96-26447. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 16, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54030-54041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26447]


      

[[Page 54029]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 9 and 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-
Depleting Substances; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 16, 1996 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 54030]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 82

[FRL-5635-9]
RIN 2060-AG12


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action imposes restrictions or prohibitions on 
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) under the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives 
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean 
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes 
for the ODS to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. 
Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and 
unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors. 
The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away 
from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into high-risk 
substitutes posing other environmental problems.
    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on 
the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of substitutes. In 
this Final Rule (FR), EPA is issuing its decisions on the acceptability 
of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive 
at determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency 
completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the 
environment by sector end-use.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Comments and data are available in Docket A-
91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. 
Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. 
Telephone [phone]; fax [phone]. As provided in 40 CFR 
part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Weisner at [phone] or fax 
[phone], 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 
[phone]. 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 [phone]; the citation 
is the date of publication. All SNAP-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices 
may also be retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site, 
at http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/snap/.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 8, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 9 and 82 are 
amended as follows:
    1. In part 9:
    a. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    b. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under 
the indicated heading to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                      40 CFR citation                            No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone                                       
  82.180...................................................    2060-0350
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

    1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. Section 82.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 82.180  Agency review of SNAP submissions.

    (a) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency will 
publish in the Federal Register periodic updates to the list of the 
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to 
date. In the case of substitutes proposed as acceptable with use 
restrictions, proposed as unacceptable or proposed for removal from 
either list, a rulemaking process will ensue. Upon completion of such 
rulemaking, EPA will publish revised lists of substitutes acceptable 
subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits and unacceptable 
substitutes to be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. 
(See Appendices to this subpart.)
* * * * *
    3. Subpart G is amended by adding the following Appendix D to read 
as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

[[Page 54040]]

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

Summary of Decisions

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Acceptable Subject to Use 
Conditions
    R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'', ``GHG-X4''/``Autofrost''/
``Chill-It'', and ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'' are acceptable substitutes 
for CFC-12 in retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioning systems 
(MVACs) subject to the use condition that a retrofit to these 
refrigerants must include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier 
hoses.
    For all refrigerants submitted for use in motor vehicle air 
conditioning systems, subsequent to the effective date of this FRM, in 
addition to the information previously required in the March 18, 1994 
final SNAP rule (58 FR 13044), SNAP submissions must include 
specifications for the fittings similar to those found in SAE J639, 
samples of all fittings, and the detailed label described below at the 
same time as the initial SNAP submission, or the submission will be 
considered incomplete. Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, 
substitutes for which submissions are incomplete may not be sold or 
used, regardless of other acceptability determinations, and the 
prohibition against sale of a new refrigerant will not end until 90 
days after EPA determines the submission is complete.
    In addition, the use of a) R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'', 
``GHG-X4/``Autofrost''/``Chill-It'', ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'', and 
``FREEZE 12'' as CFC-12 substitutes in MVACs, and b) all refrigerants 
submitted for, and listed in, subsequent Notices of Acceptability as 
substitutes for CFC-12 in MVACs, must meet the following conditions:
    1.  Each  refrigerant  may  only  be  used  with  a  set  of  
fittings  that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or 
female, as appropriate) must be designed by the manufacturer of the 
refrigerant. The manufacturer is responsible to ensure that the 
fittings meet all of the requirements listed below, including testing 
according to SAE standards. These fittings must be designed to 
mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant, including 
CFC-12.
    The fittings must be used on all containers of the refrigerant, on 
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all 
air conditioning system service ports. A refrigerant may only be used 
with the fittings and can taps specifically intended for that 
refrigerant and designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant. Using 
a refrigerant with a fitting designed by anyone else, even if it is 
different from fittings used with other refrigerants, is a violation of 
this use condition. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a 
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of this use 
condition.
    Fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
    a. When existing CFC-12 service ports are retrofitted, conversion 
assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock 
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner 
that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.
    b. All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the 
vibration testing requirements of section 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660, 
as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which 
are specific to HFC-134a.
    c. In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere, 
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the 
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant.
    d. All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion 
assemblies shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-
12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a 
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in 
a manner that prevents the device from being removed.
    2. When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as follows:
    a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air 
conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the 
following information:
    i. The name and address of the technician and the company 
performing the retrofit.
    ii. The date of the retrofit.
    iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the 
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant.
    iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used.
    v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, 
the phrase ``ozone depleter''.
    vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured 
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. 
Take appropriate precautions.''
    b. The label must be large enough to be easily read and must be 
permanent.
    c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
    d. The label must be affixed to the system over information related 
to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during 
vehicle repair.
    e. In accordance with SAE J639, testing of labels must meet ANSI/UL 
969-1991.
    f. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered 
by the new label must be rendered permanently unreadable.
    3. No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a system 
that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be 
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of 
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.

                                                                 Solvent Cleaning Sector                                                                
                                                   [Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes]                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Application                      Substitute                      Decision                        Conditions                    Comments       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/CFC-113   HFC-4310mee..................  Acceptable...................  Subject to a 200 ppm time-                               
 and MCF.                                                                                       weighted average workplace                              
                                                                                                exposure standard and a 400 ppm                         
                                                                                                workplace exposure ceiling.                             
Precision Cleaning w/CFC-113     HFC-4310mee..................  Acceptable...................  Subject to a 200 ppm time-                               
 and MCF.                                                                                       weighted average workplace                              
                                                                                                exposure standard and a 400 ppm                         
                                                                                                workplace exposure ceiling.                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 54041]]


                                                                     Solvent Sector                                                                     
                                                       [Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits]                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Application                               Substitute                                  Decision                           Comments          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC-113 and    Perfluoropolyethers.......................  Perfluoropolyethers are acceptable       PFPEs have similar global   
 MCF.                                                                               substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the   warming profile to the     
                                                                                    precision cleaning sector for high       PFCs, and the SNAP decision
                                                                                    performance, precision-engineered        on PFPEs parallels that for
                                                                                    applications only where reasonable       PFCs.                      
                                                                                    efforts have been made to ascertain                                 
                                                                                    that other alternatives are not                                     
                                                                                    technically feasible due to                                         
                                                                                    performance or safety requirements.                                 
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113 and MCF  Perfluoropolyethers.......................  Perfluoropolyethers are acceptable       PFPEs have similar global   
                                                                                    substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the   warming profile to the     
                                                                                    precision cleaning sector for high       PFCs, and the SNAP decision
                                                                                    performance, precision-engineered        on PFPEs parallels that for
                                                                                    applications only where reasonable       PFCs.                      
                                                                                    efforts have been made to ascertain                                 
                                                                                    that other alternatives are not                                     
                                                                                    technically feasible due to                                         
                                                                                    performance or safety requirements.                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            Unacceptable Substitutes                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                        Substitute                   Decision                 Comments       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC-113  HCFC-141b....................  Extension of existing    This determination     
 and MCF.                                                        unacceptability          extends the use date  
                                                                 determination to grant   for HCFC-141b in      
                                                                 existing uses in high-   solvent cleaning, but 
                                                                 performance              only for existing     
                                                                 electronics permission   users in high-        
                                                                 to continue until        performance           
                                                                 January 1, 1997.         electronics and only  
                                                                                          for one year.         
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113    HCFC-141b....................  Extension of existing    This determination     
 and MCF.                                                        unacceptability          extends the use date  
                                                                 determination to grant   for HCFC-141b in      
                                                                 existing uses in         solvent cleaning, but 
                                                                 precision cleaning       only for existing     
                                                                 permission to continue   users in precision    
                                                                 until January 1, 1997.   cleaning and only for 
                                                                                          one year.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                     Aerosols Sector                                                                    
                                                        Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Application                               Substitute                                  Decision                           Comments          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b as         Perfluorocarbons..........................  Perfluorocarbons are acceptable          PFCs have extremely long    
 aerosol solvents.                                                                  substitutes for aerosol applications     atmospheric lifetimes and  
                                                                                    only where reasonable efforts have       high Global Warming        
                                                                                    been made to ascertain that other        Potentials. This decision  
                                                                                    alternatives are not technically         reflects these concerns and
                                                                                    feasible due to performance or safety    is patterned after the SNAP
                                                                                    requirements.                            decision on PFCs in the    
                                                                                                                             solvent cleaning sector.   
                                       Perfluoropolyethers.......................  Perfluorocarbons are acceptable          PFPEs have similar global   
                                                                                    substitutes for aerosol applications     warming profile to the     
                                                                                    only where reasonable efforts have       PFCs, and the SNAP decision
                                                                                    been made to ascertain that other        on PFPEs parallels that for
                                                                                    alternatives are not technically         PFCs in the solvent        
                                                                                    feasible due to performance or safety    cleaning sector.           
                                                                                    requirements.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            Unacceptable Substitutes                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                     Substitute                   Decision                    Comments       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and     SF6....................  Unacceptable.................  SF6 has the highest GWP
 HCFC-142b as aerosol                                                                     of all industrial     
 propellants.                                                                             gases, and other      
                                                                                          compressed gases meet 
                                                                                          user needs in this    
                                                                                          application equally   
                                                                                          well.                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-26447 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P