TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT ON USE OF FLUORINATED HEAT TRANSFER FLUIDS OUTSIDE OF THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY: SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE FOR THE GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING PROGRAM

                                                    Office of Air and Radiation
                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                                                    May 2, 2023
                                   CONTENTS

1. Introduction	1
2.  Comparison Between Reported Supplies and Emissions of F-HTFs	1
2.1  F-HTFs and quantities aggregated	1
2.2  Findings and analysis	3
3.  References	4

1. Introduction

During electronics manufacturing, fluorinated heat transfer fluids (F-HTFs) are used for temperature control, device testing, cleaning substrate surfaces and other parts, and soldering.  Outside of electronics manufacturing, F- HTFs are used for additional applications such as solvent applications, cooling of electronics for military purposes, aerospace applications, immersion cooling (e.g., to cool computers in data centers), cooling during manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, and other medical applications (3M, 2022 and Solvay, 2022). Fluorinated compounds used as F-HTFs include, but are not limited to, perfluoropolyethers (including perfluoropolymethylisopropyl ethers or PFPMIEs), perfluoroalkylamines, perfluoroalkylmorpholines, perfluoroalkanes,  certain hydrofluorocarbons, and hydrofluoroethers. Many of these compounds have global warming potentials (GWPs) near 10,000 and atmospheric lifetimes near 1,000 years. While F-HTFs are liquid at room temperature, they enter the atmosphere through evaporation, especially since they are used at elevated temperatures. Due to these chemical and physical properties, F-HTFs have represented 11 to 16 percent of GWP-weighted U.S. emissions from electronics manufacturing over the past 11 years, with total annual emissions ranging between 600,000 and 900,000 mtCO2e.

2.  Comparison Between Reported Supplies and Emissions of F-HTFs

Currently, electronics manufacturers reporting under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) are required to report their emissions of F-HTFs. Suppliers of F-HTFs that exceed applicable thresholds are required to report the quantities of F-HTFs that they supply. Electronics manufacturers calculate their F-HTF emissions using a method that accounts for purchases, disbursements (including disbursements for destruction), changes in the nameplate capacity of manufacturing tool chillers, and changes in the quantities of F-HTFs in storage. However, they are not required to report these quantities to the EPA. Similarly, F-HTF suppliers are not required to report the uses for which F-HTFs are sold or the quantities sold for those uses.

To better understand the share of F-HTF supplies that are sold to replace F-HTFs that are emitted from electronics, the EPA compared aggregated F-HTF supplies to emissions of the same F-HTFs for 2010, 2020, and 2021. Because supplies of individual F-HTFs from individual suppliers have been determined to be confidential business information (CBI), supplies were aggregated across multiple F-HTFs and suppliers. Only the aggregated quantities that passed the GHGRP's CBI aggregation criteria (as described in 79 FR 32948, June 9, 2014) are shown below.

2.1  F-HTFs and quantities aggregated

In general, estimates of supplies should account for both additions to and subtractions from the supply and for the compounds that make up most of the supply. The totals shown below in Table 1 are the aggregated net supply, in tons of CO2-equivalent, of compounds used as fluorinated heat transfer fluids and reported under subpart OO, Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases, except for hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that are gaseous at standard temperature and pressure (i.e., at 20 °C and an absolute pressure of 1 atm or 101.325 kPa). This is the GWP-weighted sum across compounds of the U.S. net supplies of perfluorotripropylamine, perfluorotributylamine, perfluorotripentylamine, perfluoromethylmorpholine, perfluoroisopropylmorpholine, 2,2,3,3,5,5,6,6-Octafluoro-4-(heptafluoropropyl)morpholine, perfluoropolymethylisopropyl ethers (PFPMIEs), perfluoropentane, perfluorohexane, perfluoroheptane, perfluorooctane, and HFC-43-10mee.  The net supply is defined as the quantity produced + quantity imported  -  quantity exported  -  quantity transformed  -  quantity destroyed. Both emissions and supplies were weighted by the current chemical-specific and default GWPs in Table A-1 to subpart A to part 98.

HFEs were excluded from the total because the calculated net supplies of HFEs were persistently negative year after year, which implies either that there was a reporting error by one or more facilities or that the data collected by the GHGRP for HFEs are somehow biased (for example, because the U.S. supply is significantly affected by importers, but not exporters, that fall below the GHGRP reporting threshold). In recent years, HFEs have accounted for approximately 1% of total GWP-weighted F-HTF emissions from electronics manufacturing, which implies that the actual supplies may be similarly small, but it is possible that there are significant uses of HFE F-HTFs outside of electronics manufacturing.

F-HTF production facilities are required to report the quantities of F-HTFs that they produce, import, export, transform, destroy, and send offsite for destruction by another facility. One way to calculate the net supply is to add the quantities sent offsite for destruction to the total net supply. This assumes that these quantities will be reported as destroyed by the receiving facility and subsequently subtracted from the calculated net supply. F-HTF production facilities have always been required to report the quantities of fluorinated HTFs that they receive and destroy by chemical, and since 2018, free-standing destruction facilities have also been required to report the quantities of F-HTFs that they destroy by chemical.  However, over the time series, the quantities of F-HTFs reported by producers as being sent offsite for destruction have been significantly larger than the quantities reported by production and destruction facilities as being destroyed.  This implies that the destruction of these compounds is underreported, and the EPA is investigating this inconsistency. In the meantime, to minimize the bias that may be introduced by the inconsistency, we are excluding the quantities sent offsite for destruction from this analysis.  To the extent that the quantities reported as destroyed include amounts reported as being sent offsite for destruction, this approach will underestimate the net supply. Due to this and other uncertainties, the total net supplies are reported to one significant digit only.

U.S. emissions of perfluoroalkylmorpholines, perfluoroalkylamines, PFPMIEs, PFCs, and HFC-43-10-mee from F-HTF applications in electronics manufacturing were estimated by summing the emissions of these compounds reported under the GHGRP and scaling up the total to account for emissions from electronics manufacturing facilities that do not report to the GHGRP. The scale-up factor is based on the estimated annual production of non-reporting electronics facilities. Reported and estimated emissions are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1. Emissions of Certain F-HTFs from Electronics Manufacturing Reported to the GHGRP and Estimated for the U.S. (mtCO2e)

                                                                           2011
                                                                           2012
                                                                           2013
                                                                           2014
                                                                           2015
                                                                           2016
                                                                           2017
                                                                           2018
                                                                           2019
                                                                           2020
                                                                           2021
Perfluoroalkyl-morpholines
                                                                        138,512
                                                                        101,381
                                                                        102,730
                                                                        104,231
                                                                         79,701
                                                                         74,078
                                                                         51,146
                                                                         57,326
                                                                         55,208
                                                                         59,423
                                                                         52,276
Perfluorotrialkylamines
                                                                        389,866
                                                                        430,682
                                                                        284,022
                                                                        471,787
                                                                        429,017
                                                                        378,244
                                                                        375,550
                                                                        401,954
                                                                        355,561
                                                                        370,838
                                                                        351,477
PFPMIEs
                                                                        189,569
                                                                        206,626
                                                                        174,946
                                                                        175,289
                                                                        203,457
                                                                        169,880
                                                                        145,220
                                                                        179,088
                                                                        167,882
                                                                        146,384
                                                                        144,882
PFCs
                                                                          7,251
                                                                          9,882
                                                                          3,712
                                                                          1,584
                                                                          2,776
                                                                          2,591
                                                                          8,946
                                                                          9,797
                                                                          8,205
                                                                          7,569
                                                                          5,319
HFC-43-10mee
                                                                              -
                                                                              -
                                                                              -
                                                                              -
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              1
                                                                              2
                                                                              -
                                                                              1
Total reported
                                                                        725,197
                                                                        748,572
                                                                        565,409
                                                                        752,892
                                                                        714,952
                                                                        624,793
                                                                        580,862
                                                                        648,166
                                                                        586,859
                                                                        584,215
                                                                        553,956
Scale up to account for non-reporting facilities
                                                                           1.05
                                                                           1.06
                                                                           1.04
                                                                           1.04
                                                                           1.02
                                                                           1.02
                                                                           1.02
                                                                           1.02
                                                                           1.02
                                                                           1.03
                                                                           1.02
Total including scale-up
                                                                        763,576
                                                                        793,255
                                                                        587,727
                                                                        782,610
                                                                        731,409
                                                                        638,698
                                                                        594,090
                                                                        662,244
                                                                        600,193
                                                                        599,275
                                                                        567,002

2.2  Findings and analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the comparison between the reported supplies and emissions of the F-HTFs listed above.

Table 2. Comparison Between Reported Supplies of Certain F-HTFs and Emissions of Same F-HTFs Reported by Electronics Manufacturers (mtCO2e)

                                                                           2010
                                                                           2020
                                                                           2021
U.S. Net Supply of F-HTFs
                                                                      4,000,000
                                                                      5,000,000
                                                                      5,000,000
U.S. Emissions of F-HTFs from Electronics Manufacturing
                                                                       *763,576
                                                                        599,275
                                                                        567,002
Supplies/Emissions
                                                                              5
                                                                              8
                                                                              9
      *Emissions from 2011 are shown because emissions from electronics manufacturing were not reported in 2010.

In each year, the U.S. net supplies of the F-HTFs were between 5 and 9 times greater than the emissions of the same HTFs reported by the electronics industry. (The ratios were similar for years for which aggregated supplies did not pass the GHGRP's CBI aggregation criteria.) There are multiple potential explanations for this persistent difference. First, consumption within the electronics industry could be responsible for some of the difference if electronics manufacturers were adding new chiller nameplate capacity, stockpiling F-HTFs, and/or sending significant quantities of F-HTFs offsite for destruction or other purposes. As noted above, the electronics industry does not report nameplate capacities or F-HTF flows (other than emissions) under the GHGRP. However, the quantities of nameplate capacity added or F-HTFs stockpiled or disbursed would have to be several times larger than the quantities of F-HTFs emitted within the electronics industry in order to account for the full difference. This appears to be unlikely. Moreover, stockpiling is not likely to continue year after year, which would be required for it to account for the long-term differences observed.

The second set of potential explanations for the difference includes reporting errors and potential biases introduced by GHGRP reporting thresholds. Importers, exporters, and free-standing destruction facilities are only required to report their imports, exports, or destruction if the total quantities of F-GHGs, F-HTFs, nitrous oxide, and CO2 that they import or export, or the total quantities of F-GHGs and F-HTFs that they destroy, exceed 25,000 mtCO2e per year. Due to the high GWPs of F-GHGs and F-HTFs, most of the quantities imported, exported, and destroyed are likely to be subject to GHGRP reporting requirements, but there may be exceptions. While it appears unlikely that thresholds would have a different impact on importers than on exporters, this possibility cannot be ruled out entirely. In addition, as discussed above, destruction of F-HTFs appears to be underreported, which is expected to lead to an overestimate of supplies. However, it is improbable the reporting biases and errors listed above account for the large, long-term difference between F-HTF emissions from electronics manufacturing and F-HTF supplies.

The third set of potential explanations for the difference relates to uses of F-HTFs outside of the electronics industry. Based on conversations with F-HTF suppliers, uses of F- HTFs outside of the electronics industry include various solvent applications (deposition and cleaning), cooling of electronics for military purposes, aerospace applications, immersion cooling (e.g., to cool computers in data centers), cooling during manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, and other medical applications (3M, 2022 and Solvay, 2022). For certain F-HTFs, some of these applications, rather than electronics manufacturing, account for most U.S. consumption. These other applications therefore appear to drive much, and perhaps most, of the difference between the quantities of F-HTFs emitted by electronics manufacturers and the quantities of F-HTFs supplied by suppliers. Moreover, the fractions of the F-HTF supply that are used for the various applications are changing as F-HTF usage in certain applications, such as cooling for data centers, grows. Given the dynamic nature of this market, regular updates on the uses of F-HTFs and the quantities sold to each are important for understanding where and how these potent F-GHGs are used and emitted.

3.  References

3M. Conference calls between Deborah Ottinger, US EPA, and John Owens and Il Ji Kim of 3M on March 21, 2022 and June 24, 2022.

Solvay. Conference call between Deborah Ottinger, US EPA, and Michael Blume and Antonella Di Meo, Solvay on March 25, 2022.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39749-39750]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2016-0058]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated May 24, 2016, Watco Companies LLC, petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the
discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0058.
    Applicant: WATCO Transportations Services LLC, Anthony Cox, VP of
Engineering, 315 East 3rd Street, Pittsburg, KS 66762.
    Watco is the owner-operator of the Grand Elk Railroad (GDLK) on
track that is currently leased from Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), and
seeks approval of the discontinuance of the traffic control system
(TCS) from Milepost (MP) 33.00 at Park, in Grand Rapids, MI, to MP 1.4
at the end of GDLK in Elkhart, IN.
    The reason given for the proposed discontinuance is that traffic
volumes do not warrant a TCS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at

www.regulatons.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by August 1, 2016 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-14325 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


% Food exposure
% Once daily oral exposure, dose that will result in 10% AChE inhibition in RBC
% Female adult, Body weight set to 72.9 kg
% Cecilia Tan
% August 24, 2015

prepare @clear @all
% Setting model parameters
start @NoCallback
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters

BWSW=1;		% Set to 1 if BWT is provided
BWST=72.9;	% Initial BW in kg
PREG=0;
TSTOP= 504	% Exposure duration in hrs (21 days)

%21-day exposure
DT = xlsRead("Food1.xls", "POD", "A1:A22"); % Dosing Times
DORAL=xlsRead("Food1.xls", "POD", "B1:B22"); % Dose in ug/kg
prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy
start@nocallback

mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6]; %conc unit = ug/L
save mytable @file='food_POD_M.txt' @format=ascii


                                 ATTACHMENT D

             	Moderator's Guide for Consumer Focus Group Session

                           OMB Control No. 2070-NEW
                         Approval expires XX/XX/XX

	The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated at 0.17 hours per response for screened respondents and 2 hours for respondents that participate in the focus groups. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this address.
             Moderator's Guide for Consumer Focus Group Session
     TESTING VISUALS AND NAMES FOR EPA DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
                             DRAFT  -  May 3, 2013

Need in the room:  Pencils and highlighters for all participants; an easel for the moderator.

Introduction [15 minutes]
Welcome and thank you for joining us. My name is __________ and I will be your moderator for this focus group session, which is about providing information to help consumers select products that are safer and better for the environment and families. I'd like to hear how you feel about this topic, and I'm also interested in your perceptions about some visual materials, which I will show you a bit later. I want to let you know that I am not an expert in this topic; rather, I am an independent moderator trained to facilitate our discussion.

Our client for this research is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), located in Washington, D.C. The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment, and the Agency provides information for consumers to help them select products that can help protect the environment and are safer for families and pets. Our discussion should take about an hour and a half.

Disclosure
    Observation: There is a one-way mirror with observers in the next room who are interested in hearing your views, but don't want to interrupt the conversation.
    Audio taping and video recording: This session will be recorded by audio and video tape to enable us to capture everything that is being said today. We will use the tape to write our report to our client.
    Confidentiality assured: All of your answers will be confidential, so feel free to say exactly what is on your mind. Nothing will be attributed to any particular person in our report.

Ground rules
 We need to hear from everyone, but one at a time, please.
 There are no right or wrong answers; we want your personal opinions.
 As the moderator I am impartial, please be candid.
 It's okay to be critical. If you dislike something you hear, it's fine to disagree but please be willing to offer your own views and opinions.
 If anyone needs to use the rest room, they are located [specify]. There is no need to stop the discussion.

Do you have any questions before we get started?

Participant introductions
 Brief introductions around the table  -  name, occupation, family

Awareness and Use of Certification Seals [10 minutes]
Let's start our session by taking a look at some products you may have seen in a local supermarket or retail store.

[Show several products in a category, perhaps cleaning products  -  include at least one with a green certification and at least one without]
 Which one of these products would you choose to purchase in the supermarket?
      o Why?
 Let's look more closely at this product [pick up a product that has a green certification mark on it]
      o Have you seen this mark before?
      o What does it mean?

The mark on this product indicates a green certification program, which is a program intended to help consumers purchase safer and/or more environmentally sustainable products. These programs are also known as "eco-label" programs or "green seals".

Are you familiar with green certification programs?
 Which ones are you familiar with? [Prompt if necessary: Green Seal, Good Housekeeping Green Ratings, EcoLogo, Home Depot's Eco Options, USDA Organic, ENERGY STAR]
 Have you ever used any of these programs to help you decide which products to buy?

Perceptions of Design for the Environment Program [15 minutes]
Different certification programs have different purposes  -  for example, ENERGY STAR specifically helps consumer purchase products that are more energy efficient, whereas the USDA Organic program lets consumers know which products are certified organic. I want to talk about an EPA program intended to help consumers select products that can help protect the environment and are safer for families and pets. I'll distribute a description of this program, and you can read along with me.

      EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program works in partnership with industry, environmental groups, and academia to reduce risk to people and the environment by finding ways to prevent pollution. For more than 15 years, DfE has evaluated human health and environmental concerns associated with traditional and alternative chemicals and processes in a range of industries. These analyses have empowered hundreds of businesses to select safer chemicals and technologies. EPA allows safer products to carry the DfE label. The label enables consumers to quickly identify and choose products that can help protect the environment and are safer for families. When you see the DfE label on a product it means the DfE scientific review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and that -- based on currently available information, EPA predictive models, and expert judgment -- the product contains only those ingredients that pose the least concern among chemicals in their class.

   * Has anyone ever heard of the DfE Program?
         o Have you used it to help you decide which products to buy?
   * What's your overall impression of this program?
         o Does it sound useful to you?
   * As you shop in your local supermarket or retail outlet, would it be helpful to you to have some easy way of knowing if a product has been determined to be safer for families or if it can help protect the environment?
         o If you could get that information at a glance just by looking at the product, do you think it might influence your purchase decision?
               # Why or why not?
         o If the products in a particular category all cost about the same, do you think you'd choose the product that has been certified by EPA to be safer for families and helpful in protecting the environment?
               # Which of those two claims would motivate you more to purchase a certified product  -  safer for families or helpful in protecting the environment?
Testing DfE Logo Redesigns and Names (45 minutes)
EPA is in the process of renaming the DfE program to make it easier for consumers to understand the program's benefits. EPA is also developing designs for a visual mark that will appear on product packages to let consumers know which products have been certified under this program to be safer for families and helpful in protecting the environment. I'd like to show you some combinations of names and visual marks to get your impressions of them and determine which is the most effective for the program. We'll go through three of them, and discuss each separately. [Show one graphic at a time, each on a separate board]

Green Certification Mark #1:
                                     Logo

                SaferChoice
Meets EPA Criteria for Safer Products

   * How would you sum up your first impression of this mark?
         o Would you notice it if you saw it on a product?
         o Is it attractive?
               # Why or why not?
   * What does this mark promise to you, the consumer?
         o How well do you think the promise comes across in this mark?
         o Is it easy to understand at a glance?
   * Is this mark credible?  Do you believe it will deliver on the promise it is making?
         o Why or why not?
   * Does this mark give you any information about the safety of the product?
         o If so, what does it tell you?
   * Does this mark give you any information about the product's impact on the environment?
         o If so, what does it tell you?
   * Does this mark provide enough information to help you choose between various products in a category?
         o Why or why not?
   * How well do you think the name "SaferChoice" conveys what the program is trying to do?
   * How well do you think the visual label conveys what the program is trying to do?
   * Is there anything you would change about this label to make it more effective?
         o What would you change?
   * How likely would you be to use this mark to help you decide on a product to purchase?
         o Why or why not?

Design Comp #2:
                                     Logo

            ChooseSafer
Meets EPA Criteria for Safer Products

   * How would you sum up your first impression of this mark?
         o Would you notice it if you saw it on a product?
         o Is it attractive?
               # Why or why not?
   * What does this mark promise to you, the consumer?
         o How well do you think the promise comes across in this mark?
         o Is it easy to understand at a glance?
   * Is this mark credible?  Do you believe it will deliver on the promise it is making?
         o Why or why not?
   * Does this mark give you any information about the safety of the product?
         o If so, what does it tell you?
   * Does this mark give you any information about the product's impact on the environment?
         o If so, what does it tell you?
   * Does this mark provide enough information to help you choose between various products in a category?
         o Why or why not?
   * How well do you think the name "SaferChoice" conveys what the program is trying to do?
   * How well do you think the visual label conveys what the program is trying to do?
   * Is there anything you would change about this label to make it more effective?
         o What would you change?
   * How likely would you be to use this mark to help you decide on a product to purchase?
         o Why or why not?

Green Certification Mark #3:
                                     Logo

EPA's SmarterChoice
Safer Products for People & Planet

   * How would you sum up your first impression of this mark?
         o Would you notice it if you saw it on a product?
         o Is it attractive?
               # Why or why not?
   * What does this mark promise to you, the consumer?
         o How well do you think the promise comes across in this mark?
         o Is it easy to understand at a glance?
   * Is this mark credible?  Do you believe it will deliver on the promise it is making?
         o Why or why not?
   * Does this mark give you any information about the safety of the product?
         o If so, what does it tell you?
   * Does this mark give you any information about the product's impact on the environment?
         o If so, what does it tell you?
   * Does this mark provide enough information to help you choose between various products in a category?
         o Why or why not?
   * How well do you think the name "SaferChoice" conveys what the program is trying to do?
   * How well do you think the visual label conveys what the program is trying to do?
   * Is there anything you would change about this label to make it more effective?
         o What would you change?
   * How likely would you be to use this mark to help you decide on a product to purchase?
         o Why or why not?
In any of these combinations, is there any where you liked the name but didn't like the visual?  Or vice versa  -  where you liked the visual but didn't like the name?
      o Which?
      o What would you change?
Let's see a show of hands to determine which of these three you think is most effective [Show each in turn - #1, #2 or #3  -  to have them vote].

Communication Preferences and Wrap Up (5 minutes)

As a result of our discussion tonight, are you interested in learning more about the EPA program we have discussed this evening?

What would be the best way to provide additional information for you?  Where would you be most likely to pay attention to it?  [e.g., website, product packaging, point of purchase information or display, magazines or newspapers]

On behalf of EPA, I want to thank all of you for your input today. Please stop by the reception desk to receive a token of our gratitude. [Collect all materials]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 51793]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20906]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No.CP12-497-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on August 8, 2012, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco), filed in the above referenced docket an
application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part
157 of the Commission's regulations, for authorization to replace
approximately 2,167 feet of existing 30-inch pipeline on Transco's
mainline in East Brandywine and East Caln Townships, Chester County,
Pennsylvania with a 42-inch pipeline, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Scott
Turkington, Director Rates & Regulatory, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Stephen A. Hatridge, Senior
Counsel, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box
1396, Houston, TX 77251-1396, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests, and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2012.

    Dated: August 20, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20906 Filed 8-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 21)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5729-5730]
[DOCID:fr31ja08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27192; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-008-AD;
Amendment 39-15350; AD 2008-03-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Certain structural components must be replaced by new components
at a certain stage of the aircraft's life to avoid any possibility
of fatigue failure.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 6, 2008.
    As of March 6, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Duckett, Aerospace Engineer,
1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:
(516) 228-7325; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2007
(72 FR 64010) and proposed to supersede AD 83-02-02, Amendment 39-4553.
That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states that:

    Certain structural components must be replaced by new components
at a certain stage of the aircraft's life to avoid any possibility
of fatigue failure.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 166 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 30 work-hours per product to
comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is
$80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $988 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $562,408 or $3,388 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-4553 (AD 83-02-
02, February 4, 1983) and adding the following new AD:

2008-03-01 Viking Air Limited: Amendment 39-15350; Docket No. FAA-
2007-27192; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-008-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 6,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 83-02-02, Amendment 39-4553.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and
DHC-6-300 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 51:
Structures.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
refers to the Product Support Manual (PSM) 1-6-11, Revision 5, dated
January 11, 2000, which states:

    Certain structural components must be replaced by new components
at a certain stage of the aircraft's life to avoid any possibility
of fatigue failure.

The MCAI requires you to inspect, modify, and/or retire affected
structural components to maintain the structural integrity of DHC-6
airplanes.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 30 days after March 6, 2008 (the
effective date of this AD), for all aircraft, incorporate the
inspections, modifications, and/or retirement of components
specified in Bombardier Inc.(formerly de Havilland) DHC-6 ``Twin
Otter'' PSM 1-6-11, Revision 6, dated March 28, 2007, into the
aircraft maintenance program. The compliance times are specified in
the manual. For aircraft that are approaching or have exceeded the
threshold of the new or revised inspections introduced by this AD,
compliance with the threshold inspection may be modified as detailed
below:
    (1) Pre Mod 6/1117 Wing Assemblies:
    (i) If the last inspection done of the main wing spar attachment
lug fastener holes, before March 6, 2008 (the effective date of this
AD), was an eddy current inspection following Bombardier Inc.
(formerly de Havilland) DHC-6 ``Twin Otter'' PSM 1-6-11, Revision 5,
dated January 11, 2000; or PSM 1-6-11, Revision 6, dated March 28,
2007; do the repeat high frequency eddy current inspection in
accordance with the schedule in PSM 1-6-11, Revision 6, dated March
28, 2007.
    (ii) If the last inspection done of the main wing spar
attachment lug fastener holes, before March 6, 2008 (the effective
date of this AD), was an ultrasonic inspection following Bombardier
Service Bulletin 6/525, dated September 6, 1996, do the first high
frequency eddy current inspection within 1,000 hours time-in-service
(TIS) or 2000 cycles, whichever occurs first, after the last
ultrasonic inspection. Repetitively inspect thereafter in accordance
with the schedule in PSM 1-6-11, dated March 28, 2007.

    Note 1: Operators that do not have landing (or cycle) records
may determine the number of landings (or cycles) by dividing the
number of hours of time-in-service of each airplane by the time of
the average flight for the aircraft of that type in the operator's
fleet.

    (2) Post Mod 6/1117 and Post Mod 6/1630 Wing Assemblies: If the
inspection threshold for the lower wing skin, stringers, and aft
spar lower flange WS122 to WS263 (ribs 8 to 20) has been exceeded or
will be exceeded within 6 months after March 6, 2008 (the effective
date of this AD), do the first high frequency eddy current
inspection within the next 500 hours TIS after March 6, 2008 (the
effective date of this AD), or within the next 6 months after March
6, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first,
following PSM 1-6-11, Revision 6, dated March 28, 2007.
    (g) You may take ``unless already done'' credit if the above
actions were done following the procedures described in Bombardier
Inc. (formerly de Havilland) DHC-6 ``Twin Otter'' PSM 1-6-11,
Revision 5, dated January 11, 2000.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: The MCAI references PSM 1-6-11, Revision 5, dated
January 11, 2000. PSM 1-6-11, Revision 6, dated March 28, 2007, has
since been issued and is referenced for compliance in this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: George Duckett, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, FAA, New York
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD No. CF-2000-14, dated May
25, 2000; and Viking Air Limited Structural Components Service Life
Limits Manual PSM 1-6-11, Revision 6, dated March 28, 2007, for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use PSM 1-6-11, Revision 6, dated March 28, 2007 to
do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, Garratt
Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5; telephone: (416) 633-
7310.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_
register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 18, 2008.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-1461 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 20, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2000-7896

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  Air Comet S.A.							Date Filed:  April 14, 2005

Relief requested: Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Spain and New York, New York.

Date and citation of last action:  Air Comet previously held the
authority described above; that authority expired by its terms on March
12, 2005 (see Notice of Action Taken, dated March 12, 2004, in this
docket)

Applicant representative:  John N. Romans<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  April 20, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  April 20, 2005-April 20, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Transport
Services Agreement between the United States and Spain

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Air Comet’s foreign air carrier permit (Order 99-12-9)

X  Standard exemption conditions attached

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

					Attachment

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

												05/2004