[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 16, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54030-54041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26447]
[[Page 54029]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-
Depleting Substances; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 16, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 54030]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 82
[FRL-5635-9]
RIN 2060-AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action imposes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes
for the ODS to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.
Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and
unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors.
The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away
from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into high-risk
substitutes posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on
the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of substitutes. In
this Final Rule (FR), EPA is issuing its decisions on the acceptability
of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive
at determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency
completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the
environment by sector end-use.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Comments and data are available in Docket A-
91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S.
Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Telephone (202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFR
part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Weisner at (202) 233-9193 or fax
(202) 233-9665, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code
6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Overnight mail (Fed-Ex,
Express Mail, etc.) should be sent to our 501-3rd Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20001 street address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of This Action
This action is divided into five sections, including this overview:
I. Overview of This Action
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
III. Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
VI. Additional Information
Appendix: Summary of Listing Decisions
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate
rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon)
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is
currently or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section
612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding
list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to
any person to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a
substitute from the lists published in accordance with section
612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where
the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists
within an additional six months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to
require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I
substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or
existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for
significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The
producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's
unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the
Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research
facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II
substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of
such substances in key commercial applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are
available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I
and II substances.
B. Regulatory History
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-
depleting compounds.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce.
III. Listing of Substitutes
To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The
outcome of these risk screens can be found in the public docket.
Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all
applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is
illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as
unacceptable for that
[[Page 54031]]
end-use. A pending listing represents substitutes for which the Agency
has not received complete data or has not completed its review of the
data.
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Such
substitutes are placed on the acceptable subject to use conditions
lists. Use of such substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such
use conditions renders these substitutes unacceptable.
Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of
such substitutes in applications and end-uses which are not specified
as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.
In this Final Rule (FR), EPA is issuing its decision to restrict
use of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. As
described in the final rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA
believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed use limits,
or to remove an alternative from either the list of prohibited or
acceptable substitutes.
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substitute. Consequently, EPA periodically adds substitutes to the list
of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published in
separate Notices in the Federal Register.
Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing listing decisions in this rulemaking are in Appendix D to
40 CFR 82, subpart G. The comments contained in Appendix D provide
additional information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of
the regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a
substitute. Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with
respect to other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the
substitute. However, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all
comments in their application of these substitutes. In many instances,
the comments simply allude to sound operating practices that have
already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code
standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require
significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected
industry.
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
1. Response to Comments
Several commenters, representing trade organizations, auto
manufacturers, and the general public, expressed concern about the
proliferation of alternative refrigerants for motor vehicle air
conditioning systems (MVACS). They identified four issues:
New refrigerants are being used and sold before EPA has
come to a final determination on acceptability, including any necessary
conditions on use;
EPA's proposed rule does not make clear who is responsible
for developing unique fittings and labels;
EPA's proposed rule identifies no central source for
information about fitting or label specifications;
EPA's proposed rule does not specify any mechanism to
ensure that fittings are unique, or that the colors chosen for labels
are specific to individual refrigerants.
The first issue, that people are using new refrigerants before EPA
issues final determinations on them, is a result of the notice-and-
comment rulemaking process and the statutory framework of the SNAP
program. EPA must solicit public comment before imposing any
restrictions on the use of a substitute. At the same time, the SNAP
notification requirement under section 612 of the Clean Air Act
requires those intending to sell new substitutes, to notify EPA, 90
days prior to their introduction, after which they are legally
permitted to sell them. Since notice-and-comment rulemaking normally
takes up to one year, this means that in some cases products are being
sold before EPA makes a final determination as to their environmental
acceptability.
EPA agrees that the lag time between SNAP notification and a final
rulemaking creates a window when people may legally use an alternative
refrigerant without an existing acceptability determination. This
creates confusion in the marketplace, and an inequitable situation in
which new alternatives may be used without the unique fittings and
labels that are required of alternatives which have undergone SNAP
review, or without a SNAP review of overall environmental
acceptability. EPA is concerned about this issue because of the
potential for cross-contamination of the supply of refrigerants,
particularly CFC-12, and about the potential for mishandling
alternatives, or of significant market penetration of alternatives
which are later deemed unacceptable.
To address this issue, EPA has promulgated two general requirements
which apply to all future submissions as a class. This means that EPA
need not engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking on these basic
requirements, which apply to all motor vehicle air conditioning
substitutes, in the future. This will streamline the regulatory process
and lessen the potential for confusion, contamination and mishandling.
First, in the June 13, 1995 final rule (60 FR 31092), EPA prohibited
the use of flammable CFC alternatives in the MVACS sector as a class.
Second, in this final rule EPA has changed the notification requirement
for new substitutes in the MVACS sector to require manufacturers of new
alternatives to submit unique fittings and a sample label at the start
of the SNAP review process, to minimize the likelihood of substitutes
pending final action being used without such fittings and labels.
Making these requirements final prospectively for all new MVACS
submissions will allow EPA to process individual MVACS determinations
under SNAP faster.
Two commenters were concerned that by eliminating the notice-and-
comment rulemaking process, EPA was removing an opportunity to comment
on the possible need for additional use conditions. EPA believes that
the petition process established under the SNAP program addresses this
issue. For any decision made under SNAP, any person is free to request
that EPA subsequently consider changes based on new data, including
removing or adding use conditions or other restrictions. If
[[Page 54032]]
EPA agrees that such changes are appropriate, they would be promulgated
via notice-and-comment rulemaking. In addition, EPA may, on its own,
determine that additional conditions or restrictions should be added or
removed through future rulemaking.
The second issue relates to the question of who is responsible for
developing new unique fittings. EPA has always intended to require
manufacturers of new refrigerants to develop new fittings for their
refrigerants. To this end, EPA stated in the NPRM that ``it will be
necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to consult with EPA
about the existence of other alternatives. Such discussions will lower
the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.'' Today's FRM
formalizes the requirement that manufacturers must develop unique
fittings, and prohibits the use of anything but the manufacturer-
specified fittings with alternative refrigerants. In cases where the
submitter is not also the manufacturer, the submitter must coordinate
with the manufacturer to develop unique fittings for new refrigerants.
This will minimize the likelihood of different fittings being submitted
for the same refrigerant.
The third and fourth issues both relate to EPA's function as a
clearinghouse for information about fittings and label background
colors. Initially, it appeared there would be very few alternatives for
this end-use. At that time, EPA envisioned that manufacturers of
alternative refrigerants would communicate with each other to prevent
duplication of fittings or label colors. However, a broader range of
alternatives has been developed. In response to the questions from
commenters about how submitters are to know whether their fittings or
colors are indeed unique, today's final rule formalizes an expanded
clearinghouse role for EPA, in which the Agency maintains a library of
unique fittings and label specifications, and provides information on
these to the regulated community and the public upon request. To make
this possible, this final rule requires that, for new refrigerants
submitted for the MVACS end-use, fitting specifications, a complete set
of sample fittings, and a sample label must be submitted at the same
time as the rest of the information detailed in the March 18, 1994 SNAP
rule (59 FR 13044). Even if a submission includes information required
in 1994 FRM, it will be considered incomplete until the fitting
specifications and sample fittings and labels are sent to EPA. As
explained in the March 18, 1994 final rule, a submission must be
complete before the countdown of the 90-day moratorium on sale begins.
Thus, the prohibition against sale of a new refrigerant will not end
until 90 days after the date that EPA determines the submission is
complete. EPA will send a letter to the submitter indicating that a
complete submission has been received and specifying the start of the
90-day period.
Finally, EPA will create a package of information about all
existing fittings and labels that will be available to the public. This
package will allow developers of new refrigerants to avoid duplication
with existing fittings or label background colors. It will also allow
EPA to consult industry experts to ensure that current refrigerants are
in fact being used with unique fittings. When developing unique
fittings, manufacturers should consider the possibility of cross-
threading using normal force and standard tools. EPA will propose more
specific guidelines for fitting design in a future NPRM.
One commenter noted that although EPA proposed requiring barrier
hoses for several refrigerants, this additional use condition was
inadvertently omitted from the proposed regulatory language. EPA has
corrected this error in today's final rule.
Several commenters requested that EPA not allow the sale of a new
refrigerant prior to EPA's final determination and imposition of use
conditions. This issue is related to the concern about the time delay
between EPA's receipt of notification and final rulemaking. Under
section 612 of the Clean Air Act, manufacturers of substitutes must
submit them to EPA 90 days prior to selling them. However, the Act does
not give EPA authority to prevent sale once the 90 days have expired.
Therefore, EPA cannot prevent new products from entering the market,
even in the absence of a final determination under the SNAP program.
The new process, whereby EPA will impose standard use conditions on new
MVAC refrigerants via Notice of Acceptability, will address this
concern by shortening the time between initial submission and final
determination. In addition, submissions that do not contain fittings
specifications, samples, and labels will be incomplete, lessening the
possibility that new materials will be widely available before
manufacturers have yet identified unique fittings.
One commenter suggested specific criteria for determining whether
fittings are unique. EPA believes this is a valuable suggestion, and
will propose such criteria in a separate NPRM.
One commenter expressed concern that EPA is allowing the use of
substitutes that contain ozone-depleting HCFCs and global warming gases
such as certain HCFCs and HFCs. It is important to note that, in
accordance with guidelines set forth in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rule,
EPA conducts a comparative risk screen comparing new alternatives both
to the ozone-depleting substances they are replacing and to other
alternatives available for the same end-use. EPA has long maintained
that HCFCs play an important role in the transition away from CFCs.
Among the HCFCs being used in MVAC refrigerants, HCFC-142b has the
highest ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0.06. EPA believes that this
is environmentally acceptable since the new refrigerants are replacing
CFC-12, with a much higher ODP of 1.0. Similarly, the global warming
potentials (GWP) of various components are lower that that of CFC-12.
EPA continues, however, to encourage the development of zero-ODP and
low-GWP refrigerants. In addition, all SNAP reviews to date, and all
future reviews, consider both ODP and GWP, along with toxicity,
flammability, and ecological effects.
Several commenters expressed concern that the large number of
alternative MVAC refrigerants would result in excessive venting because
of a lack of adequate recovery equipment. Under sections 608 and 609 of
the Clean Air Act, it is illegal to vent any alternative refrigerant.
In addition, several manufacturers have established programs to accept
used refrigerant for reclamation or disposal. EPA urges industry to
develop similar mechanisms to ensure that the venting prohibition is
observed. EPA will monitor the effect of the alternatives on the
contamination of the CFC-12 supply, as well as the extent of cross-
contamination of the substitutes themselves. If appropriate, EPA will
propose additional requirements for the use of substitutes in a future
NPRM.
Several commenters requested that EPA require that manufacturers
provide certain types of information to all end-users. These additional
requirements are beyond the scope of the NPRM. EPA will consider
proposing such requirements in a future NPRM.
One commenter requested that certain information be removed from
the required labels applied to systems using alternative refrigerants,
noting that the label is intended for use by service personnel, not the
consumer. EPA disagrees, and believes that this label contains
important information for the consumer. Despite a comprehensive review
of environmental and human health risks posed by new refrigerants, many
alternatives have undergone only limited performance testing. The label
[[Page 54033]]
gives the car owner details about who performed the retrofit, what
materials were used, and whether the product contains a chemical that
will damage the ozone layer. Finally, in the case of flammable
refrigerants, it is especially important to call attention to that
characteristic. Flammability information will alert both service
personnel and car owners who may perform limited servicing of their own
vehicles to the presence of a flammable refrigerant.
The commenter also reiterated a request to include a model label.
EPA believes that many possible configurations and layouts would
satisfy the labeling requirement, and does not believe that prescribing
such a layout would be beneficial. Any label that contains the required
information, and features a unique color, will serve to inform both
service personnel and car owners. The existence of an EPA information
package available to the public which will show colors and
configurations of existing labels will assure that each new
substitute's label has a unique background color. Labels used for
refrigerants already listed as acceptable subject to use conditions
will be in this package, and may be used as models by future
submitters.
Finally, one commenter requested clarification on the definition of
``barrier hoses.'' In general, this term means a hose that has a
protective layer specifically designed to reduce refrigerant leakage.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioners, Retrofit and New. EPA is concerned that the existence of
several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of
significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of
both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment. In
addition, a smooth transition to the use of substitutes strongly
depends on the continued purity of the recycled CFC-12 supply. In order
to prevent cross-contamination and preserve the purity of recycled
refrigerants, EPA is imposing conditions on the use of all motor
vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the purposes of this final
rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in''
refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes any
and all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a
new refrigerant.
EPA has already applied the following requirements to several
refrigerants. The June 13, 1995 final rule applied them to HFC-134a,
FRIGC (HCFC Blend Beta), and R-401C. The May 22, 1996 final rule
applied them to Freezone and Ikon. With today's final rule, EPA applies
the use conditions to all refrigerants still awaiting final
determinations, and all future refrigerants submitted for use in MVACs.
With these conditions in place in general, consumers and repair shops
will be protected from cross-contamination and potential system damage.
In addition, by reducing the delay between submission and a final
determination, EPA minimizes the possibility that a refrigerant will
gain widespread use without meeting the use conditions.
When retrofitting a CFC-12 motor vehicle air conditioning system to
use any substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings
that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as
appropriate) must be designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant.
The manufacturer is responsible to ensure that the fittings meet all of
the requirements listed below, including testing according to SAE
standards. These fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent
cross-charging with another refrigerant, including CFC-12.
The fittings must be used on all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. A refrigerant may only be used
with the fittings and can taps specifically intended for that
refrigerant and designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant. Using
a refrigerant with a fitting designed by anyone else, even if it is
different from fittings used with other refrigerants, is a violation of
this use condition. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of this use
condition.
Fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
--When existing CFC-12 service ports are retrofitted, conversion
assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner
that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.
--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the
vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660,
as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which
are specific to HFC-134a.
--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere,
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant.
--All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion assemblies
shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-12 related
service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a thread lock
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner
that prevents the device from being removed.
When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as
follows:
--The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air
conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:
* The name and address of the technician and the company performing
the retrofit;
* The date of the retrofit;
* The trade name, charge amount, and, where it exists, the ASHRAE
numerical designation of the refrigerant;
* The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used;
* If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance,
the phrase ``ozone depleter'';
* If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured by
ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take
appropriate precautions.'' This precaution does not apply to
unacceptable refrigerants, because it is illegal to replace CFC-12 with
such products.
--The label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to
the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during
vehicle repair.
--In accordance with SAE J639, testing of labels must meet ANSI/UL 969-
1995.
--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the
new label must be rendered permanently unreadable.
No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under Section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
All new refrigerants will be submitted with specifications and
samples for all
[[Page 54034]]
fittings and samples of labels. EPA will review the fittings and test
for cross-connections between the new fitting and existing fittings for
already listed refrigerants. At the same time, EPA will compare the
background color of the sample label to those of other already listed
refrigerants. If the fittings are unique and cannot be mechanically
cross-threaded, and the label color is unique to that refrigerant, EPA
will issue a letter to the manufacturer confirming that the submission
is complete. This confirmation letter will identify the term of the 90-
day sales moratorium required by section 612 of the Clean Air Act,
during which the refrigerant may not be sold or used. EPA will issue a
Notice of Acceptability for the new refrigerant as soon as possible,
which will impose the requirements described above. EPA will then
update a package of materials containing specifications for existing
fittings. This package will be provided to manufacturers of new
refrigerants and others who request it, to lower the risk of
duplicating fittings already in use.
If the fittings or the label color are not, in fact, unique, EPA
will issue a letter to the manufacturer indicating that the submission
is not complete. Because the submission is incomplete, the notification
requirement has not been satisfied, and the 90-day clock does not begin
to run until the submitter repairs any identified defect and receives
subsequent notification in a letter from EPA that the submission is
complete. This prohibition does not require further rulemaking, because
it derives from the notification requirements promulgated in the final
SNAP rule of March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044).
EPA will take enforcement action for any violation of these
provisions, including (a) selling a substitute prior to 90 days after
receipt of a letter from EPA certifying the completeness of a
submission, (b) using a refrigerant without changing the fittings,
applying a new label, and removing the original CFC-12 charge, or (c)
using a refrigerant with fittings other than those designed by the
refrigerant manufacturer. The intent of these conditions is to minimize
the likelihood of cross-contamination and attendant damage to
automotive air conditioners and recycling equipment, to reduce consumer
confusion and in general to minimize the difficulty of the transition
away from CFC-12.
Furthermore, it is important to understand the meaning of
``acceptable subject to use conditions.'' EPA believes such
refrigerants, when used in accordance with the conditions, are safer on
an overall basis for human health and the environment than CFC-12. This
does not imply that the refrigerant will work in any specific system,
nor does it mean that the refrigerant is perfectly safe regardless of
how it is used. Nor does EPA approve or endorse any one refrigerant
that is acceptable subject to use conditions over others also in that
category.
Note also that EPA does not test refrigerants for performance
characteristics. Rather, a SNAP review includes information submitted
by manufacturers and various independent testing laboratories.
Therefore, it is important to discuss any new refrigerant with the
automaker, the refrigerant manufacturer and the shop technician before
deciding to use it, and in particular to determine what effect using a
new refrigerant will have on a system warranty. Before choosing a new
refrigerant, users should also consider whether it is readily and
widely available, and technicians should consider the cost of buying
recovery/recycling equipment for that refrigerant. Additional questions
about purchasing CFC-12 substitutes are addressed in EPA fact sheets
titled: ``Questions to Ask Before You Purchase an Alternative
Refrigerant'' and ``Choosing and Using Alternative Refrigerants for
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning.''
(1) All Refrigerants
All refrigerants listed in future notices as being ``acceptable
subject to use conditions'' as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted
and new motor vehicle air conditioners are subject to the use
conditions described above, in addition to the requirement that
specifications for the fittings similar to those found in SAE J639 and
samples of all fittings and labels described above must be submitted to
EPA at the same time as the initial SNAP submission, or the submission
will be considered incomplete. Note: substitutes for which submissions
are incomplete may not be sold or used, regardless of other
acceptability determinations, until 90 days after receipt of a letter
from EPA notifying the submitter that the submission is complete.
In the March 18, 1994 FRM (59 FR 13044), EPA established that the
public would be informed via a Notice when substitutes are added to the
acceptable list. If EPA intended to place any restrictions, including
use conditions, on the use of a substitute, that determination would
require full notice-and-comment rulemaking. In this FRM, EPA modifies
that approach for motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACs).
As explained above, EPA is concerned about potential cross-
contamination because of the large number of MVAC refrigerants. In this
FRM, EPA imposes the same use conditions on all future MVAC
refrigerants as were imposed on HFC-134a and HCFC Blend Beta (FRIGC FR-
12) on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31092), and on HCFC Blend Delta (Freezone)
and Blend Zeta (Ikon-12) on May 22, 1996 (60 FR 51383). Because of
EPA's interest in timely review of substitute refrigerants, EPA
believes it is appropriate that these use conditions be applied to all
future refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioning, thereby
removing the requirement for future notice-and-comment rulemaking on
this issue. In the future, EPA will add refrigerants to the list of
automotive substitutes that are acceptable subject to use conditions
described above without notice-and-comment rulemaking. Such action will
occur in future Notices of Acceptability. If further restrictions are
necessary for a specific refrigerant (for example, if a substitute is
found unacceptable), EPA will still carry out such action via notice-
and-comment rulemaking. However, EPA may choose to list the substitute
as acceptable subject to the use conditions listed above while
proceeding with notice-and-comment rulemaking to impose other
restrictions.
(2) R-406A
R-406A, which consists of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and isobutane, is
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor
vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions applicable to
motor vehicle air conditioning described above, in addition to the
requirement that retrofitting a CFC-12 MVAC system to R-406A must
include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22
and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, and will be phased out of
domestic production in the future, this blend is considered a
transitional alternative. Regulations regarding recycling and
reclamation issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this
blend. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPs among the HCFCs. The GWPs
of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and
isobutane are flammable, the blend is not. After significant leakage,
however, this blend may become weakly flammable. The manufacturer has
performed a risk assessment that demonstrates that it can be used
safely in this end-use.
There is concern that HCFC-22 may seep out of traditional hoses.
Thus, at the manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional
condition that barrier hoses must be used with R-
[[Page 54035]]
406A. Note that there may also be concern about the compatibility of
HCFC-22 with seals commonly found in CFC-12 systems. Consult with the
refrigerant manufacturer, the manufacturer of the car, and service
personnel about this potential problem. R-406A is sold under the trade
names ``GHG'' and ``McCool.''
The R-406A submission contained the first risk assessment that
attempted to quantify the additional risk posed by using a refrigerant
that is nonflammable but that may fractionate to a flammable state.
This assessment was performed by a nationally known laboratory. Note
that R-406A is not flammable as blended, so it poses zero flammability
risk to service technicians who charge it into a system, and to the
vast majority of users and subsequent technicians. Even when
approximately 80% of the normal charge leaks out, the remaining
components are only marginally flammable. It is unlikely such large
leakage would occur before servicing. After an 80% leak, a match
brought near the leak will ignite the escaping vapors, but the flame
will extinguish on its own when the match is withdrawn.
EPA did not receive any comments on this risk assessment, which
concluded that an additional 0.018 injuries could occur per million
vehicles annually. This value is extremely low. In addition, even
assuming the assessment is in error by a factor of 100, the resultant
potential for injury would be very low.
(3) HCFC Blend Lambda
HCFC Blend Lambda, which consists of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and
isobutane, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and
new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions
applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above, in
addition to requirement that retrofitting a CFC-12 MVAC system to this
blend must include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier hoses.
Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, they will
be phased out of production. Therefore, this blend will be used
primarily as a retrofit refrigerant. However, HCFC Blend Lambda is
acceptable for use in new systems, subject to the same use conditions.
Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under section
609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. HCFC-142b has one of the
highest ODPs among the HCFCS. The GWPs of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are
somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and isobutane are flammable, the
blend is not. After significant leakage, this blend may become weakly
flammable. However, this blend contains more HCFC-22 and less of the
two flammable components than R-406A, and therefore should be at least
as safe to use as R-406A. In addition, as discussed above in the R-406A
section, the manufacturer has performed a risk assessment that
demonstrates that R-406A can be used safely in this end-use. Finally,
as stated above, this blend contains even lower percentages of
flammable components than R-406A.
There is concern that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses.
Thus, at the manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional
condition that barrier hoses must be used with R-406A. Note that there
may also be concern about the compatibility of HCFC-22 with seals
commonly found in CFC-12 systems. Consult with the refrigerant
manufacturer, the manufacturer of the car, and service personnel about
this potential problem. This blend is sold under the trade name ``GHG-
HP.''
(4) HCFC Blend Xi, HCFC Blend Omicron
HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend Omicron, both of which consist of
HCFC-22, HCFC-124, HCFC-142b, and isobutane, are acceptable as
substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air
conditioners, subject to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle
air conditioning described above, in addition to the requirement that
retrofitting a CFC-12 MVAC system to these blends must include
replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, they will be phased out of
production. Therefore, these blends will be used primarily as retrofit
refrigerants. However, these blends are acceptable for use in new
systems, subject to the same use conditions. Regulations regarding
recycling and reclamation issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act
apply to these blends. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPs among the
HCFCs. The GWPs of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although
HCFC-142b and isobutane are flammable, these blends are not. In
addition, testing on these blends has shown that they do not become
flammable after leaks. EPA is concerned that HCFC-22 will seep out of
traditional hoses. Thus, EPA is imposing an additional condition that
barrier hoses must be used with HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend Omicron.
Note that there may also be concern about the compatibility of HCFC-22
with seals commonly found in CFC-12 systems. Consult with the
refrigerant manufacturer, the manufacturer of the car, and service
personnel about this potential problem. HCFC Blend Xi is being sold
under the trade names ``GHG-X4,'' ``Autofrost,'' and ``Chill-It, `` and
HCFC Blend Omicron is being sold under the trade names ``Hot Shot'' and
``Kar Kool.''
(5) FREEZE 12
FREEZE 12, which consists of HCFC-142b and HFC-134a, is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air
conditioners, subject to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle
air conditioning described above. Because HCFC-142b contributes to
ozone depletion, and will be phased out of domestic production in the
future, this blend is considered a transitional alternative.
Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under section
609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. Its production will be
phased out according to the accelerated schedule (published 12/10/93,
58 FR 65018). The GWP of HFC-134a is 1300. This blend is nonflammable,
and leak testing has demonstrated that the blend never becomes
flammable. Although this blend was not included in the original NPRM,
this FRM establishes a new procedure whereby EPA will list new
substitutes for CFC-12 in MVACs in Notices, which do not require formal
notice-and-comment rulemaking. This blend was submitted to EPA between
the NPRM and this final rule. It would be inconsistent to allow this
blend to be sold and used without adhering to the use conditions
applied to all other MVAC alternative refrigerants while developing a
Notice. Therefore, EPA is including this blend in the FRM instead of in
a future Notice.
B. Solvent Cleaning
1. Response to Public Comment
EPA received a number of comments on the solvent cleaning decisions
listed in today's Final Rule. One commenter stated that the EPA should
set workplace standards such as the one proposed for HFC-4310mee based
only on toxicity and should not consider standards set by other
regulatory bodies such as the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). This approach would contradict the precedent set
through other SNAP listings, since the purpose of the SNAP program is
to defer to the existing regulatory structure, not to replace or
recreate it.
The Agency received conflicting comments on the decision to list
HFC-4310mee and perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) as acceptable subject to
restrictions. Several commenters stated
[[Page 54036]]
that these chemicals should not be approved since other chemicals exist
that offer the same performance without the global warming effects.
Other commenters claimed that although PFPEs were necessary for
industrial uses, they concurred with the decision to restrict their use
based on global warming concerns. In response, the Agency notes that
the global warming potential of HFC-4310mee is significantly smaller
than that of CFC-113 and that its toxicity can be readily managed
through use of well-designed equipment. As a result, the Agency is
proceeding with the listing determination for HFC-4310mee as proposed.
With respect to PFPEs, the Agency concurs with commenters that the
global warming potential of these chemicals must be taken into account
in the listing decision and notes that the listing decision restricts
PFPEs to narrowed uses only where no other alternative exists.
The Agency received more than 20 comments on the listing decision
for HCFC-141b. Four commenters requested an extension of the
permissible use period for HCFC-141b beyond January 1, 1997. The
remaining commenters either endorsed the one-year extension or opposed
any extension outright. The comments did not provide the necessary
technical information for EPA to evaluate the need for an extension,
and the Agency, as a result, initiated its own assessment of the need
for an extension. This analysis indicated that industry experts and the
majority of solvent users themselves believed that a phaseout of 141b
use in solvent cleaning was possible by the end of 1996, and the Agency
is therefore proceeding with the extension as it had been proposed.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Electronics Cleaning. (a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is an
acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF) in
electronics cleaning subject to a 200 ppm time-weighted average
workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm workplace exposure ceiling.
HFC-4310mee is a new chemical that completed review last year by EPA's
Premanufacture Notice Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
This chemical does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not
contain chlorine or bromine. It does have some potential to contribute
to global warming since its 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) is
1600 and it has a 20.8 year lifetime. However, the GWP and lifetime for
HFC-4310 are both lower than the GWP and lifetime for CFC-113 and
significantly lower than for PFCs, which are other substitutes for
ozone-depleting solvents.
HFC-4310mee does exhibit some toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA,
and causes central nervous system effects at relatively low levels.
However, these effects are reversible and cease once chemical exposure
is eliminated. Review under the SNAP program and the PMN program
determined that a time-weighted average workplace exposure standard of
200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400 ppm would adequately
protect of human health and that companies could readily meet these
exposure limits using the types of equipment specified in the product
safety information provided by the chemical manufacturer.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
B. Precision Cleaning. (a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is an
acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in precision
cleaning subject to a 200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure
standard and a 400 ppm workplace exposure ceiling. The reasoning behind
this determination is presented above in the section on electronics
cleaning.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
3. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Electronics Cleaning. (a) Perfluoropolyethers.
Perfluoropolyethers are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in
the electronics cleaning sector for high performance, precision-
engineered applications only where reasonable efforts have been made to
ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements. These chemicals have global warming
characteristics comparable to the perfluorocarbons and, as a result,
are subject to the same restrictions. A full discussion of the global
warming concerns and related risk management decision can be found
under 59 FR 13044 (March 18, 1994, at p. 13094)
b. Precision Cleaning. (a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the precision
cleaning sector for high performance, precision-engineered applications
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements. These chemicals have global warming characteristics
comparable to the perfluorocarbons and, as a result, are subject to the
same restrictions. A full discussion of the global warming concerns and
related risk management decision can be found under 59 FR 13044 (March
18, 1994, at p. 13094)
4. Unacceptable
a. Electronics Cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable
as a substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning under
existing rules (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994); today's rule amends this
unacceptability determination and lists existing uses of HCFC-141b as
acceptable in high-performance electronics cleaning until January 1,
1997. This determination extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent
cleaning, but only for existing users in high-performance electronics
and only for one year. The extension does not affect the production
phaseout date for HCFC-141b, which is January 1, 2003.
The extension should not be viewed as a reason to postpone
replacement of 141b. Alternatives exist for nearly all solvent cleaning
applications of 141b, and the principal reason for the extension is the
long lead time necessary to test, select, and implement a chosen
substitute in high-performance applications where stringent
qualifications testing is the norm.
Existing regulations affect 141b in two ways. Under the production
phaseout for ozone-depleting substances (ODS), 141b has a phaseout date
of January 1, 2003. This regulation, developed under section 604 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), states that chemical manufacturers will no longer
be allowed to manufacture 141b as of that date (40 CFR Part 82, Subpart
G, Appendix A). HCFC-141b is also subject to a number of use
restrictions relevant to solvent cleaning operations. According to
regulations developed under section 612 of the CAA--the SNAP program--
the only companies allowed to use 141b in solvent cleaning equipment
are existing users. Existing users were defined in the March 1994
determination as companies
[[Page 54037]]
who had 141b-based solvent cleaning equipment in place as of April 18,
1994. No new substitutions into 141b for solvent cleaning were
permitted, and even existing users could use 141b only until January 1,
1996. This use ban date for existing users is the subject of the
extension in today's final rule. HCFCs, including 141b, are also
covered by other use restrictions such as the nonessential ban (section
610) and labeling (section 611). The 610 and 611 regulations are not
discussed here. If you need more information about these regulations,
call the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
Many users and vendors of 141b have requested that the Agency
postpone the effective date of the use ban under SNAP for solvent
cleaning beyond January 1, 1996. In response to these petitions, EPA is
offering a one-year use extension. Note, however, that the only change
is that existing uses in high-performance electronics cleaning would be
permitted for an additional year until January 1, 1997. (Precision
cleaning uses are also extended in today's rulemaking, but are listed
in the next section.) ``High-performance electronics'' would include
high-value added electronic components for aerospace, military, or
medical applications such as hybrid circuits or other electronics for
missile guidance systems. The existing policy of no new substitutions
into 141b is maintained and uses of 141b in metals cleaning and basic
electronics cleaning are all expected to have ended as of January 1,
1996. These banned applications include cleaning of basic, formed metal
parts and high-volume electronics cleaning such as components for
consumer electronics.
An important distinction is that ``solvent cleaning'' in the SNAP
program is defined to cover replacements of ODS in industrial cleaning,
either in vapor degreasing or cold cleaning. It does not include
aerosol applications, which are covered separately under the SNAP
program. It also does not include other solvent cleaning uses of OZONE-
DEPLETING SUBSTANCES (ODS) such as in textile cleaning, dry cleaning,
flushing of oxygen systems or automotive air conditioning systems, or
hand wiping. This means, for instance, that the use ban date does not
apply to 141b used for hand wiping. However, users should understand
that although these uses are not currently governed by the SNAP
program, responsible corporate policy would be to implement
alternatives to ODS where possible. Additionally, SNAP reserves the
right to regulate any use where significant environmental differences
exist in the choice of alternatives. To minimize the paperwork burden,
no reporting is required for companies that qualify for an extension.
The extension is not an excuse to delay selecting an alternative.
The principal reason for extending the permissible period of use for
141b in these narrowed applications is not that alternatives do not
exist, but that users need more time to qualify and implement
alternatives. Even with the extension, uses of 141b in the specified
applications will only be permitted for another 12 months beyond the
current use ban date. This additional time can only be used
productively if users begin now to select, test, order equipment and
materials, etc.
The search for alternatives should include not just aqueous and
semi-aqueous alternatives, but also recently developed cleaning
chemicals and technologies. Information on vendors of substitutes is
available from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline. Call 1-800-
296-1996 and ask for the Vendor List for Precision Cleaning. In
addition, EPA has more detailed information available on topics such as
retrofitting 141b degreasers to use HFCS or on cleaning of medical
devices.
Users and vendors of HCFC-141b had asked the Agency to extend the
permissible use date beyond January 1, 1997. In its analysis of the
extension for 1996, the Agency gave serious consideration to the need
for additional time for HCFC-141b use. However, public comments on the
rule and the Agency's own analysis strongly indicated that many
alternatives are now available that could meet the performance needs of
all current HCFC-141b users. Many of the users had been waiting for the
introduction of a particular class of specialty chemicals, the
hydrofluoroethers, which was originally planned for 1997. The
accelerated introduction of these chemicals, combined with the
availability of other cleaning alternatives such as aqueous processes,
HFC-4310, HCFC-225, isopropyl alcohol in explosion-proof equipment,
volatile methyl siloxanes, and innovative uses of carbon dioxide and
supercritical fluids, means that 141b users now have a multitude of
options to choose from.
The Agency also considered the possibility that further lead time
was needed to qualify the new alternatives, but again, the Agency's own
analysis and the comments received on the proposed one-year extension
for 1996 demonstrated that the Agency had provided sufficient notice to
HCFC-141b users regarding the impending use restrictions on this HCFC.
b. Precision Cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as
a substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning under existing
rules (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994); today's rule amends this
unacceptability determination and lists existing uses of HCFC-141b as
acceptable in precision cleaning until January 1, 1997. This
determination extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent cleaning,
but only for existing users in precision cleaning and only for one
year. The extension does not affect the production phaseout date for
HCFC-141b, which is January 1, 2003.
For a full discussion of the rationale for extension, please see
the previous section on electronics cleaning. This discussion applies
in-full to precision cleaning, which for purposes of this extension is
defined to include cleaning of devices of high-value added, precision-
engineered parts such as precision ball bearings for navigational
devices, or other components for aerospace, medical or medical uses.
C. Aerosols
1. Response to Public Comment
Several commenters stated that perfluorocarbons and
perfluoropolyethers should not be approved since other chemicals exist
that offer the same performance without the global warming effects. The
Agency concurs with commenters that the global warming potential of
these chemicals must be taken into account in the listing decision.
However, the Agency believes that the need to provide a CFC solvent
alternative that offers both non-flammability and low toxicity supports
the Agency's SNAP decision on PFCs and PFPEs for aerosols. The newer
solvents mentioned in the comments offer significant commerical
promise, but testing to determine their full ability to substitute for
CFCs and MCF has not yet been completed. As a result, the Agency is
proceeding with the listing decision for PFCs and PFPEs as a narrowed
use as proposed.
2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Solvents. (a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements. EPA is permitting the use of PFCs in aerosols
[[Page 54038]]
applications despite their global warming potential since so few
nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a high
probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs are already
subject to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to
global warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision
will allow users to select PFCs in the event of performance or safety
concerns while guarding against widespread, unnecessary use of these
potent greenhouse gases.
(b) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) are acceptable
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications only where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.
EPA is permitting the use of perfluoropolyethers in aerosols
applications despite their global warming potential since so few
nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a high
probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs, which have
global warming potentials comparable to the PFPEs, are already subject
to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to global
warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision will
allow users to select perfluoropolyethers in the event of performance
or safety concerns while guarding against widespread, unnecessary use
of these potent greenhouse gases.
3. Unacceptable
a. Propellants. (a) SF6. SF6 is an unacceptable substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in aerosol applications. This
chemical has been of commercial interest as a compressed gas propellant
substitute for ozone-depleting propellants. However, it has an
atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100-year global warming
potential (GWP) of 24,900. CFC-11, in contrast, has a lifetime of 50
years and a GWP of 4,000. Formulators have indicated to EPA that
compressed gases such as C02 would work equally well to replace
use of CFC-11 and other ozone-depleting propellants and could be
formulated at similar or lower cost. C02 has a GWP of 1. C02
and other compressed gases such as nitrous oxide are already
commercially popular due to low flammability and price and have have
been used extensively since the phaseout of CFCs in aerosols in 1978 in
a wide variety of products such as spray pesticides, canned whipped
cream, and cleaning products. Compressed gases were approved under the
SNAP program as substitute propellants in March 1994.
4. Amendment to List of Substances Being Replaced
EPA today is adding CFC-12 and CFC-114 to the list of aerosol
propellants being replaced by substitutes reviewed under SNAP. This
will ensure that companies replacing these CFCS in their products will
be able to adhere to SNAP rulings in the replacement process. The
environmental trade-offs associated with replacing CFC-12 and CFC-114
versus CFC-11 do not change significantly, since the ODPs for all the
CFCs are roughly the same.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order, and EPA submitted this action to OMB
for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations have been documented in the public record.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative
is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this rule is estimated to result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less than
$100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary
impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because
small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by
this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard to
small governments.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. Because costs
of the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, it is
unlikely to adversely affect small businesses. In fact, to the extent
that information gathering is more expensive and time-consuming for
small companies, this rule may well provide benefits for small
businesses anxious to examine potential substitutes to any ozone-
depleting class I and class II substances they may be using, by
requiring manufacturers to make information on such substitutes
available.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA. The OMB
Control Number is 2060-0350. A copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The reasons for these information requirements are
explained in the section on automobile air conditioning (III.A.2.a).
The requirements became
[[Page 54039]]
mandatory under section 612 of the Clean Air Act when the ICR was
approved by OMB on September 11, 1996. The ICR was previously subject
to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval. EPA, therefore
finds ``good cause'' under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior
notice and comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further
notice and comment would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, EPA also
finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S. C. 553(d)(3). Accordingly,
EPA is amending the table of currently approved information collection
request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB. This amendment updates the
table to accurately display those information requirements contained in
this final rule. This display of the OMB control number and its
subsequent codification in the Code of Federal Regulations satisfies
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320. EPA is applying
the information requirements described above to this rulemaking,
previous SNAP rulemakings, and future SNAP rulemakings. Accordingly,
these paperwork requirements shall apply to SNAP decisions described in
rules published on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31092) and May 22, 1996 (61 FR
25585), in addition to this rule.
EPA estimates that the burden of learning about the requirements
will be approximately ten minutes, and that filling out each required
label itself will take approximately five minutes. Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. EPA estimates the capital costs
associated with the design, printing, and distribution of labels to be
$500,000 per year. Refer to EPA ICR 1774.01 for further details.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
V. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
VI. Additional Information
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional
information on SNAP please contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline
at 1-800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. (EST).
For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register publications can be ordered from
the Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation
is the date of publication. All SNAP-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices
may also be retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site,
at http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/snap/.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 8, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 9 and 82 are
amended as follows:
1. In part 9:
a. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
b. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under
the indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
82.180................................................... 2060-0350
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Section 82.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions.
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency will
publish in the Federal Register periodic updates to the list of the
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to
date. In the case of substitutes proposed as acceptable with use
restrictions, proposed as unacceptable or proposed for removal from
either list, a rulemaking process will ensue. Upon completion of such
rulemaking, EPA will publish revised lists of substitutes acceptable
subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits and unacceptable
substitutes to be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations.
(See Appendices to this subpart.)
* * * * *
3. Subpart G is amended by adding the following Appendix D to read
as follows:
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
* * * * *
[[Page 54040]]
Appendix D to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and
Unacceptable Substitutes
Summary of Decisions
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions
R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'', ``GHG-X4''/``Autofrost''/
``Chill-It'', and ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'' are acceptable substitutes
for CFC-12 in retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioning systems
(MVACs) subject to the use condition that a retrofit to these
refrigerants must include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier
hoses.
For all refrigerants submitted for use in motor vehicle air
conditioning systems, subsequent to the effective date of this FRM, in
addition to the information previously required in the March 18, 1994
final SNAP rule (58 FR 13044), SNAP submissions must include
specifications for the fittings similar to those found in SAE J639,
samples of all fittings, and the detailed label described below at the
same time as the initial SNAP submission, or the submission will be
considered incomplete. Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act,
substitutes for which submissions are incomplete may not be sold or
used, regardless of other acceptability determinations, and the
prohibition against sale of a new refrigerant will not end until 90
days after EPA determines the submission is complete.
In addition, the use of a) R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'',
``GHG-X4/``Autofrost''/``Chill-It'', ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'', and
``FREEZE 12'' as CFC-12 substitutes in MVACs, and b) all refrigerants
submitted for, and listed in, subsequent Notices of Acceptability as
substitutes for CFC-12 in MVACs, must meet the following conditions:
1. Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of
fittings that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or
female, as appropriate) must be designed by the manufacturer of the
refrigerant. The manufacturer is responsible to ensure that the
fittings meet all of the requirements listed below, including testing
according to SAE standards. These fittings must be designed to
mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant, including
CFC-12.
The fittings must be used on all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. A refrigerant may only be used
with the fittings and can taps specifically intended for that
refrigerant and designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant. Using
a refrigerant with a fitting designed by anyone else, even if it is
different from fittings used with other refrigerants, is a violation of
this use condition. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of this use
condition.
Fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
a. When existing CFC-12 service ports are retrofitted, conversion
assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner
that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.
b. All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the
vibration testing requirements of section 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660,
as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which
are specific to HFC-134a.
c. In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere,
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant.
d. All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion
assemblies shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-
12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in
a manner that prevents the device from being removed.
2. When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as follows:
a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air
conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:
i. The name and address of the technician and the company
performing the retrofit.
ii. The date of the retrofit.
iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant.
iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used.
v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance,
the phrase ``ozone depleter''.
vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE.
Take appropriate precautions.''
b. The label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
d. The label must be affixed to the system over information related
to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during
vehicle repair.
e. In accordance with SAE J639, testing of labels must meet ANSI/UL
969-1991.
f. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered
by the new label must be rendered permanently unreadable.
3. No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a system
that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
Solvent Cleaning Sector
[Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/CFC-113 HFC-4310mee.................. Acceptable................... Subject to a 200 ppm time-
and MCF. weighted average workplace
exposure standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure ceiling.
Precision Cleaning w/CFC-113 HFC-4310mee.................. Acceptable................... Subject to a 200 ppm time-
and MCF. weighted average workplace
exposure standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure ceiling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54041]]
Solvent Sector
[Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC-113 and Perfluoropolyethers....................... Perfluoropolyethers are acceptable PFPEs have similar global
MCF. substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the warming profile to the
precision cleaning sector for high PFCs, and the SNAP decision
performance, precision-engineered on PFPEs parallels that for
applications only where reasonable PFCs.
efforts have been made to ascertain
that other alternatives are not
technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements.
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113 and MCF Perfluoropolyethers....................... Perfluoropolyethers are acceptable PFPEs have similar global
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the warming profile to the
precision cleaning sector for high PFCs, and the SNAP decision
performance, precision-engineered on PFPEs parallels that for
applications only where reasonable PFCs.
efforts have been made to ascertain
that other alternatives are not
technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC-113 HCFC-141b.................... Extension of existing This determination
and MCF. unacceptability extends the use date
determination to grant for HCFC-141b in
existing uses in high- solvent cleaning, but
performance only for existing
electronics permission users in high-
to continue until performance
January 1, 1997. electronics and only
for one year.
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113 HCFC-141b.................... Extension of existing This determination
and MCF. unacceptability extends the use date
determination to grant for HCFC-141b in
existing uses in solvent cleaning, but
precision cleaning only for existing
permission to continue users in precision
until January 1, 1997. cleaning and only for
one year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols Sector
Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b as Perfluorocarbons.......................... Perfluorocarbons are acceptable PFCs have extremely long
aerosol solvents. substitutes for aerosol applications atmospheric lifetimes and
only where reasonable efforts have high Global Warming
been made to ascertain that other Potentials. This decision
alternatives are not technically reflects these concerns and
feasible due to performance or safety is patterned after the SNAP
requirements. decision on PFCs in the
solvent cleaning sector.
Perfluoropolyethers....................... Perfluorocarbons are acceptable PFPEs have similar global
substitutes for aerosol applications warming profile to the
only where reasonable efforts have PFCs, and the SNAP decision
been made to ascertain that other on PFPEs parallels that for
alternatives are not technically PFCs in the solvent
feasible due to performance or safety cleaning sector.
requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and SF6.................... Unacceptable................. SF6 has the highest GWP
HCFC-142b as aerosol of all industrial
propellants. gases, and other
compressed gases meet
user needs in this
application equally
well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-26447 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P