Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone: Alternatives for the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, 33304-33311 [E8-13086]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33304
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Harbor at approximate position
42°21′26″ N, 071°2′38″ W.
(b) Effective Date. This rule is
effective from 9:00 p.m. through 11:00
p.m. on June 23, 2008.
(c) Definitions. (1) Designated
representative means a Coast Guard
Patrol Commander, including a Coast
Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other
officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or
a Federal, State, or local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of
the Port (COTP).
(d) Regulations. (1) In accordance
with the general regulations in section
165.23 of this part, entry into or
movement within this zone by any
person or vessel is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Boston or the COTP’s
designated representative.
(2) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone must
contact the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative to obtain
permission by calling the Sector Boston
Command Center at 617–223–5761.
Vessel operators given permission to
enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP’s
designated representative.
Dated: June 2, 2008.
Gail P. Kulisch,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Boston.
[FR Doc. E8–13137 Filed 6–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act provides
for the review of alternatives to ozonedepleting 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 https://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
https://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 ozonedepleting. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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,
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 endusers, 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 https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33305
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
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
33306
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33307
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,
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
33308
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 costeffective 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,
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
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’’ (65 FR
67249, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33309
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 https://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
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
33310
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective August 11, 2008.
PART 82—PROTECTION OF
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Motor
vehicle air-conditioning, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Stratospheric ozone layer.
I
Dated: June 5, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
Subpart G—Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program
b. In the table titled ‘‘Refrigerants—
Unacceptable Substitutes’’ by revising
the entry for ‘‘CFC–12 Motor Vehicle
Air Conditioners (Retrofit and New
Equipment/NIKs)’’.
I
1. The authority citation for part 82
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601,
7671–7671q.
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82—
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes
2. Appendix B to Subpart G is
amended as follows:
I a. In the first table by adding one new
entry to the end of the table.
I
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as
follows:
I
REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS
Application
Substitute
Decision
Conditions
Comments
*
CFC–12 Automobile Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning
(New equipment only).
*
*
R–152a as a substitute for
CFC–12.
*
Acceptable subject to use
conditions.
*
*
Engineering strategies
and/or devices shall be
incorporated into the
system such that foreseeable leaks into the
passenger compartment
do not result in R–152a
concentrations of 3.7%
v/v or above in any part
of the free space1 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.
*
Additional training for service technicians recommended.
Manufacturers should conduct and keep on file
failure mode and Effect
Analysis (FMEA) on the
MVAC as stated in SAE
J1739.
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
*
*
CFC–12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (Retrofit and New Equipment/NIKs).
Decision
Comments
*
*
*
R–405A ......................................... Unacceptable ................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Unacceptable ................................
Flammable Substitutes, other than
R–152a.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Hydrocarbon Blend B ....................
Unacceptable ................................
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
*
*
R–405A contains R–c318, a PFC,
which has an extremely high
GWP and lifetime. Other Substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Flammability is a serious concern.
Data have not been submitted
to demonstrate it can be used
safely in this end-use.
The risks associated 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.
12JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–13086 Filed 6–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA–8027]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
SUMMARY: This rule identifies
communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur and
a notice of this will be provided by
publication in the Federal Register on a
subsequent date.
DATES: Effective Dates: The effective
date of each community’s scheduled
suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’)
listed in the third column of the
following tables.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended
on the suspension date or for further
information, contact David Stearrett,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–2953.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not
otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and
administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Jun 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
coverage as authorized under the NFIP,
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an
appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in
this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance
with program regulations, 44 CFR part
59. Accordingly, the communities will
be suspended on the effective date in
the third column. As of that date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these
communities may adopt and submit the
required documentation of legally
enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but
prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be
suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A
notice withdrawing the suspension of
the communities will be published in
the Federal Register.
In addition, FEMA has identified the
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in
these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The
date of the FIRM, if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth
column of the table. No direct Federal
financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for
construction or acquisition of buildings
in identified SFHAs for communities
not participating in the NFIP and
identified for more than a year, on
FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of
the community as having flood-prone
areas (section 202(a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This
prohibition against certain types of
Federal assistance becomes effective for
the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final
rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month,
90-day, and 30-day notification letters
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer
stating that the community will be
suspended unless the required
floodplain management measures are
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33311
met prior to the effective suspension
date. Since these notifications were
made, this final rule may take effect
within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This rule is categorically excluded from
the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Considerations. No
environmental impact assessment has
been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Administrator has determined that this
rule is exempt from the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits flood insurance coverage
unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory
requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be
available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This rule involves no policies that have
federalism implications under Executive
Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule meets the applicable
standards of Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
does not involve any collection of
information for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
I Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is
amended as follows:
PART 64—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,
3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.
§ 64.6
[Amended]
2. The tables published under the
authority of § 64.6 are amended as
follows:
I
E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM
12JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 114 (Thursday, June 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33304-33311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13086]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
https://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 https://
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 https://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'' (65 FR 67249, 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
https://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.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as
follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
0
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
0
2. Appendix B to Subpart G is amended as follows:
0
a. In the first table by adding one new entry to the end of the table.
0
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
