Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Substitute in the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, 53445-53454 [E9-25106]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(1) If the inspection was done on or after
the effective date of this AD: Submit the
report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the
effective date of this AD: Submit the report
within 30 days after the effective date of this
AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Wayne Lockett,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–
120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425)
917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590. Or, e-mail
information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October
5, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–24986 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664; FRL–8969–7]
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 2060–AP11
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
New Substitute in the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Sector Under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act requires
the Environmental Protection Agency
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
(EPA) to review alternatives for ozonedepleting substances and to approve 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 of EPA proposes to
expand the list of acceptable substitutes
for ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
The substitute addressed in this
proposal is for the motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC) end-use within
the refrigeration and air-conditioning
sector. EPA proposes to find HFO–
1234yf acceptable, subject to use
conditions as a substitute for CFC–12 in
motor vehicle air conditioning. The
proposed substitute is a non ozonedepleting gas and consequently does not
contribute to stratospheric ozone
depletion.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 18, 2009, unless a
public hearing is requested. Comments
must then be received on or before
January 4, 2010. Any party requesting a
public hearing must notify the contact
listed below under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time on October 29, 2009. If a
hearing is held, it will take place on
November 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0664, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: Public Reading
Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0664. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53445
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. 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,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. This Docket
Facility 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 Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information about this proposed
rule, contact Margaret Sheppard,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office
of Atmospheric Programs;
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone
number (202) 343–9163, fax number,
(202) 343–2338; e-mail address at
sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices
and rulemakings under the SNAP
program are available on EPA’s
Stratospheric Ozone Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
regulations.html. For copies of the full
list of SNAP decisions in all industrial
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
53446
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sectors, contact the EPA Stratospheric
Protection Hotline at (800) 296–1996.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed action, if finalized, would
provide motor vehicle manufacturers
and their suppliers an additional
refrigerant option for motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC) systems. The
refrigerant discussed in this proposed
action is a non ozone-depleting
substance.
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory
Background
A. Rulemaking
B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable
Substitutes
C. Petition Process
D. 90-day Notification
E. Outreach
F. Clearinghouse
G. EPA’s Regulations Implementing
Section 612
II. EPA’s Proposed Decision on HFO–1234yf
III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives
IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO–1234yf
A. Atmospheric Effects and Related Health
and Environmental Impacts
B. General Population Risks from Ambient
Exposure to Compounds with Direct
Toxicity and to Increased Ground-Level
Ozone
C. Ecosystem Risks
D. Occupational Risks
E. Consumer Risks
F. Flammability
G. Cost and Availability of the Substitute
H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall
Impacts on Human Health and the
Environment
V. HFO–1234yf MVAC System Proposed Use
Conditions
VI. Additional Information Requested
VII. Section 609 Requirements for HFO–
1234yf
VIII. 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 and
Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
IX. References
I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory
Background
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires EPA to develop a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 and
implementing regulations 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,
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) 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.
The list of acceptable substitutes may be
found at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/lists/ and the lists of
unacceptable substitutes, acceptable
substitutes subject to use conditions and
acceptable substitutes subject to
narrowed use limits may be found at 40
CFR part 82 subpart G.
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, where appropriate,
seek to maximize the use of federal
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 maintain 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.
G. EPA’s Regulations Implementing
Section 612
On March 18, 1994, EPA published
the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044)
which established the process for
administering the SNAP program and
issued EPA’s first lists identifying
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes
in the major industrial use sectors. 40
CFR part 82, subpart G. 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 ODS.
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
substance in a sector that has
historically used ODS. 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.
CAA section 612(e); 40 CFR 82.176(a).
This requirement applies to substitute
manufacturers, but may include
importers, formulators, or end-users,
when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce.
You can find a complete chronology
of SNAP decisions and the appropriate
Federal Register citations at EPA’s
Stratospheric Ozone 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).
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
II. EPA’s Proposed Decision on HFO–
1234yf
EPA proposes that hydrofluoroolefin
(HFO)–1234yf 1 is acceptable as a
substitute for CFC–12 2 in new motor
vehicle air conditioning systems
(passenger cars and trucks), subject to
use conditions. EPA proposes the
following use conditions:
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
incorporate engineering strategies and/
or devices so that leaks into the
passenger compartment do not result in
HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above
the lower flammability limit (LFL) 3 of
6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
incorporate engineering strategies and/
or devices so that leaks into the engine
compartment or vehicle electric power
source storage areas do not result in
HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above
the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of
time;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
incorporate protective devices, isolation
and/or ventilation techniques in areas
where processes, procedures or upset
conditions such as leaks have the
potential to generate HFO–1234yf
concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in
proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle
electric power sources and exhaust
manifold surfaces;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
use unique fittings to be identified
pursuant to SAE standard J639 and
subject to EPA approval;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
include a detailed label identifying the
refrigerant and that the refrigerant is
flammable;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
have a high-pressure compressor cutoff
switch installed on systems equipped
with pressure relief devices; and
• Manufacturers must conduct and
keep on file Failure Mode and Effect
Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated
in SAE J1739.
The proposed decision for HFO–
1234yf applies to new MVAC systems
only in passenger cars and trucks. We
have previously determined that use of
flammable refrigerants (which would
include HFO–1234yf) in existing
equipment as a retrofit is unacceptable
(40 CFR part 82, subpart G, appendix B).
We seek comment on whether these use
conditions should be more protective or
should be less protective.
1 HFO–1234yf is also known as HFC–1234yf, R–
1234yf or 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene, CAS Reg.
No. 754–12–1.
2 CFC–12 is also known as
dichlorodifluoromethane, R–12, or Freon®-12, CAS
Reg. No. 75–71–8.
3 Unless stated otherwise, flammability limits
discussed here are by volume.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating
Alternatives
To determine whether a substitute is
acceptable or unacceptable as a
replacement for class I or II compounds,
the Agency evaluates substitutes
according to the criteria in
§ 82.180(a)(7). The Agency considers,
among other things, toxicity,
flammability, potential for occupational
and general population exposure, and
environmental effects including ozone
depletion potential, atmospheric
lifetime, impacts on local air quality and
climate as well as ecosystem effects of
the alternatives.
This proposal reflects additional
information on flammable refrigerants
in MVAC systems that has become
available since the HFC–152a
September 2006 proposed rule (71 FR
55140) and 2008 final rule (73 FR
33304), as well as EPA’s latest
understanding of all the available
information. These additional or revised
considerations include the increased
proportion of new hybrid and electric
vehicle sales in the U.S., passenger
compartment volume, and improved
assumptions for modeling exercises. In
this rulemaking, HFO–1234yf risks are
considered in relation to the risks
associated with HFC–134a and other
approved SNAP MVAC alternatives.
HFC–134a is the predominant ODS
refrigerant substitute used in passenger
vehicle MVAC systems. Other SNAPapproved MVAC substitutes have not
been implemented by car manufacturers
or car air conditioning system
manufacturers.
The EPA’s SNAP program does not
require that new substitutes be found
risk-free to be found acceptable. In
reviewing the acceptability of proposed
substitutes, EPA considers how each
substitute can be used within a specific
end-use and the resulting risks and
uncertainties surrounding potential
health and environmental effects.
IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO–1234yf
In the following section, HFO–1234yf
is evaluated in terms of the SNAP
criteria defined in § 82.180(a)(7).
A. Atmospheric Effects and Related
Health and Environmental Impacts
HFO–1234yf has an ozone-depletion
potential (ODP) of nearly zero 4
(Papadimitriou, 2007). By comparison,
CFC–12 has an ODP of 1.0 and HFC–
134a has an ODP of 0 (WMO, 2006).
4 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is currently reviewing the ODP of
HFO–1234yf and we will place this information in
the docket if it becomes available during the course
of this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53447
Generally, the other approved SNAP
MVAC substitutes have an ODP of less
than 0.2.
The global warming potential (GWP)
of HFO–1234yf is 4, based on a 100 year
time horizon (Papadimitriou, 2007),
compared to a value of 1 for carbon
dioxide. For basis of comparison, CFC–
12 has a GWP of 10,890 and HFC–134a
has a GWP of 1,430 (WMO, 2006). The
other SNAP-approved MVAC
refrigerants generally have a GWP
greater than 1000. HFO–1234yf has an
atmospheric lifetime of only 11 days
(Papadimitriou, 2007), compared to 100
years for CFC–12 and 14.0 years for
HFC–134a. Thus, in terms of direct
refrigerant emissions, HFO–1234yf
would have a significantly smaller
impact on climate compared to the
ozone depleting substance it replaces
and other common alternatives available
in the same end use.
The Agency believes sufficient
technical information is available on the
ODP and GWP of HFO–1234yf, but the
Agency welcomes additional comment
on the ODP and GWP values described
above. The Agency would give the
greatest weight to peer-reviewed,
published papers on HFO–1234yf as
supporting evidence for discussion on
ODP and GWP.
We note that one concern about HFO–
1234yf atmospheric effects is
trifluoroacetic acid (CF3COOH, TFA).
TFA is produced from atmospheric
oxidation of HFO–1234yf. EPA
understands that the oxidation of HFO–
1234yf yields >90% TFA, which is
significantly higher than the yield of
TFA from HFC–134a and other
approved SNAP MVAC substitutes. TFA
is naturally occurring, but at certain
levels is toxic to aquatic life forms.
Initial analysis indicates that the
projected maximum TFA concentration
in rainwater should not result in a
significant risk of aquatic toxicity. TFA
concentration in rainwater was
investigated because it is difficult to
predict what the actual TFA
concentrations will be. This is because
concentrations of environmental
contaminants in most fresh water bodies
fluctuate widely due to varying inputs
and outputs to most ponds, lakes, and
streams. Also, use of rainwater TFA
concentration as a point of comparison
is more conservative than comparing
TFA concentrations in water bodies
because TFA is expected to be diluted
in most freshwater bodies. The
exception to this is vernal pools and
similar seasonal water bodies that have
no significant outflow capacity (ICF,
2009).
After taking into account the nature of
HFO–1234yf degradation and the
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53448
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
resulting TFA concentration in
rainwater; regional precipitation
patterns; the geology of closed aquatic
systems; and no observed effect
concentrations (NOEC) for TFA, TFA
production resulting from HFO–1234yf
emissions is not expected to pose
significant harm to aquatic communities
in the near future. Additional research
is necessary to determine if significant
TFA loading is occurring in vernal pools
near major populations (ICF, 2009). EPA
is aware of studies to evaluate wet
deposition effects that are underway at
the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology
(AIST) based in Japan. Their results on
wet deposition were not available at the
time of this proposal’s drafting, but EPA
will consider any relevant findings by
AIST that become available in a final
version of this regulation and will
provide an opportunity for additional
public comment if the relevant findings
suggest EPA should change its proposed
determination.
Concerns about dry deposition of TFA
also exist. Initial analysis indicates that
it may be somewhat of a concern for
photosynthesis (ICF, 2009). EPA is
aware of studies to evaluate dry
deposition effects that are underway at
AIST. Their results on dry deposition
were not available at the time of this
proposal’s drafting, but EPA will
consider any relevant findings by AIST
that become available in a final version
of this regulation and will provide an
opportunity for additional public
comment if the relevant findings suggest
EPA should change its proposed
determination. The AIST findings will
be posted in the docket (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0664) when they are
available.
The Agency believes sufficient
technical information on the TFA
deposition from HFO–1234yf is
available for the basis of this proposal;
however, the Agency welcomes
additional comment on HFO–1234yf’s
environmental and atmospheric effects.
The Agency will give the greatest weight
to published, peer-reviewed studies.
The Agency requests comment on the
impact of increased abundance of TFA
resulting from the use of HFO–1234yf as
an MVAC refrigerant in the U.S., and
the potential impacts of U.S. and
worldwide use of HFO–1234yf as an
MVAC refrigerant. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) informed EPA
that a follow-on study of the
Papadimitriou 2007 work is under way.
EPA anticipates the results of this study
will be published and be made publicly
available before the Agency issues a
final rule on the acceptability of HFO–
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
1234yf under the SNAP Program. If the
study becomes available, EPA will
consider that information in
determining how to move forward on
this proposed determination for HFO–
1234yf.
Currently available analysis on the
atmospheric and local air quality
impacts of HFO–1234yf assumes an
emissions rate very similar to HFC–
134a. This assumption leads to a very
conservative emission rate because it is
highly likely HFO–1234yf will have a
lower leak rate compared to HFC–134a
because HFO–1234yf will cost
approximately ten times more than
HFC–134a. There will be an economic
basis for conserving and preventing the
release of HFO–1234yf. But the same
logic implies that the market adoption
of this alternative may not be high,
resulting in even lower total emissions.
We seek comment on whether it is
appropriate to analyze environmental
impacts of HFO–1234yf based on the
current emission rate for HFC–134a in
MVAC, and if not, what emission rate
EPA should use in our environmental
analyses.
B. General Population Risks From
Ambient Exposure to Compounds With
Direct Toxicity and to Increased
Ground-Level Ozone
Toxicity:
EPA’s New Chemicals Program,
mandated by Section 5 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA),
conducted a premanufacture review of
HFO–1234yf. This review assessed the
potential environmental and human
health risks associated with the
substance (Docket EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2008–0918). Based on test data on HFO–
1234yf, EPA has human health concerns
for developmental toxicity and lethality
via inhalation exposure.
The Workplace Environmental
Exposure Limit (WEEL) Committee of
the American Industrial Hygiene
Association has established a WEEL of
500 parts per million (ppm) by volume
on an eight-hour time-weighted average
(TWA) for HFO–1234yf. See docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664 for the
WEEL Committee rationale. The
Committee established a WEEL of 1,000
ppm by volume on an eight-hour TWA
for HFC–134a.
In terms of cardiotoxicity, HFC–134a
is a cardiac sensitizer at 75,000 ppm
with a no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) of 50,000 ppm. HFO–1234yf is
negative in the cardiac sensitization test
at exposures of up to 120,000 ppm. (See
‘‘Acute Cardiac Sensitization Study of
HFO–1234ze and HFO–1234yf in Dogs’’
in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664).
Ground-level Ozone:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
HFO–1234yf could impact local air
quality (LAQ) through formation of
ground-level ozone. Photochemical
ozone creation potential (POCP)
describes a compound’s potential to
form ground-level ozone. HFO–1234yf
has a higher POCP than the
predominant MVAC refrigerant, HFC–
134a. HFO–1234yf has a POCP
comparable to ethylene; ethylene is an
alkene. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change/Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel Special Report,
alkenes ‘‘have the potential to
significantly influence ozone formation
on the urban and regional scales.’’
Papadimitriou et al. (2007) indicate that,
‘‘studies are needed to quantify the
degradation of [HFO–1234yf] under
atmospheric conditions for OH- and Clatom-initiated chemistry to fully
evaluate the impact of these compounds
and their degradation products on
climate and air quality.’’
An initial assessment says that HFO–
1234yf could potentially increase
ground level ozone by >1–4% in certain
areas, which may affect attainment with
the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for ozone (ICF, 2009). The
reader should note ground-level ozone
formation is highly variable and
depends on several factors, such as
availability of chemical inputs, and
sunlight and heat. EPA notes that HFO–
1234yf is defined as a volatile organic
compound under Clean Air Act
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
addressing the development of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain
and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards. The Agency requests
comment on the LAQ impacts of HFO–
1234yf use as an MVAC refrigerant in
the U.S. and globally. The Agency
would give the greatest weight to peerreviewed, published papers for
comments on LAQ impacts. As stated
earlier, NOAA’s follow-on study of
HFO–1234yf is expected before the
Agency issues a final rule on the
acceptability of HFO–1234yf under the
SNAP Program. In the meantime, the
Agency requests comment on whether a
>1–4% increase in ground level ozone
is significant.
C. Ecosystem Risks
See discussion under Atmospheric
Effects and Related Health and
Environmental Impacts.
D. Occupational Risks
Occupational risks could come about
during the manufacture of the
refrigerant, initial installation of the
refrigerant at the car assembly plant or
servicing of the MVAC system. The
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
TSCA New Chemicals Program review
of HFO–1234yf determined that
significant industrial or commercial
worker exposure is unlikely due to CAA
section 609 technician training, the use
of CAA section 609 certified refrigerant
handling equipment, and other
protective measures. Therefore, the
proposed manufacture, processing, and
use of HFO–1234yf are not expected to
present an unreasonable risk to workers.
More details can be found at the New
Chemicals Program’s docket for HFO–
1234yf, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0918,
and in the memorandum, ‘‘Risk
Assessment: P070601 Reflecting
Deliberations and Decisions from the 3/
4/09 Dispo[sition] Meeting’’ in dockets
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664 and EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2008–0918.
In regards to flammability, with
proper mitigation and training, the
frequency of exposure to flammable
HFO–1234yf concentrations in service
situations can be managed. Based on
feedback from certified MVAC service
technicians, EPA believes that the
flammability potential of HFO–1234yf is
within the range of other substances that
automotive service technicians
encounter routinely (See docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0017). Training,
mitigation, and limiting the frequency of
exposure can reduce any potential risks
to the technicians. Input from
technicians confirms this perspective.
Some car manufacturers have suggested
that new training for HFO–1234yf
should be required for all MVAC
technicians. EPA requests comment on
whether additional training for service
technicians on HFO–1234yf should be
required so that they are knowledgeable
about the different hazards associated
with working on HFO–1234yf MVAC
systems compared to the two systems
currently in use—i.e., CFC–12 or HFC–
134a systems. Any specific training
requirements would be adopted in a
follow-up Section 609 rulemaking. At
this point, EPA recommends, but does
not propose to require, additional
training and requests input on the need
for required training for persons using
HFO–1234yf in an MVAC service/
maintenance/disposal scenario.
E. Consumer Risks
Risks to consumers as vehicle
occupants have been evaluated, in the
context of HFO–1234yf’s flammability
and toxicity.
Based on American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 34 testing, HFO–1234yf’s
lower flammability limit (LFL) is 6.2%
and upper flammability limit is 12.3%
(Gradient, 2008), making this refrigerant
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
less flammable than HFC–152a, the only
flammable SNAP-approved MVAC
refrigerant. Depending on the charge
size of an HFO–1234yf MVAC system,
which can range from as little as 400
grams to as much as 1600 grams (ICF,
2008a), it is possible in a worst case
scenario to reach a flammable
concentration of HFO–1234yf inside the
passenger compartment.
In terms of toxicological concerns, the
TSCA New Chemicals Program review
of HFO–1234yf determined that
potential consumer (passenger)
exposure from refrigerant leak into the
passenger compartment of a vehicle is
not expected to present an unreasonable
risk. However, consumer exposure from
filling, servicing, or maintaining MVAC
systems without professional training
and the use of CAA Section 609
certified equipment may cause serious
health effects. Therefore, to prevent this
risk EPA is also promulgating a
Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under
section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (docket EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2008–0918). This SNUR
would require submission of a
Significant New Use Notice to EPA at
least 90 days before commencing an
activity that is designated as a
significant new use of HFO–1234yf.
F. Flammability
The proposed upper limit of occupant
exposure to HFO–1234yf protects
against the possibility of flammability. It
is important to note that when burned
or exposed to high heat, HFO–1234yf
like all fluorocarbons, including CFC–12
and HFC–134a, forms acid byproducts
including hydrofluoric acid (HF)—a
severe respiratory irritant.5 The
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) has set a
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)—8hour occupational exposure limit—for
HF at 3 ppm which is the upper
allowable limit for worker exposure.
Passenger exposure to HF could occur
as a result of a leak in the presence of
an ignition source. EPA’s approach in
setting use conditions is to prevent any
fire risk associated with HFO–1234yf
use in MVAC systems, which would
also prevent any potential passenger
exposure to HF. EPA understands that
there is work currently underway that
examines the issue of pre-ignition HF
formation. If those studies indicate the
potential for significant pre-ignition HF
formation, EPA will consider that
information in determining how to
move forward with this proposed rule.
Additionally, EPA welcomes any
5 These decomposition products have a sharp,
acrid odor even at concentrations of only a few
parts per million.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53449
comment on that study or other studies
of which EPA is not aware that address
the potential for pre-ignition HF
formation.
Flammable Concentrations Inside the
Passenger Compartment
SAE International commissioned a
risk assessment of HFO–1234yf in
MVAC systems (Gradient, 2008) based
on the analytical framework developed
by EPA and the U.S. Army in a 2006
alternative refrigerant risk analysis
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2).
The risk assessment incorporated the
results of computational fluid dynamic
(CFD) modeling (by DuPont) of an HFO–
1234yf leak into the passenger
compartment. DuPont conducted a
limited assessment of refrigerant leakage
into the passenger compartment by
modeling the first 200 seconds of a leak
into the passenger compartment. Based
on their analysis, at least one of their
simulations (idle vehicle, low fan,
0.5mm orifice leak, and recirculation
mode), led to exceeding the HFO–
1234yf LFL inside the passenger
compartment. To supplement these
results, SAE International updated the
modeling results with field test
assessments of leaking refrigerant into
the passenger compartment of Renault/
PSA/Fiat and General Motors medium
and small size cars. The test results
show that there are some scenarios
where the LFL was exceeded (Gradient,
2009). According to the SAE
International risk assessment report,
there is ‘‘a potential ignition hazard if a
smoking-related ignition source is
present’’ (Gradient, 2008). However, the
report references a separate field study
performed by Exponent where an
experimental release of HFO–1234yf
was released into the passenger and
engine compartment of a large vehicle,
a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria (Exponent,
2008). In this field study, tested releases
of HFO–1234yf did not produce
concentrations above the LFL. However,
given the fact that flammable conditions
can come about in the passenger
compartment, particularly in medium
and small size cars, the Agency believes
it is prudent to propose a use condition
that addresses a possible ignition
hazard.
The Agency requests public comment
on the SAE International/DuPont and
Exponent reports. Specifically, the
Agency requests comment on the
appropriateness of the simulated charge
size that was used by each report. The
SAE International/DuPont report
simulated a 2001 Ford Crown Victoria
with a 691 gram HFO–1234yf charge.
The Exponent report used a 1997 Ford
Crown Victoria with a charge size of 693
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
53450
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
grams. The 1997 and 2001 Ford Crown
Victorias were originally designed with
approximately 966 gram and 1097 grams
HFC–134a charge size systems (MACS,
2005). Honeywell presentations have
indicated the HFO–1234yf charge size is
90–95% of a HFC–134a charge size
(Honeywell, 2008). Based on the
original refrigerant charge size of these
Crown Victorias, the HFO–1234yf
charge sizes, in both simulations, are
not consistent with the 90–95% HFC–
134a charge sizes described in
Honeywell presentations and the Crown
Victorias are undercharged. Charge size
is an important element in determining
the probability of a flammable
concentration. EPA requests comment
on whether the charge sizes used in the
DuPont and Exponent simulations are
consistent with the actual charge sizes
that would need to be used in MVAC for
these vehicles.
The Agency also requests comment on
the use of a large-size car as a worst-case
car scenario for a MVAC risk
assessment. Based on an analysis done
in 2004–2005, the EPA/U.S. Army risk
assessment (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0025.2) concluded large
passenger cars provided the highest
ratio of refrigerant charge to interior
compartment volume, and large
passenger cars were broadly
representative of the world fleet. Since
that analysis was performed, there is
data to indicate the sales of small cars
have increased, and such sales are likely
to continue to increase given a
manufacturing shift towards smaller
cars (ICF, 2008b). A recent analysis
showed higher ratios of refrigerant
charge to interior compartment volume
in small trucks and two-seaters,
compared to the large car used in SAE’s
risk assessment (ICF, 2008a). A higher
ratio of refrigerant charge to interior
compartment volume could lead to
more occurrences of flammable
concentrations.
Flammable Concentrations in the
Engine Compartment
According to the SAE International
report, ‘‘the highest value measured in
the engine compartment (87,000 ppm)
suggests a potential ignition hazard’’
(Gradient, 2008). Although an engine
compartment field test suggested that it
was not possible to ignite HFO–1234yf
(Dupont 2008), temperatures that could
ignite the refrigerant exist on the
exhaust manifold. Most car
manufacturers cover the exhaust
manifold with a heat shield, but this is
not a requirement. EPA requests
comment on the proposed use condition
that requires protective devices under
the vehicle hood to avoid any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
flammable concentrations of refrigerant
coming into the vicinity of hot exhaust
manifold surfaces.
Hybrid and electric vehicle sales in
the U.S. have dramatically increased
over the past decade (ICF, 2008b). To
address this change in the market, EPA
considered the potential for another
ignition source from the electric power
source in hybrid and electric cars that
is not present with gasoline-only
vehicles. According to DuPont and
Honeywell’s Guidelines for Use and
Handling of HFO–1234yf, ‘‘isolation
techniques or other suitable methods
should be used to prevent battery and
power system sparks/arc. In areas where
processes, procedures or upset
conditions such as leaks have the
potential to generate flammable HFO–
1234yf vapor-in-air concentrations in
proximity to hybrid vehicle electric
power sources, isolation and/or
ventilation should be used.’’ (DuPont/
Honeywell, 2008).
In addition, current hybrid vehicles
with HFC–134a MVAC systems use
polyolester (POE) oil as a system
lubricant, primarily because
polyalkylene glycol (PAG) oils are
conductive and can lead to shorts. It is
not clear if HFO–1234yf MVAC systems
can work with the POE oil that is
needed for hybrid vehicles. The EPA
requests comment on whether the
flammability of HFO–1234yf combined
with PAG/POE oils may create a larger
concern under the hood of hybrid and
electric vehicles.
EPA is aware of SAE International
activities to develop a standard on
specific risk mitigation strategies to
avoid flammable concentrations under
the hood. An excerpt from the latest
draft of a standard that covers this topic
is available in the docket. EPA requests
comment on using such an SAE J
standard as a use condition to protect
against flammable concentrations under
the hood. If SAE adopts a standard that
reflects a different intent than in the
current draft and if EPA determines to
include such a different standard as a
use condition, EPA would consider
whether further comment is needed
before it issued a final rule with that use
condition.
Other Flammable Refrigerants and Risk
Mitigation
Hydrocarbon refrigerants are
unacceptable (prohibited) in MVAC
systems under the SNAP program and
are specifically prohibited in several
states. Hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon
blends must not be used in HFO–1234yf
MVAC systems.
The use conditions described in this
action are specific to HFO–1234yf and
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
do not apply to other flammable
refrigerants. HFO–1234yf is less
flammable and has a higher LFL than
HFC–152a, and the proposed use
conditions for HFO–1234yf would not
be adequate for HFC–152a. However,
the interior passenger compartment risk
mitigation strategies described in the
HFC–152a proposed and final rules (71
FR 55140 and 73 FR 33304,
respectively) can be protective risk
mitigation strategies for HFO–1234yf.
EPA refers to the previous discussions
on HFC–152a risk mitigation strategies
for manufacturers to consider when
deciding what risk mitigation strategies
might be used if HFO–1234yf is found
acceptable subject to use conditions.
G. Cost and Availability of the
Substitute
Definitive costs for the refrigerant
have not been shared with the Agency.
Based on estimates from Honeywell and
DuPont, the cost of HFO–1234yf will be,
at least initially, approximately $40–60/
pound (Weissler, 2008). The cost of the
refrigerant will depend on several
factors, including, but not limited to,
how much refrigerant will be available
for sale, the quality of the refrigerant,
and where the refrigerant is
manufactured. The cost of HFO–1234yf
will likely be more than HFC–134a
because the HFO–1234yf manufacturing
process requires more energy and more
steps than HFC–134a.
The manufacturers of HFO–1234yf
state the chemical can be available
when the market requires it. At the
moment there are no dedicated HFO–
1234yf manufacturing plants.
H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall
Impacts on Human Health and the
Environment
On the whole, EPA proposes that the
conditioned use of HFO–1234yf does
not present a significantly larger risk to
human health and the environment
compared to HFC–134a, the
predominant ODS refrigerant substitute
in passenger vehicle MVAC systems and
other SNAP-approved MVAC refrigerant
alternatives, and in many cases likely
poses less risk. Use conditions are
necessary to address the flammability
concerns associated with use of HFO–
1234yf. If it is determined that there are
possible atmospheric effects of HFO–
1234yf, those would be controlled by
Clean Air Act Section 608 and Section
609 regulatory requirements that
prohibit the venting, or release, of
refrigerant during the service,
maintenance and disposal of
refrigeration and A/C equipment. EPA
welcomes comment on this proposal;
the Agency prefers peer-reviewed,
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
published papers for supporting
documentation on comments
concerning technical issues.
The conditions we are proposing for
the safe use of HFO–1234yf are outlined
below.
V. HFO–1234yf MVAC System Proposed
Use Conditions
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Use Conditions for HFO–1234yf
EPA proposes to find HFO–1234yf
acceptable with use conditions in new
MVACs as a substitute for CFC–12. This
proposed determination is limited to
MVAC systems on passenger cars and
light-duty trucks; this proposed
determination does not include any
other MVAC systems, including those
on buses, trains, boats, off-road
equipment, or other vehicles. The
submission did not specifically request
use in these other MVAC systems and
the risks associated with these MVAC
systems have not been evaluated.
EPA proposes to find HFO–1234yf
acceptable with the following use
conditions:
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
incorporate engineering strategies and/
or devices so that leaks into the
passenger compartment do not result in
HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above
the lower flammability limit (LFL) of
6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
incorporate engineering strategies and/
or devices so that leaks into the engine
compartment or vehicle electric power
source storage areas do not result in
HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above
the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of
time;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
incorporate protective devices, isolation
and/or ventilation techniques in areas
where processes, procedures or upset
conditions such as leaks have the
potential to generate HFO–1234yf
concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in
proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle
electric power sources and exhaust
manifold surfaces;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
use unique fittings to be identified
pursuant to SAE standard J639 and
subject to EPA approval;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
include a detailed label identifying the
refrigerant and that the refrigerant is
flammable;
• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must
have a high-pressure compressor cutoff
switch installed on systems equipped
with pressure relief devices; and
• Manufacturers must conduct and
keep on file Failure Mode and Effect
Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated
in SAE J1739.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
EPA requests public comment on the
proposed use conditions for HFO–
1234yf. Amongst other topics, EPA
requests comment on whether interior
passenger compartment limits to HFO–
1234yf should apply only when the
vehicle ignition is ‘on.’
General SNAP MVAC Use Conditions
On October 16, 1996, EPA
promulgated a final rule (61 FR 54029)
establishing certain conditions on the
use of any refrigerant used as a
substitute for CFC–12 in MVAC systems
(appendix D to subpart G of 40 CFR part
82). That rule provides that EPA would
list new refrigerant substitutes in future
notices of acceptability and all such
refrigerants would be subject to the use
conditions stated in that rule. Therefore,
EPA is establishing a use condition that
unique fittings must be identified
pursuant to SAE standard J639 adopted
in 2009 and approved by EPA.
VI. Additional Information Requested
The Agency seeks comments on
topics related to HFO–1234yf that are
beyond the scope of this Section 612
proposed rulemaking regarding use of
HFO–1234yf in new MVAC systems, but
which could be relevant to future
actions on HFO–1234yf as a substitute
refrigerant. Please send information on
any of the following issues to Margaret
Sheppard, sheppard.margaret@epa.gov.
Retrofit Use of HFO–1234yf
The Honeywell submission requested
SNAP review of HFO–1234yf in new
MVAC applications only. Honeywell
did not petition the Agency to review
retrofit use of HFO–1234yf. The Agency
has not fully evaluated the safety issues
associated with using HFO–1234yf to
service existing CFC–12 or HFC–134a
designed MVAC systems. EPA rules
prohibit the use of flammable
refrigerants in retrofit systems. 40 CFR
part 82, subpart 2, App. B (61 FR
54029). Any person interested in using
HFO–1234yf in retrofit systems would
need to petition EPA to change the
existing unacceptable determination.
Such an option would require a separate
SNAP submission and evaluation by
EPA. EPA suspects that car
manufacturers are the best qualified,
and likely the only qualified entity to
undertake such an application given the
complexities of going to HFO–1234yf.
The Agency requests comment on
whether retrofit kits can effectively meet
the requirements identified in this
proposal for new MVAC systems and if
retrofits have a detrimental impact on
the MVAC system fuel efficiency. The
Agency also specifically requests
comments from car manufacturers on
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53451
retrofitting existing MVAC systems to
HFO–1234yf.
Retrofitting HFO–1234yf MVAC Systems
to Other Alternative Refrigerants
Individuals, service shops, or
manufacturers might consider refilling
or charging MVAC systems designed for
HFO–1234yf with another refrigerant.
The Agency has not evaluated the safety
issues associated with retrofitting HFO–
1234yf MVAC systems with other
MVAC refrigerants previously approved
under SNAP. Because other refrigerants
may be less expensive, the Agency is
concerned that consumers may consider
retrofitting HFO–1234yf systems to use
other refrigerants. The use conditions
proposed for HFO–1234yf are specific to
the properties of this chemical, and
would not be protective of fire hazards
that may come about from, for example,
hydrocarbon refrigerant (HCR) that is
more flammable. HCRs are more
flammable than HFO–1234yf. Besides
the safety concerns of retrofitting to
another refrigerant, the practice could
lead to increased refrigerant emissions
because of materials compatibility or/
and leakage due to hose permeation.
This practice may come about if the
price of HFO–1234yf is high, or if there
is limited supply of HFO–1234yf. EPA
requests comments on this type of
retrofitting, and provisions that need to
be made to address this issue,
particularly in the context of SNAP’s
general requirement for unique fittings
for each unique SNAP listed refrigerant.
VII. Section 609 Requirements for
HFO–1234yf
Service equipment, technician
certification and end-of-life disposal
specifications will be addressed in a
follow-on rulemaking(s) under Section
609 of the Clean Air Act.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’ It raises novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
53452
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This
proposed rule is an Agency
determination. It contains no new
requirements for reporting. The only
recordkeeping requirement involves
customary business practice. 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 (EPA ICR
No. 1596.05). This Information
Collection Request (ICR) included five
types of respondent reporting and
record keeping activities pursuant to
SNAP regulations: submission of a
SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA
Addendum, notification for test
marketing activity, record keeping for
substitutes acceptable subject to use
restrictions, and record-keeping for
small volume uses. This proposed rule
requires minimal record-keeping of
studies done to ensure that MVAC
systems using HFO–1234yf meet the
requirements set forth in this rule.
Because it is customary business
practice that automotive systems
manufacturers and automobile
manufacturing companies 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.
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 this proposed rule on small
entities, we certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. The requirements of this
proposed rule impact car manufacturers
and car air conditioning system
manufacturers only; none of these
businesses qualify as small entities.
Additionally, car manufacturers and car
air conditioning system manufacturers
are not mandated to move to HFO–
1234yf MVAC systems. EPA is simply
listing HFO–1234yf 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 HFO–1234yf as a
refrigerant in new MVACs.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This regulation
applies directly to entities that
manufacture MVAC systems with the
proposed substitute, and not to
governmental entities. This proposed
rule does not mandate a switch to this
substitute, but rather adds to the list of
available substitutes from which a
manufacturer may choose;
consequently, there is no direct
economic impact on entities from this
rulemaking. Also, production-quality
HFO–1234yf MVAC systems are not
manufactured yet. Consequently, no
change in business practice is required
by this proposed rule. This action
provides additional technical options
allowing greater flexibility for industry
in designing consumer products. Thus,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. As
noted above, this proposed regulation
would not apply to any governmental
entity. 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.
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 proposal 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 entities that
manufacture MVAC systems with the
proposed substitute 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
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect one or
more Indian tribes, the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes
because this regulation applies directly
to entities that manufacture MVAC
systems with the proposed substitute
and not to governmental entities. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to EO 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because
it is not economically significant as
defined in EO 12866, and because the
Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This
action’s health and risk assessments are
contained in Section IV of this proposed
rule.
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure to HFO–1234yf.
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (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 alternative MVAC
systems. Preliminary information
indicates that these new systems will
have similar fuel efficiency compared to
currently available MVAC systems.
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
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its 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. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves
technical standards. EPA proposes to
use the SAE International standard J639,
which addresses requirements for safety
and reliability for HFO–1234yf systems.
SAE International is the international
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
standard setting body for motor vehicle
requirements. SAE International
standards are globally recognized and
adopted by all major car manufacturers
and system suppliers. These standards
can be obtained from https://
www.sae.org/technical/standards/.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify other potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations; HFO–1234yf is a non
ozone-depleting substance with a low
GWP. Based on the toxicological and
atmospheric work described earlier,
HFO–1234yf will not have any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
This NPRM proposes to require specific
use conditions for MVAC systems, if car
manufacturers chose to make MVAC
systems using this low GWP refrigerant
alternative.
IX. References
The documents below are referenced
in the preamble. All documents are
located in the Air Docket at the address
listed in section titled ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at
the beginning of this document. Unless
specified otherwise, all documents are
available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0664 at https://
www.regulations.gov.
53453
Exponent. 2008. HFO–1234yf Refrigerant
Concentration and Ignition Tests in FullScale Vehicle Passenger Cabin and Engine
Compartment.
Gradient Corporation. 2008. Risk Assessment
for Alternative Refrigerant HFO–1234yf.
Gradient Corporation. 2009. Risk Assessment
for Alternative Refrigerants HFO–1234yf
and R–744 (CO2).
ICF International. 2008a. Air Conditioning
Refrigerant Charge Size to Passenger
Compartment Volume Ratio Analysis.
ICF International. 2008b. Revised
Characterization of U.S. Hybrid and Small
Car Sales (Historical and Predicted) and
Hybrid Vehicle Accidents.
ICF International. 2009. Revised Draft
Assessment of the Potential Impacts of
HFO–1234yf and the Associated
Production of TFA on Aquatic
Communities and Local Air Quality.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/
Technology & Economic Assessment Panel
Special Report. 2006. Safeguarding the
Ozone Layer and the Global Climate
System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons.
Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/
ipccreports/sroc.htm.
Interior Climate Control Standards
Committee of SAE International. 2009.
Excerpt from draft HFO–1234yf Engine
Compartment Safety Standard.
Minor, B., 2008. CRP–1234: CFD Modeling of
a Large Car—Final Report.
Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide.
2005. A/C & Cooling System
Specifications: 1995–2006.
Papadimitriou, V., R.K. Talukdar, R.W.
Portmann, A.R. Ravishankara, and J.B.
Burkholder. 2007. CF3CF=CH2 and (Z)CF3CF=CHF: Temperature dependent OH
rate coefficients and global warming
potentials. Physical Chemistry Chemical
Physics. 9: 1–13.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion:
2006. World Meteorological Organization.
Available at https://www.wmo.int/pages/
prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2006/
ozone_asst_report.html.
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). 2006. Risk Analysis for
Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle
Air Conditioning.
Weissler, P., 2008. Consensus Building on
Refrigerant Type. Automotive Engineering
International. 9: 30–32.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 13, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
References
PART 82—PROTECTION OF
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
Dupont and Honeywell. Guidelines for Use
and Handling of HFO–1234yf (v8.0).
1. The authority citation for part 82
continues to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
53454
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–
7671q.
Subpart G—Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program
adding one new entry to the end of the
table to read as follows:
2. The first table in Appendix B to
Subpart G of Part 82 is amended by
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82—
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes
REFRIGERANTS-ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS
Application
Substitute
*
CFC–12 Automobile
Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning (New
equipment in passenger cars and
trucks only).
1 Free
*
*
Decision
*
HFO–1234yf as a
substitute for CFC–
12.
Comments
*
*
*
*
Acceptable subject to
Engineering strategies and/or devices must
use conditions.
be incorporated into the system such that
leaks into the free space 1 of the passenger compartment do not result in HFO–
1234yf concentrations of 6.2% v/v or
above in any part of the free space 1 inside the passenger compartment for more
than 15 seconds.
Engineering strategies and/or devices must
be incorporated into the system such that
leaks into the engine compartment or vehicle electric power source storage areas do
not result in HFO–1234yf concentrations of
6.2% v/v or above for any period of time.
HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate protective devices, isolation and/or
ventilation techniques in areas where
processes, procedures or upset conditions
such as leaks have the potential to generate HFO–1234yf concentrations at or
above 6.2% v/v in proximity to exhaust
manifold surfaces and hybrid/electric vehicle electric power sources.
Manufacturers must adhere to all the safety
requirements listed in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J639
(adopted 2009), including unique fittings
and flammable refrigerant warning label
and high-pressure compressor cutoff
switch and pressure relief devices.
Manufacturers must conduct and keep on file
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)
on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739
(adopted 2009).
*
Additional training for
service technicians
recommended.
Observe Pre-manufacture Notice
(PMN) regulatory
decision.
space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC module.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–25106 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 224
RIN 0648–AV15
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Conditions
Protective Regulations for Killer
Whales in the Northwest Region Under
the Endangered Species Act and
Marine Mammal Protection Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:53 Oct 16, 2009
Jkt 220001
ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of
extension of public comment period.
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), are issuing
this notice to advise the public that
NMFS is extending the public comment
period for proposed regulations under
the Endangered Species Act and Marine
Mammal Protection Act to prohibit
vessels from approaching killer whales
within 200 yards and from parking in
the path of whales for vessels in inland
waters of Washington State. The
proposed regulations would also
prohibit vessels from entering a
conservation area during a defined
season. The proposed rule was
published July 29, 2009, opening a 90day public comment period and
noticing two public meetings. In
response to requests from the public, on
September 17, 2009, we published a
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
notice in the Federal Register
announcing an additional public
meeting. We are issuing this notice to
announce an 80-day extension of the
public comment period in response to
requests to provide more time for the
public to review the proposed
regulation and provide comments.
We recognize that by extending the
public comment period, we will not
have sufficient time to issue a final rule
prior to the 2010 summer boating
season. We continue to believe that it is
important to address the adverse effects
of vessel traffic on killer whales in the
near future. In light of the requests we
have received for an extension of the
comment period, however, we believe
additional public outreach will enhance
both NMFS’ understanding of public
concerns and the public’s
understanding of the basis for our
E:\FR\FM\19OCP1.SGM
19OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53445-53454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25106]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664; FRL-8969-7]
RIN 2060-AP11
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Substitute in the Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to review alternatives for ozone-depleting substances and to
approve 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 of EPA proposes to
expand the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting
substances (ODS). The substitute addressed in this proposal is for the
motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) end-use within the refrigeration
and air-conditioning sector. EPA proposes to find HFO-1234yf
acceptable, subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-12 in
motor vehicle air conditioning. The proposed substitute is a non ozone-
depleting gas and consequently does not contribute to stratospheric
ozone depletion.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2009, unless
a public hearing is requested. Comments must then be received on or
before January 4, 2010. Any party requesting a public hearing must
notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 29, 2009. If a hearing is
held, it will take place on November 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0664, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, Room 3334, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0664. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Docket Facility 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 Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proposed rule, contact Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs; Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC
20460; telephone number (202) 343-9163, fax number, (202) 343-2338; e-
mail address at sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices and rulemakings
under the SNAP program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web
site at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regulations.html. For copies of
the full list of SNAP decisions in all industrial
[[Page 53446]]
sectors, contact the EPA Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-
1996.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed action, if finalized, would
provide motor vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers an additional
refrigerant option for motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems.
The refrigerant discussed in this proposed action is a non ozone-
depleting substance.
Table of Contents
I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory Background
A. Rulemaking
B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
C. Petition Process
D. 90-day Notification
E. Outreach
F. Clearinghouse
G. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612
II. EPA's Proposed Decision on HFO-1234yf
III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives
IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO-1234yf
A. Atmospheric Effects and Related Health and Environmental
Impacts
B. General Population Risks from Ambient Exposure to Compounds
with Direct Toxicity and to Increased Ground-Level Ozone
C. Ecosystem Risks
D. Occupational Risks
E. Consumer Risks
F. Flammability
G. Cost and Availability of the Substitute
H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall Impacts on Human Health and
the Environment
V. HFO-1234yf MVAC System Proposed Use Conditions
VI. Additional Information Requested
VII. Section 609 Requirements for HFO-1234yf
VIII. 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 and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
IX. References
I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory Background
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires 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 and implementing
regulations 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, 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) 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. The list of acceptable
substitutes may be found at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/ and the lists of unacceptable substitutes, acceptable
substitutes subject to use conditions and acceptable substitutes
subject to narrowed use limits may be found at 40 CFR part 82 subpart
G.
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, where
appropriate, 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 maintain 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.
G. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR
13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable
substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G. 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 ODS.
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 substance in a sector that has historically used ODS.
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. CAA section 612(e); 40 CFR 82.176(a). This requirement
applies to substitute manufacturers, but may include importers,
formulators, or end-users, when they are responsible for introducing a
substitute into commerce.
You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the
appropriate Federal Register citations at EPA's Stratospheric Ozone 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).
[[Page 53447]]
II. EPA's Proposed Decision on HFO-1234yf
EPA proposes that hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)-1234yf \1\ is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 \2\ in new motor vehicle air conditioning
systems (passenger cars and trucks), subject to use conditions. EPA
proposes the following use conditions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HFO-1234yf is also known as HFC-1234yf, R-1234yf or 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoroprop-1-ene, CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1.
\2\ CFC-12 is also known as dichlorodifluoromethane, R-12, or
Freon[reg]-12, CAS Reg. No. 75-71-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the passenger compartment
do not result in HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above the lower
flammability limit (LFL) \3\ of 6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Unless stated otherwise, flammability limits discussed here
are by volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the engine compartment or
vehicle electric power source storage areas do not result in HFO-1234yf
concentrations at or above the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of time;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate protective
devices, isolation and/or ventilation techniques in areas where
processes, procedures or upset conditions such as leaks have the
potential to generate HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in
proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle electric power sources and exhaust
manifold surfaces;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must use unique fittings to be
identified pursuant to SAE standard J639 and subject to EPA approval;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must include a detailed label
identifying the refrigerant and that the refrigerant is flammable;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must have a high-pressure
compressor cutoff switch installed on systems equipped with pressure
relief devices; and
Manufacturers must conduct and keep on file Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739.
The proposed decision for HFO-1234yf applies to new MVAC systems
only in passenger cars and trucks. We have previously determined that
use of flammable refrigerants (which would include HFO-1234yf) in
existing equipment as a retrofit is unacceptable (40 CFR part 82,
subpart G, appendix B). We seek comment on whether these use conditions
should be more protective or should be less protective.
III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives
To determine whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable as
a replacement for class I or II compounds, the Agency evaluates
substitutes according to the criteria in Sec. 82.180(a)(7). The Agency
considers, among other things, toxicity, flammability, potential for
occupational and general population exposure, and environmental effects
including ozone depletion potential, atmospheric lifetime, impacts on
local air quality and climate as well as ecosystem effects of the
alternatives.
This proposal reflects additional information on flammable
refrigerants in MVAC systems that has become available since the HFC-
152a September 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 55140) and 2008 final rule (73
FR 33304), as well as EPA's latest understanding of all the available
information. These additional or revised considerations include the
increased proportion of new hybrid and electric vehicle sales in the
U.S., passenger compartment volume, and improved assumptions for
modeling exercises. In this rulemaking, HFO-1234yf risks are considered
in relation to the risks associated with HFC-134a and other approved
SNAP MVAC alternatives. HFC-134a is the predominant ODS refrigerant
substitute used in passenger vehicle MVAC systems. Other SNAP-approved
MVAC substitutes have not been implemented by car manufacturers or car
air conditioning system manufacturers.
The EPA's SNAP program does not require that new substitutes be
found risk-free to be found acceptable. In reviewing the acceptability
of proposed substitutes, EPA considers how each substitute can be used
within a specific end-use and the resulting risks and uncertainties
surrounding potential health and environmental effects.
IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO-1234yf
In the following section, HFO-1234yf is evaluated in terms of the
SNAP criteria defined in Sec. 82.180(a)(7).
A. Atmospheric Effects and Related Health and Environmental Impacts
HFO-1234yf has an ozone-depletion potential (ODP) of nearly zero
\4\ (Papadimitriou, 2007). By comparison, CFC-12 has an ODP of 1.0 and
HFC-134a has an ODP of 0 (WMO, 2006). Generally, the other approved
SNAP MVAC substitutes have an ODP of less than 0.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is
currently reviewing the ODP of HFO-1234yf and we will place this
information in the docket if it becomes available during the course
of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The global warming potential (GWP) of HFO-1234yf is 4, based on a
100 year time horizon (Papadimitriou, 2007), compared to a value of 1
for carbon dioxide. For basis of comparison, CFC-12 has a GWP of 10,890
and HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430 (WMO, 2006). The other SNAP-approved
MVAC refrigerants generally have a GWP greater than 1000. HFO-1234yf
has an atmospheric lifetime of only 11 days (Papadimitriou, 2007),
compared to 100 years for CFC-12 and 14.0 years for HFC-134a. Thus, in
terms of direct refrigerant emissions, HFO-1234yf would have a
significantly smaller impact on climate compared to the ozone depleting
substance it replaces and other common alternatives available in the
same end use.
The Agency believes sufficient technical information is available
on the ODP and GWP of HFO-1234yf, but the Agency welcomes additional
comment on the ODP and GWP values described above. The Agency would
give the greatest weight to peer-reviewed, published papers on HFO-
1234yf as supporting evidence for discussion on ODP and GWP.
We note that one concern about HFO-1234yf atmospheric effects is
trifluoroacetic acid (CF3COOH, TFA). TFA is produced from
atmospheric oxidation of HFO-1234yf. EPA understands that the oxidation
of HFO-1234yf yields >90% TFA, which is significantly higher than the
yield of TFA from HFC-134a and other approved SNAP MVAC substitutes.
TFA is naturally occurring, but at certain levels is toxic to aquatic
life forms.
Initial analysis indicates that the projected maximum TFA
concentration in rainwater should not result in a significant risk of
aquatic toxicity. TFA concentration in rainwater was investigated
because it is difficult to predict what the actual TFA concentrations
will be. This is because concentrations of environmental contaminants
in most fresh water bodies fluctuate widely due to varying inputs and
outputs to most ponds, lakes, and streams. Also, use of rainwater TFA
concentration as a point of comparison is more conservative than
comparing TFA concentrations in water bodies because TFA is expected to
be diluted in most freshwater bodies. The exception to this is vernal
pools and similar seasonal water bodies that have no significant
outflow capacity (ICF, 2009).
After taking into account the nature of HFO-1234yf degradation and
the
[[Page 53448]]
resulting TFA concentration in rainwater; regional precipitation
patterns; the geology of closed aquatic systems; and no observed effect
concentrations (NOEC) for TFA, TFA production resulting from HFO-1234yf
emissions is not expected to pose significant harm to aquatic
communities in the near future. Additional research is necessary to
determine if significant TFA loading is occurring in vernal pools near
major populations (ICF, 2009). EPA is aware of studies to evaluate wet
deposition effects that are underway at the National Institute of
Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) based in Japan. Their
results on wet deposition were not available at the time of this
proposal's drafting, but EPA will consider any relevant findings by
AIST that become available in a final version of this regulation and
will provide an opportunity for additional public comment if the
relevant findings suggest EPA should change its proposed determination.
Concerns about dry deposition of TFA also exist. Initial analysis
indicates that it may be somewhat of a concern for photosynthesis (ICF,
2009). EPA is aware of studies to evaluate dry deposition effects that
are underway at AIST. Their results on dry deposition were not
available at the time of this proposal's drafting, but EPA will
consider any relevant findings by AIST that become available in a final
version of this regulation and will provide an opportunity for
additional public comment if the relevant findings suggest EPA should
change its proposed determination. The AIST findings will be posted in
the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664) when they are available.
The Agency believes sufficient technical information on the TFA
deposition from HFO-1234yf is available for the basis of this proposal;
however, the Agency welcomes additional comment on HFO-1234yf's
environmental and atmospheric effects. The Agency will give the
greatest weight to published, peer-reviewed studies. The Agency
requests comment on the impact of increased abundance of TFA resulting
from the use of HFO-1234yf as an MVAC refrigerant in the U.S., and the
potential impacts of U.S. and worldwide use of HFO-1234yf as an MVAC
refrigerant. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
informed EPA that a follow-on study of the Papadimitriou 2007 work is
under way. EPA anticipates the results of this study will be published
and be made publicly available before the Agency issues a final rule on
the acceptability of HFO-1234yf under the SNAP Program. If the study
becomes available, EPA will consider that information in determining
how to move forward on this proposed determination for HFO-1234yf.
Currently available analysis on the atmospheric and local air
quality impacts of HFO-1234yf assumes an emissions rate very similar to
HFC-134a. This assumption leads to a very conservative emission rate
because it is highly likely HFO-1234yf will have a lower leak rate
compared to HFC-134a because HFO-1234yf will cost approximately ten
times more than HFC-134a. There will be an economic basis for
conserving and preventing the release of HFO-1234yf. But the same logic
implies that the market adoption of this alternative may not be high,
resulting in even lower total emissions. We seek comment on whether it
is appropriate to analyze environmental impacts of HFO-1234yf based on
the current emission rate for HFC-134a in MVAC, and if not, what
emission rate EPA should use in our environmental analyses.
B. General Population Risks From Ambient Exposure to Compounds With
Direct Toxicity and to Increased Ground-Level Ozone
Toxicity:
EPA's New Chemicals Program, mandated by Section 5 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), conducted a premanufacture review of
HFO-1234yf. This review assessed the potential environmental and human
health risks associated with the substance (Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-
0918). Based on test data on HFO-1234yf, EPA has human health concerns
for developmental toxicity and lethality via inhalation exposure.
The Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) Committee of the
American Industrial Hygiene Association has established a WEEL of 500
parts per million (ppm) by volume on an eight-hour time-weighted
average (TWA) for HFO-1234yf. See docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664 for the
WEEL Committee rationale. The Committee established a WEEL of 1,000 ppm
by volume on an eight-hour TWA for HFC-134a.
In terms of cardiotoxicity, HFC-134a is a cardiac sensitizer at
75,000 ppm with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 50,000
ppm. HFO-1234yf is negative in the cardiac sensitization test at
exposures of up to 120,000 ppm. (See ``Acute Cardiac Sensitization
Study of HFO-1234ze and HFO-1234yf in Dogs'' in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0664).
Ground-level Ozone:
HFO-1234yf could impact local air quality (LAQ) through formation
of ground-level ozone. Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP)
describes a compound's potential to form ground-level ozone. HFO-1234yf
has a higher POCP than the predominant MVAC refrigerant, HFC-134a. HFO-
1234yf has a POCP comparable to ethylene; ethylene is an alkene.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel Special Report, alkenes ``have the
potential to significantly influence ozone formation on the urban and
regional scales.'' Papadimitriou et al. (2007) indicate that, ``studies
are needed to quantify the degradation of [HFO-1234yf] under
atmospheric conditions for OH- and Cl- atom-initiated chemistry to
fully evaluate the impact of these compounds and their degradation
products on climate and air quality.''
An initial assessment says that HFO-1234yf could potentially
increase ground level ozone by >1-4% in certain areas, which may affect
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone
(ICF, 2009). The reader should note ground-level ozone formation is
highly variable and depends on several factors, such as availability of
chemical inputs, and sunlight and heat. EPA notes that HFO-1234yf is
defined as a volatile organic compound under Clean Air Act regulations
(see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient
air quality standards. The Agency requests comment on the LAQ impacts
of HFO-1234yf use as an MVAC refrigerant in the U.S. and globally. The
Agency would give the greatest weight to peer-reviewed, published
papers for comments on LAQ impacts. As stated earlier, NOAA's follow-on
study of HFO-1234yf is expected before the Agency issues a final rule
on the acceptability of HFO-1234yf under the SNAP Program. In the
meantime, the Agency requests comment on whether a >1-4% increase in
ground level ozone is significant.
C. Ecosystem Risks
See discussion under Atmospheric Effects and Related Health and
Environmental Impacts.
D. Occupational Risks
Occupational risks could come about during the manufacture of the
refrigerant, initial installation of the refrigerant at the car
assembly plant or servicing of the MVAC system. The
[[Page 53449]]
TSCA New Chemicals Program review of HFO-1234yf determined that
significant industrial or commercial worker exposure is unlikely due to
CAA section 609 technician training, the use of CAA section 609
certified refrigerant handling equipment, and other protective
measures. Therefore, the proposed manufacture, processing, and use of
HFO-1234yf are not expected to present an unreasonable risk to workers.
More details can be found at the New Chemicals Program's docket for
HFO-1234yf, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918, and in the memorandum, ``Risk
Assessment: P070601 Reflecting Deliberations and Decisions from the 3/
4/09 Dispo[sition] Meeting'' in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664 and EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2008-0918.
In regards to flammability, with proper mitigation and training,
the frequency of exposure to flammable HFO-1234yf concentrations in
service situations can be managed. Based on feedback from certified
MVAC service technicians, EPA believes that the flammability potential
of HFO-1234yf is within the range of other substances that automotive
service technicians encounter routinely (See docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0488-0017). Training, mitigation, and limiting the frequency of
exposure can reduce any potential risks to the technicians. Input from
technicians confirms this perspective. Some car manufacturers have
suggested that new training for HFO-1234yf should be required for all
MVAC technicians. EPA requests comment on whether additional training
for service technicians on HFO-1234yf should be required so that they
are knowledgeable about the different hazards associated with working
on HFO-1234yf MVAC systems compared to the two systems currently in
use--i.e., CFC-12 or HFC-134a systems. Any specific training
requirements would be adopted in a follow-up Section 609 rulemaking. At
this point, EPA recommends, but does not propose to require, additional
training and requests input on the need for required training for
persons using HFO-1234yf in an MVAC service/maintenance/disposal
scenario.
E. Consumer Risks
Risks to consumers as vehicle occupants have been evaluated, in the
context of HFO-1234yf's flammability and toxicity.
Based on American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34 testing, HFO-1234yf's lower
flammability limit (LFL) is 6.2% and upper flammability limit is 12.3%
(Gradient, 2008), making this refrigerant less flammable than HFC-152a,
the only flammable SNAP-approved MVAC refrigerant. Depending on the
charge size of an HFO-1234yf MVAC system, which can range from as
little as 400 grams to as much as 1600 grams (ICF, 2008a), it is
possible in a worst case scenario to reach a flammable concentration of
HFO-1234yf inside the passenger compartment.
In terms of toxicological concerns, the TSCA New Chemicals Program
review of HFO-1234yf determined that potential consumer (passenger)
exposure from refrigerant leak into the passenger compartment of a
vehicle is not expected to present an unreasonable risk. However,
consumer exposure from filling, servicing, or maintaining MVAC systems
without professional training and the use of CAA Section 609 certified
equipment may cause serious health effects. Therefore, to prevent this
risk EPA is also promulgating a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under
section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918). This SNUR would
require submission of a Significant New Use Notice to EPA at least 90
days before commencing an activity that is designated as a significant
new use of HFO-1234yf.
F. Flammability
The proposed upper limit of occupant exposure to HFO-1234yf
protects against the possibility of flammability. It is important to
note that when burned or exposed to high heat, HFO-1234yf like all
fluorocarbons, including CFC-12 and HFC-134a, forms acid byproducts
including hydrofluoric acid (HF)--a severe respiratory irritant.\5\ The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)--8-hour occupational exposure limit--
for HF at 3 ppm which is the upper allowable limit for worker exposure.
Passenger exposure to HF could occur as a result of a leak in the
presence of an ignition source. EPA's approach in setting use
conditions is to prevent any fire risk associated with HFO-1234yf use
in MVAC systems, which would also prevent any potential passenger
exposure to HF. EPA understands that there is work currently underway
that examines the issue of pre-ignition HF formation. If those studies
indicate the potential for significant pre-ignition HF formation, EPA
will consider that information in determining how to move forward with
this proposed rule. Additionally, EPA welcomes any comment on that
study or other studies of which EPA is not aware that address the
potential for pre-ignition HF formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These decomposition products have a sharp, acrid odor even
at concentrations of only a few parts per million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flammable Concentrations Inside the Passenger Compartment
SAE International commissioned a risk assessment of HFO-1234yf in
MVAC systems (Gradient, 2008) based on the analytical framework
developed by EPA and the U.S. Army in a 2006 alternative refrigerant
risk analysis (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2). The risk assessment
incorporated the results of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling
(by DuPont) of an HFO-1234yf leak into the passenger compartment.
DuPont conducted a limited assessment of refrigerant leakage into the
passenger compartment by modeling the first 200 seconds of a leak into
the passenger compartment. Based on their analysis, at least one of
their simulations (idle vehicle, low fan, 0.5mm orifice leak, and
recirculation mode), led to exceeding the HFO-1234yf LFL inside the
passenger compartment. To supplement these results, SAE International
updated the modeling results with field test assessments of leaking
refrigerant into the passenger compartment of Renault/PSA/Fiat and
General Motors medium and small size cars. The test results show that
there are some scenarios where the LFL was exceeded (Gradient, 2009).
According to the SAE International risk assessment report, there is ``a
potential ignition hazard if a smoking-related ignition source is
present'' (Gradient, 2008). However, the report references a separate
field study performed by Exponent where an experimental release of HFO-
1234yf was released into the passenger and engine compartment of a
large vehicle, a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria (Exponent, 2008). In this
field study, tested releases of HFO-1234yf did not produce
concentrations above the LFL. However, given the fact that flammable
conditions can come about in the passenger compartment, particularly in
medium and small size cars, the Agency believes it is prudent to
propose a use condition that addresses a possible ignition hazard.
The Agency requests public comment on the SAE International/DuPont
and Exponent reports. Specifically, the Agency requests comment on the
appropriateness of the simulated charge size that was used by each
report. The SAE International/DuPont report simulated a 2001 Ford Crown
Victoria with a 691 gram HFO-1234yf charge. The Exponent report used a
1997 Ford Crown Victoria with a charge size of 693
[[Page 53450]]
grams. The 1997 and 2001 Ford Crown Victorias were originally designed
with approximately 966 gram and 1097 grams HFC-134a charge size systems
(MACS, 2005). Honeywell presentations have indicated the HFO-1234yf
charge size is 90-95% of a HFC-134a charge size (Honeywell, 2008).
Based on the original refrigerant charge size of these Crown Victorias,
the HFO-1234yf charge sizes, in both simulations, are not consistent
with the 90-95% HFC-134a charge sizes described in Honeywell
presentations and the Crown Victorias are undercharged. Charge size is
an important element in determining the probability of a flammable
concentration. EPA requests comment on whether the charge sizes used in
the DuPont and Exponent simulations are consistent with the actual
charge sizes that would need to be used in MVAC for these vehicles.
The Agency also requests comment on the use of a large-size car as
a worst-case car scenario for a MVAC risk assessment. Based on an
analysis done in 2004-2005, the EPA/U.S. Army risk assessment (Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2) concluded large passenger cars
provided the highest ratio of refrigerant charge to interior
compartment volume, and large passenger cars were broadly
representative of the world fleet. Since that analysis was performed,
there is data to indicate the sales of small cars have increased, and
such sales are likely to continue to increase given a manufacturing
shift towards smaller cars (ICF, 2008b). A recent analysis showed
higher ratios of refrigerant charge to interior compartment volume in
small trucks and two-seaters, compared to the large car used in SAE's
risk assessment (ICF, 2008a). A higher ratio of refrigerant charge to
interior compartment volume could lead to more occurrences of flammable
concentrations.
Flammable Concentrations in the Engine Compartment
According to the SAE International report, ``the highest value
measured in the engine compartment (87,000 ppm) suggests a potential
ignition hazard'' (Gradient, 2008). Although an engine compartment
field test suggested that it was not possible to ignite HFO-1234yf
(Dupont 2008), temperatures that could ignite the refrigerant exist on
the exhaust manifold. Most car manufacturers cover the exhaust manifold
with a heat shield, but this is not a requirement. EPA requests comment
on the proposed use condition that requires protective devices under
the vehicle hood to avoid any flammable concentrations of refrigerant
coming into the vicinity of hot exhaust manifold surfaces.
Hybrid and electric vehicle sales in the U.S. have dramatically
increased over the past decade (ICF, 2008b). To address this change in
the market, EPA considered the potential for another ignition source
from the electric power source in hybrid and electric cars that is not
present with gasoline-only vehicles. According to DuPont and
Honeywell's Guidelines for Use and Handling of HFO-1234yf, ``isolation
techniques or other suitable methods should be used to prevent battery
and power system sparks/arc. In areas where processes, procedures or
upset conditions such as leaks have the potential to generate flammable
HFO-1234yf vapor-in-air concentrations in proximity to hybrid vehicle
electric power sources, isolation and/or ventilation should be used.''
(DuPont/Honeywell, 2008).
In addition, current hybrid vehicles with HFC-134a MVAC systems use
polyolester (POE) oil as a system lubricant, primarily because
polyalkylene glycol (PAG) oils are conductive and can lead to shorts.
It is not clear if HFO-1234yf MVAC systems can work with the POE oil
that is needed for hybrid vehicles. The EPA requests comment on whether
the flammability of HFO-1234yf combined with PAG/POE oils may create a
larger concern under the hood of hybrid and electric vehicles.
EPA is aware of SAE International activities to develop a standard
on specific risk mitigation strategies to avoid flammable
concentrations under the hood. An excerpt from the latest draft of a
standard that covers this topic is available in the docket. EPA
requests comment on using such an SAE J standard as a use condition to
protect against flammable concentrations under the hood. If SAE adopts
a standard that reflects a different intent than in the current draft
and if EPA determines to include such a different standard as a use
condition, EPA would consider whether further comment is needed before
it issued a final rule with that use condition.
Other Flammable Refrigerants and Risk Mitigation
Hydrocarbon refrigerants are unacceptable (prohibited) in MVAC
systems under the SNAP program and are specifically prohibited in
several states. Hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon blends must not be used in
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems.
The use conditions described in this action are specific to HFO-
1234yf and do not apply to other flammable refrigerants. HFO-1234yf is
less flammable and has a higher LFL than HFC-152a, and the proposed use
conditions for HFO-1234yf would not be adequate for HFC-152a. However,
the interior passenger compartment risk mitigation strategies described
in the HFC-152a proposed and final rules (71 FR 55140 and 73 FR 33304,
respectively) can be protective risk mitigation strategies for HFO-
1234yf. EPA refers to the previous discussions on HFC-152a risk
mitigation strategies for manufacturers to consider when deciding what
risk mitigation strategies might be used if HFO-1234yf is found
acceptable subject to use conditions.
G. Cost and Availability of the Substitute
Definitive costs for the refrigerant have not been shared with the
Agency. Based on estimates from Honeywell and DuPont, the cost of HFO-
1234yf will be, at least initially, approximately $40-60/pound
(Weissler, 2008). The cost of the refrigerant will depend on several
factors, including, but not limited to, how much refrigerant will be
available for sale, the quality of the refrigerant, and where the
refrigerant is manufactured. The cost of HFO-1234yf will likely be more
than HFC-134a because the HFO-1234yf manufacturing process requires
more energy and more steps than HFC-134a.
The manufacturers of HFO-1234yf state the chemical can be available
when the market requires it. At the moment there are no dedicated HFO-
1234yf manufacturing plants.
H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall Impacts on Human Health and the
Environment
On the whole, EPA proposes that the conditioned use of HFO-1234yf
does not present a significantly larger risk to human health and the
environment compared to HFC-134a, the predominant ODS refrigerant
substitute in passenger vehicle MVAC systems and other SNAP-approved
MVAC refrigerant alternatives, and in many cases likely poses less
risk. Use conditions are necessary to address the flammability concerns
associated with use of HFO-1234yf. If it is determined that there are
possible atmospheric effects of HFO-1234yf, those would be controlled
by Clean Air Act Section 608 and Section 609 regulatory requirements
that prohibit the venting, or release, of refrigerant during the
service, maintenance and disposal of refrigeration and A/C equipment.
EPA welcomes comment on this proposal; the Agency prefers peer-
reviewed,
[[Page 53451]]
published papers for supporting documentation on comments concerning
technical issues.
The conditions we are proposing for the safe use of HFO-1234yf are
outlined below.
V. HFO-1234yf MVAC System Proposed Use Conditions
Use Conditions for HFO-1234yf
EPA proposes to find HFO-1234yf acceptable with use conditions in
new MVACs as a substitute for CFC-12. This proposed determination is
limited to MVAC systems on passenger cars and light-duty trucks; this
proposed determination does not include any other MVAC systems,
including those on buses, trains, boats, off-road equipment, or other
vehicles. The submission did not specifically request use in these
other MVAC systems and the risks associated with these MVAC systems
have not been evaluated.
EPA proposes to find HFO-1234yf acceptable with the following use
conditions:
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the passenger compartment
do not result in HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above the lower
flammability limit (LFL) of 6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate engineering
strategies and/or devices so that leaks into the engine compartment or
vehicle electric power source storage areas do not result in HFO-1234yf
concentrations at or above the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of time;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate protective
devices, isolation and/or ventilation techniques in areas where
processes, procedures or upset conditions such as leaks have the
potential to generate HFO-1234yf concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in
proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle electric power sources and exhaust
manifold surfaces;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must use unique fittings to be
identified pursuant to SAE standard J639 and subject to EPA approval;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must include a detailed label
identifying the refrigerant and that the refrigerant is flammable;
HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must have a high-pressure
compressor cutoff switch installed on systems equipped with pressure
relief devices; and
Manufacturers must conduct and keep on file Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739.
EPA requests public comment on the proposed use conditions for HFO-
1234yf. Amongst other topics, EPA requests comment on whether interior
passenger compartment limits to HFO-1234yf should apply only when the
vehicle ignition is `on.'
General SNAP MVAC Use Conditions
On October 16, 1996, EPA promulgated a final rule (61 FR 54029)
establishing certain conditions on the use of any refrigerant used as a
substitute for CFC-12 in MVAC systems (appendix D to subpart G of 40
CFR part 82). That rule provides that EPA would list new refrigerant
substitutes in future notices of acceptability and all such
refrigerants would be subject to the use conditions stated in that
rule. Therefore, EPA is establishing a use condition that unique
fittings must be identified pursuant to SAE standard J639 adopted in
2009 and approved by EPA.
VI. Additional Information Requested
The Agency seeks comments on topics related to HFO-1234yf that are
beyond the scope of this Section 612 proposed rulemaking regarding use
of HFO-1234yf in new MVAC systems, but which could be relevant to
future actions on HFO-1234yf as a substitute refrigerant. Please send
information on any of the following issues to Margaret Sheppard,
sheppard.margaret@epa.gov.
Retrofit Use of HFO-1234yf
The Honeywell submission requested SNAP review of HFO-1234yf in new
MVAC applications only. Honeywell did not petition the Agency to review
retrofit use of HFO-1234yf. The Agency has not fully evaluated the
safety issues associated with using HFO-1234yf to service existing CFC-
12 or HFC-134a designed MVAC systems. EPA rules prohibit the use of
flammable refrigerants in retrofit systems. 40 CFR part 82, subpart 2,
App. B (61 FR 54029). Any person interested in using HFO-1234yf in
retrofit systems would need to petition EPA to change the existing
unacceptable determination. Such an option would require a separate
SNAP submission and evaluation by EPA. EPA suspects that car
manufacturers are the best qualified, and likely the only qualified
entity to undertake such an application given the complexities of going
to HFO-1234yf. The Agency requests comment on whether retrofit kits can
effectively meet the requirements identified in this proposal for new
MVAC systems and if retrofits have a detrimental impact on the MVAC
system fuel efficiency. The Agency also specifically requests comments
from car manufacturers on retrofitting existing MVAC systems to HFO-
1234yf.
Retrofitting HFO-1234yf MVAC Systems to Other Alternative Refrigerants
Individuals, service shops, or manufacturers might consider
refilling or charging MVAC systems designed for HFO-1234yf with another
refrigerant. The Agency has not evaluated the safety issues associated
with retrofitting HFO-1234yf MVAC systems with other MVAC refrigerants
previously approved under SNAP. Because other refrigerants may be less
expensive, the Agency is concerned that consumers may consider
retrofitting HFO-1234yf systems to use other refrigerants. The use
conditions proposed for HFO-1234yf are specific to the properties of
this chemical, and would not be protective of fire hazards that may
come about from, for example, hydrocarbon refrigerant (HCR) that is
more flammable. HCRs are more flammable than HFO-1234yf. Besides the
safety concerns of retrofitting to another refrigerant, the practice
could lead to increased refrigerant emissions because of materials
compatibility or/and leakage due to hose permeation.
This practice may come about if the price of HFO-1234yf is high, or
if there is limited supply of HFO-1234yf. EPA requests comments on this
type of retrofitting, and provisions that need to be made to address
this issue, particularly in the context of SNAP's general requirement
for unique fittings for each unique SNAP listed refrigerant.
VII. Section 609 Requirements for HFO-1234yf
Service equipment, technician certification and end-of-life
disposal specifications will be addressed in a follow-on rulemaking(s)
under Section 609 of the Clean Air Act.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' It raises novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
action.
[[Page 53452]]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed rule is an Agency
determination. It contains no new requirements for reporting. The only
recordkeeping requirement involves customary business practice. 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 (EPA ICR No. 1596.05). This Information
Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting
and record keeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: submission
of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test
marketing activity, record keeping for substitutes acceptable subject
to use restrictions, and record-keeping for small volume uses. This
proposed rule requires minimal record-keeping of studies done to ensure
that MVAC systems using HFO-1234yf meet the requirements set forth in
this rule. Because it is customary business practice that automotive
systems manufacturers and automobile manufacturing companies 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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The 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 this proposed rule on
small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. The
requirements of this proposed rule impact car manufacturers and car air
conditioning system manufacturers only; none of these businesses
qualify as small entities. Additionally, car manufacturers and car air
conditioning system manufacturers are not mandated to move to HFO-
1234yf MVAC systems. EPA is simply listing HFO-1234yf 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
HFO-1234yf as a refrigerant in new MVACs.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This
regulation applies directly to entities that manufacture MVAC systems
with the proposed substitute, and not to governmental entities. This
proposed rule does not mandate a switch to this substitute, but rather
adds to the list of available substitutes from which a manufacturer may
choose; consequently, there is no direct economic impact on entities
from this rulemaking. Also, production-quality HFO-1234yf MVAC systems
are not manufactured yet. Consequently, no change in business practice
is required by this proposed rule. This action provides additional
technical options allowing greater flexibility for industry in
designing consumer products. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As noted above,
this proposed regulation would not apply to any governmental entity.
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.
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 proposal 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 entities that manufacture MVAC systems with the proposed substitute
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
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect one or more Indian
tribes, the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes because this regulation applies
directly to entities that manufacture MVAC systems with the proposed
substitute and not to governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
[[Page 53453]]
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are
contained in Section IV of this proposed rule.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to HFO-
1234yf.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (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
alternative MVAC systems. Preliminary information indicates that these
new systems will have similar fuel efficiency compared to currently
available MVAC systems. 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
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its 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. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use the SAE International standard J639, which addresses
requirements for safety and reliability for HFO-1234yf systems. SAE
International is the international standard setting body for motor
vehicle requirements. SAE International standards are globally
recognized and adopted by all major car manufacturers and system
suppliers. These standards can be obtained from https://www.sae.org/technical/standards/.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify other potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations; HFO-
1234yf is a non ozone-depleting substance with a low GWP. Based on the
toxicological and atmospheric work described earlier, HFO-1234yf will
not have any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This NPRM proposes to require specific use
conditions for MVAC systems, if car manufacturers chose to make MVAC
systems using this low GWP refrigerant alternative.
IX. References
The documents below are referenced in the preamble. All documents
are located in the Air Docket at the address listed in section titled
``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0664 at https://www.regulations.gov.
References
Dupont and Honeywell. Guidelines for Use and Handling of HFO-1234yf
(v8.0).
Exponent. 2008. HFO-1234yf Refrigerant Concentration and Ignition
Tests in Full-Scale Vehicle Passenger Cabin and Engine Compartment.
Gradient Corporation. 2008. Risk Assessment for Alternative
Refrigerant HFO-1234yf.
Gradient Corporation. 2009. Risk Assessment for Alternative
Refrigerants HFO-1234yf and R-744 (CO2).
ICF International. 2008a. Air Conditioning Refrigerant Charge Size
to Passenger Compartment Volume Ratio Analysis.
ICF International. 2008b. Revised Characterization of U.S. Hybrid
and Small Car Sales (Historical and Predicted) and Hybrid Vehicle
Accidents.
ICF International. 2009. Revised Draft Assessment of the Potential
Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on
Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology & Economic
Assessment Panel Special Report. 2006. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer
and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons
and Perfluorocarbons. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sroc.htm.
Interior Climate Control Standards Committee of SAE International.
2009. Excerpt from draft HFO-1234yf Engine Compartment Safety
Standard.
Minor, B., 2008. CRP-1234: CFD Modeling of a Large Car--Final
Report.
Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide. 2005. A/C & Cooling
System Specifications: 1995-2006.
Papadimitriou, V., R.K. Talukdar, R.W. Portmann, A.R. Ravishankara,
and J.B. Burkholder. 2007. CF3CF=CH2 and (Z)-CF3CF=CHF: Temperature
dependent OH rate coefficients and global warming potentials.
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 9: 1-13.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. World Meteorological
Organization. Available at https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2006/ozone_asst_report.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Risk
Analysis for Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning.
Weissler, P., 2008. Consensus Building on Refrigerant Type.
Automotive Engineering International. 9: 30-32.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 13, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 53454]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
2. The first table in Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82 is amended
by adding one new entry to the end of the table to read as follows:
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------