[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9845-9848]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 209

[Docket No. FRA-2004-17530, Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-ZA11

Minimum and Ordinary Maximum and Aggravated Maximum Civil
Monetary Penalties for a Violation of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Laws or Regulations, Orders, Special Permits, or
Approvals Under Those Laws

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is revising its regulations to reflect amendments to
certain statutory civil monetary penalty provisions effected by the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which was
enacted on July 6, 2012. These statutory amendments became effective on
October 1, 2012. Pursuant to the Act, FRA is eliminating the minimum
penalty for other than a training violation and adjusting both the
ordinary maximum penalty and the aggravated maximum penalty that
applies when assessing a civil monetary penalty for a violation of the
Federal hazardous materials transportation laws or a regulation,
special permit, or approval issued under those laws. FRA is also
revising references to these minimums and maximums in its civil penalty
assessment guidelines to conform to these statutory changes.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective February 12, 2013.
    Applicability Date: This final rule applies to all violations of
the Federal hazardous materials transportation laws or a regulation,
order, special permit, or approval issued under those laws that occur
on or after October 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph St. Peter, Trial Attorney, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office
of Chief Counsel, RCC-12, Mail Stop 10, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Amendments to the Statutory Civil Penalty Provisions

    Title III of Division C of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141)--the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2012-revises the
maximum and minimum civil penalties for violation of Federal hazardous
materials transportation laws at 49 U.S.C. ch. 51 (Federal hazmat laws)
or a regulation, order, special permit, or approval issued under the
Federal hazmat laws (including the regulations at 49 CFR subtitle B,
chapter I, subchapters A (Hazardous Materials and Oil Transportation)
and C (Hazardous Materials Regulations)). See Sec. 33010 of MAP-21,
amending 49 U.S.C. 5123. FRA is revising all references to the maximum
and minimum civil penalties in its regulations and guidelines in order
to reflect the following statutory changes:

--The maximum civil penalty was increased from $50,000 to $75,000 for a
knowing violation and from $100,000 to $175,000 if the violation
results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person, or
substantial destruction of property.
--The minimum civil penalty of $250 was eliminated, except that a
minimum civil penalty of $450 still applies to a violation related to
training.

Revisions to Civil Penalty Assessment Guidelines

    FRA's hazardous material transportation enforcement civil penalty
guidelines are published in appendix B to 49 CFR part 209, to provide
the regulated community and the general public with information
concerning the manner in which FRA generally begins its hazmat penalty
assessment process and the types of information that respondents in
enforcement cases should provide to justify reduction of proposed
penalties. These guidelines were first published in the Federal
Register on July 25, 1996 in response to a request contained in Senate
Report 103-150 that accompanied the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1994. 61 FR 38644. These
guidelines are periodically updated, and FRA most recently published
revisions to them on July 27, 2010, pursuant to the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2461,
note). 75 FR 43840.
    In this final rule, FRA is revising all references to the maximum
and minimum civil penalties published in appendix B to 49 CFR part 209
in order to reflect the statutory changes of MAP-21.

Statutory Authority

    This final rule is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5123,
which provides civil penalties for violations of the Federal hazmat
laws or a regulation, order, special permit, or approval issued under
those laws. The hazardous material transportation regulations are
issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
49 CFR 1.97(b). Responsibility for the enforcement of the Federal
hazmat laws and regulations primarily in instances where violations
involve railroads and those entities that ship by rail has been
delegated to FRA. 49 CFR 1.89(j). This rule revises references in FRA's
regulations to reflect revisions to the civil penalty provisions in the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2012. The
amendments to the statutory provisions became effective on October 1,
2012, and FRA is implementing these amendments within respect to
violations that occur on or after that date.

Public Participation

    FRA is proceeding to a final rule without providing a notice of
proposed rulemaking or an opportunity for public comment. Public
comment is unnecessary because, in making these revisions, FRA is not
exercising discretion in a way that could be informed by public
comment. As such, notice and comment procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest'' within the meaning of
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). FRA is issuing
these revisions as a final rule applicable to all hazardous material
civil penalty cases under its authority to cite for violations that
occur on or after October 1, 2012.

Regulatory Impact

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Accordingly, this final rule was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Further, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under
the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the DOT because it is limited
to a ministerial act on which the agency has no discretion. 44 FR
11034. The economic impact of the final rule is minimal to the extent
that preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
applies to shippers and carriers of hazardous material and persons who
manufacture, mark, certify, or sell packagings, containers, and
packaging components as qualified for use in transporting hazardous
materials in commerce, some of whom are small entities. However, there
is no economic impact on any person who complies with the Federal
hazmat laws and the regulations, orders, special permits, and approvals
issued under that law.

C. Federalism Implications

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''), and
the President's May 20, 2009 memorandum on ``Preemption'' (74 FR 24693,
May 22, 2009). As amended in 2005, 49 U.S.C. 5125(h) provided that the
preemption provisions in Federal hazmat laws do ``not apply to any * *
* penalty * * * utilized by a State, political subdivision of a State,
or Indian tribe to enforce a requirement applicable to the
transportation of hazardous material.'' Accordingly, this final rule
does not have any preemptive effect on State, local, or Indian tribe
enforcement procedures and penalties, and preparation of a federalism
assessment is not warranted.

D. Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of [$140,800,000 or more (as
adjusted for inflation)] in any one year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate,
of $140,800,000 or more in any one year by State, local, or Indian
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and thus preparation of such
a statement is not required.

E. Environmental Assessment

    There are no significant environmental impacts associated with this
final rule.

F. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). According to definitions set forth under the
Executive Order, there will be no significant energy action as a result
of the issuance of this final rule.

G. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. This rulemaking is purely domestic in nature and is not
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new information collection requirements in this final
rule.

I. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any comments or
other written communications received into any of FRA's dockets, by the
name of the individual submitting the comment or other written
communication (or signing the comment or other written communication,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov, or you may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 209

    Administrative practices and procedures, Hazardous materials
transportation, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, chapter II, subtitle B of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 209--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 209 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5123, 5124, 20103, 20107, 20111, 20112,
20114; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

0
2. Revise Sec.  209.103 to read as follows:

Sec.  209.103  Minimum and maximum penalties.

    (a) A person who knowingly violates a requirement of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation laws, an order issued thereunder,
subchapter A or C of chapter I, subtitle B, of this title, or a special
permit or approval issued under subchapter A or C of chapter I,
subtitle B, of this title is liable for a civil penalty of not more
than $75,000 for each violation, except that--
    (1) The maximum civil penalty for a violation is $175,000 if the
violation results in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any
person, or substantial destruction of property and
    (2) A minimum $450 civil penalty applies to a violation related to
training.
    (b) When the violation is a continuing one, each day of the
violation constitutes a separate offense. 49 U.S.C. 5123.
    (c) The maximum and minimum civil penalties described in paragraph
(a) of this section apply to violations occurring on or after October
1, 2012.

0
3. In Sec.  209.105, revise the last sentence of (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  209.105  Notice of probable violation.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * In an amended notice, FRA may change the civil penalty
amount proposed to be assessed up to and including the maximum penalty
amount of $75,000 for each violation, except that if the violation
results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any

person, or substantial destruction of property, FRA may change the
penalty amount proposed to be assessed up to and including the maximum
penalty amount of $175,000.

0
4. Amend appendix B to part 209 as follows:
0
a. Revise the second sentence of the first paragraph of the
introductory text;
0
b. Revise the last sentence of the second paragraph of the introductory
text;
0
c. Revise the fifth sentence of the third paragraph of the introductory
text;
0
d. Revise the table entry for ``173.24(b)(1) and 173.24(b)(2) and
173.24(f)(1) and 173.24(f)(1)(ii)'';
0
e. Revise the table entry for ``173.24(c)''; and
0
f. Revise footnote 2 to the table.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 209--Federal Railroad Administration Guidelines for
Initial Hazardous Materials Assessments

    * * * The guideline penalty amounts reflect the best judgment of
the FRA Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance (RRS) and of the
Safety Law Division of the Office of Chief Counsel (RCC) on the
relative severity of the various violations routinely encountered by
FRA inspectors on a scale of amounts up to the maximum $75,000
penalty, except the maximum civil penalty is $175,000 if the
violation results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any
person, or substantial destruction of property, and a minimum $450
penalty applies to a violation related to training. * * *
    * * * When a violation of the Federal hazardous material
transportation law, an order issued thereunder, the Hazardous
Materials Regulations or a special permit, approval, or order issued
under those regulations results in death, serious illness or severe
injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property, a
maximum penalty of at least $75,000 and up to and including $175,000
shall always be assessed initially.
    * * * In fact, FRA reserves the express authority to amend the
NOPV to seek a penalty of up to $75,000 for each violation, and up
to $175,000 for any violation resulting in death, serious illness or
severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property,
at any time prior to issuance of an order. * * *

Civil Penalty Assessment Guidelines

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Guideline
          49 CFR Section                  Description         amount \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
173.24(b)(1) and 173.24(b)(2) and   Securing closures: These subsections
 173.24(f)(1) and                   are the general ``no leak'' standard
 173.24(f)(1)(ii).                   for all packagings. Sec. 173.24(b)
                                     deals primarily with packaging as a
                                        whole, while Sec.   173.24(f)
                                        focuses on closures. Use Sec.
                                        173.31(d) for tank cars, when
                                         possible. Cite the sections
                                    accordingly, using both the leak/non-
                                     leak criteria and the package size
                                         considerations to reach the
                                    appropriate penalty. Any actual leak
                                      will aggravate the guideline by,
                                     typically, 50%; a leak with contact
                                    with a human being will aggravate by
                                     at least 100%, up to the maximum of
                                     $75,000, and up to $175,000 if the
                                     violation results in death, serious
                                      illness or injury or substantial
                                        destruction of property. For
                                     intermodal (IM) portable tanks and
                                     other tanks of that size range, use
                                      the tank car penalty amounts, as
                                          stated in Sec.   173.31.
                                   --Small bottle or box...        1,000
                                   --55-gallon drum........        2,500
                                   --Larger container,             5,000
                                    e.g., IBC; not portable
                                    tank or tank car..
                                       --IM portable tank, cite Sec.
                                        173.24(f) and use the penalty
                                       amounts for tank cars: Residue,
                                      generally, Sec.   173.29(a) and,
                                          loaded, Sec.   173.31(d).
                                   --Residue adhering to           5,000
                                    outside of package
                                    (i.e., portable tanks,
                                    tank cars, etc.)..

                              * * * * * * *
173.24(c)........................        Use of package not meeting
                                     specifications, including required
                                       stencils and markings. The most
                                      specific section for the package
                                        involved should be cited (see
                                    below). The penalty guideline should
                                       be adjusted for the size of the
                                       container. Any actual leak will
                                         aggravate the guideline by,
                                     typically, 50%; a leak with contact
                                    with a human being will aggravate by
                                     at least 100%, up to the maximum of
                                     $75,000, and up to $175,000 if the
                                     violation results in death, serious
                                      illness or injury or substantial
                                          destruction of property.
                                   --Small bottle or box...        1,000
                                   --55-gallon drum........        2,500
                                   --Larger container,             5,000
                                    e.g., IBC; not portable
                                    tank or tank car, but
                                    this section is
                                    applicable to a hopper
                                    car..
                                   For more specific sections: Tank cars-
                                      Sec.   173.31(a), portable tanks-
                                    Sec.   173.32, and IM portable tanks-
                                     Sec.  Sec.   173.32a, 173.32b, and
                                                  173.32c.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A person who knowingly violates the hazardous material
  transportation law or a regulation, order, special permit, or approval
  issued thereunder, is subject to a civil penalty of up to $75,000 for
  each violation, except that the maximum civil penalty for a violation
  is $175,000 if the violation results in death, serious illness, or
  severe injury to any person or substantial destruction of property;
  and a minimum $450 civil penalty applies to a violation related to
  training. Each day that the violation continues is a separate offense.
  49 U.S.C. 5123; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2013
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-03208 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10359-10360]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03909]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC22-41-000.
    Applicants: Buckeye Plains Solar Project, LLC, Buckeye Plains II
Solar Project, LLC, Pickaway County Solar Project, LLC, Pickaway County
II Solar Project, LLC, Dominion Solar Projects VII, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Buckeye Plains Solar Project, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-56-000.
    Applicants: Corazon Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator of Corazon Energy Services, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2564-011; ER10-2600-011; ER10-2289-011; EL22-
5-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company, UniSource Energy
Development Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Amendment to June 21, 2021 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Tucson Electric Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220214-5277.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2564-011; ER10-2600-011; ER10-2289-011; EL22-
5-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company, UniSource Energy
Development Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Amendment to June 21, 2021 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Tucson Electric Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/15/22,
    Accession Number: 20220215-5239.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-516-002.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Service Agreement No. 396 Amendment
to be effective 11/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1066-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation EDP Ltr
Agreement SCE and VESI 12 LLC SA No. 1133 to be effective 4/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1067-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-17_SA 3500_METC-
Calhoun County Solar 1st Rev GIA (J857) to be effective 2/7/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1068-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service
Agreement No. 891 to be effective 1/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1069-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Bylaws Revisions to Remove
Requirement that Chair of the SPP Board Serve on SPC to be effective 4/
19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22,

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1070-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-17 EIM
Implementation Agreement Cancellation-Public Service of Colorado to be
effective 4/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1071-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Bylaws Preamble
to Incorporate the SPP Value Proposition to be effective 4/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1072-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Joint 205
filing unexecuted LGIA among NYISO, NMPC, East Point (SA 2683) to be
effective 2/18/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1073-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 205 filing among
NYISO, NMPC, High River unexecuted LGIA (SA 2682) to be effective 2/18/
2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1074-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised ISA, SA No.
1767; Queue No. AB2-102 to be effective 1/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1075-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-17_SA 3781 Ameren-
Pana Solar FSA (J912) to be effective 4/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/17/22.
    Accession Number: 20220217-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/22.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern

time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03909 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 72347-72348]
[DOCID:fr20de07-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF08-72-000]

Jewish Home and Hospital Life Care System, Bronx Division; Notice
of Self-Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

December 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 21, 2007, Jewish Home and Hospital
Life Care System, Bronx Division, 2545 University Ave., Bronx, NY
10468, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of
self-certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility
pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations.
    The facility will be a 300 kW facility comprised of three 100 kW
Tecogen cogeneration units (topping) located in the mechanical room of
Greenwall Pavilion at 2545 University Ave., Bronx, New York. The energy
source will be natural gas.
    The facility will interconnect with Con Edison for stand-by service
but will not export power to the grid.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d) (1)(iii), with the
appropriate filing fee.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Hydro Investors, Inc. v. Trafalgar Power Inc., 94 FERC ]
61,207, reh'g denied, 95 FERC ] 61,120 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24667 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4970-4975]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-10-000]

Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Wick Meter & Regulator Station Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Wick Meter and Regulator (Wick
M&R) Station Project involving construction and operation of facilities
by Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) in Tyler County, West Virginia. The
Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity.

NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may
have about proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The
main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on
the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission
requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the EA.
To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please
submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 20,
2019.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. For your convenience, there are three
methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP20-10-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Rover proposes to construct, own, and operate a new meter station
on Rover's Sherwood Lateral in Tyler County, West Virginia (``Wick M&R
Station Project,'' or ``Project''). The Project consists of an
ultrasonic meter skid and other ancillary facilities, including piping
and valves, electronic flow measurement devices, flow conditioners,
instrumentation, telemetry, gas analysis devices, gas quality
monitoring devices, flow control valves, condensate storage tank, and
other related equipment, as necessary. The proposed Project will would
be located on along Rover's existing Sherwood Lateral Pipeline in Tyler
County, West Virginia.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Rover has recently executed an Interconnect and Operating Agreement
with Eureka Midstream, LLC (Eureka) for the installation of the Wick
M&R Station Project, to allow for the delivery of natural gas supplies
from gathering facilities under development by Eureka, for
transportation on the Rover pipeline system.
    Approximately 2.1 acres of land would be used to construct the
station, of which 0.9 acre would be fenced and maintained for operation
of the station and tap along the existing Sherwood Lateral Pipeline.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid
impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\3\ The EA

for this project will document findings on the impacts on historic
properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) whose property may be used temporarily for project
purposes, or who own property within certain distances of aboveground
facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that we send the information related to this environmental
review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP20-10-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: January 21, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix 1

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JA20.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JA20.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JA20.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JA20.034

[FR Doc. 2020-01405 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and HCFC-22 in

Household Refrigerators and Freezers

Substitute: HCR-188C1®

This risk screen does not contain Clean Air Act (CAA) Confidential
Business Information (CBI) and, therefore, may be disclosed to the
public.

1. 	INTRODUCTION

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are being phased out of production in
response to a series of diplomatic and legislative efforts that have
taken place over the past decade, 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, is
developing 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 end uses
within all of the major ODS-using sectors, including refrigeration and
air conditioning, solvent cleaning, foam blowing, aerosols, fire
suppression, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilization. The
results of these risk screens are presented in a series of Background
Documents that are available in EPA's docket.

The purpose of this report is to supplement EPA’s Background Document
on the refrigeration and air conditioning sector (EPA 1994) (hereinafter
referred to as the Background Document) by adding to the list of
potential substitutes for specific end-uses of CFC-12 and HCFC-22 in
this sector.  Proposed end-use applications considered in this analysis
include new replacements for the following end uses: household
refrigerators and freezers.  The specific proposed CFC-12 and HCFC-22
substitute blend examined in this report is shown in   REF _Ref173102842
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 1 .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 .  Composition of HCR-188C1.

Component	Weight Percent %

n-Butane

	Ethane

	Isobutane

	Propane

	The potential risks associated with use of the constituents of this
blend in residential refrigeration have been examined at length in the
Background Document.  The reader is referred to this reference for a
detailed discussion of the methodologies used to conduct this risk
screen.  Presently, EPA’s SNAP Program has not approved any
hydrocarbon blends as a substitute for CFC-12 and HCFC-22 in residential
appliance end uses, such as those intended for this substitute (i.e.,
household refrigerators and freezers).  Of particular concern are the
flammability risks associated with hydrocarbon blends during
manufacturing, use, servicing, and disposal of household appliances.
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.  Lastly, general population exposure
modeling was performed to ensure that the proposed blend would not pose
unacceptable risk to the population at large.

Section 2 of this report summarizes the results of the risk screen for
the proposed substitute blend listed in   REF _Ref173102842 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 1 .  The remainder of the report is organized into
the following sections:

Section 3: Atmospheric Assessment

Section 4: Flammability Assessment

Section 5: Asphyxiation Assessment

Section 6: Toxicity Assessment

Section 7: Volatile Organic Compound Assessment

Section 8: References

2.	 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

HCR-188C1 is recommended for SNAP approval for household refrigerators
and household freezers.  EPA's risk screen indicates that the use of the
proposed substitute and its constituents will be less harmful to the
atmosphere than the continued use of CFC-12 and HCFC-22.   No
significant toxicity risks to workers, consumers, or the general
population are expected according to occupational and consumer exposure
modeling.

Flammability models indicate that risks of explosion are not a concern
for consumers when the substitute is used in refrigerators or freezers
provided that the refrigerators’ and freezers’ charge sizes are
determined according to the UL 250 Supplement SA standard (see Section
4).  Caution must be used in manufacturing facilities and by
refrigeration technicians to minimize explosion risk, while in the
presence of large quantities of the substitute.  This includes
installation of proper safety equipment during manufacturing,
transportation, and storage and providing proper training and
certification to technicians.  EPA recommends that American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards
15 and 34 be followed.

3. 	ATMOSPHERIC MODELING

This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to
atmospheric integrity posed by the use of HCR-188C1 in the residential
refrigeration sector.  The ODP, GWP, and atmospheric lifetime (ALT) of
the proposed substitute are presented in   REF _Ref175036149 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 2 .

The environmental impacts resulting from use of HCR-188C1 are generally
in the range of those predicted for other substitutes examined in the
Background Document.  The substitute is substantially less harmful to
the ozone layer, has less climate impact, and a shorter atmospheric
lifetime compared to CFC-12 and HCFC-22.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 .  Atmospheric Impacts of HCR-188C1
Compared to CFC-12 and HCFC-22.

Refrigerant	Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP)	Global Warming Potential
-AR4a (GWP)	Atmospheric Lifetime (ALT)

n-Butane	0	4.0a	0.018b

Ethane	0	5.5a 	0.21b

Isobutane	0	NA	0.019b

Propane	0	3.3a	0.041b

CFC-12	1c	10,900a	100a

HCFC-22	0.055c	1,810 a	12a

NA – Not available in IPCC 4th Assessment Report.

a IPCC 4th Assessment Report (Forster et al. 2007).

bIPCC/TEAP (2005).

b Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html.

4.	FLAMMABILITY ANALYSIS

Due to its flammable nature, HCR-188C1 could pose a significant safety
concern for workers and consumers if it is not handled carefully.  In
the presence of an ignition source (e.g., static electricity, a spark
resulting from a closing door, or a cigarette), an explosion or a fire
could occur when the concentration of HCR-188C1 exceeds its lower
flammability limit (LFL) of 16,100 ppm.  Therefore, it is important to
ensure that the levels of HCR-188C1 do not exceed 16,100 ppm.  In
production facilities or other facilities where large quantities of the
refrigerant will be stored, proper safety precautions should be in place
to minimize the risk of explosion.  White goods installed with HCR-188C1
should be clearly labeled as containing a flammable refrigerant charge.
Furthermore, only refrigerant technicians certified to work with
flammable refrigerants should handle these units during manufacturing,
installation, servicing, transportation and disposal.

To determine whether flammability would be a concern for consumers, a
reasonable worst-case scenario analysis was performed to model
catastrophic releases of the refrigerant into the room.  The analysis
models the release of charge from a refrigerator into a kitchen. An
average kitchen volume is assumed to be 18 m3 (635 ft3) or approximately
2.7 x 2.7 m (8.9 x 8.9 ft) for a square room with 2.4 m (8 ft) ceilings
(EPA 1994).  The full charge of the unit is assumed to be emitted within
one minute and the kitchen is assumed to have an air flow rate of 2.5
air exchanges per hour.  Given these conservative assumptions, the
assumed “worst-case” scenario is highly unlikely.   Horizontal
stratification is also assumed since components of HCR-188C1 are denser
than air and will settle in higher concentrations closer to the ground.
In order to simulate the horizontal concentration gradient that will
occur because of the weight differential between the 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).

Under catastrophic release scenarios, the concentration of HCR-188C1 in
the lower stratum of the kitchen would be approximately 40 percent of
the substitute’s LFL for the average room size assumed, as shown in
REF _Ref173919379 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 3 .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 .  Flammability Assessment.

Room Type/Appliance Type	Average Scenario	Risk Scenario

	Room Size (m3)	Instantaneous Concentration (ppm)	Room Size (m3)
Instantaneous Concentration (ppm)

Kitchen/Refrigerator	18 (635 ft3)	6,628a	7.5 (265 ft3)	15,827a

a Lower Flammability Limit of HCR-188C1 is equal to 16,100 ppm

For flammability to be of concern under the conservative (protective)
assumptions described above, the volume of the kitchen would have to be
7.5 m3 (265 ft3).  Assuming a square room with a ceiling height of 2.4 m
(8.0 ft), this equates to a 1.75 x 1.75 m (5.75 x 5.75 ft) kitchen.

To mitigate the risks of flammability at the end-use, it is recommended
that HCR-188C1 refrigerators' and freezers’ charge sizes are
determined according to the UL 250 Supplement SA standard.  Per the UL
standard, the maximum permissible leak for refrigerants with limits of
flammability and heat of combustion greater than 19,000 kj/kg (such as
the components of HCR-188C1) is 50 g.  Additional charge is not
prohibited, however, if the amount of refrigerant leaked during testing
does not exceed 50 grams.  Therefore, a slightly larger charge would be
permissible to compensate for the refrigerant’s solubility in the
system’s oils so long as any leaks would not exceed 50g.  By ensuring
HCR-188C1 refrigerators and freezers conform to the aforementioned
standard, flammability risks associated with the use of HCR-188C1 in
these appliances should be mitigated.

Catastrophic releases of large quantities of refrigerant during
servicing and manufacturing, especially in areas where large amounts of
refrigerant are stored, could cause an explosion.  For this reason, it
is important that only properly trained and certified refrigerant
technicians handle HCR-188C1.  The submitter has provided safety
guidelines for handling HCR-188C1, which should be followed.   Using
these guidelines, certification requirements and training programs for
technicians that handle HCR-188C1 should be developed.  As a further
precaution, HCR-188C1 storage and transport equipment should be
installed with safety devices that minimize the likelihood of
catastrophic releases.  For example, NFPA 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Code (NFPA, 2007) for liquefied propane requires the use of overfill
protection devices (OPD) on cylinders to minimize the likelihood of
leaks.  The NPFA 58 Code also contains propane storage and
transportation requirements/guidelines.  Similar equipment safety and
procedural requirements should be developed for HCR-188C1 and other
flammable refrigerants.

It is important that the strictest standards be followed during
manufacturing.  It is recommended that refrigerants be properly stored
and caution used within manufacturing facilities to minimize explosion
risk and that workers adhere to the requirements set by OSHA under 29
CFR 1910.  OSHA requirements include proper ventilation and storage
practices within manufacturing facilities to prevent fire and explosion.
 Proper ventilation should be maintained at all times during the
manufacture of equipment containing HCR-188C1 through adherence to good
manufacturing practices.  If refrigerant levels in the air surrounding
the equipment rise above one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, or
oxygen levels in the room fall below 19.5% as noted in the material
safety data sheet provided by the submitter, the space should be
evacuated and re-entry should only occur after the space has been
properly ventilated.  Ventilation is also of the utmost importance to
mitigate the risk of fire or explosion when servicing equipment using
HCR-188C1.  During servicing operations, technicians should ensure that
proper ventilation is in place through the use of fans (or other
mechanical ventilation devices) and portable refrigerant detectors
should be used to alert technicians to the presence of flammable gases
in the area.

5.	ASPHYXIATION

The risk of asphyxiation for a “worst-case” scenario was
investigated for HCR-188C1.  This analysis does not consider 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 bottom of doors that allow air to flow in and out.

For the worst-case scenario, a release from a refrigerator in a kitchen
of volume 18 m3 (635 ft3), the maximum charge of HCR-188C1 necessary to
reduce the oxygen levels to 12 percent in air was calculated assuming
horizontal stratification of the refrigerant and the air.  Horizontal
stratification is assumed since components of HCR-188C1 are denser than
air and will settle in higher concentrations closer to the ground.
Assuming that nitrogen and oxygen retain the same relative volumes in
the rooms with the balance composed entirely of HCR-188C1, and that the
pressure of the room does not increase significantly with the addition
of the refrigerant, a charge of approximately 521 g would be necessary
to reach 12 percent oxygen in the lower stratum.  This amount represents
approximately 13 times the intended charge of approximately 40 g for a
single HCR-188C1 refrigerator or freezer.   Charge requirements to reach
the same effect in the upper stratum would be even higher because of the
stratum’s larger volume.  For asphyxiation to be of concern with the
proposed charge sizes, under the conservative (protective) assumptions
described above, the volume of the kitchen would have to be about 1.3 m3
(46 ft3).

The results of the asphyxiation assessment are summarized in   REF
_Ref175044517 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4  below.  EPA does not believe
that the use of HCR-188C1 in this end-use poses a significant risk of
asphyxiation or impaired coordination to consumers.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 .  Asphyxiation Assessment.

Room Type/Appliance Type	Appliance Charge (g)	Reasonable Worst-Case
Scenario	Asphyxiation Threshold Scenario

Room Size (m3)	Charge Causing Impairment (g)a	Room Size (m3)	Charge
Causing Impairment (g)a

Kitchen/Refrigerator	40	18 (635 ft3)	521	1.3 (46 ft3)	(40

6. 		TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES FOR SUBSTITUTES

To assess potential health risks from exposure to this substitute in the
residential refrigeration sector, EPA identified the relevant toxicity
threshold values for comparison to modeled exposure concentrations for
different scenarios.  For the occupational exposure analysis, potential
risks from chronic and acute worker exposure were evaluated by comparing
exposure concentrations to available occupational exposure limits.
Occupational exposure limits are typically established for either an
eight-hour time period for long-term exposure, such as the Workplace
Guidance Levels (WGLs), or for a 10 to 30-minute period for short-term
exposure, such as the Emergency Guidance Levels (EGLs), as shown in
REF _Ref175045450 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5  for each of the
components of HCR-188C1.  Because they are designed to assess risks from
acute exposure, emergency guidance levels are used to assess risks from
short-term consumer exposures.  Reference concentrations (RfCs) are used
to assess risks to the general population from exposure to ambient air
releases and to assess potential risks associated with chronic consumer
exposures.  A list of the relevant toxicity limits are shown in   REF
_Ref175045450 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5 .   REF _Ref233605047 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 6  provides definitions of the acronyms used in   REF
_Ref175045450 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5 .   EPA’s approach for
identifying or developing these values is discussed in Chapter 3 of the
Background Document.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 .  Toxicity Levels of HCR-188C1
Components.

HCR-188C1 Component 	WGL (Long-term Exposure)

ppm	EGL (Short-term Exposure)

Ppm	Reference Concentration (RfC)

mg/m3

n-Butane	800b  (NIOSH REL)	6,900 ppm g  (30 min AEGL-1)	0.95 mg/m3 i

Ethane	1,000d  (ACGIH TLV)	NA	NA

Isobutane	800c  (NIOSH REL)	18,000 h (NOAEL)	0.95 mg/m3 i

Propane	1,000a

(OSHA PEL/NIOSH REL)	2,100e  (NIOSH IDLH)

10,000 ppm f (10 min AEGL-1)

6,900 ppm f (30 min AEGL-1)	0.9 mg/m3  i

a OSHA PEL and NIOSH REL available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0524.html"
http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0524.html .

b NIOSH REL available at: http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/NPG/npgd0068.html

c NIOSH REL available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0350.html"
http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0350.html

d ACGIH TLV available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0266.html"
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0266.html .

e NIOSH IDLH available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0524.html"
http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0524.html .

f AEGL-1 available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/tsd96.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/tsd96.pdf

g AEGL-1 available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/tsd102.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/tsd102.pdf

h OSHA (2004) notes the following regarding isobutane: “OSHA does not
have a PEL for isobutane, which is affirmed as "generally recognized as
safe" as a direct human food ingredient (21 CFR 184.1165). No toxic
effects reported below 18,000 ppm.”

i SNAP Refrigerant Background Document, 1994.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  6 . Explanation of Toxicity-Related
Acronymsa

Organization 	Definition

ACGIH	American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

OSHA	Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NIOSH	National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Exposure Limit	Definition	Explanation

AEGL-1	Acute Exposure Guideline Level	The AEGL-1 “is the airborne
concentration… above which it is predicted that the general
population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable
discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects.
However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible
upon cessation of exposure” (EPA 2008a).

IDLH	Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health	If exposed to this
concentration, room occupants are expected to be able to escape the room
within 30 minutes without experiencing escape-impairing or irreversible
health effects.

NOAEL	No Observed Adverse Effect Limit	“The highest exposure level at
which there are no biologically significant increases in the frequency
or severity of adverse effect between the exposed population and its
appropriate control; some effects may be produced at this level, but
they are not considered adverse or precursors of adverse effects.”b

PEL	Permissible Exposure Limit

	This is an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure limit set by OSHA.

REL	Recommended Exposure Limit	This is a 10-hour time-weighted average
exposure limit set by NIOSH.

RfC	Reference Concentration	A concentration “designed to protect the
general population against adverse systemic (i.e., noncancer)
effects.”

TLV	Threshold Limit Value	An 8-hour time-weighted average health-based
concentration set by ACGIH.  Exposure at or below this concentration is
believed to “not create an unreasonable risk of disease or injury.”
d

a All information in this table taken from EPA (1994), except where
noted otherwise.

b From   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/riskassessment/glossary.htm#n"
http://www.epa.gov/riskassessment/glossary.htm#n

c   HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/pgintrod.html#exposure"
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/pgintrod.html#exposure

d http://www.acgih.org/TLV/

6.1  	OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

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 methodology used for this screening
assessment is based on the one used in the occupational exposure and
hazard analysis described in Chapter 5 of the Background Document.  To
evaluate potential worker exposure to alternative refrigerants, a model
called the “box” model was used.  This model has been widely used
for many years to estimate probable exposures of workers to hazardous
airborne materials, and has been described in detail by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  This model takes into
consideration the duration and magnitude of the resulting exposure which
is influenced by 1) duration and intensity of the release, 2) rate at
which contaminated air is diluted with uncontaminated air, 3) proximity
of the worker to the source of the release, and 4) the length of time
the worker remains in the affected space.

Estimates of refrigerant release per event for various release scenarios
and data on number of events in 2007 were obtained from the Vintaging
Model.  To determine the estimated level of occupational exposure for a
constituent in a blend, the total release rate of the refrigerant is
multiplied by the weight percent composition of each compound in the
blend.  For all end-uses the release per event was conservatively
assumed to be 1 percent of the equipment charge during manufacturing and
3 percent of the equipment charge during disposal.  The release rate per
event was multiplied by the number of events estimated to occur over a
workday.  For equipment manufacturing, the number of events per workday
was assumed to equal the number of units containing the substitute
produced per plant per year divided by 240 workdays per year.  For the
purposes of this model, it is assumed that HCR-188C1 will have a market
penetration rate of 3.3% and that 12 production facilities will be in
operation.  These assumptions result in approximately 60 – 70
events/manufacturing facility/day.  This is an extremely conservative
estimate, considering less than 100 pounds of HCR-188C1 is intended to
be produced annually, for a maximum of 1145 units produced annually or
at the most five events/manufacturing facility/day.  For disposal, it
was conservatively assumed that 100 units are disposed during an 8-hour
work day.

The maximum time weighted average (TWA) exposure was estimated for each
exposure scenario, and these values compared to the Workplace Guidance
Levels (WGLs) for each constituent of the blend.  The modeling results
indicate that both the short-term (15-minute and 30-minute) and
long-term (8-hour) worker exposure concentrations at no point exceed 2
percent of the WGLs.    REF _Ref175122161 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 6
displays the maximum estimated 15-minute TWA occupational exposure
levels of the HCR-188C1 constituents.   Even these maximum estimated
short-term occupational levels are significantly lower than the 8-hour
long-term or 10-hour long term WGLs, and therefore occupational exposure
to any HCR-188C1 component is not considered a toxicity threat.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  7 .  Occupational Risk Assessment

HCR-188C1 Component	Maximum 15-minute TWA Occupational Exposure Levels
(ppm)	Workplace Guidance Levels (ppm)a	Workplace Guidance Levels Time
Period

Butane

800	10-hr TWA

Ethane

1,000	8-hr TWA

Isobutane

800	10-hr TWA

Propane

1,000	10-hr TWAb

a See   REF _Ref175045450 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5  for more
information.

b The WGL for Propane is set as a 1000 ppm 8-hr TWA by OSHA and a 10-hr
TWA by NIOSH.

6.2	CONSUMER EXPOSURE

This section presents estimates of potential consumer exposures to
HCR-188C1 in home refrigeration appliances.  A consumer exposure
analysis was performed to examine potential catastrophic releases for
each of the chemical constituents of HCR-188C1.  Estimates for
acute/short-term consumer exposures resulting from catastrophic leakage
of refrigerant from residential refrigerators were examined.  The
analysis was undertaken to determine the 15- and 30-minute TWA for each
component of HCR-188C1, which was then compared to the standard toxicity
limits presented in   REF _Ref175045450 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5  to
assess the risk to consumers.  However, the TWA values are fairly
conservative as the analysis does not consider opened windows, fans
operating, conditioned airflow (either heated or cooled) and other
variables that would reduce the levels to which individuals would be
exposed.

The scenario involves a refrigerant leak from a refrigerator into an
enclosed kitchen of volume 18 m3 (635 ft3).  It is assumed that the
individual is present at the start of the leak and the individual
remains in the room while the refrigerant is released. It is also
assumed that horizontal stratification causes most of the HCR-188C1 to
settle in higher concentrations closer to the ground.  Considering the
horizontal stratification is important because children, a particularly
vulnerable segment of the population, breathe air that is closer to the
ground.  In order to simulate the horizontal concentration gradient that
will occur because of the weight differential between the 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.  It was assumed
that 100 percent of the unit’s charge would be released during a time
span of 1 minute, at which time the concentration of HCR-188C1 will
peak, and then steadily decline onwards.  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).

The highest concentrations of HCR-188C1 occur in the lower stratum of
the room and when assuming 2.5 ACH.  The highest expected levels of
consumer exposure based on this analysis are presented in  REF
_Ref175045524 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT   Table 7  below.  Even under the
conservative assumptions used in the consumer exposure modeling, the
estimated 15-minute consumer exposure level of the blend’s components
are no more than 50% of the chemicals’ short-term toxicity limits (or
in the case of ethane for which a short-term limit is not available, its
8-hour TWA long-term occupational exposure limit).  Therefore, consumer
exposure to HCR-188C1 should not pose a toxicity threat.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  8 .  Consumer Exposure Assessment

HCR-188C1 Component	15-minute TWA Consumer Exposure (ppm)	30-minute TWA
Consumer Exposure (ppm)	Short-term Exposure Limits (ppm)

Butane

	6,900a

Ethane

	NA

Isobutane

	18,000b

Propane

	6,900a

a 30-minute AEGL-1; see   REF _Ref175045450 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5
for more information.

b NOAEL; see   REF _Ref175045450 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 5  for more
information.

TWA = Time Weighted Average

NA = Not available

6.3  	GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE

In the SNAP Background document for refrigerants, RfC values are
available for three of the HCR-188C1 components - propane, butane, and
isobutane.  Their RfC values are are 0.9 mg/m3, 0.95 mg/m3 and 0.95
m/m3, respectively.  We assumed a conservative RfC of 0.9 mg/m3 for
the whole blend, and compared this RfC to estimated factory releases and
on-site releases.  This gives a ratio of exposure concentration to RfC
that varies between 1.3 x 10-5 to 1.8 x 10-1, depending on the type of
release scenario.  Since the exposure concentrations for these
components are lower than the RfC values, HCR-188C1 is not expected to
pose a toxicity threat to the general population.

7. 	VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ANALYSIS

Most of the components of HCR-188C1, except ethane, have not been exempt
as a VOC under the CAA (40 CFR 51.000).  Through regulations and
standard industry practices, VOC emissions should be controlled.
Chapter 8 of the Background Document shows that potential emissions of
VOCs from all substitutes for all end uses in the refrigeration and air
conditioning sector are likely to be insignificant relative to VOCs from
all other sources (i.e., other industries, mobile sources, and biogenic
sources).  Additional analysis shows that even if all HCR-188C1 produced
in one year were to leak over the course of the year (extremely
unlikely), the resulting annual VOC emissions would be only about 3x10-7
percent of all annual anthropogenic VOC emissions.   Further, the
calculated potential VOC emissions due to use of HCR-188C1 in household
refrigerators and freezers is equal to about 4x10-6 percent of annual
residential wood combustion emissions.   As these emissions of HCR-188C1
are several orders of magnitude less than other anthropogenic emissions,
including other residential emissions (i.e., residential wood
combustion), the environmental impacts of these VOCs are not considered
a threat.

8.  	REFERENCES

A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2009.  HCR-188C New Composition.  Follow-up
to the HCR-188C Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.  August 2009.

A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc.  2007. Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
June 2007.

EPA 2008a.  Acute Exposure Guideline Levels: Definitions.  Accessed 27
February 2009.  Available at:
<http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/define.htm>.

EPA 2008b.  Volatile Organic Compounds – National Summary of VOC
Emissions.  Last updated 21 October 2008.  Accessed 4 March 2009.
Available at <http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/voc.htm>.

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.

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey,
J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga,
M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007.  Changes in Atmospheric Constituents
and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA.

ICF. 1997. Physiological Effects of Alternative Fire Protection Agents -
Hypoxic Atmospheres Conference. Stephanie Skaggs prepared the
proceedings of the conference held May 22, 1997 in New London, CT.

IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Bert Metz, Lambert Kuijpers, Susan Solomon, Stephen O.
Andersen, Ogunlade Davidson, José Pons, David de Jager, Tahl Kestin,
Martin Manning, and Leo Meyer (Eds).  Cambridge University Press, UK. pp
478.

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

NFPA, 2007.  NFPA Liquified Petroleum Gas Code.  2008 Edition.

OSHA. 2004.  “Safety and Health Topics: Isobutane.”  February 2004.
Available online at:
<http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_247840.html>.

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

 OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.110 considers ventilation adequate “when
the concentration of the gas in a gas-air mixture does not exceed 25
percent of the lower flammable limit.”

 Twelve percent oxygen in air is the No Observed Adverse Effect Level
(NOAEL) for hypoxia (ICF 1997).

 ICF International maintains the Vintaging Model for EPA in order to
simulate the aggregate impacts of the ODS phaseout on the use and
emissions of various fluorocarbons and their substitutes over a period
of several years across more than 40 different applications.  The model
tracks the use and emissions of various compounds for the annual
vintages of new equipment that enter service in each end-use.  The
vintage of each type of equipment determines such factors as leak rate,
charge size, number of units in operation, and the initial ODS substance
that the equipment contained.

 During disposal it is assumed that only 90 percent of the refrigerant
charge remains in the unit.

 Assuming 240 workdays/year = 52 weeks/year x 5 workdays/week – 10
holidays/year.- 10 vacation days

 HCR-188C SNAP application states that less than 100 pounds of HCR-188C
is intended to be produced annually.  It was assumed the same quantity
would be produced of HCR-188C1.  If all of the units produced are
refrigerators of charge 39.6 g a maximum of 1145 units will be produced
annually leading to five events/manufacturing facility/day (assuming
only one production plant is in operation and that there are 240
workdays per year).

 This figure determined using 2002 annual VOC emissions data from EPA
(2008b) and expected annual production levels from A.S. Trust &
Holdings, Inc. (2007).  It was assumed that expected annual production
for HCR-188C1 would be the same as for HCR-188C.

 This figure determined using 2002 annual VOC emissions data from EPA
(2008b).  Residential wood combustion is the only residential source
included in the EPA (2008b) analysis.

HCR-188C1 Non-CBI Risk Screen

h