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

[Federal Register: May 22, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 100)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25604-25612]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5507-6]
RIN 2060-AG12

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone depleting substances ((ODS)) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes
for the ODS to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.
Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and
unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors.
The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away
from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into high-risk
substitutes posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of
substitutes. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is
issuing its preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain
substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at
determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency
completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the
environment by sector end-use.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document
must be submitted by June 21, 1996. A public hearing, if requested,
will be held in Washington, D.C. Any hearing will be strictly limited
to the subject matter of this proposal, the scope of which is discussed
below. If such a hearing is requested, it will be held on June 6, 1996,
and the comment period would then be extended to July 8, 1996. Anyone
who wishes to request a hearing should call Sally Rand at (202) 233-
9739 by May 29, 1996. Interested persons may contact the Stratospheric
Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to learn if a hearing will be held
and to obtain the date and location of the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Public Comments. Written comments and data should be sent to
Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S.
Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Telephone (202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFR
part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite
review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Sally Rand,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 6205-J, Washington, DC. 20460. Information
designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part
2 subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this
notice. However, the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a
non-confidential version of their comments to the docket as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax
(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code
6205J, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

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

[[Page 25605]]

I. Overview of This Action

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Additional Information

Appendix: Summary of Proposed Listing Decisions

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules
making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon)
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is
currently or potentially available.

Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c)
also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable
for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of
acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person
to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from
the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency
has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the
petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional
six months.

90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any
person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to
notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant
new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must
also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and
safety studies on such substitutes.

Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in
identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such
substances in key commercial applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes,
and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for
products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II
substances.

B. Regulatory History

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozonedepleting
compounds.

The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The
outcome of these risk screens can be found in the public docket.
Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all
applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is
illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as
unacceptable for that end-use. A pending listing represents substitutes
for which the Agency has not received complete data or has not
completed its review of the data.

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Such
substitutes are placed on the acceptable subject to use conditions
lists. Use of such substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such
use conditions renders these substitutes unacceptable.
Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its
preliminary decision to restrict use of certain substitutes not
previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for
the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment
rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of
prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under
certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an
alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.

EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substitute. Consequently, EPA periodically adds substitutes to the list
of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published in
separate Notices in the Federal Register.
Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the
proposed substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are
in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A provide additional
information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the
regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute.
Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.
However, EPA encourages users of

[[Page 25606]]

substitutes to apply all comments in their application of these
substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply allude to sound
operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if
adopted, would not require significant changes in existing operating
practices for the affected industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioners, Retrofit and New. EPA is concerned that the existence of
several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of
significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of
both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment. In
addition, a smooth transition to the use of substitutes strongly
depends on the continued purity of the recycled CFC-12 supply. In order
to prevent cross-contamination and preserve the purity of recycled
refrigerants, EPA is proposing several conditions on the use of all
motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the purposes of this
proposed rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and ``dropin''
refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes
all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a new
refrigerant. Please note that EPA only reviews refrigerants based on
environmental and health factors.

In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any
substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:

<bullet> Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of
fittings that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or
female, as appropriate) must be used with all containers of the
refrigerant, on can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging
equipment, and on all air conditioning system service ports. These
fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging
with another refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the
fittings and can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant.
Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a
different refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In
addition, fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended
practices:

--When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted,
conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism
in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being
removed.

--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the
vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE
J1660, as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE
J2064, which are specific to HFC-134a.

--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere,
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is
waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief
device.

--All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion
assemblies shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with
CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached
with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching
mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from being removed.

<bullet> When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as
follows:

--The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air
conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:

The name and address of the technician and the company
performing the retrofit

The date of the retrofit

The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter''
If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''

--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.

--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related
to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced
during vehicle repair.

--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by
the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.

<bullet> No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must
be recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609
of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.

Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such
discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a
particular system.

(a) All refrigerants. All refrigerants listed in future notices as
being acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor
vehicle air conditioners are proposed to be subject to the use
conditions described above.

In the March 18, 1994 FRM (59 FR 13044), EPA established that the
public would be informed via a Notice when substitutes are added to the
acceptable list. If EPA intended to place any restrictions, including
use conditions, on the use of a substitute, that determination would
require full notice-and-comment rulemaking. In this NPRM, however, EPA
proposes to modify that approach for motor vehicle air conditioning
systems (MVACS).

As explained above, EPA is concerned about potential crosscontamination
because of the large number of MVAC refrigerants. In this
NPRM, EPA is proposing to impose the same use conditions on all future
MVAC refrigerants as were imposed on HFC-134a and HCFC Blend Beta (60
FR 31092), and were proposed for HCFC Blend Delta and Blend Zeta (60 FR
51383). Because of EPA's interest in timely review of substitute
refrigerants, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose that these use
conditions be applied to all future refrigerants for use in motor
vehicle air conditioning, thereby removing the requirement for future
notice-and-comment rulemaking on this issue. In the future, EPA will
add refrigerants to the list of automotive substitutes that are
acceptable subject to use conditions without notice-and-comment
rulemaking. Such action will occur in the same manner as Notices of
Acceptability. If further restrictions are necessary for a specific
refrigerant (for example, if a substitute is found unacceptable), then
EPA will propose such action in notice-and-comment rulemaking.

(b) R-406A. R-406A, which consists of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and
isobutane, is proposed acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described
above, in addition to the requirement that retrofitting an MVAC system
to R-406A must include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier hoses.
Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, this blend
is considered a transitional alternative. Regulations regarding
recycling and reclamation issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act
apply to this blend. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPS among the
HCFCS. The GWPS of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are

[[Page 25607]]

somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and isobutane are flammable, the
blend is not. After significant leakage, however, this blend may become
weakly flammable. The manufacturer has performed a risk assessment that
demonstrates that it can be used safely in this end-use. There is
concern that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses. Thus, at the
manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional condition that
barrier hoses must be used with R-406A. Note: R-406A is sold under the
trade names ``GHG'' and ``McCool.''

The R-406A submission contained the first risk assessment that
attempted to quantify the additional risk posed by using a refrigerant
that is nonflammable but that may fractionate to a flammable state. EPA
invites comment on this risk assessment, which may be obtained from
USEPA Air Docket A-91-42, file VI-D-120. The assessment concludes that
an additional 0.018 injuries will occur per million vehicles annually.
This value is extremely low. In addition, even an error of a factor of
100 would still result in very low additional risk.

(c) HCFC Blend Lambda. HCFC Blend Lambda, which consists of HCFC-22,
HCFC-142b, and isobutane, is proposed acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject
to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning
described above, in addition to the requirement that HCFC Blend Lambda
must be used with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
contribute to ozone depletion, they will be phased out of production.
Therefore, this blend will be used primarily as a retrofit refrigerant.
However, HCFC Blend Lambda is acceptable for use in new systems,
subject to the same use conditions. Regulations regarding recycling and
reclamation issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to this
blend. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPS among the HCFCS. The GWPS
of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and
isobutane are flammable, the blend is not. After significant leakage,
this blend may become weakly flammable. However, this blend contains
more HCFC-22 and less of the two flammable components than R-406A, and
therefore should be at least as safe to use as R-406A. In addition, as
discussed above in the R-406A section, the manufacturer has performed a
risk assessment that demonstrates that R-406A can be used safely in
this end-use. Finally, as stated above, this blend contains even lower
percentages of flammable components than R-406A.
There is concern that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses.
Thus, at the manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional
condition that barrier hoses must be used with R-406A. Note: this blend
is sold under the trade name ``GHG-HP.''

(d) HCFC Blend Xi, HCFC Blend Omicron. HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend
Omicron, both of which consist of HCFC-22, HCFC-124, HCFC-142b, and
isobutane, are proposed acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described
above, in addition to the requirement that these blends must be used
with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone
depletion, they will be phased out of production. Therefore, these
blends will be used primarily as retrofit refrigerants. However, these
blends are acceptable for use in new systems, subject to the same use
conditions. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued
under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to these blends. HCFC-142b
has one of the highest ODPS among the HCFCS. The GWPS of HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and isobutane are
flammable, these blends are not. In addition, testing on these blends
has shown that they do not become flammable after leaks. EPA is
concerned that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses. Thus, EPA is
proposing an additional condition that barrier hoses must be used with
HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend Omicron. Note: HCFC Blend Xi is being sold
under the trade names ``GHG-X4'', ``Autofrost'', and ``Chill-It,'' and
HCFC Blend Omicron is being sold under the trade names ``Hot Shot'' and
``Kar Kool.''

B. Solvent Cleaning

Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute
for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF) in electronics cleaning subject
to a 200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a
400 ppm workplace exposure ceiling. HFC-4310mee is a new chemical that
has just completed review by EPA's Premanufacture Notice Program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act. This chemical does not deplete the
ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It does have
some potential to contribute to global warming since its 500-year
Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 520 and it has a 20.8 year lifetime.
However, the GWP and lifetime for HFC-4310 are both lower than the GWP
and lifetime for CFC-113 and significantly lower than for PFCs, which
are other substitutes for ozone-depleting solvents.
HFC-4310mee does exhibit some toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA,
and causes central nervous system effects at relatively low levels.
However, these effects are reversible and cease once chemical exposure
is eliminated. Review under the SNAP program and the PMN program
determined that a time-weighted average workplace exposure standard of
200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400 ppm would be adequately
protective of human health and that companies could readily meet these
exposure limits using the types of equipment specified in the product
safety information provided by the chemical manufacturer.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.

B. Precision Cleaning

(a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute
for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in precision cleaning subject to a
200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure ceiling. The reasoning behind this determination is
presented above in the section on electronics cleaning.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.

2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics cleaning sector for
high performance, precision-engineered applications only where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance

[[Page 25608]]

or safety requirements. These chemicals have global warming
characteristics comparable to the perfluorocarbons and, as a result,
are proposed to be subject to the same restrictions. A full discussion
of the global warming concerns and related risk management decision can
be found under 59 FR 13044 (March 18, 1994, at p. 13094)
b. Precision Cleaning.

(a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the precision cleaning sector for
high performance, precision-engineered applications only where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.
These chemicals have global warming characteristics comparable to the
perfluorocarbons and, as a result, are proposed to be subject to the
same restrictions. A full discussion of the global warming concerns and
related risk management decision can be found under 59 FR 13044 (March
18, 1994, at p. 13094).

3. Unacceptable

a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113
and MCF in electronics cleaning under existing rules (59 FR 13044;
March 18, 1994); today's notice proposes to amend this unacceptability
determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in
high-performance electronics cleaning until January 1, 1997. This
proposed determination extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent
cleaning, but only for existing users in high-performance electronics
and only for one year. The extension does not affect the production
phaseout date for HCFC-141b, which is January 1, 2003.
The extension should not be viewed as a reason to postpone
replacement of 141b. Alternatives exist for nearly all solvent cleaning
applications of 141b, and the principal reason for the extension is the
long lead time necessary to test, select, and implement a chosen
substitute in high-performance applications where stringent
qualifications testing is the norm.

Existing regulations affect 141b in two ways. Under the production
phaseout for ozone-depleting substances (ODS), 141b has a phaseout date
of January 1, 2003. This regulation, developed under section 604 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), states that chemical manufacturers will no longer
be allowed to manufacture 141b as of that date (40 CFR Part 82, Subpart
G, Appendix A). HCFC-141b is also subject to a number of use
restrictions relevant to solvent cleaning operations. According to
regulations developed under section 612 of the CAA--the SNAP program--
the only companies allowed to use 141b in solvent cleaning equipment
are existing users. Existing users were defined in the March 1994
determination as companies who had 141b-based solvent cleaning
equipment in place as of April 18, 1994. No new substitutions into 141b
for solvent cleaning were permitted, and even existing users may use
141b only until January 1, 1996. This use ban date for existing users
is the subject of the extension in today's proposal. HCFCS, including
141b, are also covered by other use restrictions such as the
nonessential ban (section 610) and labeling (section 611). The 610 and
611 regulations are not discussed here. If you need more information
about these regulations, call the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.

Many users and vendors of 141b have requested that the Agency
postpone the effective date of the use ban under SNAP for solvent
cleaning beyond January 1, 1996. In response to these petitions, EPA is
proposing an extension. Note, however, that the only change is that
existing uses in high-performance electronics cleaning would be
permitted for an additional year until January 1, 1997. (Precision
cleaning uses are also extended in today's proposal, but are listed in
the next section.) ``High-performance electronics'' would include highvalue
added components for aerospace, military, or medical applications
such as hybrid circuits or other electronics for missile guidance
systems. The existing policy of no new substitutions into 141b is
maintained and uses of 141b in metals cleaning and basic electronics
cleaning would still end as of January 1, 1996. These restricted
applications include cleaning of basic, formed metal parts and highvolume
electronics cleaning such as components for consumer
electronics.

An important distinction is that ``solvent cleaning'' in the SNAP
program is defined to cover replacements of ODS in industrial cleaning,
either in vapor degreasing or cold cleaning. It does not include
aerosol applications, which are covered separately under the SNAP
program. It also does not include other solvent cleaning uses of ODS
such as in textile cleaning, dry cleaning, flushing of automotive air
conditioning systems, or hand wiping. This means, for instance, that
the use ban date does not apply to 141b used for hand wiping. However,
users should understand that although these uses are not currently
governed by the SNAP program, responsible corporate policy would be to
implement alternatives to ODS where possible. Additionally, SNAP
reserves the right to regulate any use where significant environmental
differences exist in the choice of alternatives.
To minimize the paperwork burden, no reporting is proposed for
companies that qualify for an extension.
The extension is not an excuse to delay selecting an alternative.
The principal reason for extending the permissible period of use for
141b in these narrowed applications is not that alternatives do not
exist, but that users need more time to qualify and implement
alternatives. Even with the extension, uses of 141b in the specified
applications will only be permitted for another 12 months beyond the
current use ban date. This additional time can only be used
productively if users begin now to select, test, order equipment and
materials, etc.

The search for alternatives should include not just aqueous and
semi-aqueous alternatives, but also recently developed cleaning
chemicals and technologies. Information on vendors of substitutes is
available from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline. Call 1-800-
296-1996 and ask for the Vendor List for Precision Cleaning. In
addition, EPA has more detailed information available on topics such as
retrofitting 141b degreasers to use HFCS or on cleaning of medical
devices.

b. Precision Cleaning.

(a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113
and MCF in precision cleaning under existing rules (59 FR 13044; March
18, 1994); today's notice proposes to amend this unacceptability
determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in
precision cleaning until January 1, 1997. This proposed determination
extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent cleaning, but only for
existing users in precision cleaning and only for one year. The
extension does not affect the production phaseout date for HCFC-141b,
which is January 1, 2003.

For a full discussion of the rationale for extension, please see
the previous section on electronics cleaning. This discussion applies
in full to users of precision cleaning, which for purposes of this
extension is defined to include cleaning of devices of high-value
added, precision-engineered parts such as precision ball bearings for
navigational devices, or other components for aerospace, or medical
uses.

[[Page 25609]]

C. Aerosols

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Solvents.

(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are proposed as
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements. EPA is proposing to permit the use of PFCs in aerosols
applications despite their global warming potential since so few
nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a high
probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs are already
subject to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to
global warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision,
if implemented as proposed, will allow users to select PFCs in the
event of performance or safety concerns while guarding against
widespread, unnecessary use of these potent greenhouse gases.

(b) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) are proposed as
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements. EPA is proposing to permit the use of perfluoropolyethers
in aerosols applications despite their global warming potential since
so few nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a
high probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs, which have
global warming potentials comparable to the PFPEs, are already subject
to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to global
warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision, if
implemented as proposed, will allow users to select perfluoropolyethers
in the event of performance or safety concerns while guarding against
widespread, unnecessary use of these potent greenhouse gases.
2. Unacceptable

a. Propellants.

(a) SF6. SF6 is proposed as unacceptable substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12,
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in aerosol applications. This chemical has been
of commercial interest as a compressed gas propellant substitute for
ozone-depleting propellants. It has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200
years and a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 24,900. CFC-11,
in contrast, has a lifetime of 50 years and a GWP of 4,000. Formulators
have indicated to the EPA that other compressed gases such as CO<INF>2
would work equally well and could be formulated at similar or lower
cost.

3. Amendment to List of Substances Being Replaced
EPA proposes today to add CFC-12 and CFC-114 to the list of aerosol
propellants being replaced by substitutes reviewed under SNAP. This
will ensure that companies replacing these CFCS in their products will
be able to adhere to SNAP rulings in the replacement process. The
environmental trade-offs associated with replacing CFC-12 and CFC-114
versus CFC-11 do not change significantly, since the ODPS for all the
CFCS are roughly the same.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations
have been documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative
is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this proposed rule, the Agency is not required to
develop a plan with regard to small governments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any
rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements.
The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or
the head of the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Agency believes that this proposed rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has
therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of
the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the is
unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule
exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and
formal agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering
is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may
well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential
substitutes to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they
may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such
substitutes available.

[[Page 25610]]

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1774.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740. The reasons for these information requirements are explained in
the section on automobile air conditioning (III.A.1.a), and the
requirements will be mandatory under section 612 of the Clean Air Act
once the ICR is approved.

EPA is proposing to apply the information requirements described
above to this rulemaking, previous similar rulemakings, and future
rulemakings. Therefore, once the ICR is approved and this proposed rule
is finalized, the ICR will also apply to requirements described in
rules published on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31092) and a rule expected to
be published in April, 1996.

EPA estimates that the burden of learning about the requirements
will be approximately ten minutes, and that filling out each required
label itself will take under one minute. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 22, 1996, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 21, 1996.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

V. Additional Information

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional
information on SNAP contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. (EST).

For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the
Government Printing Office Order Desk, (202) 783-3238; the citation is
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone Technology Transfer Network (TTN), Clean Air Act
Amendment Bulletin Board. The access number for users with a 1200 or
2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For users with a 9600 bps modem the
access number is (919) 541-1447. For assistance in accessing this
service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal business hours (EST).
Finally, all ozone depletion-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices may be
retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site, at http://
www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/usregs.html.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed
amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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.)

* * * *

Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix D to read as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * *

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

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Proposed Use Conditions

R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'', ``GHG-X4''/``Autofrost''/
``Chill-It'', ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'', and all refrigerants when
listed in subsequent notices, are proposed acceptable subject to the
following conditions when used to retrofit a CFC-12 motor vehicle
air conditioning system or

[[Page 25611]]

when used in a new motor vehicle air conditioning system:

Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings that is
unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be
designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another
refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and
can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an
adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different
refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In addition,
fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
a. When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted,
conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism
in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being
removed.

b. All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy
the vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE
J1660, as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE
J2064, which are specific to HFC-134a.

c. In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the
atmosphere, systems shall have a device to limit compressor
operation before the pressure relief device will vent refrigerant.
This requirement is waived for systems that do not feature such a
pressure relief device.

d. All CFC-12 service ports shall be retrofitted with conversion
assemblies or shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use
with CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device
attached with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical
latching mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from being
removed.

When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as follows:
a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the
air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:

i. The name and address of the technician and the company
performing the retrofit

ii. The date of the retrofit

iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter''
vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
b. This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.

c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
d. The label must be affixed to the system over information
related to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally
replaced during vehicle repair.

e. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be
covered by the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a system
that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.

Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes

Application Substitute Proposed Decision Conditions Comments

Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- HFC-4310mee Acceptable......... Subject to a 200 ppm
113 and MCF. time-weighted
average workplace
exposure standard
and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
and MCF. time-weighted
average workplace
exposure standard
and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
Solvent Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
Application Substitute Proposed decision Comments
113 and MCF. proposed as acceptable similar global
substitutes for CFC-113 and warming
MCF in the precision cleaning profile to the
sector for high performance, PFCs, and the
precision-engineered SNAP decision
applications only where on PFPEs
reasonable efforts have been parallels that
made to ascertain that other for PFCs.
alternatives are not
technically feasible due to
performance or safety
requirements.
and MCF. proposed as acceptable similar global
substitutes for CFC-113 and warming
MCF in the precision cleaning profile to the
sector for high performance, PFCs, and the
precision-engineered SNAP decision
applications only where on PFPEs
reasonable efforts have been parallels that
made to ascertain that other for PFCs.
alternatives are not
technically feasible due to
performance or safety
requirements.
Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
End-use Substitute Proposed decision Comments
and MCF. unacceptability determination extends
determination to grant the use date for HCFC-
existing uses in high- 141b in solvent
performance electronics cleaning, but only for
permission to continue existing users in high-
until January 1, 1997. performance electronics
and only for one year.
MCF. unacceptability determination extends
determination to grant the use date for HCFC-
existing uses in 141b in solvent
precision cleaning cleaning, but only for
permission to continue existing users in
until January 1, 1997. precision cleaning and
only for one year.
Aerosols Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
Application Substitute Proposed Decision Comments
aerosol solvents. proposed as long atmospheric
acceptable lifetimes and high
substitutes for Global Warming
aerosol applications Potentials. This
only where reasonable decision reflects
efforts have been these concerns and is
made to ascertain patterned after the
that other SNAP decision on PFCs
alternatives are not in the solvent
technically feasible cleaning sector.
due to performance or
safety requirements.
Perfluoropolyethers............. Perfluorocarbons are PFPEs have similar
proposed as global warming
acceptable profile to the PFCs,
substitutes for and the SNAP decision
aerosol applications on PFPEs parallels
only where reasonable that for PFCs in the
efforts have been solvent cleaning
made to ascertain sector.
that other
alternatives are not
technically feasible
due to performance or
safety requirements.
Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
142b as aerosol propellants. all industrial gases, and
other compressed gases
meet user needs in this
application equally well.

Notices For
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation