[Federal Register: December 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75282]
[DOCID:fr14de06-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 71 FR 71597,
December 11, 2006.

Status: Open Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Auditorium, LL-002, Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Wednesday, December 13,
2006.

Change in the Meeting: Additional Item.
    The following matter will also be considered as part of Item 3
during the 10 a.m. Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 13,
2006:
    The Commission will consider whether to propose changes to its
requirements for attestation reports.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, determined that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 11, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-9722 Filed 12-12-06; 10:53 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54209-54214]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21370]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0052]
RIN 2127-AL41

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The agency is proposing to amend the Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment to allow the license plate mounting surface on motorcycles to
be at an angle of up to 30 degrees beyond vertical. Adoption of this
proposal would increase manufacturer design flexibility without
compromising safety or increasing costs. In addition, it would also
make the requirements of the standard more in line with European
regulations.

DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before November
4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues: Mr. Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    NHTSA published a NPRM on December 30, 2005 \1\ to reorganize FMVSS
No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, and
improve the clarity of the standard's requirements thereby increasing
its utility for regulated parties. NHTSA published a final rule on
December 4, 2007,\2\ amending FMVSS No. 108 by reorganizing the
regulatory text so that it provides a more straight-forward and logical
presentation of the applicable regulatory requirements; incorporating
important agency interpretations of the existing requirements; and
reducing reliance on third-party documents incorporated by reference.
It was the agency's goal during the rewrite process to make no
substantive changes to the requirements of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 77454, (Dec. 30, 2005).
    \2\ 72 FR 68234, (Dec. 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Included in the third party documents whose requirements were
transferred to the regulatory text of the standard was SAE J587 OCT81,
License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps). Among other
requirements derived from SAE J587 OCT81, paragraph S6.3.3 of the

final rule required that the rear license plate holder be mounted at an
angle  15 degrees of a plane perpendicular to that on which
the vehicle stands.
    In response to the final rule, the agency received petitions for
reconsideration from Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson)
(January 18, 2008) and Ford Motor Company (Ford) (January 18, 2008)
asking the agency to reconsider the mounting angle requirements for
license plate holders. In addition to the petitions for reconsideration
filed by Harley-Davidson and Ford, the agency had previously received a
petition for rulemaking from the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) on
March 14, 2005, requesting that the agency modify the license mounting
angle requirement to allow license plates to be mounted between 30
degrees upward and 15 degrees downward of a plane perpendicular to that
on which the vehicle stands. MIC also submitted an untimely petition
for reconsideration of the FMVSS No. 108 final rule on March 19, 2009,
requesting that the agency amend the license plate angle mounting
requirement. Pursuant to its procedural regulations, the agency has
treated that untimely petition as a petition for rulemaking.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR 553.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harley-Davidson and Ford argued that, in their view, license plate
holders are not lamps, reflective devices or associated equipment and,
therefore, were not regulated under the pre-rewrite version of FMVSS
No. 108. Harley-Davidson and Ford stated that since the pre-rewrite
version of FMVSS No. 108 did not regulate license plate holders,
regulating license plate holders in the final rule imposed a
substantive change in the requirements of the standard contrary to the
agency's stated policy in the final rule. Additionally, Harley-Davidson
and Ford stated that the license plate mounting provisions of SAE J587
OCT81 were intended as instructions for evaluating the photometric
performance of license plate lamps, not as a requirement for how
license plates must be mounted on a vehicle. Finally, Harley-Davidson
requested that if the agency decided that the license plate mounting
angle was regulated under FMVSS No. 108, the agency amend the final
rule so that the mounting angle requirements are the same as the most
recent revision of SAE Standard J587 and the requirements in the
European Union which both allow motorcycle license plates to be mounted
at an angle 30 degrees upward from vertical.
    In its 2005 petition for rulemaking, MIC asked NHTSA to harmonize
the license plate mounting angle requirements for motorcycles with
European requirements. MIC argued that changing the license plate
mounting angle would not adversely affect safety or interfere with law
enforcement's ability to read license plates. MIC stated that by
allowing a 30 degree upward angle, the license plate lamp can be
physically located closer to the plate, retaining the incident angle
and providing the same amount of illumination. Locating the license
plate lamp closer to the plate would allow the rear of the motorcycle
to be designed to be shorter with no effect on the real world
illumination. MIC stated that harmonization also has benefits in
reducing unnecessary design and manufacturing efforts, as well as
reducing unnecessary parts-sourcing and parts-supply complexity,
allowing manufacturers to apply these resource savings to other, more
important issues.
    In separate notices issued on April 26, 2011, NHTSA granted a
petition for rulemaking to amend the license plate angle mounting
requirement in FMVSS No. 108 \4\ and denied the petitions for
reconsideration of the 2007 final rule on the same issue.\5\ In the
notice denying the petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA set forth the
justification for why the agency considers the mounting angle of a
license plate to be regulated under FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA is issuing
this NPRM as a result of granting the petition for rulemaking to amend
the license plate angle mounting requirement in paragraph S6.3.3 of
FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 76 FR 23254, (April 26, 2011) (granting petition for
rulemaking).
    \5\ See 76 FR 23255, (April 26, 2011) (denying petitions for
reconsideration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Agency Proposal

    NHTSA is proposing to amend FMVSS No. 108 to change the license
plate mounting requirements for motorcycles to allow license plate
mounting angles of up to 30 degrees upward from vertical (an installed
plate will face above the horizon) if the upper edge of the license
plate is not more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from the ground. The
maximum downward angle (an installed plate will face below the horizon)
at which a motorcycle license plate could be mounted would remain 15
degrees as would the maximum upward angle on motorcycles for which the
upper edge of the license plate was more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) from
the ground. NHTSA believes that amending the motorcycle license plate
mounting angle requirements to allow mounting angles of up to 30
degrees upward from vertical if the upper edge of the license plate is
not more than 1.2 m (47.25 inches) above the ground would reduce costs
for manufacturers by allowing them to use the same mounting hardware
for the license plate in both the U.S. and Europe. We do not believe
that this proposal would compromise safety because the proposed changes
to the license plate mounting angle requirement would not affect law
enforcement or the public's ability to view the plate.
    Amending the motorcycle license plate mounting requirements to make
the requirements more in line with European regulations will increase
manufacturer design flexibility without decreasing safety. Increasing
manufacturer design flexibility and decreasing manufacturer costs in
this case will allow manufacturers to better allocate resources which
lead to increased compliance and increased safety. The agency is also
soliciting comment on amending the mounting angle requirement for all
other types of vehicles to allow license plates to be mounted at an
angel of up to 30 degrees upward of vertical in order to maintain the
consistency across vehicle classes that currently exist. After
receiving public comment the agency may decide to allow license plates
to be mounted on all vehicles at an angle of up to 30 degrees upward of
vertical. The agency may also decide to allow license plates to be
mounted at an angle of up to 30 degrees upward of vertical only on all
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds and less.
    NHTSA is also soliciting comment on adopting the license plate
mounting angle requirements contained in European Economic Community
(EEC) Directive 93/94/EEC. Directive 93/94/EEC is different from the
agency's proposal in that it permits a motorcycle license plate to be
mounted up to 30 degrees upward from vertical if the upper edge of the
license plate is not more than 1.5 m (59.1 inches) from the ground.
Directive 93/94/EEC specifies that the upper edge of the license plate
must not be more than 1.5 m above the ground when the vehicle is
unladen while the agency's proposal does not contain a maximum mounting
height for motorcycle license plates. Directive 93/94/EEC applies only
to motorcycles and not other vehicles.
    In addition to visually observing license plate characters by eye
sight, many law enforcement and traffic management organizations use
license plate recognition (reading) technology to read license plate
characters. NHTSA

invited one license plate reader manufacturer to demonstrate its
equipment to NHTSA personnel.\6\ Based on this demonstration and
conversations with the manufacturer about the capabilities of the
license plate reading system, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that
allowing license plates to be mounted at an angle of 30 degree upward
from vertical will not affect the ability of license plate recognition
technology to read license plate characters. NHTSA seeks comment as to
whether allowing motorcycle license plates to be mounted at an angle of
30 degrees upward from vertical will negatively affect the ability of
license plate recognition technology to read license plate characters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The demonstration was conducted on March 12, 2008, by Jason
T. Laquatra/Vice President of Field Operations ELSAG North America,
Law Enforcement Systems, and his associate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date

    Because this proposal is intended to increase manufacturer design
flexibility by amending the license plate mounting angle requirements
for motorcycles, the agency does not anticipate that there will be any
costs associated with this rulemaking action. The agency believes that
this rulemaking action will result in minor benefits resulting from
cost saving associated with increased design flexibility that would not
exceed $0.05 per motorcycle. Because the agency does not believe that
benefits from this rulemaking action will rise to the level that the
action will be economically significant, the agency did not conduct a
separate economic analysis for this rulemaking.
    The agency proposes an effective date of 60 days after the final
rule should one be published.

IV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\7\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The proposal contained
in this rulemaking document does not result in any increased costs or
significant benefits. Therefore, it is not considered to be significant
under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies and
procedures.

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:

    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address
similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory
cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.

    This notice proposes to more closely align the U.S. regulatory
requirements for mounting motorcycle license plates with those of
European countries. The proposed changes will increase manufacturer
design flexibility without decreasing safety. Increasing manufacturer
design flexibility and decreasing manufacturer costs in this case will
allow manufacturers to better allocate resources which lead to
increased compliance and increased safety.
    NHTSA requests public comment on whether there are any ``regulatory
approaches taken by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter
of this rulemaking, beyond those already mentioned in this notice,
which the agency should consider.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have reviewed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposal amends the license plate mounting angle for
motorcycles. We do not anticipate that there will be any increased
costs as a result of this rulemaking action. Accordingly, we do not
anticipate that this proposal would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law
causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion
regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort
litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules,
would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a
higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the
minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not
be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' \10\
NHTSA has

considered whether this rulemaking would have any retroactive effect.
This proposed rule does not have any retroactive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995).
    Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
    This proposed rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure
by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in excess of $100 million annually. The cost impact of
this proposed rule is expected to be $0. Therefore, the agency has not
prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This proposed rule does not contain any collection
of information requirements requiring review under the PRA.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 \11\ applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on
children, and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule does not pose such a risk for children. The
primary effects of this proposal are to amend the license plate
mounting angle for motorcycles.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
    Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available
and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are
required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards.
    While SAE J587 APR 1997, License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration
Plate Lamps), contains a mounting angle requirement for motorcycles
similar to the agency's proposal, the agency did not believe that it
would be appropriate to adopt J587 APR 1997 in its entirety. FMVSS 108
currently requires that when a single lamp is used to illuminate the
plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to
each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make
an angle of less than 8 degrees to the plane of the plate. SAE J587 APR
1997 version eliminated this requirement. While the agency considered
incorporating SAE J587 APR 1997 in its entirety, we concluded that the
deletion of the test requirement to maintain an 8 degree relationship
between the lamp and the license plate holder might negatively impact
the direction toward which the plate reflects the light provided by the
license plate lamp. For this reason the agency has decided to not to
use a voluntary consensus standard in this regulatory activity.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 \12\ applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal amends the license plate mounting angle for
motorcycles. Therefore, this proposed rule will not have any adverse
energy effects. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking action is not
designated as a significant energy action.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Chapter V as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Section 571.108 is amended by revising S6.6.3 and adding S<IP_ADDRESS>
and S<IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

Sec.  571.108  Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.

* * * * *
    S6.6.3 License plate holder. Each rear license plate holder must be
designed and constructed to provide a substantial plane surface on
which to mount the plate.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Except as provided in S<IP_ADDRESS>, the plane of the license
plate mounting surface and the plane on which the vehicle stands must
be perpendicular within 15 degrees upward (an installed plate will face
above the horizon) and 15 degrees downward (an installed plate will
face below the horizon).
    S<IP_ADDRESS> For motorcycles on which the license plate is designed to
be mounted on the vehicle such that the upper edge of the license plate
is 1.2 m or less from the ground, the plane of the license plate
mounting surface and the plane on which the vehicle stands must be
perpendicular within 30 degrees upward (an installed plate will face
above the horizon) and 15 degrees downward (an installed plate will
face below the horizon).
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2013 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21370 Filed 8-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 in Retail Food
Refrigeration.

Substitute: Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

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

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, R-502, and
HCFC-22 in this sector.  The proposed end-use application considered in
this analysis is retail food refrigeration.  The specific proposed ODS
substitute examined in this report is carbon dioxide (CO2, or R-744).
The substitute would only be used in new equipment.

The potential risks associated with use of substitutes in retail food
refrigeration have been examined at length in the Background Document.
In this risk screen, occupational exposure modeling was performed to
ensure that use of the proposed substitute in the application listed
above did not pose unacceptable risk to workers during equipment
manufacture.  Modeling was performed at the end-use to ensure that
potential catastrophic releases of the substitute did not pose
unacceptable risk to store employees and customers in locations where
the refrigeration systems are in use.  Lastly, general population
exposure modeling was performed to ensure that the proposed substitute
would not pose unacceptable risk to the population at large.  Carbon
dioxide is not flammable, so a flammability analysis was not conducted.
The reader is referred to the Background Document for a detailed
discussion of the methodologies used to conduct this risk screen.

Section 2 of this report summarizes the results of the risk screen for
the proposed substitute.  The remainder of the report is organized into
the following sections:

Section 3: Atmospheric Assessment

Section 4: Asphyxiation Assessment

Section 5: Toxicity Assessment

Section 6: Volatile Organic Compound Assessment

Section 7: References

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Carbon dioxide is recommended for SNAP approval for use in retail food
refrigeration systems.  EPA's risk screen indicates that the use of the
proposed substitute will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the
continued use of CFC-12, R-502, or HCFC-22.   No significant
asphyxiation or toxicity risks to workers, consumers, or the general
population are expected according to occupational and end-use exposure
modeling.  EPA recommends that American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards 15 and
34 be followed, as well as Chapter 11 (“Refrigeration”) of the
International Mechanical Code.

ATMOSPHERIC ASSESSMENT

This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to
atmospheric integrity posed by the use of carbon dioxide in the retail
food refrigeration sector.  The ODP, GWP, and atmospheric lifetime (ALT)
of the proposed substitute are presented in Table 2.  The substitute is
substantially less harmful to the ozone layer and has less climate
impact than CFC-12, R-502, or HCFC-22.  (R-502 is a mixture that is
48.8% HCFC-22 and 51.2% CFC-115 by weight.)

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 .  Atmospheric Impacts of Carbon Dioxide
Compared to HCFC-22, CFC-115 and CFC-12.

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

Carbon Dioxide	0 a	1 a	NA b

HCFC-22	0.055 c	1,500 d	12 c

CFC-115	0.44 c	9,300d	1,700 c

CFC-12	1.0 c	8,100 d	100 c

a Carbon Dioxide SNAP Submission (Hill PHOENIX 2009).

b NA = Not Available; Meehl et al. (2007) report that a lifetime for CO2
“cannot be defined.”

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

d IPCC, Second Assessment Report (1996).

ASPHYXIATION ASSESSMENT

The risk of asphyxiation for a reasonable “worst-case” scenario was
investigated for carbon dioxide.  This analysis considers release of the
full charge of carbon dioxide into a store. 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 seepage between the door and door frame.

The charge of carbon dioxide necessary to reduce the oxygen levels to 12
percent in air, in a supermarket of volume 17,840 m3 (630,000 ft3) (Hill
PHOENIX 2009), was calculated, assuming horizontal stratification of the
refrigerant and the air.  Horizontal stratification is assumed since
carbon dioxide is 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 carbon dioxide, and that the pressure of the room does not
increase significantly with the addition of the refrigerant, a charge of
approximately 221 kg would be necessary to reach 12 percent oxygen in
the lower stratum.  This amount represents almost double the intended
charge of approximately 125 kg for a single carbon dioxide retail
refrigeration unit.  Charge requirements to reach the same effect in the
upper strata would be even higher because of the stratum’s larger
volume.  The results of the asphyxiation assessment are summarized in
REF _Ref225832351 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 2  below.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 .  Asphyxiation Assessment.

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

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

Supermarket/Retail Refrigeration Unit	125	17,840 (630,000 ft3)	221
10,150 (358,438 ft3)	125

a Values provided in these columns refer to the charge required to cause
impairment in the lower stratum of the room.

For asphyxiation to be of concern (in the lower stratum of the room)
with the proposed charge size, under the conservative (protective)
assumptions described above, the volume of the grocery store would have
to be about 10,150  m3 (358,438 ft3).  Assuming a square room with a
ceiling height of 5.5 m (18 ft), this equates to a 1,845 m2 (19,913 ft2)
supermarket.   For asphyxiation to be a concern in the upper stratum of
the room (where store employees or customers are more likely to be), the
area of the store would have to be 7.5 m2 (81 ft2).  Armines (2008) and
Hill PHOENIX (2009) report average supermarket areas ranging from 3,252
to 4,400 m2.  Therefore, it is considered unlikely that a supermarket
would be small enough for asphyxiation to be a concern in either of the
room’s strata under a worst-case scenario.  Consequently, EPA does not
believe that the use of carbon dioxide in this end-use poses a
significant risk of asphyxiation or impaired coordination to store
employees or customers in the main area of the store.

While the risk of asphyxiation in supermarkets is minimal, because
carbon dioxide is denser than air, there is the potential for
accumulation of CO2 in low-lying and/or small spaces (such as a
mechanical access area or the bottom of a stairwell) which could
inadvertently cause an oxygen-deficient atmosphere.  For example,
assuming the submitter’s suggested volume of 110.7 m3 (3,910 ft3) for
a mechanical room (Hill PHOENIX 2009), there is the potential for the
risk of asphyxiation in a mechanical room following a catastrophic leak
from a system using the proposed charge size (as this room’s volume is
less than the minimum size that leads to impairment for the given charge
– see   REF _Ref175044517 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 2 ).  However, as
other refrigerants are already used in this end-use, and the
asphyxiation limit would be the same for all refrigerants (i.e.,
reduction of oxygen levels below 12 percent in air), it is believed that
standard industry precautionary measures will mitigate the risk of
asphyxiation.  Such measures may include leak detectors/alarms and
automatic ventilation which is engaged when refrigerant concentrations
reach a certain level.  Also, a small amount of an odorant gas could be
added to the CO2 refrigerant charge which when detected would warn room
occupants to leave the room.  In their SNAP submission, the manufacturer
has indicated they “recommend to [their] customers that systems using
CO2… should be equipped with the same level of leak detection,
ventilation, and alarming [sic] as they would normally apply to HFCs”
(Hill PHOENIX 2009).  ICF recommends that users of CO2 systems continue
to be advised to use these measures, especially if the user’s
mechanical room is smaller than the suggested size given by the
submitter.   It is also recommended that installation and maintenance
occur when store employees and customers are not present in the building
and that signage be installed in any low-lying areas which have access
to the refrigeration system warning that a CO2 charge is present.  If an
odorant is added to the CO2 charge or an alarm is placed in the room,
the signage should also instruct personnel to vacate the area and ensure
customers vacate the store should they smell the odorant or hear the
alarm.

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

5. 1.  Toxicity Reference Values

To assess potential health risks from exposure to this substitute in the
retail food 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 or ten-hour time period for long-term exposure, or for a 10
to 30-minute period for short-term exposure, as shown in   REF
_Ref222734171 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 3 .  Because they are designed
to assess risks from acute exposure, emergency guidance levels are used
to assess risks from short-term consumer exposures.  The relevant
toxicity limits are shown in   REF _Ref222734171 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
Table 3 .    REF _Ref225834278 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4  provides
definitions for acronyms used in   REF _Ref222734171 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
Table 3 .  EPA’s approach for identifying or developing these values
is discussed in Chapter 3 of the Background Document.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 .  Toxicity Levels of Carbon Dioxide.

	Long-term Exposure

ppm	Short-term Exposure

ppm

Carbon Dioxide	5000 a

(OSHA PEL/NIOSH REL)	30,000 a (NIOSH STEL-REL) a

a  http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0103.html

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 .  Explanation of Toxicity-Related
Acronyms. a

Organization 	Definition

OSHA	Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NIOSH	National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Exposure Limit	Definition	Explanation

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.

REL- STEL	Recommended Exposure Limit - Short-term exposure limit	This is
a 15-minute time-weighted average exposure limit set by NIOSH.

aAll information in this table taken from EPA (1994).

5.2.  Occupational Exposure

Occupational exposure modeling was performed for the proposed substitute
to ensure that use of the substitute 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. A box-model approach
was used to evaluate potential worker exposure to alternative
refrigerants.   This approach 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 (NIOSH).  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 were obtained from the Vintaging Model.
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
installation, the number of events per workday was assumed to equal 1,
as installation occurs on-site and only one full charge size is present.
 For the purposes of this model, it is assumed that carbon dioxide will
have a market penetration rate of 80% of low-temperature refrigeration
systems (Hill PHOENIX 2009).  For disposal, it was assumed that 1 unit
is disposed of during an 8-hour work day.

The maximum time weighted average (TWA) exposure was estimated for each
exposure scenario, and this value compared to the long-term exposure
level (i.e., “Workplace Guidance Level,” WGL) for carbon dioxide.
The modeling results indicate that the short-term (15-minute and
30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker exposure concentrations are at
a maximum, about 18 percent of the WGL.   REF _Ref225915175 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 5  displays the maximum estimated 15-minute TWA
occupational exposure level.   Even this maximum estimated short-term
occupational level is significantly lower than the 8-hour or 10-hour
long-term WGLs, and therefore occupational exposure to carbon dioxide is
not considered a toxicity threat.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 .  Occupational Risk Assessment.

	Maximum 15-minute TWA Occupational Exposure Levels (ppm)	Workplace
Guidance Level (ppm) a	Workplace Guidance Level Time Period

Carbon Dioxide	878	5000	8-hour TWA b

a. See Table 3 for more information.

b. The WGL for Carbon Dioxide is set as a 5000 ppm 8-hr TWA by OSHA and
a 10-hr TWA by NIOSH.

5.3.  End-Use Exposure

	5. 3. 1. Exposure in the Main Supermarket Area

This section presents estimates of potential store employee and customer
exposures to carbon dioxide in retail refrigeration units.  An exposure
analysis was performed to examine potential catastrophic release of the
substitute in an average-sized supermarket.  The analysis was undertaken
to determine the 15- and 30-minute TWA exposures for the substitute,
which were then compared to the standard toxicity limits presented in
REF _Ref222734171 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 3  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 model involves a refrigerant leak from a retail food refrigeration
unit into a supermarket of volume 17,840 m3 (630,000 ft3) (Hill PHOENIX
2009).  The model assumes that the individual is present at the start of
the leak and the individual remains in the store while the refrigerant
is released. It is also assumed that horizontal stratification causes
most of the refrigerant to settle in higher concentrations closer to the
ground.  Exposure concentrations were calculated using the box model
described in the Background Document, which was adapted to estimate
concentrations on a minute-by-minute basis. In the analysis, the full
charge of the unit is assumed to be emitted over the course of five
minutes.  The results of the assessment are presented in   REF
_Ref225848639 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 6 .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  6 . End-Use Exposure Assessment – Main
Supermarket Area.

	15-minute TWA Exposure (ppm)	30-minute TWA Exposure (ppm)

Lower Stratum	20,941	12,216

Upper Stratum	87	51

TWA = Time Weighted Average

All calculated exposures are less than the short-term (15-minute TWA)
exposure limit presented in   REF _Ref222734171 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
Table 3  (30,000 ppm).  Therefore, exposure to this substitute is not
expected to pose a toxicity threat to store employees or customers.

	5. 3. 2. Exposure in the Mechanical Room

Another potential concern for exposure at the end-use is installation or
maintenance workers’ exposure while in a small mechanical room which
has access to the refrigerant charge.  Assuming the submitter’s
suggested volume of 110.7 m3 (3,910 ft3) for a mechanical room (Hill
PHOENIX 2009), exposure concentrations would be higher in the mechanical
room than in the main supermarket area under a reasonable worst-case
leak scenario (as this room volume is smaller than that of the main
supermarket area).  However, as refrigerants with lower toxicity limits
are already used in this end-use, it is believed that standard industry
precautionary measures will mitigate toxicity risks.  Such measures may
include leak detectors/alarms and automatic ventilation which is engaged
when refrigerant concentrations reach a certain level.  Also, a small
amount of an odorant gas could be added to the CO2 refrigerant charge
which when smelled would warn room occupants to leave the room.

ICF recommends that CO2 systems be designed to adhere to the
requirements in Chapter 11 of the International Mechanical Code which
includes charge limits that are based on the acute toxicity levels of
the refrigerant.  Further, in their SNAP submission, the manufacturer
has indicated they “recommend to [their] customers that systems using
CO2… should be equipped with the same level of leak detection,
ventilation, and alarming [sic] as they would normally apply to HFCs”
(Hill PHOENIX 2009).  ICF recommends that users of CO2 systems continue
to be advised to use these measures, especially if the user’s
mechanical room is smaller than the suggested size given by the
submitter.   Additionally, the installation of signage which warns room
occupants to remain standing (as higher concentrations are likely to
accumulate near the floor) and exit the room immediately should they
hear the refrigerant detector alarm and/or smell the leaked refrigerant
would further minimize toxicity risks.

5.4.  General Population Exposure

Chronic exposures to the substitute are not expected for the general
population.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ASSESSMENT

Carbon dioxide has been exempted as a VOC under the CAA (40 CFR 51.100).

REFERENCES

Armines.  2008.  Inventory of Direct and Indirect GHG Emissions from
Stationary Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Sources, with Special
Emphasis on Retail Food Refrigeration and Unitary Air Conditioning.
Provisional Final Report.  June 2008.  Available at: <
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/commref/armines_report_03_625.pdf>.

EPA. 2000.  Carbon Dioxide as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risks.
February 2000. Available at: <
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report.html>.

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.

Hill PHOENIX. 2009. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. March
2009.

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.

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

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye,
J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper,
I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao.  2007. Global Climate
Projections. 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.

 That is, a scenario which is feasible but has a low probability of
occurring.

 Twelve percent oxygen in air is the NOAEL for hypoxia (ICF 1997).

 This represents the store size of an actual Hill PHOENIX customer who
is interested in the CO2 technology.

 This accumulation and pooling of CO2 may be a concern in mechanical
areas, storage rooms and other small spaces in the back of the store;
however it is not expected to be a concern in the main area of the store
as such low-lying and/or small areas would not be found there.

 This has been a concern for carbon dioxide fire extinguishing systems
and is addressed in several fire protection regulations (EPA 2000).

 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.

  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).

  HCFC-22. one of the refrigerants which CO2 is proposed to replace in
this end-use, has a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 1,250 ppm (NIOSH
REL, available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/NPG/npgd0124.html"
http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/NPG/npgd0124.html ) while CO2 has a STEL of
30,000 ppm (NIOSH REL, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0103.html).

  	            August 13, 2009