

Our estimates are informed by annual sales data from manufacturers that participate in the EPA voluntary partnership program to qualify cleaner hydronic heaters. If hydronic heater sales are indeed greater than we have estimated, emission reductions from the NSPS would be greater in turn  -  potentially by a factor of 2 to 10.

The PM2.5 benefit per ton estimate for the residential wood combustion sector is slightly greater than the median estimate for all sectors
The substantial size of the benefit per ton estimates is influenced by the characteristics of residential wood combustion. Certain attributes of wood stove combustion tend to increase the size of the benefit per ton estimate of this sector compared to other sectors for which EPA has recently estimated benefits. These factors include:
* This sector directly emits a large fraction of total PM2.5 mass (direct PM2.5), and so there are no additional chemical transformations before the PM2.5 reaches human populations.
* People live in close proximity to these sources, which contributes to their PM2.5 exposure.
* Wood heaters tend to have short stacks, low gas velocities and low stack gas temperatures -- each of which tends to disperse PM2.5 near the source and populations.

The direct PM2.5 benefit per ton estimate for the residential wood combustion sector is $360,000 -- slightly greater than the median estimate for all sectors. See attached table for a list by sector.

                                  Attachment

Copied below is Figure 3 from Fann, N, Baker KR & Fulcher CM, 212. Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S. Environment International, 49 pp 141-51. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022875.