Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Alternative for the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, 33315-33331 [2012-13189]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C 301–
307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737:39 U.S.C. 101, 401,
403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–3219,
3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633,
and 5001.
2. Revise the following sections of
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM), as follows:
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM)
*
*
700
Special Standards
*
*
*
707
Periodicals
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
14.5.3
*
*
*
Numeric Delivery Point Barcode
[Revise the text of 14.5.3 as follows:]
A numeric equivalent of the delivery
point routing code is formed by adding
two digits directly after the ZIP+4 code.
*
*
*
*
*
We will publish an appropriate
amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect
these changes.
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
Basic Standards
*
*
*
*
13.0
Carrier Route Eligibility
13.1
Basic Standards
*
*
*
*
13.1.3 Barcode Quality
[Revise the text of 13.1.3 as follows:]
Any Intelligent Mail barcode on a
mailpiece must be correct for the
delivery address and meet the standards
in 708.4.0 and 708.3.0.
*
*
*
*
*
14.0 Barcoded (Automation)
Eligibility
[Revise 14.1 to include the standards
in current 14.1.1, with revised text as
follows:]
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
[FR Doc. 2012–13636 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
12.1.3 Barcode Quality
[Revise the text of 12.1.3 as follows:]
Any Intelligent Mail barcode on a
mailpiece must be correct for the
delivery address and meet the standards
in 708.4.0 and 708.3.0.
*
*
*
*
*
*
14.5 Address Standards for Barcoded
Pieces
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice.
*
12.0 Nonbarcoded (Presorted)
Eligibility
12.1
Reply Cards and Envelopes, in its
entirety.]
*
*
*
*
*
14.1 Basic Standards
[Revise the introductory text of 14.1 as
follows:]
All pieces in a Periodicals barcoded
(automation) mailing must:
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise the first sentence of item
14.1.1c as follows:]
c. Bear an accurate Intelligent Mail
barcode encoded with the correct
delivery point routing code, matching
the delivery address and meeting the
standards in 202.5.0 (for letters), 302.4.0
(for flats), and 708.4.0.
*
*
*
*
*
[Delete the heading of current 14.1.1,
and delete current 14.1.2, Enclosed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488; FRL–9668–8]
RIN 2060–AM54
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Alternative for the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Sector Under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)’s Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program, this action lists
carbon dioxide (CO2) or R–744, as
acceptable substitute, subject to use
conditions, in the motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC) end-use for motor
vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, light-duty
and heavy-duty vehicles) within the
refrigeration and air-conditioning sector.
This final rule only concerns the use of
CO2 in MVAC systems designed
specifically for the use of CO2
refrigerant. The substitute is non-ozonedepleting and therefore does not
contribute to stratospheric ozone
depletion.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective on
August 6, 2012. The incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed
in this rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of May 31,
2011.
DATES:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33315
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
from the EPA Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. This Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yaidi Cancel, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Air and Radiation,
MC 6205J, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343–9512; fax number:
(202) 343–2338; email address:
cancel.yaidi@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
action provides motor vehicle
manufacturers and their suppliers with
a refrigerant option subject to use
conditions for motor vehicle air
conditioning systems for use in new
vehicles. The refrigerant discussed in
this action, carbon dioxide (R–744, CO2)
is non-ozone-depleting and has a global
warming potential (GWP) 1 of 1.
Table of Contents
I. Does this action apply to me?
II. What abbreviations and acronyms are used
in this action?
III. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and
authority for the SNAP program?
B. What are EPA’s regulations
implementing section 612 of the Clean
Air Act?
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP
program work?
D. Where can I get additional information
about the SNAP program?
IV. What is EPA’s final decision for CO2 as
an alternative for MVAC?
V. Why is EPA establishing these final use
conditions for the use of CO2 in MVAC?
1 GWP, is defined as the ratio of heat trapped by
one unit mass of the greenhouse gas to that of one
unit mass of CO2 over a specified period of time.
Consistent with the international standards under
the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), all GWPs in this rule
are given using a 100-year period (IPCC, 1996).
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
33316
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VI. Why is EPA listing CO2 acceptable subject
to use conditions?
VII. What is the relationship between this
SNAP rule and other EPA rules?
VIII. What is EPA’s response to public
comments on the proposal?
A. Use Conditions
B. Risk Mitigation Strategies
C. Industry Standards
D. Servicing
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Constitution and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
X. References
I. Does this action apply to me?
This final rule lists carbon dioxide
(CO2)2, also known as R–744, as an
acceptable substitute subject to use
conditions for use as a refrigerant in
new motor vehicle air conditioning
(MVAC) systems designed specifically
for the use of CO2 refrigerant in motor
vehicles3. Businesses in this end-use
that may want to use CO2 in MVAC
systems include:
• Motor vehicle manufacturers
• Motor vehicle air conditioning
service and repair shops
Regulated entities may include:
TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES, BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE
Category
NAICS code
Industry .....................................................................................................
Services ....................................................................................................
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding
entities likely to be regulated by this
action. If you have any questions about
whether this action applies to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding section, FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. What abbreviations and acronyms
are used in this action?
ACGIH—American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ASE—National Institute for Automotive
Service Excellence
CAA—Clean Air Act
CAS—Chemical Abstracts Service
CBI—confidential business information
CFC—chlorofluorocarbon
CFC-12—the chemical
dichlorodifluoromethane, CAS Reg. No.
75–71–8
CFD—computational fluid dynamics
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CNS—central nervous system
CO2—carbon dioxide, CAS Reg. No. 124–38–
9, also known as R–744
CRP—Cooperative Research Program
EPA—the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
EO—Executive Order
FMEA—Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
FR—Federal Register
FTA—fault-tree analysis
GWP—Global warming potential
HCFC-22—the chemical
chlorodifluoromethane, CAS Reg No. 75–
45–6
HCFC-142b—the chemical 1-chloro-1,1difluoroethane, CAS Reg No. 75–68–3
HFC—hydrofluorocarbon
HFC-134a—the chemical 1,1,1,2tetrafluoroethane, CAS Reg. No. 811–97–2
2 Chemical Abstracts Service [CAS] Registry: No.
124–38–9.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Description of regulated entities
336111, 336112, 336120
811198
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.
Vehicle Air Conditioning Repair.
HFC-152a—the chemical 1,1-difluoroethane,
CAS Reg. No. 75–37–6
HFO—hydrofluoroolefin
HFO-1234yf—the chemical 2,3,3,3tetrafluoroprop-1-ene, CAS Reg. No. 754–
12–1
IDLH—Immediately Dangerous to Life and
Health
MVAC—motor vehicle air conditioning
NIOSH—National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
NODA—Announcement of Data Availability,
formerly known as Notice of Data
Availability
NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
ODP—ozone depletion potential
ODS—ozone-depleting substance
OEM—original equipment manufacturer
OMB—the United States Office of
Management and Budget
OSHA—the United States Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
PEL—Permissible Exposure Level
ppm—parts per million
RDECOM—U.S. Army Research,
Development and Engineering Command
REL—Recommended Exposure Level
RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act
SAE—SAE International, formerly the
Society of Automotive Engineers
SAE CRP—SAE Cooperative Research
Program
SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy
STEL—Short Term Exposure Limit
TWA—Time Weighted Average
UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
III. How does the SNAP program work?
3 This final action applies only to air conditioning
systems in motor vehicles consistent with the
definition of light duty vehicles and heavy-duty
vehicles under 40 CFR 86.1803–01, with the
exception of passenger busses.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A. What are the statutory requirements
and authority for the SNAP program?
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to
ozone-depleting substances (ODS). EPA
refers to this program as the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program. The major provisions of
section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
Section 612(c) requires EPA to
promulgate rules making it unlawful to
replace any class I (i.e.,
chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform,
methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II
(i.e., 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.
2. 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 is
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
found at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/lists/ and the lists of
‘‘unacceptable,’’ ‘‘acceptable subject to
use conditions,’’ and ‘‘acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits’’
substitutes are found in the appendices
to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.
3. Petition Process
Section 612(d) grants the right to any
person to petition EPA to add a
substance, add or delete use restrictions,
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.
4. 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.
5. Outreach
Section 612(b)(1) states that the
Administrator shall seek to maximize
the use of federal research facilities and
resources to assist users of class I and
II substances in identifying and
developing alternatives to the use of
such substances in key commercial
applications.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6. Clearinghouse
Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency
to set up a public clearinghouse of
alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative
manufacturing processes that are
available for products and
manufacturing processes which use
class I and II substances.
B. What are EPA’s regulations
implementing section 612 of the Clean
Air Act?
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
tobacco expansion. These sectors
comprise the principal industrial sectors
that historically consumed the largest
volumes of ODS.
Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA
to list as acceptable those substitutes
that do not present a significantly
greater risk to human health and the
environment as compared with other
substitutes that are currently or
potentially available.
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP
program work?
Under the SNAP regulations, anyone
who produces a substitute to replace a
class I or II ODS in one of the eight
major industrial use sectors must
provide notice to the Agency, including
health and safety information on the
substitute at least 90 days before
introducing it into interstate commerce
for significant new use as an alternative.
40 CFR 82.176(a). This requirement
applies to the person planning to
introduce the substitute into interstate
commerce,4 typically chemical
manufacturers, but may also include
importers, formulators, equipment
manufacturers, or end-users5 when they
are responsible for introducing a
substitute into commerce. The 90-day
SNAP review process begins once EPA
receives the submission and determines
that the submission includes complete
and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a).
The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40
CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a
substitute earlier than 90 days after
notice has been provided to the Agency.
The Agency has identified four
possible decision categories for
substitutes: acceptable; acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits; and
unacceptable.6 40 CFR 82.180(b).Use
conditions and narrowed use limits are
both considered ‘‘use restrictions’’ and
are explained below. Substitutes that are
deemed acceptable with no use
restrictions (no use conditions or
4 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 ‘‘interstate
commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation
of any product between one state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia, and another
state, territory, possession or the District of
Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any
product in more than one state, territory, possession
or District of Columbia. The entry points for which
a product is introduced into interstate commerce
are the release of a product from the facility in
which the product was manufactured, the entry into
a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer
releases the product for sale or distribution, and at
the site of United States Customs clearance.
5 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ‘‘end-use’’ means
processes or classes of specific applications within
major industrial sectors where a substitute is used
to replace an ozone-depleting substance.
6 The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’
referring to submissions for which EPA has not
reached a determination, under this provision.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33317
narrowed use limits) can be used for all
applications within the relevant enduses within the sector. Substitutes that
are acceptable subject to use restrictions
may be used only in accordance with
those restrictions.
After reviewing a substitute, the
Agency may determine that a substitute
is acceptable only if certain conditions
in the way that the substitute is used are
met to minimize risks to human health
and the environment. EPA describes
such substitutes as ‘‘acceptable subject
to use conditions.’’ Entities that use
these substitutes without meeting the
associated use conditions are in
violation of section 612 of the Clean Air
Act and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CF
82.174(c).
For some substitutes, the Agency may
permit a narrow range of use within an
end-use or sector. For example, the
Agency may limit the use of a substitute
to certain end-uses or specific
applications within an industry sector.
The Agency requires a user of a
narrowed use substitute to demonstrate
that no other acceptable substitutes are
available for their specific application
by conducting comprehensive studies.
EPA describes these substitutes as
‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits.’’ A person using a substitute that
is acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits in applications and end-uses that
are not consistent with the narrowed
use limit is using these substitutes in an
unacceptable manner and is in violation
of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s
SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
The Agency publishes its SNAP
program decisions in the Federal
Register (FR). EPA publishes decisions
concerning substitutes that are deemed
acceptable subject to use restrictions
(use conditions and/or narrowed use
limits), or for substitutes deemed
unacceptable, as proposed rulemakings
to allow the public opportunity to
comment, before publishing final
decisions.
In contrast, EPA publishes substitutes
that are deemed acceptable with no
restrictions in ‘‘notices of acceptability,’’
rather than as proposed and final rules.
As described in the preamble to the rule
initially implementing the SNAP
program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994),
EPA does not believe that rulemaking
procedures are necessary to list
alternatives that are acceptable without
restrictions because such listings neither
impose any sanction nor prevent anyone
from using a substitute.
Many SNAP listings include
‘‘comments’’ or ‘‘further information’’ to
provide additional information on
substitutes. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
33318
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
decision, these statements are not
binding for use of the substitute under
the SNAP program. However, regulatory
requirements so listed are binding under
other regulatory programs. The ‘‘further
information’’ classification does not
necessarily include all other legal
obligations pertaining to the use of the
substitute. While the items listed are not
legally binding under the SNAP
program, EPA encourages users of
substitutes to apply all statements in the
‘‘further information’’ column in their
use of these substitutes. In many
instances, the information simply refers
to sound operating practices that have
already been identified in existing
industry and/or building-codes or
standards. Thus, many of the
statements, if adopted, would not
require the affected user to make
significant changes in existing operating
practices.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Where can I get additional
information about the SNAP program?
For copies of the comprehensive
SNAP lists of substitutes or additional
information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s
Ozone Depletion Web site at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.
For more information on the Agency’s
process for administering the SNAP
program or criteria for evaluation of
substitutes, refer to the SNAP final
rulemaking published March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part
82, subpart G. A complete chronology of
SNAP decisions and the appropriate
citations are found at https://
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.
IV. What is EPA’s final decision for CO2
as an alternative for MVAC?
In this final rule, EPA is modifying its
previous determination that listed CO2
as an acceptable substitute for CFC–12
in new MVAC systems (59 FR 13044;
March 18, 1994) and is listing CO2
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as
a substitute for CFC–12 in new MVAC
systems. This final action does not
apply to the use of CO2 as a conversion
or retrofit for existing MVAC systems. In
addition, it does not apply to the use of
CO2 in the air conditioning or
refrigeration systems of buses, trains,
rail or subway cars, or appliances such
as refrigerated transport. This refrigerant
may be used only in equipment
designed specifically and clearly
identified for this refrigerant (i.e., it may
not be used as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’
refrigerant for existing equipment). EPA
is not mandating the use of CO2 or any
other alternative to ODS in MVAC
systems. Vehicle manufacturers have
the option of using any refrigerant listed
as acceptable for this end-use, so long as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
they meet the applicable use conditions.
This action removes CO2 from the list of
acceptable substitutes for MVAC
systems and instead lists it as acceptable
subject to the following use conditions:
1. Engineering strategies and/or
mitigation devices shall be incorporated
such that in the event of refrigerant
leaks the resulting CO2 concentrations
do not exceed:
• The short term exposure level
(STEL) of 3% or 30,000 ppm averaged
over 15 minutes in the passenger free
space; and
• The ceiling limit of 4% or 40,000
ppm in the passenger breathing zone.
2. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e., original
equipment manufacturers [OEMs]) must
keep records of the tests performed for
a minimum period of three years
demonstrating that CO2 refrigerant
levels do not exceed the STEL of 3%
averaged over 15 minutes in the
passenger free space, and the ceiling
limit of 4% in the breathing zone.
3. The use of CO2 in MVAC systems
must adhere to the standard conditions
identified in SAE7 Standard J639 (2011
version) including:
• Installation of a high pressure
system warning label;
• Installation of a compressor cut-off
switch; 8 and
• Use of unique fittings with:
i. Outside diameter of 16.6 +0/¥0.2
mm (0.6535 +0/¥0.0078 inches) for the
MVAC low-side service port;
ii. Outside diameter of 18.1 +0/¥0.2
mm (0.7126 +0/¥0.0078 inches) for the
MVAC high-side service port; and
iii. Outside diameter of 20.955
+0/¥0.127 mm (0.825 +0/¥0.005
inches) and right-hand thread direction
for CO2 refrigerant service containers.9
To help ensure that the first use
condition is met, we are including
several recommendations in the listing
decision. First, OEMs should conduct
and keep on file Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as
stated in SAE J1739 (Potential Failure
Mode and Effects Analysis in Design
[Design FMEA], Potential Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis in Manufacturing
and Assembly Process [Process FMEA]),
or equivalent. Second, OEMs should
factor in background CO2 concentrations
that come about from normal respiration
by the maximum number of vehicle
7 SAE International, formerly the Society of
Automotive Engineers.
8 A compressor cut-off switch causes a device to
stop compressor operation before activation of any
pressure relief device.
9 The refrigerant service containers fitting
requirement applies only to refrigerant service
containers used during servicing of the MVAC, in
accordance with the provisions established for
MVAC servicing under 40 CFR part 82, subpart B.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
occupants.10 Third, EPA recommends
the use of the following industry
standards as additional references when
locating the driver’s and passengers’
breathing zone consistent with the head
and seating position, measuring
refrigerant concentrations at different
locations inside the passenger
compartment including the breathing
zone, and addressing risks associated
with MVAC use:
• SAE J1052—Motor Vehicle Driver
and Passenger Head Position;
• SAE J2772—Measurement of
Passenger Compartment Refrigerant
Concentrations under System
Refrigerant Leakage Conditions; and
• SAE J2773—Standard for
Refrigerant Risk Analysis for Mobile Air
Conditioning Systems.
Fourth, EPA recommends additional
training for MVAC service technicians
that will service MVAC systems using
CO2 as the refrigerant.
V. Why is EPA establishing these final
use conditions for the use of CO2 in new
MVAC?
Summary of SNAP Actions on the Use
of CO2 as a Refrigerant in MVAC
In the initial SNAP rulemaking issued
on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), EPA
found CO2 acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new MVAC systems. In that
final rule, EPA also found other
substitutes (i.e., HFC–134a and R–401C,
evaporative cooling and stirring cycle)
acceptable for use in new MVAC
systems. On June 13, 1995 (60 FR
31092) and October 16, 1996 (61 FR
54040) EPA took two separate actions
requiring the use of unique fittings for
several refrigerants then currently listed
as acceptable for use in new MVAC
systems (60 FR 31092) and for
refrigerants subsequently found
acceptable for use in MVAC (61 FR
54040). The use conditions requiring
unique fittings were codified at 40 CFR
Part 82, Subpart G, Appendix D. None
of these actions applied to CO2.
However, in the preamble to the October
16, 1996 SNAP rule, EPA stated that for
any decision made under SNAP, the
Agency may, on its own, determine that
additional conditions or restrictions
should be added or removed through
future rulemaking (61 FR 54032). Also,
EPA stated in the October 16, 1996
SNAP rule that due concerns about
potential cross-contamination as a result
of the large number of MVAC
refrigerants, the Agency may choose to
list a substitute as acceptable subject to
10 Maximum number of vehicle occupants
includes the maximum number of passengers in a
normal seating position inside the passenger
compartment. This may vary between vehicle types.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
use the conditions listed (in that rule,
i.e., use of unique fittings) while
proceeding with notice-and-comment
rulemaking to impose other restrictions
(61 FR 54034).
Although the initial SNAP rulemaking
listed CO2 as acceptable for use in new
MVAC systems, at that time, EPA was
not aware of any interest in using CO2
in MVAC systems and did not receive
any submission for unique fittings to be
used on CO2 MVAC systems or any
information specified in 40 CFR Part 82,
Subpart G, Appendix D. EPA was
subsequently made aware through risk
screens of concerns regarding health
risks to exposure of CO2 from refrigerant
leaks into the passenger compartment
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2).
EPA was also made aware of potential
interest in using CO2 as a refrigerant for
MVAC systems and of technology being
developed (71 FR 55141; September 21,
2006). On September 21, 2006, we
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(referred to hereinafter as ‘‘the
proposal’’ or NPRM) proposing to find
CO2 acceptable as a substitute for CFC–
12 in new MVAC systems, subject to the
use conditions specified at 40 CFR part
82, subpart G, appendix D (71 FR
55140). In addition, due to concerns
regarding the possibility of driver
performance decrement and adverse
effects on passengers if exposed to
concentrations of CO2 above 3% during
a short period of time (e.g., 15 minutes),
we proposed use conditions restricting
CO2 refrigerant concentrations to a STEL
of 3% averaged over 15 minutes in the
passenger free space caused by leaks
from the MVAC.11 Subsequently, on
September 17, 2009 (74 FR 47774), EPA
issued a notice of data availability
(NODA) making available to the public
additional information received
supporting a ceiling limit of 4% CO2 as
a level that should not be exceeded for
any period of time due to possible
adverse health effects. We also
requested public comment on whether
EPA should include in a final rule,
listing CO2 as acceptable subject to use
conditions for new MVAC systems, a
ceiling limit of 4% CO2 in addition to
the proposed STEL of 3% averaged over
15 minutes inside the passenger
compartment, and whether the
proposed use conditions should apply
when the ignition is off.
11 In
the same NPRM, EPA also proposed to find
HFC-152a acceptable subject to use conditions. On
June 12, 2008, EPA published a final rule listing
HFC-152a as an acceptable substitute, subject to use
conditions, for new MVAC (73 FR 33304), but
deferred final ruling on the use of CO2 in new
MVAC systems.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Basis for Use Conditions Included in
This Final Rule
EPA proposed three use conditions in
the NPRM. One use condition required
that systems be designed to avoid
occupant exposure to CO2
concentrations above a STEL of 3% CO2
averaged over 15 minutes in the
passenger free space, during the event of
a leak. The passenger free space is the
space inside the passenger compartment
excluding the space enclosed by the
ducting in the HVAC module (71 FR
55149). The proposal also stated that a
breathing zone ceiling limit may
provide additional assurance regarding
vehicle driver alertness and requested
comment on whether a maximum limit
should be applied in the driver and
passenger breathing zone, in addition to
the 3% CO2 free space limit averaged
over 15 minutes. In the NODA, we
defined the breathing zone as the space
where people breathe (74 FR 47775),
and data received during the public
comment period defined this zone as
the area inside the passenger
compartment where the driver’s and
passengers’ heads are located during a
normal sitting position.12
The other proposed use conditions
required OEMs to: (1) Keep records of
the test performed to ensure that MVAC
systems are safe and designed with
sufficient safety mitigation devices so
that occupants are not exposed to levels
above the CO2 STEL; and (2) adhere to
all the safety requirements listed in the
SAE Standard J639, in addition to the
use conditions already established
under Appendix D to Subpart G of 40
CFR part 82, for MVAC substitutes:
unique fittings,13 label, and a
compressor cut-off switch.
We received a number of public
comments on the proposed use
conditions and subsequent data
announced in the NODA regarding the
4% CO2 ceiling limit. Some commenters
claimed that the proposed STEL of 3%
CO2 averaged over 15 minutes was
enough to protect passengers and ensure
driver alertness (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0448–0025.1, –0032, –0044). Other
commenters stated that there are
sufficient arguments for choosing
percent concentration limits higher than
the proposed STEL of 3% CO2 averaged
over 15 minutes (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0448–0043, –0049). Alternatively, some
commenters requested a maximum CO2
12 This was the location considered in the U.S.
Army risk assessment, in addition to the rest of the
vehicle occupant compartment (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0025.2)
13 The unique fittings provision applies for MVAC
service ports and containers intended for servicing
of the MVAC (Appendix D to Subpart G of 40 CFR
part 82, 61 FR 54040; October 16, 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33319
ceiling limit in the passenger breathing
zone (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0448–0030,
–0035, –0047.1) and one commenter
considered appropriate the 4% CO2
ceiling limit as an additional use
condition (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0448–
0047.1).
After considering the information in
the docket at the time of proposal,
comments received on the proposed
rule, and additional information we
have received in response to the NODA,
we have decided to finalize the use
conditions as proposed in the
September 21, 2006, NPRM, and to add
a ceiling limit of 4% CO2, which would
apply in addition to the 3% averaged
over 15-minute CO2 STEL. We believe
that requiring a CO2 ceiling limit is
necessary because it is possible for a
time-weighted average concentration,
such as the STEL, to be under 3%, while
peak concentrations could reach higher
limits resulting in possible hearing and
vision effects that could distract and
endanger a driver, or cause other,
potentially more severe adverse health
effects (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–
0041). Thus, the proposed use condition
requiring mitigation strategies for
MVAC systems, to prevent leaks of CO2
refrigerant reaching concentrations
above 3% averaged over 15 minutes
inside the passenger compartment free
space, may not be sufficient on its own
to protect drivers and passengers. This
further protective limit is necessary to
ensure that overall risks to human
health and the environment from CO2
will be similar to or less than those of
other available refrigerants that EPA has
already listed as acceptable for MVAC.
In the final rule, we also revised the
proposed use condition on
recordkeeping to refer to the 4% ceiling
limit. The September 21, 2006 NPRM
proposed requiring OEMs to keep
records demonstrating they have met
the use condition requiring safety
mitigation devices to avoid occupant
exposure above the 3% CO2 STEL in the
passenger compartment. The final use
condition addressing recordkeeping
requires OEMs to keep records of the
tests performed for a minimum period
of three years demonstrating that MVAC
systems are designed incorporating
engineering devices or mitigation
strategies so that in the event of
refrigerant leak, the resulting
concentrations of CO2 in the passenger
free space do not exceed the STEL of
3% averaged over 15 minutes and do
not exceed the ceiling limit of 4% in the
passenger breathing zone. Keeping
records of tests performed evaluating
system safety is a customary practice for
OEMs while vehicles are in production
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
33320
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and for several years afterward (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0057).
For purposes of the final rule, we are
referencing to the 2011 version of SAE
J639 instead of the 2005 version
referenced in the proposed rule. The
SAE J639 2011 version added new
provisions designed specifically to
address use of another refrigerant, HFO–
1234yf (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–
0059). The provisions under the 2011
version of SAE J639 for high pressure
system warning label, compressor cutoff switch, and unique fittings, remain
unchanged. Consistent with the
proposed rule, the criteria for
uniqueness of fittings under Appendix
H to Subpart G of 40 CFR Part 82, and
the provisions of Appendix D to Subpart
G of 40 CFR Part 82 and SAE J639 (2011
version), in this final rule we specify
that the CO2 refrigerant fittings must
have: (1) An outside diameter of 16.6
+0/¥0.2 mm (0.6535 +0/¥0.0078
inches) for the MVAC low-side, (2) an
outside diameter of 18.1 +0/¥0.2 mm
(0.7126 +0/¥0.0078 inches) for the
MVAC high-side, and (3) an outside
diameter of 20.955 +0/¥0.127 mm
(0.825 +0/¥0.005 inches) and righthand thread direction for refrigerant
service containers.14
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Why is EPA listing CO2 acceptable
subject to use conditions?
EPA is listing CO2 acceptable subject
to use conditions because the use
conditions are necessary to ensure that
use of CO2 will not present greater risk
to human health and the environment
than other available substitutes
acceptable for use in new MVAC
systems. Examples of other substitutes
that EPA has already found acceptable
subject to use conditions for use in new
MVAC systems include HFC-152a and
HFO-1234yf.15 A list of acceptable
substitutes subject to use conditions for
use in new MVAC systems can be found
at Appendix B to Subpart G of 40 CFR,
Part 82 and https://www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/refrigerants/lists/mvacs.html.
EPA is requiring the use of unique
fittings for CO2 refrigerant consistent
with Appendix D to Subpart G of 40
CFR part 82 (61 FR 54040; October 16,
14 The SAE J639 standard specifies unique fittings
for high-side and low-side service ports and makes
reference to SAE J2683 ‘‘Refrigerant Purity and
Container requirements for Carbon Dioxide (CO2 R–
744) Used in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems’’
which specifies that the unique fitting for CO2
refrigerant service containers must be consistent
with the Cylinder Gas Association’s fitting CGA 320
(for 0–3000 psi) which has an outside diameter of
0.825 +0/-0.005 inches (20.955 +0/¥0.127 mm) and
right-hand thread direction (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0059, –0060).
15 HFO-1234yf was found acceptable only for
MVAC systems in new passenger cars and light
duty trucks (76 FR 17488, March 29, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
1996). All acceptable substitutes for use
in MVAC systems are subject to those
use conditions (and thus are identified
as acceptable subject to use conditions).
For CO2, the unique fittings that must be
used for MVAC systems are those
identified in the industry standard SAE
J639 (2011 version).
In addition to the use conditions
regarding unique fittings, EPA is
requiring OEMs to adhere to all the
safety requirements of SAE J639 (2011
version) for the safe design of new
MVAC systems using CO2. We are
establishing this as a use condition to
ensure that new MVAC systems that use
CO2 are specifically designed to
minimize release of the refrigerant into
the passenger cabin. Adherence to the
standard will minimize the risks that
CO2 refrigerant levels in the passenger
compartment and breathing zone would
exceed the CO2 limits of 3% averaged
over 15 minutes in the passenger cabin
free space and the 4% ceiling limit in
the passenger breathing zone.
Environmental Impacts
EPA finds that CO2 does not pose
greater risk to the environment than
other substitutes that are currently
available in the end-use being evaluated
in this rulemaking. In at least one
aspect, CO2 is significantly better for the
environment than most alternatives
currently listed as acceptable subject to
use conditions in the MVAC end-use.
CO2 has a hundred-year time horizon
(100-yr) global warming potential (GWP)
of one, compared with a GWP of four for
HFO-1234yf, 124 for HFC-152a, and
1,430 for HFC-134a. Further, CO2 has an
ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero,
comparable to HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a,
and HFC-134a. Other SNAP-approved
refrigerant blends containing HCFCs
have ODPs ranging from 0.065 to 0.022.
Additionally, CO2 is excluded from the
definition of volatile organic compound
(VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40
CFR 51.100(s)).
Human Health and Safety Impacts
Carbon dioxide is not flammable,
similar to HFC-134a and most other
acceptable alternatives for MVACs.
Therefore, it does not add risks of fire
in a vehicle when used. For the MVAC
end-use, the EPA has listed two
flammable alternatives (HFC-152a and
HFO-1234yf) acceptable, subject to use
conditions to mitigate flammability
risks.
CO2 is an asphyxiant that obstructs
the oxygen flow into the body (OSHA,
1996; as cited in EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0041). However, it is not the only
gas that may cause asphyxia. Releasing
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
almost any gas 16 into an unventilated or
poorly ventilated space can lower the
oxygen concentration to a level that
poses significant health risks (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0041). Health risks
could occur to drivers or vehicle
occupants during release of CO2
refrigerant into the passenger
compartment. Additionally,
occupational risks could occur during
the manufacture of the refrigerant,
initial installation of the refrigerant into
the MVAC system at the vehicle
assembly plant, servicing of the MVAC
system, or final disposition of the
MVAC system (i.e., recycling or
disposal).
We evaluated potential human health
and safety impacts, including the shortand long-term toxicity of CO2 and risk
of injury to service personnel from highpressure CO2 MVAC systems, and
considered detailed risk assessments
with fault-tree analysis (FTA), (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0017, –0022, and
–0025.2), scientific data provided in
public comments (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0037.1) and other
information obtained during the notice
of data availability (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0041). We also reviewed a
risk assessment with fault-tree analysis
from the SAE Corporate Research
Program (CRP) for HFO-1234yf and CO2,
submitted during the public comment
period for another SNAP rulemaking 17
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0051, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0008, and –0056).
We also evaluated and provided
additional information on the health
effects and risks to CO2 exposure
through a contractor-authored report
‘‘Review of Health Impacts from ShortTerm Carbon Dioxide Inhalation
Exposures’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0041). This report revealed that
exposures over 4% (40,000 ppm) CO2
are likely to cause discomfort and signs
of intoxication that could impair the
driver’s response to road and driving
conditions, and could create safety and
health risks to the passengers. In
addition to this report, a revised risk
analysis performed by the U.S. Army
Research, Development and Engineering
Command (herein referred as U.S. Army
risk analysis),18 submitted during the
16 Any refrigerant can act as an asphyxiant by
limiting available oxygen in a space. When oxygen
levels in air are reduced to 12–14% by
displacement, symptoms of asphyxiation, loss of
concentration, increased pulse rate and deeper
respiration will occur.
17 SNAP rule listing as acceptable subject to use
conditions HFO-1234yf for MVACs in new
passenger cars and light-duty vehicles (76 FR
17488, March 29, 2011).
18 Blackwell et. al 2006; Risk Analysis for
Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning (revised risk analysis made in
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
public comment period, indicated that
limiting passenger exposure to 4% CO2
is sufficiently protective to avoid
serious or irreversible health effects in
potentially sensitive subpopulations
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2).
Also, the U.S. Army risk analysis
selected the 4% CO2 level based on the
lowest level at which performance
decrements were observed in studies by
Wong, 1992 (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0025.2).
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Vehicle Driver and Passenger Risks
EPA’s review of vehicle driver and
passenger risks from CO2 refrigerant
exposure indicated that a potential
refrigerant leak into the vehicle
passenger compartment is not expected
to present an unreasonable exposure
risk if engineering strategies or
mitigation strategies are applied (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025, –0037.1).
The U.S. Army risk assessment
indicated a possible strategy to limit
refrigerant leakage into the passenger
compartment by installing a device
referred as a ‘‘3-second squib valve’’ to
discharge refrigerant to a location
outside the passenger compartment
three seconds after a major leak is
detected.19 The assessment showed that
for CO2 MVAC systems, using a squib
valve to evacuate the charge in three
seconds after a leak is detected kept
passenger exposure to below levels of
concern (i.e., 3% over 15 minutes in the
passenger compartment, as a whole, and
4% in the breathing zone).We listed in
the proposal additional possible
mitigation strategies that may reduce the
likelihood of exceeding refrigerant
levels of concern inside the passenger
compartment, including within the
breathing zone. We also received
information from commenters on
additional engineering strategies and
mitigation strategies (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0037.1, –0025.2, –0030,
–0050). In this final rule, we are not
establishing a use condition requiring a
specific mitigation strategy, but instead
leaving to vehicle manufacturers the
choice of which mitigation strategy to
use in order to ensure that in the event
of refrigerant leak, the resulting
concentrations of CO2 in the passenger
free space above 3% or 30,000 ppm
averaged over 15 minutes are avoided
and the resulting concentrations of CO2
in the passenger breathing zone do not
collaboration with EPA and several stakeholders,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2). The original
risk screen referred in the NRPM (71 FR 55140)
contained technical errors (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0017). This final rule relies on the results of
the revised U.S. Army risk analysis.
19 Refers to the assessment by Blackwell, et al.,
2006 (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
exceed the ceiling limit of 4% or
40,000 ppm at any time.
Occupational Risks
EPA evaluated risks of injury and
refrigerant exposure to workers by
examining risk screens, published
research information and data made
available during the public comment
period (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0017,
–0025.2, –0041, –0022, –0015, –0051).
We compared long-term occupational
exposures to CO2 to a workplace
exposure limit of 5,000 ppm (or 0.5%)
time weighted average CO2
concentration over a period of eight
hours, consistent with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Permissible Exposure LimitTime Weighted Average (PEL–TWA),20
the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) Recommended Exposure
Limit-Time Weighted Average (REL–
TWA),21 and the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value-Time
Weighted Average (TLV–TWA).22 23
Additionally, we compared short-term
occupational worker exposures to CO2
to a workplace short-term exposure
limit of 30,000 ppm (or 3%) time
weighted average CO2 concentration
over a 15-minute period during a
workday, consistent with NIOSH’s
Recommended Exposure Limit-Short
term Exposure Limit (REL–STEL) 24 and
ACGIH’s Threshold Limit Value-Short
Term Exposure Limit (TLV–STEL).25 26
The U.S. Army risk assessment (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2) evaluated
occupational risks for the MVAC service
sector using FTA. The FTA found
probabilities of refrigerant exposure
while servicing CO2 MVAC systems of
approximately 10¥5 cases per year (i.e.,
approximately 5 annual cases per
100,000 technicians) (EPA–HQ–OAR–
20 PELs are based on an eight hour TWA exposure
(OSHA, 1988a).
21 REL–TWAs are concentrations for up to 10hour workday during a 40-hour workweek (NIOSH,
2005).
22 TLV–TWAs are concentrations for an eight
hour workday and a 40-hour workweek, to which
is believed that nearly all workers may be
repeatedly exposed, day after day, for a working
lifetime without adverse effect (ACGIH, 2005).
23 OSHA’s PEL–TWA, NIOSH’s REL–TWA, and
ACGIH’S TLV–TWA are all the same, 5,000 ppm
(0.5%), for CO2 (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0041).
24 REL–STELs are 15-minute TWA exposure
limits that should not be exceeded at any time
during a workday (NIOSH, 2005).
25 TLV–STELs are 15-minute exposure that
should not be exceeded at any time during a
workday, even if the eight hour TWA is within the
TLV–TWA (ACGIH, 2005).
26 NIOSH’s REL–STEL, and ACGIH’S TLV–STEL
for CO2 are all 30,000 ppm (3%) 15-minute TWA
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0041).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33321
2004–0488–0025). This figure is
significantly lower when compared to
the general injury and illness rate for
auto repair technicians, which is
approximately 4 annual cases per 100
full time technicians (BLS, 2003; EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025); thus risks
from CO2 exposures in the MVAC
service field are expected to be
significantly less than the risks of injury
already present in shops (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0025). The U.S. Army
risk assessment additionally found that
the chances of refrigerant exposure for
persons servicing an MVAC system do
not vary considerably by the type of
refrigerant used and found similar
results for end-of-life (i.e., recycling or
disposal) activities (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0025).
EPA notes that occupational risks
could occur during the manufacture of
the refrigerant and initial installation of
the refrigerant into the MVAC system at
the vehicle assembly plant. Although
we did not analyze the risk of exposure
during refrigerant manufacture and
initial installation of CO2 refrigerant
into the MVAC system at the vehicle
assembly plant, we expect risks at the
vehicle assembly plant, and at other
workplaces were CO2 refrigerant
handling will occur (e.g., service shops,
and recycling or disposal facilities), to
be similar to or lower than the risks
from other refrigerants used for these
purposes due to occupational safety
practices (e.g., proper ventilation, use of
personal protective equipment)
established for these type of facilities
and subject to occupational safety and
health standards under 29 CFR Part
1910, which are intended to address risk
to such workers.
Overall Conclusion
EPA finds that the overall
environmental and human health risks
posed by the use of CO2 in new MVAC
systems, subject to the use conditions
being adopted in this final rule, is lower
than or comparable to the risks posed by
other substitutes found acceptable
subject to use conditions in the same
end-use.
VII. What is the relationship between
this SNAP rule and other EPA rules?
Rules Under Sections 609 and 608 of the
Clean Air Act
This final SNAP rule addresses the
conditions for safe use of CO2 in new
MVAC systems. Thus, the requirements
in this rule apply primarily to OEMs,
except for specific requirements for
unique fittings required under
Appendix D to Subpart G of 40 CFR part
82 which also applies for servicing of
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
33322
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the MVAC. Section 609 of the CAA
establishes standards and requirements
regarding servicing of MVAC systems.
These requirements include training
and certification of any person that
services MVAC systems for
consideration,27 as well as standards for
certification of equipment for refrigerant
recovery and recycling. EPA has issued
regulations implementing these
statutory requirements and those
regulations are codified at subpart B of
40 CFR part 82. MVAC end-of-life
disposal and recycling specifications are
covered under section 608 of the CAA
and our regulations are codified at
subpart F of 40 CFR part 82. The
statutory and regulatory provisions
regarding MVAC servicing, refrigerant
recovery, and refrigerant venting
prohibition apply to any refrigerant
alternative and are not limited to
refrigerants that are also ODS. CO2 is
exempted from the refrigerant venting
prohibition provisions promulgated
under CAA 608 (40 CFR 82.154 and 70
FR 19278; April 13, 2005).
VIII. What is EPA’s response to public
comments on the proposal?
This section summarizes EPA’s
response to significant comments
received during the public comment
periods for the NPRM and the NODA.
EPA’s response to all comments
received can also be found in a response
to comments document in docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Use Conditions
Comment: Some commenters claimed
that the proposed STEL of 3% CO2
averaged over 15 minutes in the cabin
free space is enough to protect
passengers and ensure driver alertness.
One commenter suggested to consider a
3% CO2 concentration limit averaged
over 15 minutes in the breath level (i.e.,
breathing zone) instead of 3% in the
cabin free space. The commenter
considered the breathing zone to be a
relevant point for measurement and
claimed that high refrigerant
concentrations lower in the vehicle
would not impair vehicle operation.
Other commenters supported higher
CO2 concentration limits but over a
shorter period of time (e.g., 5.5% CO2
for 5 minutes and 9% CO2 as a ceiling
limit). Other commenters requested that
EPA include a CO2 ceiling limit in the
passenger breathing zone and one
commenter considered appropriate a
4% CO2 ceiling limit (i.e., a limit not to
27 Service for consideration means receiving
something of worth or value to perform service,
whether in money, credit, goods, or services (see 40
CFR 82.32 (g)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
be exceeded at any time) as an
additional use condition. Another
commenter stated that use conditions
requiring mitigation strategies are not
necessary for low probability events
(i.e., exceeding 4% CO2 for any
duration) and that requiring such
conditions would prevent the use of this
refrigerant.
Response: After evaluating the
comments and risk screens (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0025.2, –0041, 0051),
EPA is revising the proposed use
conditions to add a ceiling limit of 4%
CO2, in addition to the CO2 STEL of 3%
averaged over 15 minutes. We believe
that the original proposed use condition
requiring mitigation strategies for
MVAC systems, to prevent leaks of CO2
refrigerant reaching concentrations
above 3% averaged over 15 minutes
inside the passenger compartment free
space, may not be sufficient on its own
to protect drivers and passengers. We
also believe that requiring a CO2 ceiling
limit of 4% is necessary because it is
possible for a time-weighted average
concentration, such as the STEL, to be
under 3%, while peak concentrations
could reach higher limits for a few
minutes. As shown in published data,
CO2 concentration peaks above 4%
could result in effects on hearing and
vision that could distract and endanger
a driver, or other, potentially more
severe adverse health effects (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0041).
CFD modeling showed that during
unmitigated refrigerant leak scenarios,
CO2 refrigerant concentrations in the
passenger breathing zone can reach up
to 10.2% in 50 seconds (0.83 minutes)
and 8.0% in 200 seconds (3.33 minutes)
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2).
The U.S. Army risk analysis’s FTA
showed that unmitigated leak scenario
occurrences for CO2 systems (reaching
concentrations above 4% CO2) could
reach 4,300 per year for the vehicle fleet
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2).
These occurrences are about 10,000
higher than the expected occurrences
associated with leaks of a fluorinated
refrigerant (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-152a, or
HFO-1234yf) breakdown product (i.e.,
hydrogen fluoride) exposure above
health based limits.28 Several studies
reported that exposure ranging from 7%
to 10% CO2 for few minutes (e.g., 2–3
minutes) resulted in loss of
28 The risk due to exposure to HF when using
HFO-1234yf is approximately the same as that with
the current use of HFC-134a (on order of 10¥12
occurrences per operating hour, or one in one
trillion). (76 FR 17488; March 29, 2011). When this
factor is multiplied by the approximate vehicle fleet
and annual vehicle operating hours (250 million
and 500 hr/yr, respectively) the occurrences per
year are in the order of 10¥1.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
consciousness (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0441).29
EPA disagrees with the commenter
stating that use conditions requiring
mitigation strategies are not necessary
for low probability events and that
requiring such conditions would
prevent the use of this refrigerant.
Consistent with the information above,
we believe that unmitigated exposure
occurrences are not rare. We believe the
use conditions required in this final rule
are necessary to ensure that overall risks
to human health and the environment
from CO2 will be similar to or less than
those of other available refrigerants that
EPA has already listed as acceptable for
MVAC. We also believe that requiring
the use conditions listed in this final
rule would not make the refrigerant use
less practicable. Use conditions
imposed on other acceptable
alternatives for MVACs (e.g., adherence
to all safety requirements under SAE
standard J639, use of unique fittings and
labels, use of pressure relief devices) has
not prevented use of such alternatives.30
Comment: Several commenters
indicated that concentration
measurements of CO2 inside the
passenger compartment should consider
passenger respiration in addition to a
refrigerant leak from the A/C system.
Another commenter indicated that the
MVAC recirculation mode operates with
at least 1% of fresh air. One commenter
suggested changing the text of the
proposed use condition indicating the
STEL for CO2 refrigerant inside the
passenger compartment to state that the
STEL is ‘‘3% v/v fully-occupiedvolume, time averaged over 15 minutes’’
and to clarify that the calculation of
such value is based on a double average
consisting of the average CO2
concentration over the air volume of a
fully occupied car and a time-average of
29 Unconsciousness caused by short term
exposure (e.g., 2–3 minutes) of CO2 concentration
ranging from 7 to 10% was reported in studies by
Aero Medical Association (1953), Flury and Zernik
(1931), Hunter (1975), Schaefer (1951), and NIOSH
(1996), as cited in Review of Health Impacts for
Short-Term Carbon Dioxide Inhalation Exposures
(2009). EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0041.
30 On March 29, 2011, EPA issued a final rule
listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable subject to use
conditions for MVACs in new passenger car and
light duty trucks. One of the use conditions in that
rule require OEMs to perform and keep on file an
FMEA. In an FMEA vehicle designers analyze all
the ways in which parts of the MVAC system could
fail and identify how they will address those risks
in design of the system. (76 FR 17488). If the FMEA
reports that mitigation strategies are necessary in
the MVAC for safety reasons, manufacturers are
required to design safety components (e.g.,
mitigation strategies) to comply with the use
condition of that rule. In the U.S. an OEM publicly
announced that it will be using HFO-1234yf in
some vehicles starting 2013 model year (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0062).
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
volume-average over 15 minutes.31
Another commenter suggested
alternative language for the use
condition specifying a ceiling limit of
4% CO2 applicable in any part of the
free space inside the passenger
compartment for a time period of 60
seconds when the car ignition is on. The
suggested language reads:
‘‘Engineering strategies and/or devices
shall be incorporated into the system
such that foreseeable leaks into the
passenger compartment do not result in
R744 concentrations of 4.0% v/v or
above in any part of the free space
inside the passenger compartment for
more than 60 seconds when the car
ignition is on.’’
Response: EPA notes that the U.S.
Army risk analysis assumed that a
maximum number of passengers were in
the vehicle before the release of
refrigerant into the passenger
compartment, allowing for some buildup of respiratory CO2 (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0025.2). Thus, that analysis
recognized that CO2 concentrations can
occur from human respiration in a space
with limited exchange of outside air and
may consequently build up in the
passenger cabin. For that reason, in the
proposal, we indicated that OEMs
should account for background CO2
concentrations in the passenger
compartment that can result from
human respiration when designing their
systems and mitigation devices (71 FR
55140; September 21, 2006). However,
we did not specify whether the vehicle
should be fully occupied to account for
CO2 background concentrations. We
believe that CO2 refrigerant
concentrations may reach levels of
concern (i.e., above 4% CO2) during an
unmitigated event of refrigerant leak
either when the vehicle is fully
occupied or when not fully occupied
(e.g., the vehicle is occupied by the
driver only). Thus we do not agree with
the commenter’s suggestion to state that
the STEL is ‘‘3% v/v fully-occupiedvolume, time averaged over 15
minutes’’. In this final rule, we
recommend but do not require,
consistent with the NPRM, to account
for background CO2 concentrations from
human respiration, in addition to
refrigerant leaks when designing the
MVAC.
EPA notes that the proposal (79 FR
55140; September 21, 2006) specifies
the CO2 STEL as a concentration limit
averaged over 15 minutes, in the event
of a refrigerant leak. The STEL is
31 Fully occupied is defined as the maximum
design occupancy determined by the number of sets
of seat belts (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.1—
0025.2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
determined from the sum of
concentration and exposure time
products (e.g., concentration 1 times
exposure time 1 plus concentration 2
times exposure time 2), divided by the
total exposure time which shall not
exceed 15 minutes (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0448–0041). Thus the STEL is a
time-weighted average concentration
and not necessarily a time-average of a
volume-average as indicated by the
commenter since STEL refers to a total
exposure time (i.e., 15 minutes) and not
an average time. For this reason, we do
not agree with the commenter’s
suggestion to clarify that the calculation
of the 3% STEL is based on a double
average consisting of the average CO2
concentration over the air volume of a
fully occupied car and a time-average of
volume-average over 15 minutes since
the approach does not provide further
clarity of the use condition. In this final
rule, the CO2 STEL of 3% averaged over
15 minutes considers the average CO2
concentration in a passenger cabin over
a total time period of 15 minutes during
the event of refrigerant leak; and the
ceiling limit of 4% CO2 considers the
total CO2 in the passenger breathing
zone at any one moment in a passenger
compartment during the event of a leak.
Regarding the alternative language
suggested by the other commenter
specifying a ceiling limit of 4% CO2
applicable in any part of the free space
inside the passenger compartment for a
time period of 60 seconds when the car
ignition is on, we note that the
commenter did not provided
information supporting his suggestion
that the ceiling limit apply in areas
other than the passenger breathing zone
for the specified 60-second time period.
Comment: Two commenters indicated
the need for clarity on whether the use
conditions apply when the ignition is
off as well as when the ignition is on.
Other commenters suggested
considering the results of a risk
assessment performed by SAE’s CRP
indicating a significantly low
probability for a leak when the ignition
is off, and several other commenters
stated that the use conditions should
only apply when the ignition is on.
Response: The NODA provided data
and requested additional comment on
whether the use conditions should
apply when the engine is off. In
December, 2009, after the public
comment period closed on the NODA,
SAE issued a report, ‘‘Risk Assessment
for HFO-1234yf and R-744 (CO2) Phase
III’’ (referred herein after as SAE CRP
report), that evaluated toxicity effects
and quantitative risks of CO2, similarly
to the U.S. Army risk analysis. This
report was submitted to EPA during the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33323
public comment period for another
SNAP rulemaking.32 The report
evaluates CO2 exposure estimations due
to leaks into the passenger compartment
during different modeled scenarios such
as different MVAC operation mode,
system failure, and during a collision
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0056.2,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2,
–0051). The SAE CRP report also
evaluated refrigerant release into the
passenger compartment during a
scenario where the engine is expected to
be off (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0051,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0056.2). For
this scenario, which involves passengers
sleeping inside a vehicle with the
windows closed while refrigerant leaks
occur, the SAE CRP report showed a
probability for occurrences of CO2
refrigerant exposure above 6% (a
threshold limit used by the CRP for this
scenario) to be in the order of 10¥12 per
vehicle/hour/occupant (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0051, EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0664–0056.2). We believe that
exposures of concern inside the
passenger compartment are more likely
to result from a large, sudden release of
refrigerant inside the passenger
compartment and that such a situation
is most likely during a collision while
the ignition is on, as described on the
U.S. Army risk analysis (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0025.2) and consistent
with the SAE CRP report (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0051, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2008–0664–0056.2). In addition, even if
a rupture on the evaporator line is large,
the overall leak rate is limited to the
maximum flow rate of refrigerant
through the fixed orifice tube opening of
the MVAC (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–
0025.2). The maximum flow rate is
determined by the differential
compressor discharge pressure, which is
only available when the vehicle ignition
is on and MVAC system is running.
Therefore, EPA finds that the overall
risks to human health and the
environment from CO2 will be similar to
or less than those of other available
refrigerants that EPA has already listed
as acceptable for MVAC when the
ignition is off. Thus, consistent with a
SNAP rule issued in June 12, 2008 (73
FR 33304) listing HFC-152a 33 as
acceptable subject to use conditions for
use in new MVAC systems, the use
32 We refer here to the SNAP rule listing HFO1234yf as acceptable subject to use conditions for
MVACs in new passenger cars and light duty
vehicles (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0644, 74 FR 17488;
March 29, 2011).
33 HFC-152a poses risks comparable to CO and
2
other available refrigerants found acceptable subject
to use conditions under SNAP (73 FR 33304; June
12, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
33324
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
conditions in this final rule apply only
when the ignition is on.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the regulation should precisely
define the area in the vehicle being
regulated and indicated that SAE is
working on a standard to establish
standards for passenger compartment
refrigerant concentration measurement.
Another commenter indicated that a
CO2 concentration limit should focus on
the driver breathing zone rather than the
cabin free space.
Response: EPA has clarified the
regulatory text of the use condition to
define the passenger free space as the
space inside the passenger
compartment, excluding the space
enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC
module. The passenger breathing zone,
where the ceiling limit of 4% must be
met, is defined as the area inside the
passenger compartment where the
driver’s and passengers’ heads are
located during normal sitting position
(i.e., space where people breathe, as
defined in the NODA (71 FR 47775;
September 17, 2009)). Additionally, we
note that the passenger breathing zone
is defined in SAE J2772 and the driver’s
head position in SAE J1052. Since the
automotive industry often relies on
standards for designs and assessments,
we recommend the use of the SAE J1052
and SAE J2772 standards as references
for further specifications regarding the
driver’s and passengers’ head and
seating position and to establish the
passenger breathing zone consistent
with our explanation provided in
Section V of the preamble (i.e., the area
inside the passenger compartment
where the driver’s and passengers’
heads are located during a normal
sitting position).
EPA disagrees with the comment
indicating that a CO2 concentration
limit should only focus on the driver
breathing zone rather than the passenger
cabin free space. Based on the risk
analyses and available data, we include
in this final rule a 4% ceiling limit that
must not be surpassed at any time in the
passenger (and driver) breathing zone
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0044–
0025.2). We also include, as proposed,
a 3% CO2 STEL averaged over 15
minutes in the passenger cabin free
space as an additional protective
measure for passenger exposure to CO2.
As indicated by the U.S. Army risk
assessment, sensitive subpopulations
(e.g., elderly and children) may be
affected from exposures to high
concentrations of CO2 (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0025.2), thus we believe it is
necessary to set a limit that would
address risk to all people in the
passenger compartment and not solely
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
the driver. We also take into
consideration that passengers may not
be in a normal sitting position all the
time (e.g., passenger may rest in a
reclined position) and note CO2 is
heavier than air, thus higher
concentrations may be found at lower
points of the passenger cabin (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0025.2, –0041, –0051).
As indicated previously, the STEL is the
concentration limit that people can be
exposed continuously for a short period
of time (i.e., 15 minutes) without
suffering adverse health risks. For these
reasons we include both limits (i.e., 4%
CO2 ceiling limit in the passenger
breathing zone and 3% CO2 averaged
over 15 minutes in the passenger cabin
free space) in this final rule.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that a CO2 ceiling limit
should rely on exposure time since
potential effects of CO2 vary with both
concentration and duration of the
exposure. One commenter stated that if
the ceiling limit is exceeded, it is likely
due to collision events.
Response: EPA agrees the health
effects of CO2 are functions of exposures
over time. The commenter appears to
misunderstand what a ceiling limit is. A
ceiling limit is a limit that shall not be
exceeded for any period of time, thus it
is not consistent with the concept of a
ceiling limit to also include a period of
time during which it cannot be
exceeded. As explained previously, we
believe that both a ceiling limit and a
STEL are necessary to ensure that risks
posed from CO2 MVAC systems are not
greater than risks posed by other
available MVAC systems.
While EPA agrees with the
commenter that collision events are the
most likely cause of a refrigerant leak
that could cause CO2 levels to the
exceed the ceiling limit established in
the use conditions, there may be other
system failures that could cause the
ceiling limit to be exceeded. OEMs
should consider risks from all possible
events in designing MVACs for use with
CO2.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested considering ceiling limits of
CO2 above 4% (e.g., 6%, 9%) based on
studies showing that visual disturbances
occur at concentrations of 6% CO2. They
stated that the SAE CRP report’s
rationale suggested a 9% CO2
concentration ceiling limit, based on
studies showing central nervous system
(CNS) effects at CO2 exposure
concentrations of 10% (100,000 ppm).
Response: Studies report that human
exposures to 6% CO2 for periods as
short as 2 minutes can lead to hearing
and visual disturbances, and that
exposures to 7.5% for 5 minutes lead to
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
significant reasoning and performance
decrements (Gellhorn, 1936; Sayers,
1987 as cited in EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0041). To provide a margin of
safety, EPA considers it necessary to
require a ceiling limit of 4% CO2 in the
passenger breathing zone as indicated in
the NODA and suggested by some
commenters, to avoid driver
performance decrement and other
adverse health effects on passengers.
Comment: Several commenters said
that the ceiling limit should rely on
NIOSH’s Immediately Dangerous to Life
and Health (IDLH) value of 4% CO2
based on a 30-minute exposure.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenters to the extent they are
suggesting that the 4% limit be based on
a 30-minute exposure. The NIOSH IDLH
value is a worker’s exposure limit based
on the effects that might occur as a
consequence of a 30-minute exposure
(NIOSH 2005; EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0488–0041). The OSHA regulation
(1910.134(b)) defines the term as ‘‘an
atmosphere that poses an immediate
threat to life, would cause irreversible
adverse health effects, or would impair
an individual’s ability to escape from a
dangerous atmosphere.’’ We believe
NIOSH’s IDLH is inappropriate as a
ceiling limit for the use of CO2 as a
refrigerant in MVACs because, as
indicated above, a ceiling limit is a limit
that shall not be exceeded for any
period of time. Also, a 4% limit over 30minutes would not protect drivers and
passengers from the effects of CO2
exposure at concentrations equal or
higher than 4%. CO2 is an asphyxiant
that obstructs the oxygen flow into the
body and we believe that 30-minute
duration, in particular, where the
person affected by such a concentration
may be operating a vehicle and thus
posing risk to others, creates a
significant risk. Risk Mitigation
Strategies
Comment: The U.S. Army noted a
CFD parameter error in their 2005 risk
analysis which used an incorrect
refrigerant leak angle in their 2005 risk
analysis (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–
0017). The U.S. Army corrected this
error for purposes of their 2006 risk
analysis by using a perpendicular leak
angle to the rupture cross-sectional area
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.1).
The 2006 analysis finds that an
unmitigated discharge of CO2, in full
recirculation mode, results in CO2
concentration above 3% for more than
60 minutes. The U.S. Army also
indicated that a 3-second, rather than a
10-second squib valve, as originally
determined, would be needed to ensure
that CO2 concentrations remain below
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the 3% on a 15-minute average inside
the passenger compartment.
Response: EPA notes that the U.S.
Army is commenting on its own risk
assessment performed in collaboration
with EPA and several stakeholders, and
referenced in the NPRM (71 FR 55140).
We also note that the 2005 U.S. Army
risk analysis referred in the NRPM (71
FR 55140) contained technical errors
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0017). This
final rule relies on the results of the
revised (2006) U.S. Army risk analysis
submitted during the public comment
period.
Based on the U.S. Army revised
assessment, we understand that, in
order for a squib valve to be an effective
mitigation device, the activation time of
such device should be 3 seconds rather
than the 10 seconds indicated in the
original risk assessment. Since we are
not specifying in this final rule what
mitigation strategies must be used, we
believe the 2006 revised risk analysis
does not affect the use conditions
addressed in this final rule, but may
affect the potential risk mitigation
strategies OEMs might apply for use
with CO2 refrigerant.
Comment: One commenter stated that
secondary loop technology is not a
viable risk mitigation strategy for CO2
because of reduced system performance
and reduced fuel efficiency.
Response: This final rule does not
specify design options. EPA does not
intend to limit engineering innovation
by requiring any specific risk mitigation
strategy; however, EPA notes that
secondary loop technology could
potentially reduce the risks of exceeding
the ceiling limit of CO2 in the passenger
compartment because the refrigerant
charge stays separate from the passenger
compartment. OEMs may choose to
investigate secondary loops as a risk
mitigation strategy, and would have to
weigh the pros and cons, including any
potential effect on fuel efficiency.
However, even if secondary loop
technology were not an attractive
option, other feasible mitigation
technologies could be applied to meet
the use conditions of this final rule,
such as a squib valve with a 3-second
response time.
Comment: One commenter indicated
that squib valves with activation time of
less than 10 seconds (e.g., few
milliseconds) are available and such
devices have been tested. Another
commenter stated that a 10-second
squib valve is not technically feasible
given CO2 sensor performance.
Additionally, the commenter stated that
during sharp increases in CO2
concentration in the passenger
compartment, a short activation time for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
a squib-valve would increase the
possibility of purging the refrigerant
from the air conditioning system to
outside the vehicle when no leak in fact
exists.
Response: EPA agrees with the first
commenter regarding the availability of
squib valves and disagrees with the
second commenter’s statement
regarding feasibility of a squib valve.
The 2006 U.S. Army risk analysis
indicated that a squib valve is one
effective strategy and viable engineering
option to reduce the amount of charge
that could potentially leak into the
passenger compartment (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0025.2). EPA notes
that in the proposal, we intended for the
squib valve activation time to include:
1) the time the sensor takes to detect a
significant leak that would cause CO2
refrigerant to enter into the passenger
compartment, and 2) the time it takes
for the squib valve to open (71 FR
55140; September 21, 2006). The 2006
U.S. Army risk assessment evaluated
different activation times (i.e., 30, 10
and 3 seconds) of squib valve during
modeled scenarios of CO2 refrigerant
leak. The results showed higher
effectiveness of the valve preventing
high refrigerant concentration reaching
the passenger compartment during the
shorter activation time.
EPA believes that sharp increases in
CO2 concentration in the passenger
compartment will likely occur only
when a significant amount of CO2
refrigerant leaks into the passenger
compartment. Risk assessments showed
that CO2 buildup due to passenger
respiration occurs slowly (e.g., 60
minutes) to levels up to 2.4% in a fullyoccupied 100 cubic feet sealed
passenger compartment of a vehicle
with no introduction of outside air
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2,
–0041). EPA notes that a passenger
compartment in a vehicle is not
confined space and infiltration/
exfiltration rates of air changes within
the passenger compartment and outside
air are at least 0.3 air changes per hour
(NREL, 2003 as cited in EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0488–0025.2). Therefore, we do
not agree that refrigerant purging from
the air conditioning system to outside
the vehicle will occur when no leak in
fact exists.
Comment: A commenter stated that
odorants that alert drivers to a leak
should be another option for
compliance with the rule.
Response: EPA did not propose the
use of odorants, and this final action
neither requires nor prohibits the use of
odorants in new CO2 MVAC systems.
Odorized CO2 may be an effective
means to alert the driver and passengers
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33325
to a refrigerant leak into the passenger
compartment. However, EPA does not
believe odorants used alone provide
sufficient risk mitigation as it may take
vehicle occupants a period of time to
recognize what the odor signifies.
Documentation has not been provided
to show how long and how much
odorized CO2 drivers must be exposed
to before they recognize that the smell
indicates a health and safety risk.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that EPA consider use of sensors to
allow continuous monitoring of
refrigerant concentration inside the
passenger cabin as a mitigation strategy.
Another commenter mentioned that an
alarm system or other technical
solutions should allow for air renewal
and lowering concentration levels below
the limits indicated in the use
conditions within a reasonable time
period
Response: As noted previously, EPA
is not specifying the risk mitigation
strategies that must be used to ensure
CO2 levels do not exceed the levels
established in the use conditions. We do
not believe that a sensor alone would be
sufficient to provide effective protection
to the passengers and to ensure that
concentrations inside the passenger
compartment and passenger breathing
zone do not exceed the established CO2
concentration limits of this final rule. In
response to the commenter stating that
an alarm system or other technical
solutions should allow for air renewal,
EPA believes the use of such tool might
be effective but that such strategy would
need to rely on an automatic supply of
air, rather than a driver’s response, to
ensure CO2 concentrations do not
exceed the exposure limits established
in the use conditions. Thus, an
additional mitigation device would
need to be used in addition to any alarm
system.
Comment: One commenter said that
evaporator isolation valves are not
realistic as mitigation devices because of
cost. The commenter stated that closecoupled and hermetically sealed
systems are technically feasible and
noted that an automatic increase in air
exchange is a possible strategy that is
technically feasible. Another commenter
suggested that switching the MVAC
blower to operate on outside air mode
on high, rapidly after CO2 refrigerant is
released, could reduce the overall
refrigerant concentration in the
compartment to a peak lower than 4%.
Response: EPA believes the mitigation
strategies mentioned by the commenters
may all be technically feasible means to
meet concentration levels specified in
the use conditions. We note that in the
proposed rule we suggested using
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
33326
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
evaporator isolation valves, close
coupled or hermetically closed systems
that would reduce refrigerant charge
size, and increasing air exchange (with
outside air) in the passenger
compartment upon detection of leaks as
some of several potential risk mitigation
strategies (71 FR 55140; September 21,
2006). In this final rule we are not
requiring a specific mitigation strategy
or engineering device. We are allowing
OEMs to choose a mitigation strategy
that is consistent with the use
conditions and that they will employ to
protect the driver and passengers in a
vehicle from CO2 exposure above the
limits specified in this rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that
a vehicle crash could be so severe that
the MVAC system evaporator could be
damaged and possibly reduce a risk
mitigation system’s effectiveness. The
commenter proposed the inclusion of an
evaporator crush resistance standard in
this action.
Response: EPA agrees that a vehicle
crash could reduce the effectiveness of
the risk mitigation strategy. However we
believe that in such a case, the damage
to the car would be so severe as to result
in an inflow of ambient air that would
negate the risks associated with
potentially elevated CO2 concentrations.
A crush-resistant evaporator could be
selected as a possible mitigation strategy
but, as stated previously, in this final
rule we do not specify which
engineering device or strategies must be
incorporated into the MVAC system and
leave this choice to the OEMs.
C. Industry Standards
Comment: Several commenters
indicated that SAE is developing
standards for safety and servicing of CO2
MVAC systems and that it is customary
for OEMs to follow those standards.
Other commenter claimed that every
OEM is responsible for its own safety
concept and has to show compliance
with already existing and future safety
standards.
Response: EPA notes and agrees with
the important role industry standards
play particularly for the MVAC sector.
In addition, we note that the regulatory
text references the relevant SAE
technical standards to promote
consistency with established industry
practices. Specifically, use conditions in
this final rule reference SAE J639 (2011
version). Other standards such as SAE
J1739, which addresses design, safety,
and recordkeeping requirements, are
recommended to help ensure that the
use conditions are met.
We disagree with the comment stating
that every OEM is responsible for its
own safety concept because we believe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
that in addition to customary business
standards and industry practices outside
the scope of this rule, OEMs will
comply with all the use conditions
specified in this rule.
Comment: Commenters noted that
SAE is developing SAE J2772 standard,
‘‘Measurement of Passenger
Compartment Refrigerant
Concentrations Under System
Refrigerant Leakage Conditions’’ (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0448–0054) and SAE
J2773 standard, ‘‘Standard for Safety
and Risk Analysis for Use in Mobile Air
Conditioning Systems’’ (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0448–00553), formerly
known as Refrigerant Guidelines for
Safety and Risk Analysis for Use in
Mobile Air Conditioning Systems.
Response: We note that standards
J2772 and J2773 were recently
published and are readily available. In
the comments column of our listing
decision, we recommend the use of
J2772 and J2773 standards as well as
other available standards such as SAE
J1052, Motor Vehicle Driver and
Passenger Head Position (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0448–0055).
D. Servicing
Comment: One commenter indicated
CAA Section 609-certified, independent
MVAC service technicians should be
consulted before the rule is issued.
Response: EPA took comments on a
range of topics during the 60-day public
comment period. In addition, EPA
contacted the National Institute for
Automotive Service Excellence (ASE),
which represents a significant number
of MVAC service technicians. A
summary is in the docket for this final
rule. ASE stated they did not see any
servicing concerns in the proposal that
would impact the service technicians
they represent, but would be interested
in any follow-on rulemaking that will
address MVAC servicing for
consideration under CAA Section 609
and codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart
B (EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0031).
Comment: One commenter said risks
associated with MVAC service should
be considered.
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenter and notes that risk
associated with service were evaluated
in the published risk analyses (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0017, –0025.2,
–0041, –0051) and discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rulemaking
(71 FR 55144 September 21, 2006).
Additional details regarding our
evaluation of risk associated with
MVAC service can be found in Section
VI of this final rule preamble (Why is
EPA listing CO2 acceptable subject to
use conditions?). As explained in more
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
detail in Section VI above, we do not
believe it is necessary to establish any
use conditions regarding servicing
because the overall environmental and
human health risks posed by the use of
CO2 in new MVAC systems, subject to
the use conditions being adopted in this
final rule, is lower than or comparable
to the risks posed by other substitutes
found acceptable subject to use
conditions in the same end-use.
Comment: One commenter requested
more information on why CO2 systems
are not found acceptable as a substitute
in retrofitted systems.
Response: In the original SNAP
rulemaking (59 FR 13854; March 18,
1994), EPA listed CO2 as an acceptable
substitute for CFC–12 only for new
MVAC systems. We have never received
a SNAP submission requesting
consideration of CO2 in retrofitted
MVAC systems. EPA understands that
the higher working pressure of CO2
compared to CFC–12 and other SNAPacceptable refrigerants could raise
significant issues with retrofitting such
systems to CO2. Because we have not
received a request to use CO2 in
retrofitted systems, which would
include the technical and other analyses
necessary to determine whether such
use would present more risk than other
available substitutes, this final rule only
applies to the use of CO2 as a refrigerant
in new MVAC systems, consistent with
the NPRM (71 FR 55140; September 21,
2006). When and if the Agency receives
a submission for retrofitting to CO2, we
will consider CO2 for use as a refrigerant
to retrofit existing MVAC systems.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory 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 Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011) and any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3501 et seq). This action is an Agency
determination. It contains no new
requirements for reporting. The only
new recordkeeping requirement
involves customary business practice.
This rule requires minimal
recordkeeping of studies done for three
years to ensure that MVAC systems
using CO2 meet the requirements set
forth in this rule. Because it is
customary business practice that OEMs
conduct and keep on file records of the
tests they perform, consistent with a
widely recognized industry standard,
SAE J1739 (Potential Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis in Design [Design
FMEA], Potential Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis in Manufacturing and
Assembly Processes [Process FMEA]),
on any potentially hazardous part or
system from the beginning of
production of a vehicle model until
three years or more after production of
the model ends, we believe this
requirement will not impose an
additional paperwork burden. However,
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations in
subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has
assigned OMB control numbers 2060–
0226. The OMB control numbers for
EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR
part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small
business, as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;’’ (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-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule modifies the current
listing of CO2 as an acceptable
alternative refrigerant subject to use
conditions necessary for the safe use of
CO2 in MVAC in new motor vehicles.
The use conditions will need to be met
by large entities (i.e., OEMs) that
manufacturer motor vehicles if these
choose to use CO2 as a refrigerant in
new MVACs. This final rule does not
mandate the use of CO2 as a refrigerant
in new MVAC systems, thus will not
impose significant requirements on
small entities such as MVAC service
shops. This final rule effectively ensures
consistency with current practices in
MVAC service shops regarding the use
of unique fittings. It is not clear that
there would be any cost differential
between the unique fittings required for
the use of CO2 and those used with the
current automotive refrigerant, HFC134a, or other fittings that the industry
could adopt instead, for other
refrigerants. It is possible that the
fittings required in the revised use
condition will be equally or less
expensive than those required for other
acceptable alternative refrigerants
because they are a standard shape and
size and can be easily produced in a
metal-working shop. Thus, cost impacts
of this final rule on small entities are
expected to be small.
Although this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities.
EPA has worked together with SAE
International and with groups
representing professional service
technicians such as the Mobile Air
Conditioning Society Worldwide, which
conducts regular outreach with
technicians and owners of small
businesses such as retail refrigerant
suppliers and automobile repair shops.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This
action does not affect State, local, or
tribal governments. The enforceable
requirements of this action related to
integrating risk mitigation devices and
documenting the safety of alternative
MVAC systems affect only a small
number of OEMs. The impact of this
action on the private sector will be less
than $100 million per year. Thus, this
action is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33327
This action 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. This
action applies directly to facilities that
use these substances and not to
governmental entities.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in EO
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This regulation applies directly to
facilities that use these substances and
not to governmental entities. Thus, EO
13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in EO 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). It
does not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of Indian tribal
governments, because this regulation
applies directly to facilities that use
these substances and not to
governmental entities. Thus, EO 13175
does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This final rule is not subject to the EO
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This
action’s health and risk assessments are
discussed in sections VI and VIII of the
preamble and in documents EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0025.2, EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0041 and EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0488–0051 in the docket for
this rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This
action would impact manufacturers of
CO2 MVAC systems for new vehicles.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
33328
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Preliminary information indicates that
these new systems are equally or more
energy efficient than currently available
systems in some climates. Therefore, we
conclude that this rule is not likely to
have any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution or use.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113,
Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in regulatory activities unless
to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. EPA has incorporate by
reference, the 2011 version of SAE
standard J639 which is a voluntary
consensus standard. This standard can
be obtained from https://www.sae.org/
technical/standards/. This standard
addresses safety and reliability issues of
CO2 MVAC systems.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629;
February 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 final
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
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority or
low-income population. The refrigerant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
CO2 is a non ozone-depleting substance
with a GWP of 1.0. Based on the
toxicological and atmospheric data
described earlier, the use of CO2 subject
to the use conditions specified in this
final rule will not have any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
This final rule requires specific use
conditions for MVAC systems, if motor
vehicle manufacturers choose to market
MVAC systems using this refrigerant
alternative.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A Major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective August 6, 2012.
X. 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–2004–0488 at https://www.
regulations.gov.
ACGIH, 2005a. TLVs® and BEIs® Based on
the Documentation of the Threshold
Limit Values for Chemical Substances
and Physical Agents & Biological
Exposure Indices. American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH), Cincinnati, Ohio.
ACGIH, 2005b. Documentation of the
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical
Substances: Carbon Dioxide. American
Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Aero Medical Association, 1953. Committee
on Aviation Toxicology, Blakiston, New
York. As cited in CDC IDLH
documentation for carbon dioxide.
Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/idlh/124389.html.
Al-Delaimy W.K., Hay S.M., Gain K.R., Jones
D.T., Crane J., 2001. The effects of carbon
dioxide on exercise-induced asthma: an
unlikely explanation for the effects of
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Buteyko breathing training. Med J Aust.
15,174(2):64–5.
ANSI/ASHRAE, 2007. ASHRAE Standard
62.1–2007: Ventilation for Acceptable
Indoor Air Quality. American National
Standard Institute, American Society for
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),
Atlanta, GA. Available online at: https://
www.sae.org/altrefrigerant/
presentations/sumantran.pdf.
ASHRAE, 2006. BSR/ASHRAE Addendum to
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2004—
Designation and Safety Classification of
Refrigerants, Publication Draft. American
Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),
Atlanta, GA.
Atkinson, W., 2002. Consumer Use of A/C
Systems. SAE Automotive Alternate
Refrigerant Systems Symposium 2002.
Phoenix, Arizona. Available online at:
https://www.sae.org/events/aars/2002/
consumeruse.pdf.
Amin, J., B. Dienhart, and J. Wertenbach.,
1999. Safety Aspects of an A/C System
with Carbon Dioxide as Refrigerant, SAE
Subcommittee Safety of Refrigerant
Systems. Available online at: https://
www.sae.org/misc/aaf99/visteon.pdf.
Birgfeld, E., 2003. Risk Analysis for CO2,
HFC-152a, and Hydrocarbon Refrigerants
in MACs, presented at The Earth
Technologies Forum, Washington, DC,
April 2003.
Beck J.G., P.J. Ohtake, and J.C. Shipherd.,
1999. Exaggerated anxiety is not unique
to CO2 in panic disorder: A comparison
of hypercapnic and hypoxic challenges.
J Abnorm Psychol 108:473–482.
Blackwell, N., L. Bendixen, E. Birgfield.,
2006. Risk Analysis for Alternative
Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning.
Brown. E.W., 1930. The value of high oxygen
in preventing the physiological effects of
noxious concentrations of carbon
dioxide U.S. Naval Med. Bull. 132, 523–
553. As cited in Wong 1992.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2003.
‘‘Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in
2002,’’ December 18, 2003.
CATAM., 1953. Aviation Toxicology, An
Introduction to the Subject and a
Handbook of Data. Committee on
Aviation Toxicology, Aero Medical
Association. The Blakiston Co.: New
York, NY. Pp. 6–9, 31–39, 52–55, 74–79,
110–115. As cited in Wong 1992.
Compressed Cylinder Gas (CGA) Association,
1999. Properties, Manufacture, Uses, and
Special Requirements for Safe Handling.
Carbon Dioxide. Handbook of
Compressed Gases, 4th edition.
Arlington, VA Klever Academy. Pages
300–308.
CRP, 2009. Risk Assessment for Alternative
Refrigerants HFO-1234yf and R-744
(CO2) Phase III. Prepared for SAE
International Cooperative Research
Program 1234 by T. Lewandowski,
Gradient Corporation. December 17,
2009.
DOT, Federal Aviation Authority, 1996.
Allowable carbon dioxide concentration
in transport category airplane cabins;
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
final rule. Federal Register
61(232):63951–63956. Available online
at: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_
Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/
51B4BFD4B3B081968625683A005905BE.
Dripps, R.D., J.H. Comroe, Jr., 1947. The
respiratory and circulatory response of
normal man to inhalation of 7.6 and 10.4
percent CO2 with a comparison of the
maximal ventilation produced by severe
muscular exercise, inhalation of CO2 and
maximal voluntary hyperventilation. Am
J Physiol 149:43–51. As cited in NIOSH,
1976 and NRC, 1996.
ERG Inc., 2009. Review of Health Impacts
from Short Term Carbon Dioxide
Inhalation Exposures. 110 Hartwell Ave.
Lexington, MA 02421. February 18,
2009.
Froehling, J., M. Lorenz-Boernert, F.
Schroeder, V. Khetarpal, S. Pitla. (2002)
‘‘Component Development for CO2,’’
presented at 2002 SAE Automotive
Alternate Refrigerant Systems
Symposium, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Available online at: https://www.sae.org/
events/aars/2002/froehling.pdf.
Gellhorn, E. (1936). The Effect of O2-Lack,
Variations in the Carbon DioxideContent of the Inspired Air, and
Hyperpnea on Visual Intensity
Discrimination. American Journal of
Physiology. 115: 679–684.
Hunter D. (1975). The diseases of
occupations. 5th ed. London: Hodder
and Stoughton, p. 618 Jetter, J., R. Forte,
and F. Delafield. (2001) ‘‘Refrigerant
Concentrations in Motor Vehicle
Passenger Compartments,’’ ASHRAE
Transactions: Research, No. 4466, pp.
99–107.
Lambertsen, C.J. (1971). Therapeutic Gases:
Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Helium. In
Drill’s Pharmacology in Medicine, ed.
J.R. DiPalma, 1145–1179. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
NIOSH, 1976. Criteria for Document for
Carbon Dioxide. NIOSH Publication No.
76–194.
NIOSH, 1990. Pocket Guide to Chemical
Hazards. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National
Institutes for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), Washington, DC.
Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/npg/.
NIOSH, 1996. Documentation for
Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health
Concentrations (IDLHs): Carbon dioxide.
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institutes for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Washington, DC. Available
online at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
idlh/124389.html.
NIOSH, 2005. Pocket Guide to Chemical
Hazards. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National
Institutes for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), Washington, DC.
Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/npg/.
NRC, 1996. Spacecraft Maximum Allowable
Concentrations for Selected Airborne
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
Contaminants: Volume 2. Subcommittee
on Spacecraft Maximum Allowable
Concentrations, Committee on
Toxicology, Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology, Commission on
Life Sciences, National Research Council
(NRC). Washington, DC: National
Academies Press. Available online at:
https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_
19970023991.
NRC, 2007. Emergency and Continuous
Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected
Submarine Contaminants. Subcommittee
on Emergency and Continuous Exposure
Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine
Contaminants, Committee on
Toxicology, Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology, National
Research Council (NRC). Washington,
DC: National Academies Press. Available
online at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?record_id=11170#toc.
OSHA, 1989. Carbon Dioxide, Industrial
Exposure and Control Technologies for
OSHA Regulated Hazardous Substances,
Volume I of II, Substance A–I.
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor. March 1989.
OSHA, 1993. Final Rule on Air
Contaminants: FR 58:35338–35351, June
30, 1993. U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Washington,
DC. Available online at: https://www.
osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_
document?p_table=FEDERAL_
REGISTER&p_id=13306.
OSHA, 1996. Hazard Information Bulletin.
Potential Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Asphyxiation Hazard When Filling
Stationary Low Pressure CO2 Supply
Systems. Available online at: https://
www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.
show_document?p_table=HIB_
STATIC&p_id=35791&p_search_type=
CLOBTEXTPOLICY&p_search_str=
carbon+dioxide&p_text_version=FALSE#
ctx1.
OSHA, 1997. Regulations (Standards—29
CFR); Table Z–1 Limits for Air
Contaminants—1910.1000. U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), Washington, DC. Available
online at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/
oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992.
Patterson, J.L., H. Heyman, L.L. Battery, R.W.
Ferguson., 1955. Threshold of response
of the cerebral vessels of man to
increases in blood carbon dioxide.
Journal of Clinical Investigations.
34:1857–1864.
Pine, D.S. et al., 2005. Response to 5%
carbon dioxide in children and
adolescents: relationship to panic
disorder in parents and anxiety disorders
in subjects. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:73–
80. Available online at: https://archpsyc.
ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/62/1/73.
Rebinger, C., 2005. Safety Concept Proposal
for R744 A/C Systems in Passenger
Cars—Update 2005. VDA Alternate
Refrigerant Winter Meeting 2005.
Saalfelden, Austria.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33329
RISA Sicherheitsanalysen., 2002. SafetyStudy for a Prototypical Mobile R744 A/
C System. VDA Alternate Refrigerant
Winter Meeting 2002. Saalfelden,
Austria.
Schaefer K.E., 1951. Studies of carbon
dioxide toxicity. New London, CT: Navy
Department, Bureau of Medicine and
Surgery, Medical Research Laboratory,
U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Vol. 10,
Report No.181, pp. 156–189. As cited in
NIOSH documentation for carbon
dioxide. Last accessed January 23, 2009:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.
html.
Sayers, J.A., R.E.A. Smith, R.L Holland, W.R.
Keatinge. 1987. Effects of Carbon Dioxide
on Mental Performance. Journal of
Applied Physiology. 63(1):25–30.
Schneider, E.C., E. Truesdale., 1922. The
effects on circulation and respiration of
an increase in the carbon dioxide content
of blood in man. American Journal of
Physiology. 63:155–175.
Schulte, J.H., 1964. Sealed environments in
relation to health and disease. Archives
of Environmental Health. 8: 438–452.
SAE International, 2002. Surface Vehicle
Standard J1052. Motor Vehicle Driver
and Passenger Head Position.
SAE International, 2005. Surface Vehicle
Standard J2683. Refrigerant Purity and
Containment Requirements for Carbon
Dioxide (CO2 R–744) Used in Mobile AirConditioning Systems.
SAE International, 2009. Surface Vehicle
Standard J1739. Potential Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis in Design (Design
FMEA), Potential Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis in Manufacturing and
Assembly Processes (Process FMEA).
SAE International, 2011. Surface Vehicle
Standard J639. Safety Standards for
Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor
Compression Systems.
SAE International, 2011. Surface Vehicle
Standard J2772. Measurement of
Passenger Compartment Refrigerant
Concentrations Under System
Refrigerant Leakage Conditions.
SAE International, 2011. Surface Vehicle
Standard J2773. Standard for Refrigerant
Risk Analysis for Mobile Air
Conditioning Systems.
Sumantran, V., B. Khalighi, K. Saka, and S.
Fischer., 1999. An Assessment of
Alternative Refrigerants for Automotive
Applications based on Environmental
Impact. General Motors R&D Center and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Available online at: https://www.sae.org/
altrefrigerant/presentations/sumantran.
pdf.
U.S. EPA., 1994. SNAP Technical
Background Document: Risk Screen on
the Use of Substitutes for Class I OzoneDepleting Substances: Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning. Stratospheric
Protection Division. March 1994.
U.S. EPA., 2005. Risk Analysis for
Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle
Air Conditioning.
U.S. EPA, 2010. Email from Yaidi Cancel,
EPA to William Hill and Ward Atkinson,
SAE Interior Climate Control Committee
re: Minimum recordkeeping on SAE
J1739. August 16, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
33330
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
White, C.S.; Humm, J.H.; Armstrong, E.D.;
Lundgren, N.P.V., 1952. Human
tolerance to acute exposures to carbon
dioxide. Report No. 1 Six percent carbon
dioxide in air and in oxygen. Aviation
Med. Oct. issue. pp 439–455. As cited in
Wong 1992.
Wong, K.L., 1992. Carbon Dioxide. Internal
Report, Johnson Space Center in the
Group. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Huston, TX. 1987.
Yang, Y., S. Changnian, and M. Sun., 1997.
The effect of moderately increased CO2
concentration on perception of coherent
motion. Aviat Space Environ Med
68(3):187–191.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection,
Administrative practicable and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
Subpart G—Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program
Dated: May 23, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
■
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR Part 82 is amended as
follows:
PART 82—PROTECTION OF
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
2. In Appendix B to Subpart G of Part
82, add an entry to the end of the table
for ‘‘Refrigerants-Acceptable Subject to
Use Conditions,’’ and revise footnotes 1,
2, and 3 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82—
Substitutes Subject To Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes
1. The authority citation for part 82
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–
7671q.
REFRIGERANTS-ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS
Substitute
Decision
Conditions
Comments
*
CFC–12 Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning (New
equipment only).
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Application
*
Carbon dioxide
(CO2) as a substitute for CFC–
12.
*
Acceptable subject to use conditions.
*
*
Engineering strategies and/or mitigation devices shall be incorporated such that in the event of
refrigerant leaks, the resulting
CO2 concentrations do not exceed:
The short term exposure level
(STEL) of 3% or 30,000 ppm
averaged over 15 minutes in the
passenger free space 1; and;
The ceiling limit of 4% or 40,000
ppm in the passenger breathing
zone.2
*
*
Additional training for service technicians is recommended.
Vehicle manufacturers must keep
records of the tests performed for
a minimum period of three years
demonstrating that CO2 refrigerant levels do not exceed the
STEL of 3% averaged over 15
minutes in the passenger free
space, and the ceiling limit of 4%
in the breathing zone.
The use of CO2 in MVAC systems
must adhere to the standard conditions identified in SAE Standard
J639 (2011 version) including:
Installation of a high pressure system warning label;
Installation of a compressor cut-off
switch; and
Use of unique fittings with:
Outside diameter of 16.6 +0/¥0.2
mm (0.6535 +0/¥0.0078 inches)
for the MVAC low-side;
Outside diameter of 18.1 +0/¥0.2
mm (0.7126 +0/¥0.0078 inches)
for the MVAC high-side; and
Outside diameter of 20.955 +0/
¥0.127 mm (0.825 +0/¥0.005
inches) and right-hand thread direction for CO2 refrigerant service
containers.3
In designing risk mitigation strategies and/or devices, manufacturers should factor in background
CO2 concentrations in the passenger cabin potentially contributed from normal respiration by
the maximum number of vehicle
occupants.
Use of the standards SAE J1052,
SAE J2772, and SAE J2773 is
recommended as additional reference.
Manufacturers should conduct and
keep on file Potential Failure
Mode and Effects Analysis in Design [Design FMEA], Potential
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
in Manufacturing and Assembly
Process [Process FMEA] on the
MVAC as stated in SAE J1739.
1 Free
space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC module.
inside the passenger compartment where the driver’s and passengers’ heads are located during a normal sitting position. Refer to SAE
J1052 for information on determining passenger head position.
3 The refrigerant service containers fitting requirement applies only to refrigerant service containers used during servicing of the MVAC, in accordance with the provisions established for MVAC servicing under 40 CFR part 82, subpart B.
2 Area
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–13189 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 395
Regulatory Guidance on the
Applicability of Property-Carrier Hoursof-Service Rules to the Driveaway
Operation of Vehicles Designed to
Transport Passengers
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of regulatory guidance.
AGENCY:
The property-carrier hours-ofservice (HOS) rules in 49 CFR 395.3 are
applicable to drivers operating
commercial motor vehicles designed or
used to transport passengers on
‘‘driveaway-towaway’’ trips, as defined
in 49 CFR 390.5. This notice provides
Federal and State enforcement
personnel, and the motor carrier
industry, with uniform guidance
concerning these rules.
DATES: Effective Date: This regulatory
guidance is effective June 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas L. Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov.
Phone (202) 366–4325.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Legal Basis
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935
provides that ‘‘The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe
requirements for (1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees
of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2)
qualifications and maximum hours of
service of employees of, and standards
for equipment of, a motor private
carrier, when needed to promote safety
of operation’’ [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)].
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
(MCSA) confers on the Secretary the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 Jun 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
authority to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. It
requires the Secretary to prescribe safety
standards for commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs). At a minimum, the
regulations must ensure that (1) CMVs
are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities
imposed on operators of CMVs do not
impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical
condition of operators of CMVs is
adequate to enable them to operate the
vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of
CMVs does not have a deleterious effect
on the physical condition of the
operator [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)]. The Act
also grants the Secretary broad power to
‘‘prescribe recordkeeping and reporting
requirements’’ and to ‘‘perform other
acts the Secretary considers
appropriate’’ [49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and
(10)].
The Administrator of FMCSA has
been delegated authority to carry out the
functions vested in the Secretary by the
Motor Carrier Act of 1935 [49 CFR
1.73(l)], and the MCSA [§ 1.73(g)]. The
provisions affected by this Notice of
Regulatory Guidance are based on these
statutes.
Background
This document adds regulatory
guidance on the applicability of the
hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for
property-carrying drivers in 49 CFR
395.3 to drivers of vehicles designed or
used to transport passengers, while
operating the vehicle on a ‘‘driveawaytowaway’’ trip as defined 49 CFR 390.5.
These drivers often work for motor
carriers that specialize in delivery of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and
they do not operate CMVs to transport
passengers on a regular basis.
The § 390.5 definition of ‘‘driveawaytowaway’’ is ‘‘* * * an operation in
which an empty or unladen motor
vehicle with one or more sets of wheels
on the surface of the roadway is being
transported: (1) Between vehicle
manufacturer’s facilities; (2) between a
vehicle manufacturer and a dealership
or purchaser; (3) between a dealership,
or other entity selling or leasing the
vehicle, and a purchaser or lessee; (4) to
a motor carrier’s terminal or repair
facility for the repair of disabling
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
33331
damage (as defined in § 390.5) following
a crash; (5) to a motor carrier’s terminal
or repair facility for repairs associated
with the failure of a vehicle component
or system; or (6) by means of a saddlemount or tow-bar.’’
Reason for This Notice
Section 395.3 prescribes the primary
HOS regulations applicable to propertycarrying drivers, and § 395.5 prescribes
the comparable regulations for
passenger-carrying drivers. Neither the
term ‘‘property-carrying’’ nor
‘‘passenger-carrying’’ is defined in these
regulations. The FMCSA has received
inquiries from motor carriers as to
whether the property-carrying or
passenger-carrying HOS rules would
apply in driveaway situations usually
involving the delivery of a bus,
motorcoach, or similar CMV from the
manufacturer or distributor to the
dealer, or similar scenario. The Agency
agrees that regulatory guidance is
needed to clarify applicability of the
HOS regulations. For the reasons
explained above, FMCSA issues
Regulatory Guidance Question 1 to
§ 395.5 of the FMCSRs.
PART 395—HOURS OF SERVICE OF
DRIVERS
§ 395.5 ‘‘Maximum driving time for
passenger-carrying vehicles.’’
‘‘Question 1: Would a driver
delivering an empty commercial motor
vehicle designed or used to carry
passengers, from the manufacturer or
distributor to a dealer, or otherwise
engaged in a ‘‘driveaway-towaway’’ trip
as defined in § 390.5, be required to
comply with the hours-of-service
regulations for passenger-carrying
drivers?
Guidance:
No. The property-carrier hours-ofservice rules in § 395.3 are applicable to
drivers operating commercial motor
vehicles designed or used to transport
passengers in a ‘‘driveaway-towaway’’
operation, as defined in § 390.5.’’
Issued on: May 29, 2012.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–13657 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33315-33331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13189]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488; FRL-9668-8]
RIN 2060-AM54
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Alternative for the Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, this action lists
carbon dioxide (CO2) or R-744, as acceptable substitute,
subject to use conditions, in the motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC)
end-use for motor vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, light-duty and heavy-
duty vehicles) within the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector.
This final rule only concerns the use of CO2 in MVAC systems
designed specifically for the use of CO2 refrigerant. The
substitute is non-ozone-depleting and therefore does not contribute to
stratospheric ozone depletion.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 6, 2012. The
incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy from the EPA
Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yaidi Cancel, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Air and Radiation, MC 6205J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343-9512; fax number: (202) 343-2338; email
address: cancel.yaidi@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final action provides motor vehicle
manufacturers and their suppliers with a refrigerant option subject to
use conditions for motor vehicle air conditioning systems for use in
new vehicles. The refrigerant discussed in this action, carbon dioxide
(R-744, CO2) is non-ozone-depleting and has a global warming
potential (GWP) \1\ of 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GWP, is defined as the ratio of heat trapped by one unit
mass of the greenhouse gas to that of one unit mass of
CO2 over a specified period of time. Consistent with the
international standards under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), all GWPs in this rule are
given using a 100-year period (IPCC, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Does this action apply to me?
II. What abbreviations and acronyms are used in this action?
III. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the
SNAP program?
B. What are EPA's regulations implementing section 612 of the
Clean Air Act?
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
D. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
IV. What is EPA's final decision for CO2 as an
alternative for MVAC?
V. Why is EPA establishing these final use conditions for the use of
CO2 in MVAC?
[[Page 33316]]
VI. Why is EPA listing CO2 acceptable subject to use
conditions?
VII. What is the relationship between this SNAP rule and other EPA
rules?
VIII. What is EPA's response to public comments on the proposal?
A. Use Conditions
B. Risk Mitigation Strategies
C. Industry Standards
D. Servicing
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Constitution and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
X. References
I. Does this action apply to me?
This final rule lists carbon dioxide (CO2)\2\, also
known as R-744, as an acceptable substitute subject to use conditions
for use as a refrigerant in new motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC)
systems designed specifically for the use of CO2 refrigerant
in motor vehicles\3\. Businesses in this end-use that may want to use
CO2 in MVAC systems include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chemical Abstracts Service [CAS] Registry: No. 124-38-9.
\3\ This final action applies only to air conditioning systems
in motor vehicles consistent with the definition of light duty
vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR 86.1803-01, with the
exception of passenger busses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle manufacturers
Motor vehicle air conditioning service and repair shops
Regulated entities may include:
Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities, by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code Description of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 336111, 336112, 336120 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.
Services....................... 811198 Vehicle Air Conditioning Repair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide
regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. If you have
any questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding section, FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
II. What abbreviations and acronyms are used in this action?
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ASE--National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAS--Chemical Abstracts Service
CBI--confidential business information
CFC--chlorofluorocarbon
CFC-12--the chemical dichlorodifluoromethane, CAS Reg. No. 75-71-8
CFD--computational fluid dynamics
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CNS--central nervous system
CO2--carbon dioxide, CAS Reg. No. 124-38-9, also known as
R-744
CRP--Cooperative Research Program
EPA--the United States Environmental Protection Agency
EO--Executive Order
FMEA--Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
FR--Federal Register
FTA--fault-tree analysis
GWP--Global warming potential
HCFC-22--the chemical chlorodifluoromethane, CAS Reg No. 75-45-6
HCFC-142b--the chemical 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane, CAS Reg No. 75-
68-3
HFC--hydrofluorocarbon
HFC-134a--the chemical 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS Reg. No. 811-
97-2
HFC-152a--the chemical 1,1-difluoroethane, CAS Reg. No. 75-37-6
HFO--hydrofluoroolefin
HFO-1234yf--the chemical 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene, CAS Reg. No.
754-12-1
IDLH--Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
MVAC--motor vehicle air conditioning
NIOSH--National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NODA--Announcement of Data Availability, formerly known as Notice of
Data Availability
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
ODP--ozone depletion potential
ODS--ozone-depleting substance
OEM--original equipment manufacturer
OMB--the United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--the United States Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
PEL--Permissible Exposure Level
ppm--parts per million
RDECOM--U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command
REL--Recommended Exposure Level
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SAE--SAE International, formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers
SAE CRP--SAE Cooperative Research Program
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
STEL--Short Term Exposure Limit
TWA--Time Weighted Average
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
III. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP
program?
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a program for evaluating
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances (ODS). EPA refers to this
program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The
major provisions of section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (i.e., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (i.e., 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.
2. 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 is
[[Page 33317]]
found at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/ and the lists
of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable subject to use conditions,'' and
``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits'' substitutes are found in
the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.
3. Petition Process
Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance, add or delete use restrictions, 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.
4. 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.
5. Outreach
Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to
maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist
users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing
alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.
B. What are EPA's regulations implementing section 612 of the Clean Air
Act?
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 comprise the principal industrial
sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.
Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as acceptable those
substitutes that do not present a significantly greater risk to human
health and the environment as compared with other substitutes that are
currently or potentially available.
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use
sectors must provide notice to the Agency, including health and safety
information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it
into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. 40
CFR 82.176(a). This requirement applies to the person planning to
introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\4\ typically
chemical manufacturers, but may also include importers, formulators,
equipment manufacturers, or end-users\5\ when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process
begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the
submission includes complete and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The
CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a
substitute earlier than 90 days after notice has been provided to the
Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 ``interstate commerce'' means
the distribution or transportation of any product between one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another
state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the
sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state,
territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for
which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the
release of a product from the facility in which the product was
manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic
manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at
the site of United States Customs clearance.
\5\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ``end-use'' means processes or
classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors
where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitutes: acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions;
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable.\6\ 40 CFR
82.180(b).Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered
``use restrictions'' and are explained below. Substitutes that are
deemed acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or
narrowed use limits) can be used for all applications within the
relevant end-uses within the sector. Substitutes that are acceptable
subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the
substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health and the
environment. EPA describes such substitutes as ``acceptable subject to
use conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes without meeting
the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the
Clean Air Act and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CF 82.174(c).
For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use
substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are
available for their specific application by conducting comprehensive
studies. EPA describes these substitutes as ``acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits.'' A person using a substitute that is acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are
not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes
in an unacceptable manner and is in violation of section 612 of the CAA
and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal
Register (FR). EPA publishes decisions concerning substitutes that are
deemed acceptable subject to use restrictions (use conditions and/or
narrowed use limits), or for substitutes deemed unacceptable, as
proposed rulemakings to allow the public opportunity to comment, before
publishing final decisions.
In contrast, EPA publishes substitutes that are deemed acceptable
with no restrictions in ``notices of acceptability,'' rather than as
proposed and final rules. As described in the preamble to the rule
initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994),
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list
alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such
listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a
substitute.
Many SNAP listings include ``comments'' or ``further information''
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory
[[Page 33318]]
decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute
under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are
binding under other regulatory programs. The ``further information''
classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations
pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not
legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of
substitutes to apply all statements in the ``further information''
column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the
information simply refers to sound operating practices that have
already been identified in existing industry and/or building-codes or
standards. Thus, many of the statements, if adopted, would not require
the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating
practices.
D. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program?
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site
at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/. For more information on the
Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for
evaluation of substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published
March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A
complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are
found at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.
IV. What is EPA's final decision for CO2 as an alternative
for MVAC?
In this final rule, EPA is modifying its previous determination
that listed CO2 as an acceptable substitute for CFC-12 in
new MVAC systems (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994) and is listing
CO2 acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a substitute
for CFC-12 in new MVAC systems. This final action does not apply to the
use of CO2 as a conversion or retrofit for existing MVAC
systems. In addition, it does not apply to the use of CO2 in
the air conditioning or refrigeration systems of buses, trains, rail or
subway cars, or appliances such as refrigerated transport. This
refrigerant may be used only in equipment designed specifically and
clearly identified for this refrigerant (i.e., it may not be used as a
conversion or ``retrofit'' refrigerant for existing equipment). EPA is
not mandating the use of CO2 or any other alternative to ODS
in MVAC systems. Vehicle manufacturers have the option of using any
refrigerant listed as acceptable for this end-use, so long as they meet
the applicable use conditions. This action removes CO2 from
the list of acceptable substitutes for MVAC systems and instead lists
it as acceptable subject to the following use conditions:
1. Engineering strategies and/or mitigation devices shall be
incorporated such that in the event of refrigerant leaks the resulting
CO2 concentrations do not exceed:
The short term exposure level (STEL) of 3% or 30,000 ppm
averaged over 15 minutes in the passenger free space; and
The ceiling limit of 4% or 40,000 ppm in the passenger
breathing zone.
2. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e., original equipment manufacturers
[OEMs]) must keep records of the tests performed for a minimum period
of three years demonstrating that CO2 refrigerant levels do
not exceed the STEL of 3% averaged over 15 minutes in the passenger
free space, and the ceiling limit of 4% in the breathing zone.
3. The use of CO2 in MVAC systems must adhere to the
standard conditions identified in SAE\7\ Standard J639 (2011 version)
including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ SAE International, formerly the Society of Automotive
Engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of a high pressure system warning label;
Installation of a compressor cut-off switch; \8\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A compressor cut-off switch causes a device to stop
compressor operation before activation of any pressure relief
device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of unique fittings with:
i. Outside diameter of 16.6 +0/-0.2 mm (0.6535 +0/-0.0078 inches)
for the MVAC low-side service port;
ii. Outside diameter of 18.1 +0/-0.2 mm (0.7126 +0/-0.0078 inches)
for the MVAC high-side service port; and
iii. Outside diameter of 20.955 +0/-0.127 mm (0.825 +0/-0.005
inches) and right-hand thread direction for CO2 refrigerant
service containers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The refrigerant service containers fitting requirement
applies only to refrigerant service containers used during servicing
of the MVAC, in accordance with the provisions established for MVAC
servicing under 40 CFR part 82, subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help ensure that the first use condition is met, we are
including several recommendations in the listing decision. First, OEMs
should conduct and keep on file Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)
on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739 (Potential Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis in Design [Design FMEA], Potential Failure Mode and Effect
Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Process [Process FMEA]), or
equivalent. Second, OEMs should factor in background CO2
concentrations that come about from normal respiration by the maximum
number of vehicle occupants.\10\ Third, EPA recommends the use of the
following industry standards as additional references when locating the
driver's and passengers' breathing zone consistent with the head and
seating position, measuring refrigerant concentrations at different
locations inside the passenger compartment including the breathing
zone, and addressing risks associated with MVAC use:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Maximum number of vehicle occupants includes the maximum
number of passengers in a normal seating position inside the
passenger compartment. This may vary between vehicle types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE J1052--Motor Vehicle Driver and Passenger Head
Position;
SAE J2772--Measurement of Passenger Compartment
Refrigerant Concentrations under System Refrigerant Leakage Conditions;
and
SAE J2773--Standard for Refrigerant Risk Analysis for
Mobile Air Conditioning Systems.
Fourth, EPA recommends additional training for MVAC service
technicians that will service MVAC systems using CO2 as the
refrigerant.
V. Why is EPA establishing these final use conditions for the use of
CO2 in new MVAC?
Summary of SNAP Actions on the Use of CO2 as a Refrigerant
in MVAC
In the initial SNAP rulemaking issued on March 18, 1994 (59 FR
13044), EPA found CO2 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12
in new MVAC systems. In that final rule, EPA also found other
substitutes (i.e., HFC-134a and R-401C, evaporative cooling and
stirring cycle) acceptable for use in new MVAC systems. On June 13,
1995 (60 FR 31092) and October 16, 1996 (61 FR 54040) EPA took two
separate actions requiring the use of unique fittings for several
refrigerants then currently listed as acceptable for use in new MVAC
systems (60 FR 31092) and for refrigerants subsequently found
acceptable for use in MVAC (61 FR 54040). The use conditions requiring
unique fittings were codified at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart G, Appendix D.
None of these actions applied to CO2. However, in the
preamble to the October 16, 1996 SNAP rule, EPA stated that for any
decision made under SNAP, the Agency may, on its own, determine that
additional conditions or restrictions should be added or removed
through future rulemaking (61 FR 54032). Also, EPA stated in the
October 16, 1996 SNAP rule that due concerns about potential cross-
contamination as a result of the large number of MVAC refrigerants, the
Agency may choose to list a substitute as acceptable subject to
[[Page 33319]]
use the conditions listed (in that rule, i.e., use of unique fittings)
while proceeding with notice-and-comment rulemaking to impose other
restrictions (61 FR 54034).
Although the initial SNAP rulemaking listed CO2 as
acceptable for use in new MVAC systems, at that time, EPA was not aware
of any interest in using CO2 in MVAC systems and did not
receive any submission for unique fittings to be used on CO2
MVAC systems or any information specified in 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart G,
Appendix D. EPA was subsequently made aware through risk screens of
concerns regarding health risks to exposure of CO2 from
refrigerant leaks into the passenger compartment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-
0025.2). EPA was also made aware of potential interest in using
CO2 as a refrigerant for MVAC systems and of technology
being developed (71 FR 55141; September 21, 2006). On September 21,
2006, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (referred to
hereinafter as ``the proposal'' or NPRM) proposing to find
CO2 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new MVAC
systems, subject to the use conditions specified at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart G, appendix D (71 FR 55140). In addition, due to concerns
regarding the possibility of driver performance decrement and adverse
effects on passengers if exposed to concentrations of CO2
above 3% during a short period of time (e.g., 15 minutes), we proposed
use conditions restricting CO2 refrigerant concentrations to
a STEL of 3% averaged over 15 minutes in the passenger free space
caused by leaks from the MVAC.\11\ Subsequently, on September 17, 2009
(74 FR 47774), EPA issued a notice of data availability (NODA) making
available to the public additional information received supporting a
ceiling limit of 4% CO2 as a level that should not be
exceeded for any period of time due to possible adverse health effects.
We also requested public comment on whether EPA should include in a
final rule, listing CO2 as acceptable subject to use
conditions for new MVAC systems, a ceiling limit of 4% CO2
in addition to the proposed STEL of 3% averaged over 15 minutes inside
the passenger compartment, and whether the proposed use conditions
should apply when the ignition is off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the same NPRM, EPA also proposed to find HFC-152a
acceptable subject to use conditions. On June 12, 2008, EPA
published a final rule listing HFC-152a as an acceptable substitute,
subject to use conditions, for new MVAC (73 FR 33304), but deferred
final ruling on the use of CO2 in new MVAC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis for Use Conditions Included in This Final Rule
EPA proposed three use conditions in the NPRM. One use condition
required that systems be designed to avoid occupant exposure to
CO2 concentrations above a STEL of 3% CO2
averaged over 15 minutes in the passenger free space, during the event
of a leak. The passenger free space is the space inside the passenger
compartment excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC
module (71 FR 55149). The proposal also stated that a breathing zone
ceiling limit may provide additional assurance regarding vehicle driver
alertness and requested comment on whether a maximum limit should be
applied in the driver and passenger breathing zone, in addition to the
3% CO2 free space limit averaged over 15 minutes. In the
NODA, we defined the breathing zone as the space where people breathe
(74 FR 47775), and data received during the public comment period
defined this zone as the area inside the passenger compartment where
the driver's and passengers' heads are located during a normal sitting
position.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This was the location considered in the U.S. Army risk
assessment, in addition to the rest of the vehicle occupant
compartment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other proposed use conditions required OEMs to: (1) Keep
records of the test performed to ensure that MVAC systems are safe and
designed with sufficient safety mitigation devices so that occupants
are not exposed to levels above the CO2 STEL; and (2) adhere
to all the safety requirements listed in the SAE Standard J639, in
addition to the use conditions already established under Appendix D to
Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82, for MVAC substitutes: unique fittings,\13\
label, and a compressor cut-off switch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The unique fittings provision applies for MVAC service
ports and containers intended for servicing of the MVAC (Appendix D
to Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82, 61 FR 54040; October 16, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received a number of public comments on the proposed use
conditions and subsequent data announced in the NODA regarding the 4%
CO2 ceiling limit. Some commenters claimed that the proposed
STEL of 3% CO2 averaged over 15 minutes was enough to
protect passengers and ensure driver alertness (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0448-
0025.1, -0032, -0044). Other commenters stated that there are
sufficient arguments for choosing percent concentration limits higher
than the proposed STEL of 3% CO2 averaged over 15 minutes
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0448-0043, -0049). Alternatively, some commenters
requested a maximum CO2 ceiling limit in the passenger
breathing zone (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0448-0030, -0035, -0047.1) and one
commenter considered appropriate the 4% CO2 ceiling limit as
an additional use condition (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0448-0047.1).
After considering the information in the docket at the time of
proposal, comments received on the proposed rule, and additional
information we have received in response to the NODA, we have decided
to finalize the use conditions as proposed in the September 21, 2006,
NPRM, and to add a ceiling limit of 4% CO2, which would
apply in addition to the 3% averaged over 15-minute CO2
STEL. We believe that requiring a CO2 ceiling limit is
necessary because it is possible for a time-weighted average
concentration, such as the STEL, to be under 3%, while peak
concentrations could reach higher limits resulting in possible hearing
and vision effects that could distract and endanger a driver, or cause
other, potentially more severe adverse health effects (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0488-0041). Thus, the proposed use condition requiring mitigation
strategies for MVAC systems, to prevent leaks of CO2
refrigerant reaching concentrations above 3% averaged over 15 minutes
inside the passenger compartment free space, may not be sufficient on
its own to protect drivers and passengers. This further protective
limit is necessary to ensure that overall risks to human health and the
environment from CO2 will be similar to or less than those
of other available refrigerants that EPA has already listed as
acceptable for MVAC.
In the final rule, we also revised the proposed use condition on
recordkeeping to refer to the 4% ceiling limit. The September 21, 2006
NPRM proposed requiring OEMs to keep records demonstrating they have
met the use condition requiring safety mitigation devices to avoid
occupant exposure above the 3% CO2 STEL in the passenger
compartment. The final use condition addressing recordkeeping requires
OEMs to keep records of the tests performed for a minimum period of
three years demonstrating that MVAC systems are designed incorporating
engineering devices or mitigation strategies so that in the event of
refrigerant leak, the resulting concentrations of CO2 in the
passenger free space do not exceed the STEL of 3% averaged over 15
minutes and do not exceed the ceiling limit of 4% in the passenger
breathing zone. Keeping records of tests performed evaluating system
safety is a customary practice for OEMs while vehicles are in
production
[[Page 33320]]
and for several years afterward (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0057).
For purposes of the final rule, we are referencing to the 2011
version of SAE J639 instead of the 2005 version referenced in the
proposed rule. The SAE J639 2011 version added new provisions designed
specifically to address use of another refrigerant, HFO-1234yf (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0488-0059). The provisions under the 2011 version of SAE J639
for high pressure system warning label, compressor cut-off switch, and
unique fittings, remain unchanged. Consistent with the proposed rule,
the criteria for uniqueness of fittings under Appendix H to Subpart G
of 40 CFR Part 82, and the provisions of Appendix D to Subpart G of 40
CFR Part 82 and SAE J639 (2011 version), in this final rule we specify
that the CO2 refrigerant fittings must have: (1) An outside
diameter of 16.6 +0/-0.2 mm (0.6535 +0/-0.0078 inches) for the MVAC
low-side, (2) an outside diameter of 18.1 +0/-0.2 mm (0.7126 +0/-0.0078
inches) for the MVAC high-side, and (3) an outside diameter of 20.955
+0/-0.127 mm (0.825 +0/-0.005 inches) and right-hand thread direction
for refrigerant service containers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The SAE J639 standard specifies unique fittings for high-
side and low-side service ports and makes reference to SAE J2683
``Refrigerant Purity and Container requirements for Carbon Dioxide
(CO2 R-744) Used in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems''
which specifies that the unique fitting for CO2
refrigerant service containers must be consistent with the Cylinder
Gas Association's fitting CGA 320 (for 0-3000 psi) which has an
outside diameter of 0.825 +0/-0.005 inches (20.955 +0/-0.127 mm) and
right-hand thread direction (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0059, -0060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Why is EPA listing CO2 acceptable subject to use
conditions?
EPA is listing CO2 acceptable subject to use conditions
because the use conditions are necessary to ensure that use of
CO2 will not present greater risk to human health and the
environment than other available substitutes acceptable for use in new
MVAC systems. Examples of other substitutes that EPA has already found
acceptable subject to use conditions for use in new MVAC systems
include HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf.\15\ A list of acceptable substitutes
subject to use conditions for use in new MVAC systems can be found at
Appendix B to Subpart G of 40 CFR, Part 82 and https://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/lists/mvacs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ HFO-1234yf was found acceptable only for MVAC systems in
new passenger cars and light duty trucks (76 FR 17488, March 29,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is requiring the use of unique fittings for CO2
refrigerant consistent with Appendix D to Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82
(61 FR 54040; October 16, 1996). All acceptable substitutes for use in
MVAC systems are subject to those use conditions (and thus are
identified as acceptable subject to use conditions). For
CO2, the unique fittings that must be used for MVAC systems
are those identified in the industry standard SAE J639 (2011 version).
In addition to the use conditions regarding unique fittings, EPA is
requiring OEMs to adhere to all the safety requirements of SAE J639
(2011 version) for the safe design of new MVAC systems using
CO2. We are establishing this as a use condition to ensure
that new MVAC systems that use CO2 are specifically designed
to minimize release of the refrigerant into the passenger cabin.
Adherence to the standard will minimize the risks that CO2
refrigerant levels in the passenger compartment and breathing zone
would exceed the CO2 limits of 3% averaged over 15 minutes
in the passenger cabin free space and the 4% ceiling limit in the
passenger breathing zone.
Environmental Impacts
EPA finds that CO2 does not pose greater risk to the
environment than other substitutes that are currently available in the
end-use being evaluated in this rulemaking. In at least one aspect,
CO2 is significantly better for the environment than most
alternatives currently listed as acceptable subject to use conditions
in the MVAC end-use. CO2 has a hundred-year time horizon
(100-yr) global warming potential (GWP) of one, compared with a GWP of
four for HFO-1234yf, 124 for HFC-152a, and 1,430 for HFC-134a. Further,
CO2 has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero,
comparable to HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and HFC-134a. Other SNAP-approved
refrigerant blends containing HCFCs have ODPs ranging from 0.065 to
0.022. Additionally, CO2 is excluded from the definition of
volatile organic compound (VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR
51.100(s)).
Human Health and Safety Impacts
Carbon dioxide is not flammable, similar to HFC-134a and most other
acceptable alternatives for MVACs. Therefore, it does not add risks of
fire in a vehicle when used. For the MVAC end-use, the EPA has listed
two flammable alternatives (HFC-152a and HFO-1234yf) acceptable,
subject to use conditions to mitigate flammability risks.
CO2 is an asphyxiant that obstructs the oxygen flow into
the body (OSHA, 1996; as cited in EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0041). However,
it is not the only gas that may cause asphyxia. Releasing almost any
gas \16\ into an unventilated or poorly ventilated space can lower the
oxygen concentration to a level that poses significant health risks
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0041). Health risks could occur to drivers or
vehicle occupants during release of CO2 refrigerant into the
passenger compartment. Additionally, occupational risks could occur
during the manufacture of the refrigerant, initial installation of the
refrigerant into the MVAC system at the vehicle assembly plant,
servicing of the MVAC system, or final disposition of the MVAC system
(i.e., recycling or disposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Any refrigerant can act as an asphyxiant by limiting
available oxygen in a space. When oxygen levels in air are reduced
to 12-14% by displacement, symptoms of asphyxiation, loss of
concentration, increased pulse rate and deeper respiration will
occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We evaluated potential human health and safety impacts, including
the short- and long-term toxicity of CO2 and risk of injury
to service personnel from high-pressure CO2 MVAC systems,
and considered detailed risk assessments with fault-tree analysis
(FTA), (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0017, -0022, and -0025.2), scientific data
provided in public comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0037.1) and other
information obtained during the notice of data availability (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0488-0041). We also reviewed a risk assessment with fault-tree
analysis from the SAE Corporate Research Program (CRP) for HFO-1234yf
and CO2, submitted during the public comment period for
another SNAP rulemaking \17\ (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0051, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0664-0008, and -0056). We also evaluated and provided additional
information on the health effects and risks to CO2 exposure
through a contractor-authored report ``Review of Health Impacts from
Short-Term Carbon Dioxide Inhalation Exposures'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-
0041). This report revealed that exposures over 4% (40,000 ppm)
CO2 are likely to cause discomfort and signs of intoxication
that could impair the driver's response to road and driving conditions,
and could create safety and health risks to the passengers. In addition
to this report, a revised risk analysis performed by the U.S. Army
Research, Development and Engineering Command (herein referred as U.S.
Army risk analysis),\18\ submitted during the
[[Page 33321]]
public comment period, indicated that limiting passenger exposure to 4%
CO2 is sufficiently protective to avoid serious or
irreversible health effects in potentially sensitive subpopulations
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2). Also, the U.S. Army risk analysis
selected the 4% CO2 level based on the lowest level at which
performance decrements were observed in studies by Wong, 1992 (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0488-0025.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ SNAP rule listing as acceptable subject to use conditions
HFO-1234yf for MVACs in new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles
(76 FR 17488, March 29, 2011).
\18\ Blackwell et. al 2006; Risk Analysis for Alternative
Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (revised risk analysis
made in collaboration with EPA and several stakeholders, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0488-0025.2). The original risk screen referred in the NRPM (71
FR 55140) contained technical errors (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0017).
This final rule relies on the results of the revised U.S. Army risk
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Driver and Passenger Risks
EPA's review of vehicle driver and passenger risks from
CO2 refrigerant exposure indicated that a potential
refrigerant leak into the vehicle passenger compartment is not expected
to present an unreasonable exposure risk if engineering strategies or
mitigation strategies are applied (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025, -0037.1).
The U.S. Army risk assessment indicated a possible strategy to limit
refrigerant leakage into the passenger compartment by installing a
device referred as a ``3-second squib valve'' to discharge refrigerant
to a location outside the passenger compartment three seconds after a
major leak is detected.\19\ The assessment showed that for
CO2 MVAC systems, using a squib valve to evacuate the charge
in three seconds after a leak is detected kept passenger exposure to
below levels of concern (i.e., 3% over 15 minutes in the passenger
compartment, as a whole, and 4% in the breathing zone).We listed in the
proposal additional possible mitigation strategies that may reduce the
likelihood of exceeding refrigerant levels of concern inside the
passenger compartment, including within the breathing zone. We also
received information from commenters on additional engineering
strategies and mitigation strategies (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0037.1, -
0025.2, -0030, -0050). In this final rule, we are not establishing a
use condition requiring a specific mitigation strategy, but instead
leaving to vehicle manufacturers the choice of which mitigation
strategy to use in order to ensure that in the event of refrigerant
leak, the resulting concentrations of CO2 in the passenger
free space above 3% or 30,000 ppm averaged over 15 minutes are avoided
and the resulting concentrations of CO2 in the passenger
breathing zone do not exceed the ceiling limit of 4% or 40,000 ppm at
any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Refers to the assessment by Blackwell, et al., 2006 (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Risks
EPA evaluated risks of injury and refrigerant exposure to workers
by examining risk screens, published research information and data made
available during the public comment period (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0017, -
0025.2, -0041, -0022, -0015, -0051). We compared long-term occupational
exposures to CO2 to a workplace exposure limit of 5,000 ppm
(or 0.5%) time weighted average CO2 concentration over a
period of eight hours, consistent with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit-Time Weighted
Average (PEL-TWA),\20\ the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC's) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Recommended Exposure Limit-Time Weighted Average (REL-TWA),\21\ and the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average (TLV-TWA).22 23
Additionally, we compared short-term occupational worker exposures to
CO2 to a workplace short-term exposure limit of 30,000 ppm
(or 3%) time weighted average CO2 concentration over a 15-
minute period during a workday, consistent with NIOSH's Recommended
Exposure Limit-Short term Exposure Limit (REL-STEL) \24\ and ACGIH's
Threshold Limit Value-Short Term Exposure Limit (TLV-
STEL).25 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ PELs are based on an eight hour TWA exposure (OSHA, 1988a).
\21\ REL-TWAs are concentrations for up to 10-hour workday
during a 40-hour workweek (NIOSH, 2005).
\22\ TLV-TWAs are concentrations for an eight hour workday and a
40-hour workweek, to which is believed that nearly all workers may
be repeatedly exposed, day after day, for a working lifetime without
adverse effect (ACGIH, 2005).
\23\ OSHA's PEL-TWA, NIOSH's REL-TWA, and ACGIH'S TLV-TWA are
all the same, 5,000 ppm (0.5%), for CO2 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0488-0041).
\24\ REL-STELs are 15-minute TWA exposure limits that should not
be exceeded at any time during a workday (NIOSH, 2005).
\25\ TLV-STELs are 15-minute exposure that should not be
exceeded at any time during a workday, even if the eight hour TWA is
within the TLV-TWA (ACGIH, 2005).
\26\ NIOSH's REL-STEL, and ACGIH'S TLV-STEL for CO2
are all 30,000 ppm (3%) 15-minute TWA (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Army risk assessment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2)
evaluated occupational risks for the MVAC service sector using FTA. The
FTA found probabilities of refrigerant exposure while servicing
CO2 MVAC systems of approximately 10-5 cases per
year (i.e., approximately 5 annual cases per 100,000 technicians) (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025). This figure is significantly lower when
compared to the general injury and illness rate for auto repair
technicians, which is approximately 4 annual cases per 100 full time
technicians (BLS, 2003; EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025); thus risks from
CO2 exposures in the MVAC service field are expected to be
significantly less than the risks of injury already present in shops
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025). The U.S. Army risk assessment additionally
found that the chances of refrigerant exposure for persons servicing an
MVAC system do not vary considerably by the type of refrigerant used
and found similar results for end-of-life (i.e., recycling or disposal)
activities (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025).
EPA notes that occupational risks could occur during the
manufacture of the refrigerant and initial installation of the
refrigerant into the MVAC system at the vehicle assembly plant.
Although we did not analyze the risk of exposure during refrigerant
manufacture and initial installation of CO2 refrigerant into
the MVAC system at the vehicle assembly plant, we expect risks at the
vehicle assembly plant, and at other workplaces were CO2
refrigerant handling will occur (e.g., service shops, and recycling or
disposal facilities), to be similar to or lower than the risks from
other refrigerants used for these purposes due to occupational safety
practices (e.g., proper ventilation, use of personal protective
equipment) established for these type of facilities and subject to
occupational safety and health standards under 29 CFR Part 1910, which
are intended to address risk to such workers.
Overall Conclusion
EPA finds that the overall environmental and human health risks
posed by the use of CO2 in new MVAC systems, subject to the
use conditions being adopted in this final rule, is lower than or
comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable
subject to use conditions in the same end-use.
VII. What is the relationship between this SNAP rule and other EPA
rules?
Rules Under Sections 609 and 608 of the Clean Air Act
This final SNAP rule addresses the conditions for safe use of
CO2 in new MVAC systems. Thus, the requirements in this rule
apply primarily to OEMs, except for specific requirements for unique
fittings required under Appendix D to Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 which
also applies for servicing of
[[Page 33322]]
the MVAC. Section 609 of the CAA establishes standards and requirements
regarding servicing of MVAC systems. These requirements include
training and certification of any person that services MVAC systems for
consideration,\27\ as well as standards for certification of equipment
for refrigerant recovery and recycling. EPA has issued regulations
implementing these statutory requirements and those regulations are
codified at subpart B of 40 CFR part 82. MVAC end-of-life disposal and
recycling specifications are covered under section 608 of the CAA and
our regulations are codified at subpart F of 40 CFR part 82. The
statutory and regulatory provisions regarding MVAC servicing,
refrigerant recovery, and refrigerant venting prohibition apply to any
refrigerant alternative and are not limited to refrigerants that are
also ODS. CO2 is exempted from the refrigerant venting
prohibition provisions promulgated under CAA 608 (40 CFR 82.154 and 70
FR 19278; April 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Service for consideration means receiving something of
worth or value to perform service, whether in money, credit, goods,
or services (see 40 CFR 82.32 (g)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. What is EPA's response to public comments on the proposal?
This section summarizes EPA's response to significant comments
received during the public comment periods for the NPRM and the NODA.
EPA's response to all comments received can also be found in a response
to comments document in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488.
A. Use Conditions
Comment: Some commenters claimed that the proposed STEL of 3%
CO2 averaged over 15 minutes in the cabin free space is
enough to protect passengers and ensure driver alertness. One commenter
suggested to consider a 3% CO2 concentration limit averaged
over 15 minutes in the breath level (i.e., breathing zone) instead of
3% in the cabin free space. The commenter considered the breathing zone
to be a relevant point for measurement and claimed that high
refrigerant concentrations lower in the vehicle would not impair
vehicle operation. Other commenters supported higher CO2
concentration limits but over a shorter period of time (e.g., 5.5%
CO2 for 5 minutes and 9% CO2 as a ceiling limit).
Other commenters requested that EPA include a CO2 ceiling
limit in the passenger breathing zone and one commenter considered
appropriate a 4% CO2 ceiling limit (i.e., a limit not to be
exceeded at any time) as an additional use condition. Another commenter
stated that use conditions requiring mitigation strategies are not
necessary for low probability events (i.e., exceeding 4% CO2
for any duration) and that requiring such conditions would prevent the
use of this refrigerant.
Response: After evaluating the comments and risk screens (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0488-0025.2, -0041, 0051), EPA is revising the proposed use
conditions to add a ceiling limit of 4% CO2, in addition to
the CO2 STEL of 3% averaged over 15 minutes. We believe that
the original proposed use condition requiring mitigation strategies for
MVAC systems, to prevent leaks of CO2 refrigerant reaching
concentrations above 3% averaged over 15 minutes inside the passenger
compartment free space, may not be sufficient on its own to protect
drivers and passengers. We also believe that requiring a CO2
ceiling limit of 4% is necessary because it is possible for a time-
weighted average concentration, such as the STEL, to be under 3%, while
peak concentrations could reach higher limits for a few minutes. As
shown in published data, CO2 concentration peaks above 4%
could result in effects on hearing and vision that could distract and
endanger a driver, or other, potentially more severe adverse health
effects (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0041).
CFD modeling showed that during unmitigated refrigerant leak
scenarios, CO2 refrigerant concentrations in the passenger
breathing zone can reach up to 10.2% in 50 seconds (0.83 minutes) and
8.0% in 200 seconds (3.33 minutes) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2). The
U.S. Army risk analysis's FTA showed that unmitigated leak scenario
occurrences for CO2 systems (reaching concentrations above
4% CO2) could reach 4,300 per year for the vehicle fleet
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2). These occurrences are about 10,000
higher than the expected occurrences associated with leaks of a
fluorinated refrigerant (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-152a, or HFO-1234yf)
breakdown product (i.e., hydrogen fluoride) exposure above health based
limits.\28\ Several studies reported that exposure ranging from 7% to
10% CO2 for few minutes (e.g., 2-3 minutes) resulted in loss
of consciousness (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0441).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The risk due to exposure to HF when using HFO-1234yf is
approximately the same as that with the current use of HFC-134a (on
order of 10-12 occurrences per operating hour, or one in
one trillion). (76 FR 17488; March 29, 2011). When this factor is
multiplied by the approximate vehicle fleet and annual vehicle
operating hours (250 million and 500 hr/yr, respectively) the
occurrences per year are in the order of 10-1.
\29\ Unconsciousness caused by short term exposure (e.g., 2-3
minutes) of CO2 concentration ranging from 7 to 10% was
reported in studies by Aero Medical Association (1953), Flury and
Zernik (1931), Hunter (1975), Schaefer (1951), and NIOSH (1996), as
cited in Review of Health Impacts for Short-Term Carbon Dioxide
Inhalation Exposures (2009). EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with the commenter stating that use conditions
requiring mitigation strategies are not necessary for low probability
events and that requiring such conditions would prevent the use of this
refrigerant. Consistent with the information above, we believe that
unmitigated exposure occurrences are not rare. We believe the use
conditions required in this final rule are necessary to ensure that
overall risks to human health and the environment from CO2
will be similar to or less than those of other available refrigerants
that EPA has already listed as acceptable for MVAC. We also believe
that requiring the use conditions listed in this final rule would not
make the refrigerant use less practicable. Use conditions imposed on
other acceptable alternatives for MVACs (e.g., adherence to all safety
requirements under SAE standard J639, use of unique fittings and
labels, use of pressure relief devices) has not prevented use of such
alternatives.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ On March 29, 2011, EPA issued a final rule listing HFO-
1234yf as acceptable subject to use conditions for MVACs in new
passenger car and light duty trucks. One of the use conditions in
that rule require OEMs to perform and keep on file an FMEA. In an
FMEA vehicle designers analyze all the ways in which parts of the
MVAC system could fail and identify how they will address those
risks in design of the system. (76 FR 17488). If the FMEA reports
that mitigation strategies are necessary in the MVAC for safety
reasons, manufacturers are required to design safety components
(e.g., mitigation strategies) to comply with the use condition of
that rule. In the U.S. an OEM publicly announced that it will be
using HFO-1234yf in some vehicles starting 2013 model year (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0488-0062).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several commenters indicated that concentration
measurements of CO2 inside the passenger compartment should
consider passenger respiration in addition to a refrigerant leak from
the A/C system. Another commenter indicated that the MVAC recirculation
mode operates with at least 1% of fresh air. One commenter suggested
changing the text of the proposed use condition indicating the STEL for
CO2 refrigerant inside the passenger compartment to state
that the STEL is ``3% v/v fully-occupied-volume, time averaged over 15
minutes'' and to clarify that the calculation of such value is based on
a double average consisting of the average CO2 concentration
over the air volume of a fully occupied car and a time-average of
[[Page 33323]]
volume-average over 15 minutes.\31\ Another commenter suggested
alternative language for the use condition specifying a ceiling limit
of 4% CO2 applicable in any part of the free space inside
the passenger compartment for a time period of 60 seconds when the car
ignition is on. The suggested language reads:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Fully occupied is defined as the maximum design occupancy
determined by the number of sets of seat belts (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0488-0025.1--0025.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Engineering strategies and/or devices shall be incorporated into
the system such that foreseeable leaks into the passenger compartment
do not result in R744 concentrations of 4.0% v/v or above in any part
of the free space inside the passenger compartment for more than 60
seconds when the car ignition is on.''
Response: EPA notes that the U.S. Army risk analysis assumed that a
maximum number of passengers were in the vehicle before the release of
refrigerant into the passenger compartment, allowing for some build-up
of respiratory CO2 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2). Thus, that
analysis recognized that CO2 concentrations can occur from
human respiration in a space with limited exchange of outside air and
may consequently build up in the passenger cabin. For that reason, in
the proposal, we indicated that OEMs should account for background
CO2 concentrations in the passenger compartment that can
result from human respiration when designing their systems and
mitigation devices (71 FR 55140; September 21, 2006). However, we did
not specify whether the vehicle should be fully occupied to account for
CO2 background concentrations. We believe that
CO2 refrigerant concentrations may reach levels of concern
(i.e., above 4% CO2) during an unmitigated event of
refrigerant leak either when the vehicle is fully occupied or when not
fully occupied (e.g., the vehicle is occupied by the driver only). Thus
we do not agree with the commenter's suggestion to state that the STEL
is ``3% v/v fully-occupied-volume, time averaged over 15 minutes''. In
this final rule, we recommend but do not require, consistent with the
NPRM, to account for background CO2 concentrations from
human respiration, in addition to refrigerant leaks when designing the
MVAC.
EPA notes that the proposal (79 FR 55140; September 21, 2006)
specifies the CO2 STEL as a concentration limit averaged
over 15 minutes, in the event of a refrigerant leak. The STEL is
determined from the sum of concentration and exposure time products
(e.g., concentration 1 times exposure time 1 plus concentration 2 times
exposure time 2), divided by the total exposure time which shall not
exceed 15 minutes (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0448-0041). Thus the STEL is a time-
weighted average concentration and not necessarily a time-average of a
volume-average as indicated by the commenter since STEL refers to a
total exposure time (i.e., 15 minutes) and not an average time. For
this reason, we do not agree with the commenter's suggestion to clarify
that the calculation of the 3% STEL is based on a double average
consisting of the average CO2 concentration over the air
volume of a fully occupied car and a time-average of volume-average
over 15 minutes since the approach does not provide further clarity of
the use condition. In this final rule, the CO2 STEL of 3%
averaged over 15 minutes considers the average CO2
concentration in a passenger cabin over a total time period of 15
minutes during the event of refrigerant leak; and the ceiling limit of
4% CO2 considers the total CO2 in the passenger
breathing zone at any one moment in a passenger compartment during the
event of a leak.
Regarding the alternative language suggested by the other commenter
specifying a ceiling limit of 4% CO2 applicable in any part
of the free space inside the passenger compartment for a time period of
60 seconds when the car ignition is on, we note that the commenter did
not provided information supporting his suggestion that the ceiling
limit apply in areas other than the passenger breathing zone for the
specified 60-second time period.
Comment: Two commenters indicated the need for clarity on whether
the use conditions apply when the ignition is off as well as when the
ignition is on. Other commenters suggested considering the results of a
risk assessment performed by SAE's CRP indicating a significantly low
probability for a leak when the ignition is off, and several other
commenters stated that the use conditions should only apply when the
ignition is on.
Response: The NODA provided data and requested additional comment
on whether the use conditions should apply when the engine is off. In
December, 2009, after the public comment period closed on the NODA, SAE
issued a report, ``Risk Assessment for HFO-1234yf and R-744
(CO2) Phase III'' (referred herein after as SAE CRP report),
that evaluated toxicity effects and quantitative risks of
CO2, similarly to the U.S. Army risk analysis. This report
was submitted to EPA during the public comment period for another SNAP
rulemaking.\32\ The report evaluates CO2 exposure
estimations due to leaks into the passenger compartment during
different modeled scenarios such as different MVAC operation mode,
system failure, and during a collision (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0056.2,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2, -0051). The SAE CRP report also evaluated
refrigerant release into the passenger compartment during a scenario
where the engine is expected to be off (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0051, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0056.2). For this scenario, which involves passengers
sleeping inside a vehicle with the windows closed while refrigerant
leaks occur, the SAE CRP report showed a probability for occurrences of
CO2 refrigerant exposure above 6% (a threshold limit used by
the CRP for this scenario) to be in the order of 10-12 per
vehicle/hour/occupant (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0051, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-
0056.2). We believe that exposures of concern inside the passenger
compartment are more likely to result from a large, sudden release of
refrigerant inside the passenger compartment and that such a situation
is most likely during a collision while the ignition is on, as
described on the U.S. Army risk analysis (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2)
and consistent with the SAE CRP report (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0051, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0056.2). In addition, even if a rupture on the
evaporator line is large, the overall leak rate is limited to the
maximum flow rate of refrigerant through the fixed orifice tube opening
of the MVAC (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2). The maximum flow rate is
determined by the differential compressor discharge pressure, which is
only available when the vehicle ignition is on and MVAC system is
running. Therefore, EPA finds that the overall risks to human health
and the environment from CO2 will be similar to or less than
those of other available refrigerants that EPA has already listed as
acceptable for MVAC when the ignition is off. Thus, consistent with a
SNAP rule issued in June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33304) listing HFC-152a \33\
as acceptable subject to use conditions for use in new MVAC systems,
the use
[[Page 33324]]
conditions in this final rule apply only when the ignition is on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ We refer here to the SNAP rule listing HFO-1234yf as
acceptable subject to use conditions for MVACs in new passenger cars
and light duty vehicles (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0644, 74 FR 17488; March
29, 2011).
\33\ HFC-152a poses risks comparable to CO2 and other
available refrigerants found acceptable subject to use conditions
under SNAP (73 FR 33304; June 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter suggested that the regulation should
precisely define the area in the vehicle being regulated and indicated
that SAE is working on a standard to establish standards for passenger
compartment refrigerant concentration measurement. Another commenter
indicated that a CO2 concentration limit should focus on the
driver breathing zone rather than the cabin free space.
Response: EPA has clarified the regulatory text of the use
condition to define the passenger free space as the space inside the
passenger compartment, excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in
the HVAC module. The passenger breathing zone, where the ceiling limit
of 4% must be met, is defined as the area inside the passenger
compartment where the driver's and passengers' heads are located during
normal sitting position (i.e., space where people breathe, as defined
in the NODA (71 FR 47775; September 17, 2009)). Additionally, we note
that the passenger breathing zone is defined in SAE J2772 and the
driver's head position in SAE J1052. Since the automotive industry
often relies on standards for designs and assessments, we recommend the
use of the SAE J1052 and SAE J2772 standards as references for further
specifications regarding the driver's and passengers' head and seating
position and to establish the passenger breathing zone consistent with
our explanation provided in Section V of the preamble (i.e., the area
inside the passenger compartment where the driver's and passengers'
heads are located during a normal sitting position).
EPA disagrees with the comment indicating that a CO2
concentration limit should only focus on the driver breathing zone
rather than the passenger cabin free space. Based on the risk analyses
and available data, we include in this final rule a 4% ceiling limit
that must not be surpassed at any time in the passenger (and driver)
breathing zone (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0044-0025.2). We also include, as
proposed, a 3% CO2 STEL averaged over 15 minutes in the
passenger cabin free space as an additional protective measure for
passenger exposure to CO2. As indicated by the U.S. Army
risk assessment, sensitive subpopulations (e.g., elderly and children)
may be affected from exposures to high concentrations of CO2
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2), thus we believe it is necessary to set a
limit that would address risk to all people in the passenger
compartment and not solely the driver. We also take into consideration
that passengers may not be in a normal sitting position all the time
(e.g., passenger may rest in a reclined position) and note
CO2 is heavier than air, thus higher concentrations may be
found at lower points of the passenger cabin (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-
0025.2, -0041, -0051). As indicated previously, the STEL is the
concentration limit that people can be exposed continuously for a short
period of time (i.e., 15 minutes) without suffering adverse health
risks. For these reasons we include both limits (i.e., 4%
CO2 ceiling limit in the passenger breathing zone and 3%
CO2 averaged over 15 minutes in the passenger cabin free
space) in this final rule.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that a CO2 ceiling
limit should rely on exposure time since potential effects of
CO2 vary with both concentration and duration of the
exposure. One commenter stated that if the ceiling limit is exceeded,
it is likely due to collision events.
Response: EPA agrees the health effects of CO2 are
functions of exposures over time. The commenter appears to
misunderstand what a ceiling limit is. A ceiling limit is a limit that
shall not be exceeded for any period of time, thus it is not consistent
with the concept of a ceiling limit to also include a period of time
during which it cannot be exceeded. As explained previously, we believe
that both a ceiling limit and a STEL are necessary to ensure that risks
posed from CO2 MVAC systems are not greater than risks posed
by other available MVAC systems.
While EPA agrees with the commenter that collision events are the
most likely cause of a refrigerant leak that could cause CO2
levels to the exceed the ceiling limit established in the use
conditions, there may be other system failures that could cause the
ceiling limit to be exceeded. OEMs should consider risks from all
possible events in designing MVACs for use with CO2.
Comment: Several commenters suggested considering ceiling limits of
CO2 above 4% (e.g., 6%, 9%) based on studies showing that
visual disturbances occur at concentrations of 6% CO2. They
stated that the SAE CRP report's rationale suggested a 9%
CO2 concentration ceiling limit, based on studies showing
central nervous system (CNS) effects at CO2 exposure
concentrations of 10% (100,000 ppm).
Response: Studies report that human exposures to 6% CO2
for periods as short as 2 minutes can lead to hearing and visual
disturbances, and that exposures to 7.5% for 5 minutes lead to
significant reasoning and performance decrements (Gellhorn, 1936;
Sayers, 1987 as cited in EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0041). To provide a
margin of safety, EPA considers it necessary to require a ceiling limit
of 4% CO2 in the passenger breathing zone as indicated in
the NODA and suggested by some commenters, to avoid driver performance
decrement and other adverse health effects on passengers.
Comment: Several commenters said that the ceiling limit should rely
on NIOSH's Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) value of 4%
CO2 based on a 30-minute exposure.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters to the extent they are
suggesting that the 4% limit be based on a 30-minute exposure. The
NIOSH IDLH value is a worker's exposure limit based on the effects that
might occur as a consequence of a 30-minute exposure (NIOSH 2005; EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0041). The OSHA regulation (1910.134(b)) defines the
term as ``an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would
cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an
individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.'' We
believe NIOSH's IDLH is inappropriate as a ceiling limit for the use of
CO2 as a refrigerant in MVACs because, as indicated above, a
ceiling limit is a limit that shall not be exceeded for any period of
time. Also, a 4% limit over 30-minutes would not protect drivers and
passengers from the effects of CO2 exposure at
concentrations equal or higher than 4%. CO2 is an asphyxiant
that obstructs the oxygen flow into the body and we believe that 30-
minute duration, in particular, where the person affected by such a
concentration may be operating a vehicle and thus posing risk to
others, creates a significant risk. Risk Mitigation Strategies
Comment: The U.S. Army noted a CFD parameter error in their 2005
risk analysis which used an incorrect refrigerant leak angle in their
2005 risk analysis (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0017). The U.S. Army corrected
this error for purposes of their 2006 risk analysis by using a
perpendicular leak angle to the rupture cross-sectional area (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0488-0025.1). The 2006 analysis finds that an unmitigated
discharge of CO2, in full recirculation mode, results in
CO2 concentration above 3% for more than 60 minutes. The
U.S. Army also indicated that a 3-second, rather than a 10-second squib
valve, as originally determined, would be needed to ensure that
CO2 concentrations remain below
[[Page 33325]]
the 3% on a 15-minute average inside the passenger compartment.
Response: EPA notes that the U.S. Army is commenting on its own
risk assessment performed in collaboration with EPA and several
stakeholders, and referenced in the NPRM (71 FR 55140). We also note
that the 2005 U.S. Army risk analysis referred in the NRPM (71 FR
55140) contained technical errors (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0017). This
final rule relies on the results of the revised (2006) U.S. Army risk
analysis submitted during the public comment period.
Based on the U.S. Army revised assessment, we understand that, in
order for a squib valve to be an effective mitigation device, the
activation time of such device should be 3 seconds rather than the 10
seconds indicated in the original risk assessment. Since we are not
specifying in this final rule what mitigation strategies must be used,
we believe the 2006 revised risk analysis does not affect the use
conditions addressed in this final rule, but may affect the potential
risk mitigation strategies OEMs might apply for use with CO2
refrigerant.
Comment: One commenter stated that secondary loop technology is not
a viable risk mitigation strategy for CO2 because of reduced
system performance and reduced fuel efficiency.
Response: This final rule does not specify design options. EPA does
not intend to limit engineering innovation by requiring any specific
risk mitigation strategy; however, EPA notes that secondary loop
technology could potentially reduce the risks of exceeding the ceiling
limit of CO2 in the passenger compartment because the
refrigerant charge stays separate from the passenger compartment. OEMs
may choose to investigate secondary loops as a risk mitigation
strategy, and would have to weigh the pros and cons, including any
potential effect on fuel efficiency. However, even if secondary loop
technology were not an attractive option, other feasible mitigation
technologies could be applied to meet the use conditions of this final
rule, such as a squib valve with a 3-second response time.
Comment: One commenter indicated that squib valves with activation
time of less than 10 seconds (e.g., few milliseconds) are available and
such devices have been tested. Another commenter stated that a 10-
second squib valve is not technically feasible given CO2
sensor performance. Additionally, the commenter stated that during
sharp increases in CO2 concentration in the passenger
compartment, a short activation time for a squib-valve would increase
the possibility of purging the refrigerant from the air conditioning
system to outside the vehicle when no leak in fact exists.
Response: EPA agrees with the first commenter regarding the
availability of squib valves and disagrees with the second commenter's
statement regarding feasibility of a squib valve. The 2006 U.S. Army
risk analysis indicated that a squib valve is one effective strategy
and viable engineering option to reduce the amount of charge that could
potentially leak into the passenger compartment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-
0025.2). EPA notes that in the proposal, we intended for the squib
valve activation time to include: 1) the time the sensor takes to
detect a significant leak that would cause CO2 refrigerant
to enter into the passenger compartment, and 2) the time it takes for
the squib valve to open (71 FR 55140; September 21, 2006). The 2006
U.S. Army risk assessment evaluated different activation times (i.e.,
30, 10 and 3 seconds) of squib valve during modeled scenarios of
CO2 refrigerant leak. The results showed higher
effectiveness of the valve preventing high refrigerant concentration
reaching the passenger compartment during the shorter activation time.
EPA believes that sharp increases in CO2 concentration
in the passenger compartment will likely occur only when a significant
amount of CO2 refrigerant leaks into the passenger
compartment. Risk assessments showed that CO2 buildup due to
passenger respiration occurs slowly (e.g., 60 minutes) to levels up to
2.4% in a fully-occupied 100 cubic feet sealed passenger compartment of
a vehicle with no introduction of outside air (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-
0025.2, -0041). EPA notes that a passenger compartment in a vehicle is
not confined space and infiltration/exfiltration rates of air changes
within the passenger compartment and outside air are at least 0.3 air
changes per hour (NREL, 2003 as cited in EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2).
Therefore, we do not agree that refrigerant purging from the air
conditioning system to outside the vehicle will occur when no leak in
fact exists.
Comment: A commenter stated that odorants that alert drivers to a
leak should be another option for compliance with the rule.
Response: EPA did not propose the use of odorants, and this final
action neither requires nor prohibits the use of odorants in new
CO2 MVAC systems. Odorized CO2 may be an
effective means to alert the driver and passengers to a refrigerant
leak into the passenger compartment. However, EPA does not believe
odorants used alone provide sufficient risk mitigation as it may take
vehicle occupants a period of time to recognize what the odor
signifies. Documentation has not been provided to show how long and how
much odorized CO2 drivers must be exposed to before they
recognize that the smell indicates a health and safety risk.
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA consider use of sensors
to allow continuous monitoring of refrigerant concentration inside the
passenger cabin as a mitigation strategy. Another commenter mentioned
that an alarm system or other technical solutions should allow for air
renewal and lowering concentration levels below the limits indicated in
the use conditions within a reasonable time period
Response: As noted previously, EPA is not specifying the risk
mitigation strategies that must be used to ensure CO2 levels
do not exceed the levels established in the use conditions. We do not
believe that a sensor alone would be sufficient to provide effective
protection to the passengers and to ensure that concentrations inside
the passenger compartment and passenger breathing zone do not exceed
the established CO2 concentration limits of this final rule.
In response to the commenter stating that an alarm system or other
technical solutions should allow for air renewal, EPA believes the use
of such tool might be effective but that such strategy would need to
rely on an automatic supply of air, rather than a driver's response, to
ensure CO2 concentrations do not exceed the exposure limits
established in the use conditions. Thus, an additional mitigation
device would need to be used in addition to any alarm system.
Comment: One commenter said that evaporator isolation valves are
not realistic as mitigation devices because of cost. The commenter
stated that close-coupled and hermetically sealed systems are
technically feasible and noted that an automatic increase in air
exchange is a possible strategy that is technically feasible. Another
commenter suggested that switching the MVAC blower to operate on
outside air mode on high, rapidly after CO2 refrigerant is
released, could reduce the overall refrigerant concentration in the
compartment to a peak lower than 4%.
Response: EPA believes the mitigation strategies mentioned by the
commenters may all be technically feasible means to meet concentration
levels specified in the use conditions. We note that in the proposed
rule we suggested using
[[Page 33326]]
evaporator isolation valves, close coupled or hermetically closed
systems that would reduce refrigerant charge size, and increasing air
exchange (with outside air) in the passenger compartment upon detection
of leaks as some of several potential risk mitigation strategies (71 FR
55140; September 21, 2006). In this final rule we are not requiring a
specific mitigation strategy or engineering device. We are allowing
OEMs to choose a mitigation strategy that is consistent with the use
conditions and that they will employ to protect the driver and
passengers in a vehicle from CO2 exposure above the limits
specified in this rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that a vehicle crash could be so
severe that the MVAC system evaporator could be damaged and possibly
reduce a risk mitigation system's effectiveness. The commenter proposed
the inclusion of an evaporator crush resistance standard in this
action.
Response: EPA agrees that a vehicle crash could reduce the
effectiveness of the risk mitigation strategy. However we believe that
in such a case, the damage to the car would be so severe as to result
in an inflow of ambient air that would negate the risks associated with
potentially elevated CO2 concentrations. A crush-resistant
evaporator could be selected as a possible mitigation strategy but, as
stated previously, in this final rule we do not specify which
engineering device or strategies must be incorporated into the MVAC
system and leave this choice to the OEMs.
C. Industry Standards
Comment: Several commenters indicated that SAE is developing
standards for safety and servicing of CO2 MVAC systems and
that it is customary for OEMs to follow those standards. Other
commenter claimed that every OEM is responsible for its own safety
concept and has to show compliance with already existing and future
safety standards.
Response: EPA notes and agrees with the important role industry
standards play particularly for the MVAC sector. In addition, we note
that the regulatory text references the relevant SAE technical
standards to promote consistency with established industry practices.
Specifically, use conditions in this final rule reference SAE J639
(2011 version). Other standards such as SAE J1739, which addresses
design, safety, and recordkeeping requirements, are recommended to help
ensure that the use conditions are met.
We disagree with the comment stating that every OEM is responsible
for its own safety concept because we believe that in addition to
customary business standards and industry practices outside the scope
of this rule, OEMs will comply with all the use conditions specified in
this rule.
Comment: Commenters noted that SAE is developing SAE J2772
standard, ``Measurement of Passenger Compartment Refrigerant
Concentrations Under System Refrigerant Leakage Conditions'' (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0448-0054) and SAE J2773 standard, ``Standard for Safety and
Risk Analysis for Use in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0448-00553), formerly known as Refrigerant Guidelines for Safety
and Risk Analysis for Use in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems.
Response: We note that standards J2772 and J2773 were recently
published and are readily available. In the comments column of our
listing decision, we recommend the use of J2772 and J2773 standards as
well as other available standards such as SAE J1052, Motor Vehicle
Driver and Passenger Head Position (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0448-0055).
D. Servicing
Comment: One commenter indicated CAA Section 609-certified,
independent MVAC service technicians should be consulted before the
rule is issued.
Response: EPA took comments on a range of topics during the 60-day
public comment period. In addition, EPA contacted the National
Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE), which represents a
significant number of MVAC service technicians. A summary is in the
docket for this final rule. ASE stated they did not see any servicing
concerns in the proposal that would impact the service technicians they
represent, but would be interested in any follow-on rulemaking that
will address MVAC servicing for consideration under CAA Section 609 and
codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart B (EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0031).
Comment: One commenter said risks associated with MVAC service
should be considered.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and notes that risk
associated with service were evaluated in the published risk analyses
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0017, -0025.2, -0041, -0051) and discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rulemaking (71 FR 55144 September 21, 2006).
Additional details regarding our evaluation of risk associated with
MVAC service can be found in Section VI of this final rule preamble
(Why is EPA listing CO2 acceptable subject to use
conditions?). As explained in more detail in Section VI above, we do
not believe it is necessary to establish any use conditions regarding
servicing because the overall environmental and human health risks
posed by the use of CO2 in new MVAC systems, subject to the
use conditions being adopted in this final rule, is lower than or
comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable
subject to use conditions in the same end-use. Comment: One commenter
requested more information on why CO2 systems are not found
acceptable as a substitute in retrofitted systems.
Response: In the original SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13854; March 18,
1994), EPA listed CO2 as an acceptable substitute for CFC-12
only for new MVAC systems. We have never received a SNAP submission
requesting consideration of CO2 in retrofitted MVAC systems.
EPA understands that the higher working pressure of CO2
compared to CFC-12 and other SNAP-acceptable refrigerants could raise
significant issues with retrofitting such systems to CO2.
Because we have not received a request to use CO2 in
retrofitted systems, which would include the technical and other
analyses necessary to determine whether such use would present more
risk than other available substitutes, this final rule only applies to
the use of CO2 as a refrigerant in new MVAC systems,
consistent with the NPRM (71 FR 55140; September 21, 2006). When and if
the Agency receives a submission for retrofitting to CO2, we
will consider CO2 for use as a refrigerant to retrofit
existing MVAC systems.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
[[Page 33327]]
3501 et seq). This action is an Agency determination. It contains no
new requirements for reporting. The only new recordkeeping requirement
involves customary business practice. This rule requires minimal
recordkeeping of studies done for three years to ensure that MVAC
systems using CO2 meet the requirements set forth in this
rule. Because it is customary business practice that OEMs conduct and
keep on file records of the tests they perform, consistent with a
widely recognized industry standard, SAE J1739 (Potential Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis in Design [Design FMEA], Potential Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes [Process
FMEA]), on any potentially hazardous part or system from the beginning
of production of a vehicle model until three years or more after
production of the model ends, we believe this requirement will not
impose an additional paperwork burden. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations in
subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
numbers 2060-0226. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201;'' (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 final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule modifies the current listing of CO2 as an acceptable
alternative refrigerant subject to use conditions necessary for the
safe use of CO2 in MVAC in new motor vehicles. The use
conditions will need to be met by large entities (i.e., OEMs) that
manufacturer motor vehicles if these choose to use CO2 as a
refrigerant in new MVACs. This final rule does not mandate the use of
CO2 as a refrigerant in new MVAC systems, thus will not
impose significant requirements on small entities such as MVAC service
shops. This final rule effectively ensures consistency with current
practices in MVAC service shops regarding the use of unique fittings.
It is not clear that there would be any cost differential between the
unique fittings required for the use of CO2 and those used
with the current automotive refrigerant, HFC-134a, or other fittings
that the industry could adopt instead, for other refrigerants. It is
possible that the fittings required in the revised use condition will
be equally or less expensive than those required for other acceptable
alternative refrigerants because they are a standard shape and size and
can be easily produced in a metal-working shop. Thus, cost impacts of
this final rule on small entities are expected to be small.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA has
worked together with SAE International and with groups representing
professional service technicians such as the Mobile Air Conditioning
Society Worldwide, which conducts regular outreach with technicians and
owners of small businesses such as retail refrigerant suppliers and
automobile repair shops.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action does not affect State, local, or tribal
governments. The enforceable requirements of this action related to
integrating risk mitigation devices and documenting the safety of
alternative MVAC systems affect only a small number of OEMs. The impact
of this action on the private sector will be less than $100 million per
year. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. This action 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. This action applies directly to facilities that use these
substances and not to governmental entities.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in EO 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This regulation
applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to
governmental entities. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). It does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, because
this regulation applies directly to facilities that use these
substances and not to governmental entities. Thus, EO 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This final rule is not subject to the EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are discussed in sections VI and VIII of
the preamble and in documents EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025.2, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0488-0041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0051 in the docket for this
rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action would impact manufacturers
of CO2 MVAC systems for new vehicles.
[[Page 33328]]
Preliminary information indicates that these new systems are equally or
more energy efficient than currently available systems in some
climates. Therefore, we conclude that this rule is not likely to have
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has incorporate
by reference, the 2011 version of SAE standard J639 which is a
voluntary consensus standard. This standard can be obtained from https://www.sae.org/technical/standards/. This standard addresses safety and
reliability issues of CO2 MVAC systems.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 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 final 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 without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The refrigerant CO2 is a non ozone-
depleting substance with a GWP of 1.0. Based on the toxicological and
atmospheric data described earlier, the use of CO2 subject
to the use conditions specified in this final rule will not have any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. This final rule requires specific use conditions for MVAC
systems, if motor vehicle manufacturers choose to market MVAC systems
using this refrigerant alternative.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective August 6, 2012.
X. 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-
2004-0488 at https://www.regulations.gov.
ACGIH, 2005a. TLVs[supreg] and BEIs[supreg] Based on the
Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances
and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices. American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH),
Cincinnati, Ohio.
ACGIH, 2005b. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
Chemical Substances: Carbon Dioxide. American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Aero Medical Association, 1953. Committee on Aviation Toxicology,
Blakiston, New York. As cited in CDC IDLH documentation for carbon
dioxide. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html.
Al-Delaimy W.K., Hay S.M., Gain K.R., Jones D.T., Crane J., 2001.
The effects of carbon dioxide on exercise-induced asthma: an
unlikely explanation for the effects of Buteyko breathing training.
Med J Aust. 15,174(2):64-5.
ANSI/ASHRAE, 2007. ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007: Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American National Standard Institute,
American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), Atlanta, GA. Available online at: https://www.sae.org/altrefrigerant/presentations/sumantran.pdf.
ASHRAE, 2006. BSR/ASHRAE Addendum to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2004--
Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, Publication
Draft. American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Atlanta, GA.
Atkinson, W., 2002. Consumer Use of A/C Systems. SAE Automotive
Alternate Refrigerant Systems Symposium 2002. Phoenix, Arizona.
Available online at: https://www.sae.org/events/aars/2002/consumeruse.pdf.
Amin, J., B. Dienhart, and J. Wertenbach., 1999. Safety Aspects of
an A/C System with Carbon Dioxide as Refrigerant, SAE Subcommittee
Safety of Refrigerant Systems. Available online at: https://www.sae.org/misc/aaf99/visteon.pdf.
Birgfeld, E., 2003. Risk Analysis for CO2, HFC-152a, and
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in MACs, presented at The Earth
Technologies Forum, Washington, DC, April 2003.
Beck J.G., P.J. Ohtake, and J.C. Shipherd., 1999. Exaggerated
anxiety is not unique to CO2 in panic disorder: A
comparison of hypercapnic and hypoxic challenges. J Abnorm Psychol
108:473-482.
Blackwell, N., L. Bendixen, E. Birgfield., 2006. Risk Analysis for
Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning.
Brown. E.W., 1930. The value of high oxygen in preventing the
physiological effects of noxious concentrations of carbon dioxide
U.S. Naval Med. Bull. 132, 523-553. As cited in Wong 1992.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2003. ``Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses in 2002,'' December 18, 2003.
CATAM., 1953. Aviation Toxicology, An Introduction to the Subject
and a Handbook of Data. Committee on Aviation Toxicology, Aero
Medical Association. The Blakiston Co.: New York, NY. Pp. 6-9, 31-
39, 52-55, 74-79, 110-115. As cited in Wong 1992.
Compressed Cylinder Gas (CGA) Association, 1999. Properties,
Manufacture, Uses, and Special Requirements for Safe Handling.
Carbon Dioxide. Handbook of Compressed Gases, 4th edition.
Arlington, VA Klever Academy. Pages 300-308.
CRP, 2009. Risk Assessment for Alternative Refrigerants HFO-1234yf
and R-744 (CO2) Phase III. Prepared for SAE International
Cooperative Research Program 1234 by T. Lewandowski, Gradient
Corporation. December 17, 2009.
DOT, Federal Aviation Authority, 1996. Allowable carbon dioxide
concentration in transport category airplane cabins;
[[Page 33329]]
final rule. Federal Register 61(232):63951-63956. Available online
at: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/51B4BFD4B3B081968625683A005905BE.
Dripps, R.D., J.H. Comroe, Jr., 1947. The respiratory and
circulatory response of normal man to inhalation of 7.6 and 10.4
percent CO2 with a comparison of the maximal ventilation
produced by severe muscular exercise, inhalation of CO2
and maximal voluntary hyperventilation. Am J Physiol 149:43-51. As
cited in NIOSH, 1976 and NRC, 1996.
ERG Inc., 2009. Review of Health Impacts from Short Term Carbon
Dioxide Inhalation Exposures. 110 Hartwell Ave. Lexington, MA 02421.
February 18, 2009.
Froehling, J., M. Lorenz-Boernert, F. Schroeder, V. Khetarpal, S.
Pitla. (2002) ``Component Development for CO2,''
presented at 2002 SAE Automotive Alternate Refrigerant Systems
Symposium, Scottsdale, Arizona. Available online at: https://www.sae.org/events/aars/2002/froehling.pdf.
Gellhorn, E. (1936). The Effect of O2-Lack, Variations in the Carbon
Dioxide-Content of the Inspired Air, and Hyperpnea on Visual
Intensity Discrimination. American Journal of Physiology. 115: 679-
684.
Hunter D. (1975). The diseases of occupations. 5th ed. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, p. 618 Jetter, J., R. Forte, and F. Delafield.
(2001) ``Refrigerant Concentrations in Motor Vehicle Passenger
Compartments,'' ASHRAE Transactions: Research, No. 4466, pp. 99-107.
Lambertsen, C.J. (1971). Therapeutic Gases: Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide,
and Helium. In Drill's Pharmacology in Medicine, ed. J.R. DiPalma,
1145-1179. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
NIOSH, 1976. Criteria for Document for Carbon Dioxide. NIOSH
Publication No. 76-194.
NIOSH, 1990. Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
NIOSH, 1996. Documentation for Immediately Dangerous to Life or
Health Concentrations (IDLHs): Carbon dioxide. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html.
NIOSH, 2005. Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
NRC, 1996. Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected
Airborne Contaminants: Volume 2. Subcommittee on Spacecraft Maximum
Allowable Concentrations, Committee on Toxicology, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences,
National Research Council (NRC). Washington, DC: National Academies
Press. Available online at: https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19970023991.
NRC, 2007. Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for
Selected Submarine Contaminants. Subcommittee on Emergency and
Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine
Contaminants, Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council (NRC). Washington,
DC: National Academies Press. Available online at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11170#toc.
OSHA, 1989. Carbon Dioxide, Industrial Exposure and Control
Technologies for OSHA Regulated Hazardous Substances, Volume I of
II, Substance A-I. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. March 1989.
OSHA, 1993. Final Rule on Air Contaminants: FR 58:35338-35351, June
30, 1993. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13306.
OSHA, 1996. Hazard Information Bulletin. Potential Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) Asphyxiation Hazard When Filling Stationary Low
Pressure CO2 Supply Systems. Available online at: https://
www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show--document?p--table=HIB--
STATIC&p--id=35791&p--search--type=CLOBTEXTPOLICY&p--search--
str=carbon+dioxide&p--text--version=FALSE#ctx1.
OSHA, 1997. Regulations (Standards--29 CFR); Table Z-1 Limits for
Air Contaminants--1910.1000. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Washington, DC. Available
online at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992.
Patterson, J.L., H. Heyman, L.L. Battery, R.W. Ferguson., 1955.
Threshold of response of the cerebral vessels of man to increases in
blood carbon dioxide. Journal of Clinical Investigations. 34:1857-
1864.
Pine, D.S. et al., 2005. Response to 5% carbon dioxide in children
and adolescents: relationship to panic disorder in parents and
anxiety disorders in subjects. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:73-80.
Available online at: https://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/62/1/73.
Rebinger, C., 2005. Safety Concept Proposal for R744 A/C Systems in
Passenger Cars--Update 2005. VDA Alternate Refrigerant Winter
Meeting 2005. Saalfelden, Austria.
RISA Sicherheitsanalysen., 2002. Safety-Study for a Prototypical
Mobile R744 A/C System. VDA Alternate Refrigerant Winter Meeting
2002. Saalfelden, Austria.
Schaefer K.E., 1951. Studies of carbon dioxide toxicity. New London,
CT: Navy Department, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Medical
Research Laboratory, U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Vol. 10, Report
No.181, pp. 156-189. As cited in NIOSH documentation for carbon
dioxide. Last accessed January 23, 2009: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html.
Sayers, J.A., R.E.A. Smith, R.L Holland, W.R. Keatinge. 1987.
Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Mental Performance. Journal of Applied
Physiology. 63(1):25-30.
Schneider, E.C., E. Truesdale., 1922. The effects on circulation and
respiration of an increase in the carbon dioxide content of blood in
man. American Journal of Physiology. 63:155-175.
Schulte, J.H., 1964. Sealed environments in relation to health and
disease. Archives of Environmental Health. 8: 438-452.
SAE International, 2002. Surface Vehicle Standard J1052. Motor
Vehicle Driver and Passenger Head Position.
SAE International, 2005. Surface Vehicle Standard J2683. Refrigerant
Purity and Containment Requirements for Carbon Dioxide
(CO2 R-744) Used in Mobile Air-Conditioning Systems.
SAE International, 2009. Surface Vehicle Standard J1739. Potential
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in Design (Design FMEA), Potential
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly
Processes (Process FMEA).
SAE International, 2011. Surface Vehicle Standard J639. Safety
Standards for Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Compression Systems.
SAE International, 2011. Surface Vehicle Standard J2772. Measurement
of Passenger Compartment Refrigerant Concentrations Under System
Refrigerant Leakage Conditions.
SAE International, 2011. Surface Vehicle Standard J2773. Standard
for Refrigerant Risk Analysis for Mobile Air Conditioning Systems.
Sumantran, V., B. Khalighi, K. Saka, and S. Fischer., 1999. An
Assessment of Alternative Refrigerants for Automotive Applications
based on Environmental Impact. General Motors R&D Center and Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. Available online at: https://www.sae.org/altrefrigerant/presentations/sumantran.pdf.
U.S. EPA., 1994. SNAP Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on
the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. Stratospheric Protection
Division. March 1994.
U.S. EPA., 2005. Risk Analysis for Alternative Refrigerant in Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning.
U.S. EPA, 2010. Email from Yaidi Cancel, EPA to William Hill and
Ward Atkinson, SAE Interior Climate Control Committee re: Minimum
recordkeeping on SAE J1739. August 16, 2010.
[[Page 33330]]
White, C.S.; Humm, J.H.; Armstrong, E.D.; Lundgren, N.P.V., 1952.
Human tolerance to acute exposures to carbon dioxide. Report No. 1
Six percent carbon dioxide in air and in oxygen. Aviation Med. Oct.
issue. pp 439-455. As cited in Wong 1992.
Wong, K.L., 1992. Carbon Dioxide. Internal Report, Johnson Space
Center in the Group. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Huston, TX. 1987.
Yang, Y., S. Changnian, and M. Sun., 1997. The effect of moderately
increased CO2 concentration on perception of coherent
motion. Aviat Space Environ Med 68(3):187-191.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practicable and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Stratospheric ozone layer.
Dated: May 23, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 82 is amended
as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
0
2. In Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82, add an entry to the end of
the table for ``Refrigerants-Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions,''
and revise footnotes 1, 2, and 3 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Carbon dioxide Acceptable Engineering Additional training
Conditioning (New equipment (CO2) as a subject to use strategies and/or for service
only). substitute for conditions. mitigation devices technicians is
CFC-12. shall be recommended.
incorporated such
that in the event of
refrigerant leaks,
the resulting CO2
concentrations do
not exceed:
The short term In designing risk
exposure level mitigation
(STEL) of 3% or strategies and/or
30,000 ppm averaged devices,
over 15 minutes in manufacturers should
the passenger free factor in background
space \1\; and; CO2 concentrations
The ceiling limit of in the passenger
4% or 40,000 ppm in cabin potentially
the passenger contributed from
breathing zone.\2\. normal respiration
by the maximum
number of vehicle
occupants.
Vehicle manufacturers Use of the standards
must keep records of SAE J1052, SAE
the tests performed J2772, and SAE J2773
for a minimum period is recommended as
of three years additional
demonstrating that reference.
CO2 refrigerant
levels do not exceed
the STEL of 3%
averaged over 15
minutes in the
passenger free
space, and the
ceiling limit of 4%
in the breathing
zone.
The use of CO2 in Manufacturers should
MVAC systems must conduct and keep on
adhere to the file Potential
standard conditions Failure Mode and
identified in SAE Effects Analysis in
Standard J639 (2011 Design [Design
version) including: FMEA], Potential
Installation of a Failure Mode and
high pressure system Effect Analysis in
warning label;. Manufacturing and
Installation of a Assembly Process
compressor cut-off [Process FMEA] on
switch; and. the MVAC as stated
Use of unique in SAE J1739.
fittings with:.
Outside diameter of
16.6 +0/-0.2 mm
(0.6535 +0/-0.0078
inches) for the MVAC
low-side;.
Outside diameter of
18.1 +0/-0.2 mm
(0.7126 +0/-0.0078
inches) for the MVAC
high-side; and.
Outside diameter of
20.955 +0/-0.127 mm
(0.825 +0/-0.005
inches) and right-
hand thread
direction for CO2
refrigerant service
containers.\3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Free space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the
ducting in the HVAC module.
\2\ Area inside the passenger compartment where the driver's and passengers' heads are located during a normal
sitting position. Refer to SAE J1052 for information on determining passenger head position.
\3\ The refrigerant service containers fitting requirement applies only to refrigerant service containers used
during servicing of the MVAC, in accordance with the provisions established for MVAC servicing under 40 CFR
part 82, subpart B.
[[Page 33331]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-13189 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
