Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5507-6]

RIN 2060-AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for

Ozone-Depleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes 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 (59 FR 13044), and issued

decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of

substitutes. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is

issuing its preliminary 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.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document

must be submitted by June 21, 1996. A public hearing, if requested,

will be held in Washington, D.C. Any hearing will be strictly limited

to the subject matter of this proposal, the scope of which is discussed

below. If such a hearing is requested, it will be held on June 6, 1996,

and the comment period would then be extended to July 8, 1996. Anyone

who wishes to request a hearing should call Sally Rand at (202) 233-

9739 by May 29, 1996. Interested persons may contact the Stratospheric

Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to learn if a hearing will be held

and to obtain the date and location of the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Public Comments. Written comments and data should be sent to

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. To expedite

review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Sally Rand,

Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 6205-J, Washington, DC. 20460. Information

designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part

2 subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this

notice. However, the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a

non-confidential version of their comments to the docket as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax

(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code

6205J, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

This action is divided into five sections, including this overview:

[[Page 25605]]

I. Overview of This Action

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Additional Information

Appendix: Summary of Proposed 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. Proposed 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 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 application and end-uses which are not specified as

acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes

unacceptable.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its

preliminary 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

proposed substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables

summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are

in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A 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

[[Page 25606]]

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. 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 proposing several conditions on the use of all

motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the purposes of this

proposed rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-

in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes

all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a new

refrigerant. Please note that EPA only reviews refrigerants based on

environmental and health factors.

In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 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 used with all containers of the

refrigerant, on can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging

equipment, and on all air conditioning system service ports. These

fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging

with another refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the

fittings and can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant.

Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a

different refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In

addition, fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended

practices:

--When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be 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. This requirement is

waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief

device.

--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, when applicable, the

ASHRAE refrigerant 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

according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is

FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''

--This 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.

--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by

the new label must be permanently rendered 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.

Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,

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.

No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a

refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service

personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a

particular system.

(a) All refrigerants. All refrigerants listed in future notices as

being acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor

vehicle air conditioners are proposed to be subject to the use

conditions described above.

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 NPRM, however, EPA

proposes to modify 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

NPRM, EPA is proposing to impose the same use conditions on all future

MVAC refrigerants as were imposed on HFC-134a and HCFC Blend Beta (60

FR 31092), and were proposed for HCFC Blend Delta and Blend Zeta (60 FR

51383). Because of EPA's interest in timely review of substitute

refrigerants, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose 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 without notice-and-comment

rulemaking. Such action will occur in the same manner as Notices of

Acceptability. If further restrictions are necessary for a specific

refrigerant (for example, if a substitute is found unacceptable), then

EPA will propose such action in notice-and-comment rulemaking.

(b) R-406A. R-406A, which consists of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and

isobutane, is proposed 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 an MVAC system

to R-406A must include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier hoses.

Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, this blend

is considered a transitional alternative. Regulations regarding

recycling and reclamation issued under section 608 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

[[Page 25607]]

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 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: 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. EPA

invites comment on this risk assessment, which may be obtained from

USEPA Air Docket A-91-42, file VI-D-120. The assessment concludes that

an additional 0.018 injuries will occur per million vehicles annually.

This value is extremely low. In addition, even an error of a factor of

100 would still result in very low additional risk.

(c) HCFC Blend Lambda. HCFC Blend Lambda, which consists of HCFC-22,

HCFC-142b, and isobutane, is proposed 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 HCFC Blend Lambda

must be used 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 608 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: this blend

is sold under the trade name ``GHG-HP.''

(d) 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 proposed 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 these blends must be used

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 608 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

proposing an additional condition that barrier hoses must be used with

HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend Omicron. Note: 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.''

B. Solvent Cleaning

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is proposed as 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

has just completed review 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 500-year

Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 520 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 be adequately

protective 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 proposed as 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.

2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as 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

[[Page 25608]]

or safety requirements. These chemicals have global warming

characteristics comparable to the perfluorocarbons and, as a result,

are proposed to be 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 proposed as 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 proposed to be 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).

3. 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 notice proposes to amend this unacceptability

determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in

high-performance electronics cleaning until January 1, 1997. This

proposed 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 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 may use

141b only until January 1, 1996. This use ban date for existing users

is the subject of the extension in today's proposal. 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

proposing an 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 proposal, but are listed in

the next section.) ``High-performance electronics'' would include high-

value added 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 would still end as of January 1, 1996. These restricted

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 ODS

such as in textile cleaning, dry cleaning, flushing of 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 proposed 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.

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 notice proposes to amend this unacceptability

determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in

precision cleaning until January 1, 1997. This proposed 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 users of 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, or medical

uses.

[[Page 25609]]

C. Aerosols

1. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

a. Solvents.

(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are proposed as

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 proposing to permit the use of PFCs 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 are already

subject to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to

global warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision,

if implemented as proposed, 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 proposed as

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 proposing to permit 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, if

implemented as proposed, 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.

2. Unacceptable

a. Propellants.

(a) SF6. SF6 is proposed as 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. 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 the EPA that other compressed gases such as CO2

would work equally well and could be formulated at similar or lower

cost.

3. Amendment to List of Substances Being Replaced

EPA proposes today to add 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 proposed 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 proposed rule, the Agency is not required to

develop a plan with regard to small governments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any

rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements.

The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or

the head of the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Agency believes that this proposed rule will not have a

significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has

therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of

the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the is

unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule

exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and

formal agency review. 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.

[[Page 25610]]

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to 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

(ICR No. 1774.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2136), 401 M St., SW., 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.1.a), and the

requirements will be mandatory under section 612 of the Clean Air Act

once the ICR is approved.

EPA is proposing to apply the information requirements described

above to this rulemaking, previous similar rulemakings, and future

rulemakings. Therefore, once the ICR is approved and this proposed rule

is finalized, the ICR will also apply to requirements described in

rules published on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31092) and a rule expected to

be published in April, 1996.

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 under one minute. 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.

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.

Comments are requested 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. Send comments on the ICR to the

Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management

and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked

``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the

ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 22, 1996, a comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 21, 1996.

The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the

information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

V. Additional Information

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional

information on SNAP 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 notices can be ordered from the

Government Printing Office Order Desk, (202) 783-3238; the citation is

the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program

can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Protection of

Stratospheric Ozone Technology Transfer Network (TTN), Clean Air Act

Amendment Bulletin Board. The access number for users with a 1200 or

2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For users with a 9600 bps modem the

access number is (919) 541-1447. For assistance in accessing this

service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal business hours (EST).

Finally, all ozone depletion-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices may be

retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site, at http://

www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/usregs.html.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed

amended as follows:

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 Appendix D to read as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix D to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and

Unacceptable Substitutes Listed

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Proposed Use Conditions

R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'', ``GHG-X4''/``Autofrost''/

``Chill-It'', ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'', and all refrigerants when

listed in subsequent notices, are proposed acceptable subject to the

following conditions when used to retrofit a CFC-12 motor vehicle

air conditioning system or

[[Page 25611]]

when used in a new motor vehicle air conditioning system:

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 used with all containers of the refrigerant, on

can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all

air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be

designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another

refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and

can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an

adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different

refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In addition,

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 to be 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 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.

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.

This requirement is waived for systems that do not feature such a

pressure relief device.

d. All CFC-12 service ports shall be retrofitted with conversion

assemblies or 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. This 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. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be

covered by the new label must be permanently rendered 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--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes

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

Application Substitute Proposed Decision Conditions Comments

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

Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- HFC-4310mee Acceptable......... Subject to a 200 ppm

113 and MCF. time-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

and MCF. time-weighted

average workplace

exposure standard

and a 400 ppm

workplace exposure

ceiling.

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

Solvent Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

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

Application Substitute Proposed decision Comments

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

Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- Perfluoropolyethers............ Perfluoropolyethers are PFPEs have

113 and MCF. proposed as acceptable similar global

substitutes for CFC-113 and warming

MCF in the precision cleaning profile to the

sector for high performance, PFCs, and the

precision-engineered SNAP decision

applications only where on PFPEs

reasonable efforts have been parallels that

made to ascertain that other for PFCs.

alternatives are not

technically feasible due to

performance or safety

requirements.

Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113 Perfluoropolyethers............ Perfluoropolyethers are PFPEs have

and MCF. proposed as acceptable similar global

substitutes for CFC-113 and warming

MCF in the precision cleaning profile to the

sector for high performance, PFCs, and the

precision-engineered SNAP decision

applications only where on PFPEs

reasonable efforts have been parallels that

made to ascertain that other for PFCs.

alternatives are not

technically feasible due to

performance or safety

requirements.

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

Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes

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

End-use Substitute Proposed decision Comments

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

Electronics Cleaning w/CFC-113 HCFC-141b Extension of existing This proposed

and MCF. unacceptability determination extends

determination to grant the use date for HCFC-

existing uses in high- 141b in solvent

performance electronics cleaning, but only for

permission to continue existing users in high-

until January 1, 1997. performance electronics

and only for one year.

[[Page 25612]]

Precision Cleaning w/CFC-113 and HCFC-141b Extension of existing This proposed

MCF. unacceptability determination extends

determination to grant the use date for HCFC-

existing uses in 141b in solvent

precision cleaning cleaning, but only for

permission to continue existing users in

until January 1, 1997. precision cleaning and

only for one year.

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

Aerosols Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

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

Application Substitute Proposed Decision Comments

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

CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b as Perfluorocarbons................ Perfluorocarbons are PFCs have extremely

aerosol solvents. proposed as long atmospheric

acceptable lifetimes and high

substitutes for Global Warming

aerosol applications Potentials. This

only where reasonable decision reflects

efforts have been these concerns and is

made to ascertain patterned after the

that other SNAP decision on PFCs

alternatives are not in the solvent

technically feasible cleaning sector.

due to performance or

safety requirements.

Perfluoropolyethers............. Perfluorocarbons are PFPEs have similar

proposed as global warming

acceptable profile to the PFCs,

substitutes for and the SNAP decision

aerosol applications on PFPEs parallels

only where reasonable that for PFCs in the

efforts have been solvent cleaning

made to ascertain sector.

that other

alternatives are not

technically feasible

due to performance or

safety requirements.

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

Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes

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

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

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

CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and HCFC- SF6 Unacceptable................ SF6 has the highest GWP of

142b as aerosol propellants. all industrial gases, and

other compressed gases

meet user needs in this

application equally well.

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

[FR Doc. 96-12624 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P