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

Federal RegisterOct 16, 1996

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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.