Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone: Alternatives for the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program
PDF Version (8 pp, 137K, About PDF)
[Federal Register: June 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33304-33311]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jn08-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488; FRL-8578-1]
RIN 2060-AM54
Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone: Alternatives for the Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act provides for the review of alternatives to
ozone-depleting substances and the approval of substitutes that do not
present a risk more significant than other alternatives that are
available. Under that authority, the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
expanding the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting
substances (ODS). The substitute addressed in this final rule (i.e., R-
152a) is for the motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) end-use within
the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector. This substitute does not
pose significantly more risk than other substitutes that are available
in this end use. Additionally, this substitute is a non ozone-depleting
gas and consequently does not contribute to stratospheric ozone
depletion.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 11, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy from the EPA Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Thundiyil, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation, MC 6205J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9464; fax number:
(202) 343-2363; e-mail address: thundiyil.karen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final action provides motor vehicle
manufacturers and their suppliers an additional refrigerant option for
motor vehicle air conditioning systems. The refrigerant substitute
discussed in this action (i.e., R-152a) is non ozone-depleting. Members
of the MVAC manufacturing and MVAC service industries have all been
actively engaged in the development of this rulemaking and are developing
prototype systems with the use conditions defined in this rulemaking.
This final action helps harmonize U.S. MVAC alternatives with
European Union (EU) MVAC alternatives. The EU has banned the use of R-
134a, the predominant MVAC refrigerant in the U.S and the EU, in new
cars beginning in 2011. By 2020, cars sold in the EU may have to
include the new alternative in this action. In response, U.S. original
equipment manufacturers are developing MVAC systems using R-152a and
other alternative refrigerants for the European market and for possible
U.S. sale as well.
EPA is deferring final rulemaking on R-744 (carbon dioxide). EPA is
currently continuing to consider further several issues with respect to
this regulatory action.
Table of Contents
I. Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program Authority
A. Rulemaking
B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
C. Petition Process
D. 90-day Notification
E. Outreach
F. Clearinghouse
II. SNAP Listing Decisions
III. Summary of Acceptability Determinations
IV. Summary of the Proposal
V. R-152a Exposure
VI. Final Rule Discussion
VII. Response to Comments
A. Servicing
B. Army/EPA Assessment
C. Risk Mitigation Strategies
D. Industry Standards
E. Use Conditions
VIII. Final Rule Summary
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program Authority
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (the 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:
A. Rulemaking
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform,
[[Page 33305]]
methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g.,
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.
B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
Section 612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the
substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a
corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
C. Petition Process
Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance to, or delete a substance 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.
D. 90-day Notification
Section 612(e) directs 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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (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; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors compose the principal
industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of
ozone-depleting substances.
For the purposes of SNAP, the Agency defines a ``substitute'' as
``any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing
process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for
a class I or class II compound'' 40 CFR 82.172. 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 substitute manufacturers, but may include importers,
formulators, or end-users, when they are responsible for introducing a
substitute into commerce.
A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal
Register citations are available at EPA's Stratospheric Ozone World
Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html. This
information is also available from the Air Docket (see Addresses
section above for contact information).
II. SNAP Listing Decisions
The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitutes: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions;
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable. Use
conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered ``use
restrictions'' and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed
acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or narrowed use
limits) can be used for all applications within the relevant sector
end-use. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions
may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. It is illegal
to replace an ozone depleting substance (ODS) with a substitute listed
as unacceptable.
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. We describe
such substitutes as ``acceptable subject to use conditions.'' If you
use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions,
you use these substitutes in an unacceptable manner and you could be
subject to enforcement for violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act.
For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use
within a sector. For example, we may limit the use of a substitute to
certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector or
may require a user to demonstrate that no other acceptable end uses are
available for their specific application. We describe these substitutes
as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.'' If you use a
substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, but use
it in applications and end-uses which are not consistent with the
narrowed use limit, you are using these substitutes in an unacceptable
manner and you could be subject to enforcement for violation of section
612 of the Clean Air Act.
The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal
Register. For those substitutes that are deemed acceptable subject to
use restrictions (use conditions and/or narrowed use limits), or for
substitutes deemed unacceptable, we first publish these decisions as
proposals to allow the public opportunity to comment, and we publish
final decisions as final rulemakings.
In contrast, we publish substitutes that are deemed acceptable with
no restrictions in ``notices of acceptability,'' rather than as
proposed and final rules. As described in the rule implementing the
SNAP program (59 FR 13044), we do not believe that rulemaking
procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable
without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction
nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.
Many SNAP listings include ``Comments'' or ``Further Information.''
These statements provide additional information on substitutes that we
determine are unacceptable, acceptable subject to narrowed use limits,
or acceptable subject to use conditions. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program.
However, regulatory requirements listed in this column are binding
under other programs. The further information does not necessarily
include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the
substitute. However, we encourage users of substitutes to apply all
statements in the ``Comments'' column in their use of these
substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound
operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not
require the
[[Page 33306]]
affected industry to make significant changes in existing operating
practices.
III. Summary of Acceptability Determinations
EPA has determined that R-152a (hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-152a) is an
acceptable refrigerant substitute (will now be referred to as
``refrigerant'') with use conditions for MVAC systems, as a replacement
for CFC-12 in new MVAC systems. This determination applies to MVAC
systems in newly manufactured vehicles only. EPA proposed to find R-
152a as an acceptable substitute for CFC-12 in new MVAC systems on
September 21, 2006 at 71 FR 55140 in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(referred to hereinafter as ``the proposal'' or NPRM).
IV. Summary of the Proposal
In the September 2006 NPRM, the Agency proposed that new R-152a
motor vehicle air conditioning systems be listed as acceptable with the
use condition that systems must be designed to avoid occupant exposure
to concentrations above 3.7% for more than 15 seconds in the passenger
cabin free space, even in the event of a leak. The proposal noted that
the addition of a squib valve/directed release system is one effective
strategy for mitigating risk of R-152a systems and that other
mitigation strategies may also prove effective.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed requiring prominent labeling of R-152a
MVAC systems with a warning such as ``CAUTION SYSTEM CONTAINS FLAMMABLE
R-152a REFRIGERANT--TO BE SERVICED ONLY BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL.''
Consistent with SAE J639 Standard, this label should be mounted in the
engine compartment on a component that is not normally replaced and
where it can be easily seen. This label should include refrigerant
identification information and indicate the refrigerant is flammable.
Additionally, the NPRM noted that the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM) should conduct and maintain records of failure mode and effects
analysis (FMEA) tests they perform to ensure that MVAC systems are safe
and are designed with sufficient risk mitigation devices to ensure that
occupants are not exposed to levels of R-152a above 3.7% for more than
15 seconds.
V. R-152a Exposure
The American Industrial Hygienists Association (AIHA) Workplace
Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) (8 hour time weighted average) for
R-152a is 1,000 ppm (0.1% v/v), the highest occupational exposure limit
allowed under standard industrial hygiene practices for any industrial
chemical. The toxicity profile of R-152a is comparable to R-12 and its
most prevalent substitute, R-134a. The lowest observed adverse effect
level for R-152a toxicity (15%) is above the level of flammability
concern, discussed below, so protecting against flammable
concentrations protects against potentially toxic conditions as well.
A wide range of concentrations has been reported for R-152a
flammability where the gas poses a risk of ignition and fire (3.7%-20%
by volume in air). Different test conditions, impurities and the
measurement approach can all contribute to the range of flammable
concentrations of R-152a. The lower flammability limit (LFL) for R-152a
has been tested by many laboratories using different testing protocols
with results ranging from 3.7% to 4.2%. EPA selected the lowest
reported LFL to assess the potential for passenger exposure and predict
localized pockets of refrigerant concentrations within the passenger
compartment. This selection increases confidence that the substitute is
regulated in a manner that is protective of the general population.
VI. Final Rule Discussion
This section summarizes the final rule and describes any
differences between the NPRM and the final rule.
As proposed in the NPRM, in this final rule, EPA finds R-152a
acceptable in new motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the use
condition that systems must be designed to avoid occupant exposure to
concentrations of R-152a above 3.7% in the passenger cabin free space
for more than 15 seconds, even in the event of a leak.
EPA requires prominent labeling of R-152a MVAC systems with a
warning such as ``CAUTION SYSTEM CONTAINS FLAMMABLE R-152a
REFRIGERANT--TO BE SERVICED ONLY BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL.'' Consistent
with SAE J639 Standard, this label must be mounted in the engine
compartment on a component that is not normally replaced and where it
can be easily seen. This label will include refrigerant identification
information and indicate the refrigerant is flammable. In the final
rule, EPA has added a reference to the new SAE J2773 Refrigerant
Guidelines for Safety and Risk Analysis for Use in Mobile Air
Conditioning Systems standard.
As proposed, we recommend that additional training for MVAC service
technicians be provided and that OEMs conduct and keep on file FMEA on
R-152a systems to ensure that MVAC systems are safe and are designed
with sufficient risk mitigation devices to ensure that occupants are
not exposed to R-152a concentrations above 3.7% for more than 15
seconds in the passenger cabin free space.
During the public comment period, the U.S. Army Research,
Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) submitted a revised risk
analysis of R-152a MVAC systems (Docket Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0488-0025, now referred to as the Army/EPA assessment. For details, see
Response to Comments section below). Based on their revised assessment,
we have modified the effective squib valve activation time from the
proposed level of 10 seconds to 3 seconds. This revision alters the EPA
list of potential risk mitigation strategies, but does not impact this
final rule's regulatory text.
VII. Response to Comments
EPA requested and received comments on the use conditions and the
risk mitigation strategies described in the proposal, as well as on
other related issues. This section summarizes public comment to the
proposal and describes how comments have been addressed in this final
rule. The public comments have been grouped by topic.
A. Servicing
One commenter indicated Clean Air Act Section 609-certified,
independent MVAC service technicians should be consulted before the
rule is issued. In response, EPA contacted the National Institute for
Automotive Service Excellence (ASE), who represents independent MVAC
service technicians. ASE indicated they did not see any servicing
issues in the proposal that would impact MVAC service technicians, but
awaits EPA's follow-on rulemaking under section 609 of the Clean Air
Act that will address refrigerant recovery and recycling requirements
for R-152a MVAC systems.
One commenter said risks associated with MVAC service should be
considered. EPA has considered risks associated with MVAC service and
finds that MVAC service technicians already deal with issues of high
pressure, flammability and toxic materials. We do not believe the
addition of R-152a with use conditions to the list of acceptable
substitutes for new MVAC systems will result in any greater risks to
service technicians and that technician training will alleviate risks
to service personnel. Another commenter indicated additional training
for MVAC service technicians should not be required since service
technicians already deal with
[[Page 33307]]
the issues associated with R-152a. Section 609 technician certification
is outside the scope of today's section 612 rulemaking; however, EPA
agrees that additional training for MVAC service technicians is not
necessary since technicians already deal with flammability issues. EPA
has not added additional training requirements, but recommends
additional training on servicing for R-152a MVACs as needed in
accordance with industry recommendations.
One commenter requested more information on why EPA is not finding
R-152a acceptable as a substitute in retrofitted systems. The SNAP
submission did not seek acceptability for retrofit purposes. EPA's
proposed action only addressed the uses specified in the SNAP
submission, which did not request EPA to find R-152a acceptable in
retrofitted MVAC systems.
This rulemaking applies to OEMs and not MVAC service shops. A
separate rulemaking under section 609 of the Clean Air Act will be
issued to specify new equipment and practices (if any) required in the
servicing of MVAC systems using the new alternative.
B. Army/EPA Assessment
The Army and EPA collaborated to conduct the assessment relied upon
in the NPRM to assess the risks associated with R-152a in MVAC systems.
EPA received comment on the NPRM, and specifically, the assessment,
from the Army RDECOM. The Army noted that the amount of R-152a
originally modeled to enter the passenger compartment as a result of a
sudden system discharge was significantly less than the amount that
will be used in MVAC systems because of an incorrect design assumption.
The Army corrected this inadvertent error and submitted a revised
analysis (Docket Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025). An
unmitigated discharge of R-152a, in full recirculation mode, results in
a R-152a concentration above the lower flammability limit for more than
60 minutes. The Army comment also indicated a 3 second, not a 10 second
squib valve as originally thought, would be needed to ensure that R-
152a can be used safely in new MVAC systems. Informed with this new
data, EPA still finds that R-152a has risks comparable to R-134a if
this rule's use conditions are observed, but consistent with the Army's
analysis, if a squib valve is used, a 3 second, not 10 second squib
valve will meet the rule's conditions. The revised Army/EPA assessment
is the analysis document the EPA refers to throughout today's action.
In reviewing the methodology used by the Army/EPA assessment, one
commenter pointed out that cars are not hermetically sealed. The EPA
agrees; the Army/EPA assessment does not assume a hermetically sealed
passenger compartment.
EPA requested comment on the potential effects of these
alternatives on children but received no comment; however, as a matter
of EPA policy, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety
effects of the refrigerants on children. The results of this evaluation
are contained in the Army/EPA assessment. EPA believes that children do
not suffer a disproportionate effect from R-152a in new MVAC systems.
The exposure limits and acceptability listings in this rule apply to
car occupants, and in particular car service technicians. We expect
adults are more likely to be present than children in MVAC service
shops and children and adults would be equally impacted by flammability
concerns in the passenger compartment, thus, the refrigerant does not
put children at risk disproportionately.
C. Risk Mitigation Strategies
The use conditions in this final rule specify concentration limits
for R-152a in vehicle passenger compartments. EPA leaves the choice of
technical solutions that will meet these concentration limits to the
OEMs. EPA agrees with one commenter who noted that effective risk
mitigation strategies can be active or passive.
One commenter indicated a secondary loop should be required for R-
152a system to minimize flammability risk. The EPA does not intend to
limit technological innovation by requiring a specific risk mitigation
strategy, but it does recognize that a secondary loop R-152a system can
meet the regulatory conditions. Two commenters indicated a 10 second
squib valve is not sufficient to ensure that R-152a concentrations will
not exceed 3.7% for 15 seconds. Again, the final rule does not
prescribe a specific technological requirement; however, it should be
noted EPA has modified the final rule consistent with the U.S. Army/EPA
assessment revision that a 3 second squib valve would be required to
ensure that an accidental discharge of R-152a system would prevent
passenger compartment concentration of 3.7% for 15 seconds.
One commenter asked EPA to consider modifying the R-152a use
condition from a concentration performance standard to one that
specifies that the evaporator reaches residual evaporator pressure
within 15 seconds of leak detection. EPA has considered this option.
The commenter's suggested standard would not eliminate the potential
for a flammable concentration of R-152a in the passenger compartment
for an extended amount of time, i.e., more than 15 seconds. EPA finds
its original proposal to be a technically feasible use condition that
is more protective of possible flammable situations than the
commenter's suggestion.
D. Industry Standards
Commenters indicated that SAE is developing standards for safety
and servicing of alternative refrigerant MVAC systems. EPA notes that
both the text of the SNAP regulatory conditions issued here, and
additional information in the ``Comments'' column of the regulation
reference the relevant SAE technical standards to promote consistency
with established industry practices. Specifically, the rule use
conditions reference the SAE J639 standard, Safety Standards for Motor
Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Compressions Systems Industry and SAE J2773,
Refrigerant Guidelines for Safety and Risk Analysis for Use in Mobile
Air Conditioning Systems. The ``Comments'' column references SAE J1739,
Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Design (Design FMEA) and
Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Manufacturing and
Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and Effects Analysis for Machinery
(Machinery FMEA). SAE is also developing a standard for the measurement
of R-152a in the passenger compartment that can be used to verify if a
MVAC system design meets the requirements of this rulemaking.
E. Use Conditions
Two commenters indicated the need for clarity on whether the use
conditions apply when the ignition is off as well as when the ignition
is on. In response, the Agency clarified in the regulatory text that
the use conditions apply only when the ignition is on.
One commenter stated that a vehicle crash could be so severe that
the MVAC system evaporator could be damaged and possibly, reduce a risk
mitigation system's effectiveness. The commenter proposed the inclusion
of an evaporator crush resistance standard in this action. The final
regulation requires that engineering strategies and/or devices shall be
incorporated into the system such that ``foreseeable leaks'' into the
passenger compartment do not result in elevated concentrations. While
EPA understands that it is possible that a severe accident could damage
an evaporator, we believe that in such case,
[[Page 33308]]
the damage to the car would be so severe as to result in inflow of
ambient air, thus negating any risk associated with potentially
elevated R-152a concentration.
Other use conditions already established in Appendix D to subpart G
of 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart G, Appendix D are applicable to all substitute
refrigerants in MVAC systems (e.g. unique fittings and labels).
VIII. Final Rule Summary
EPA finds R-152a acceptable with use conditions for new motor
vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems. New R-152a systems must be
designed to avoid occupant exposure to concentrations of R-152a above
3.7% in the passenger cabin free space for more than 15 seconds, even
in the event of a leak.
EPA requires prominent labeling of R-152a MVAC systems with a
warning such as ``CAUTION SYSTEM CONTAINS FLAMMABLE R-152a
REFRIGERANT--TO BE SERVICED ONLY BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL.'' Consistent
with SAE J639 Standard, this label will be mounted in the engine
compartment on a component that is not normally replaced and where it
can be easily seen. This label will include refrigerant identification
information and indicate that the refrigerant is flammable.
Additionally, the final rule recommends additional training for
MVAC service technicians and that OEMs conduct and keep on file R-152a
systems FMEA to ensure that MVAC systems are safe and are designed with
sufficient risk mitigation devices to ensure that occupants are not
exposed to R-152a concentrations above 3.7% for more than 15 seconds in
the passenger cabin free space.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Today's action is an Agency determination. It contains no new
requirements for reporting. The only new recordkeeping requirement
involves customary business practice. Today's rule requires minimal
record-keeping of studies done to ensure that MVAC systems using R-152a
meet the requirements set forth in this rule. Because it is customary
business practice that OEMs conduct and keep on file Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis (FMEA) on any potentially hazardous part or system, we
believe this requirement will not impose an additional paperwork
burden. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0226. The OMB control numbers for
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; for NAICS code 336111 (Automobile manufacturing), it is <1000
employees; for NAICS code 336391 (Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning
Manufacturing), it is <750 employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule will not impose any new requirements on small
entities and is expected to relieve burden for some small entities.
OEMs are not mandated to move to R-152a MVAC systems. EPA is simply
listing R-152a as an acceptable alternative with use conditions in new
MVAC systems. This rule allows the use of this alternative to ozone
depleting substances in the MVAC sector and outlines the conditions
necessary for safe use. By approving this refrigerant under SNAP, EPA
provides additional choice to the automotive industry which, if
adopted, would reduce the impact of MVACs on the global environment.
This rulemaking does not mandate the use of R-152a as a refrigerant in
new MVACs.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Today's rule does not affect State, local,
[[Page 33309]]
or tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of today's rule
related to integrating risk mitigation devices and documenting the
safety of alternative MVAC systems affect only a small number of OEMs.
This action provides additional technical options allowing greater
flexibility for industry in designing consumer products. The impact of
this rule on the private sector will be less than $100 million per
year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This regulation applies directly to facilities that
use these substances and not to governmental entities. This rule does
not mandate a switch to R-152a and the limited direct economic impact
on entities from this rulemaking is less than $100 million annually.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directly to
facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments, because this regulation applies directly to facilities
that use these substances and not to governmental entities. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The exposure limits and
acceptability listings in this rule apply to car occupants, and in
particular car drivers and service technicians. We expect adults are
more likely to be present than children in MVAC service shops and
children and adults would be equally impacted by flammability concerns
in the passenger compartment, thus, the refrigerant does not put
children at risk disproportionately. As a matter of EPA policy,
however, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects
of the refrigerants on children. The results of this evaluation are
contained in ``Risk Analysis for Alternative Refrigerant in Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning.''
During the public comment period, the public was invited to submit
or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the agency may not
be aware, that assess the potential effects of these alternatives on
children and the Agency received no comments addressing this issue.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action would
impact manufacturing and repair alternative MVAC systems. Preliminary
information indicates that these new systems are more energy efficient
than currently available systems in some climates. Therefore, we
conclude that this rule is not likely to have any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking involves
technical standards. EPA has decided to use the SAE most recent versions
of J639, J1739 and J2773. These standards can be obtained from http://
www.sae.org/technical/standards/.
These standards address safety
and reliability issues concerning alternative refrigerant MVAC systems.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as
[[Page 33310]]
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective August 11, 2008.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Motor vehicle air-conditioning, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
Dated: June 5, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
• For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as
follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
• 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
• 2. Appendix B to Subpart G is amended as follows:
• a. In the first table by adding one new entry to the end of the table.
•
b. In the table titled ``Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes'' by
revising the entry for ``CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
(Retrofit and New Equipment/NIKs)''.
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes
Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle R-152a as a Acceptable subject Engineering Additional
Air Conditioning (New equipment substitute for to use conditions. strategies and/or training for
only). CFC-12. devices shall be service
incorporated into technicians
the system such recommended.
that foreseeable Manufacturers
leaks into the should conduct
passenger and keep on file
compartment do failure mode and
not result in R- Effect Analysis
152a (FMEA) on the
concentrations of MVAC as stated in
3.7% v/v or above SAE J1739.
in any part of
the free space\1\
inside the
passenger
compartment for
more than 15
seconds when the
car ignition is
on.
Manufacturers must
adhere to all the
safety
requirements
listed in the
Society of
Automotive
Engineers (SAE)
Standard J639,
including unique
fittings and a
flammable
refrigerant
warning label as
well as SAE
Standard J2773.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Free space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the
ducting in the HVAC module.
Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners R-405A................. Unacceptable........... R-405A contains R-c318,
(Retrofit and New Equipment/NIKs). a PFC, which has an
extremely high GWP and
lifetime. Other
Substitutes exist
which do not contain
PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Blend B.... Unacceptable........... Flammability is a
serious concern. Data
have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can be
used safely in this
end-use.
Flammable Substitutes, Unacceptable........... The risks associated
other than R-152a. with using flammable
substitutes (except R-
152a) in this end-use
have not been
addressed by a risk
assessment. R-152a may
be used with the use
conditions in Appendix
B to this subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33311]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-13086 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P