Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53445 

(1) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(2) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Wayne Lockett, 

Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM– 

120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590. Or, e-mail 

information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

5, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–24986 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664; FRL–8969–7] 

RIN 2060–AP11 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

New Substitute in the Motor Vehicle Air 

Conditioning Sector Under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act requires 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to review alternatives for ozonedepleting substances and to approve of 

substitutes that do not present a risk 

more significant than other alternatives 

that are available. Under that authority, 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program of EPA proposes to 

expand the list of acceptable substitutes 

for ozone-depleting substances (ODS). 

The substitute addressed in this 

proposal is for the motor vehicle air 

conditioning (MVAC) end-use within 

the refrigeration and air-conditioning 

sector. EPA proposes to find HFO– 

1234yf acceptable, subject to use 

conditions as a substitute for CFC–12 in 

motor vehicle air conditioning. The 

proposed substitute is a non ozonedepleting gas and consequently does not 

contribute to stratospheric ozone 

depletion. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 18, 2009, unless a 

public hearing is requested. Comments 

must then be received on or before 

January 4, 2010. Any party requesting a 

public hearing must notify the contact 

listed below under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Daylight Time on October 29, 2009. If a 

hearing is held, it will take place on 

November 3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0664, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency. EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Public Reading 

Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0664. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this proposed 

rule, contact Margaret Sheppard, 

Stratospheric Protection Division, Office 

of Atmospheric Programs; 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9163, fax number, 

(202) 343–2338; e-mail address at 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices 

and rulemakings under the SNAP 

program are available on EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ 

regulations.html. For copies of the full 

list of SNAP decisions in all industrial 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53446 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

sectors, contact the EPA Stratospheric 

Protection Hotline at (800) 296–1996. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed action, if finalized, would 

provide motor vehicle manufacturers 

and their suppliers an additional 

refrigerant option for motor vehicle air 

conditioning (MVAC) systems. The 

refrigerant discussed in this proposed 

action is a non ozone-depleting 

substance. 

Table of Contents 

I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory 

Background 

A. Rulemaking 

B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable 

Substitutes 

C. Petition Process 

D. 90-day Notification 

E. Outreach 

F. Clearinghouse 

G. EPA’s Regulations Implementing 

Section 612 

II. EPA’s Proposed Decision on HFO–1234yf 

III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives 

IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO–1234yf 

A. Atmospheric Effects and Related Health 

and Environmental Impacts 

B. General Population Risks from Ambient 

Exposure to Compounds with Direct 

Toxicity and to Increased Ground-Level 

Ozone 

C. Ecosystem Risks 

D. Occupational Risks 

E. Consumer Risks 

F. Flammability 

G. Cost and Availability of the Substitute 

H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall 

Impacts on Human Health and the 

Environment 

V. HFO–1234yf MVAC System Proposed Use 

Conditions 

VI. Additional Information Requested 

VII. Section 609 Requirements for HFO– 

1234yf 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

IX. References 

I. Section 612 Statutory and Regulatory 

Background 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to develop a 

program for evaluating alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers 

to this program as the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. 

The major provisions of section 612 and 

implementing regulations are: 

A. Rulemaking 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace any class I (e.g., 

chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, 

methyl bromide, and 

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II 

(e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 

substance with any substitute that the 

Administrator determines may present 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment where the Administrator 

has identified an alternative that (1) 

reduces the overall risk to human health 

and the environment, and (2) is 

currently or potentially available. 

B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable 

Substitutes 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

publish a list of the substitutes 

unacceptable for specific uses and to 

publish a corresponding list of 

acceptable alternatives for specific uses. 

The list of acceptable substitutes may be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/lists/index.html and the lists of 

unacceptable substitutes, acceptable 

substitutes subject to use conditions and 

acceptable substitutes subject to 

narrowed use limits may be found at 40 

CFR part 82 subpart G. 

C. Petition Process 

Section 612(d) grants the right to any 

person to petition EPA to add a 

substance to, or delete a substance from, 

the lists published in accordance with 

section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days 

to grant or deny a petition. Where the 

Agency grants the petition, EPA must 

publish the revised lists within an 

additional six months. 

D. 90-day Notification 

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require 

any person who produces a chemical 

substitute for a class I substance to 

notify the Agency not less than 90 days 

before new or existing chemicals are 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

significant new uses as substitutes for a 

class I substance. The producer must 

also provide the Agency with the 

producer’s unpublished health and 

safety studies on such substitutes. 

E. Outreach 

Section 612(b)(1) states that the 

Administrator shall, where appropriate, 

seek to maximize the use of federal 

research facilities and resources to assist 

users of class I and II substances in 

identifying and developing alternatives 

to the use of such substances in key 

commercial applications. 

F. Clearinghouse 

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency 

to maintain a public clearinghouse of 

alternative chemicals, product 

substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

G. EPA’s Regulations Implementing 

Section 612 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published 

the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) 

which established the process for 

administering the SNAP program and 

issued EPA’s first lists identifying 

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 

in the major industrial use sectors. 40 

CFR part 82, subpart G. These sectors 

include: Refrigeration and air 

conditioning; foam blowing; solvents 

cleaning; fire suppression and explosion 

protection; sterilants; aerosols; 

adhesives, coatings and inks; and 

tobacco expansion. These sectors 

compose the principal industrial sectors 

that historically consumed the largest 

volumes of ODS. 

For the purposes of SNAP, the Agency 

defines a ‘‘substitute’’ as any chemical, 

product substitute, or alternative 

manufacturing process, whether existing 

or new, intended for use as a 

replacement for a class I or class II 

substance in a sector that has 

historically used ODS. Anyone who 

produces a substitute must provide the 

Agency with health and safety studies 

on the substitute at least 90 days before 

introducing it into interstate commerce 

for significant new use as an alternative. 

CAA section 612(e); 40 CFR 82.176(a). 

This requirement applies to substitute 

manufacturers, but may include 

importers, formulators, or end-users, 

when they are responsible for 

introducing a substitute into commerce. 

You can find a complete chronology 

of SNAP decisions and the appropriate 

Federal Register citations at EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html. 

This information is also available from 

the Air Docket (see ADDRESSES section 

above for contact information). 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53447 

1HFO–1234yf is also known as HFC–1234yf, R– 

1234yf or 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene, CAS Reg. 

No. 754–12–1. 

2CFC–12 is also known as 

dichlorodifluoromethane, R–12, or Freon®-12, CAS 

Reg. No. 75–71–8. 

3Unless stated otherwise, flammability limits 

discussed here are by volume. 

4The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration is currently reviewing the ODP of 

HFO–1234yf and we will place this information in 

the docket if it becomes available during the course 

of this rulemaking. 

II. EPA’s Proposed Decision on HFO– 

1234yf 

EPA proposes that hydrofluoroolefin 

(HFO)–1234yf 1 is acceptable as a 

substitute for CFC–12 2 in new motor 

vehicle air conditioning systems 

(passenger cars and trucks), subject to 

use conditions. EPA proposes the 

following use conditions: 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

incorporate engineering strategies and/ 

or devices so that leaks into the 

passenger compartment do not result in 

HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above 

the lower flammability limit (LFL) 3 of 

6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

incorporate engineering strategies and/ 

or devices so that leaks into the engine 

compartment or vehicle electric power 

source storage areas do not result in 

HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above 

the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of 

time; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

incorporate protective devices, isolation 

and/or ventilation techniques in areas 

where processes, procedures or upset 

conditions such as leaks have the 

potential to generate HFO–1234yf 

concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in 

proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle 

electric power sources and exhaust 

manifold surfaces; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

use unique fittings to be identified 

pursuant to SAE standard J639 and 

subject to EPA approval; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

include a detailed label identifying the 

refrigerant and that the refrigerant is 

flammable; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

have a high-pressure compressor cutoff 

switch installed on systems equipped 

with pressure relief devices; and 

• Manufacturers must conduct and 

keep on file Failure Mode and Effect 

Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated 

in SAE J1739. 

The proposed decision for HFO– 

1234yf applies to new MVAC systems 

only in passenger cars and trucks. We 

have previously determined that use of 

flammable refrigerants (which would 

include HFO–1234yf) in existing 

equipment as a retrofit is unacceptable 

(40 CFR part 82, subpart G, appendix B). 

We seek comment on whether these use 

conditions should be more protective or 

should be less protective. 

III. SNAP Criteria for Evaluating 

Alternatives 

To determine whether a substitute is 

acceptable or unacceptable as a 

replacement for class I or II compounds, 

the Agency evaluates substitutes 

according to the criteria in 

§ 82.180(a)(7). The Agency considers, 

among other things, toxicity, 

flammability, potential for occupational 

and general population exposure, and 

environmental effects including ozone 

depletion potential, atmospheric 

lifetime, impacts on local air quality and 

climate as well as ecosystem effects of 

the alternatives. 

This proposal reflects additional 

information on flammable refrigerants 

in MVAC systems that has become 

available since the HFC–152a 

September 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 

55140) and 2008 final rule (73 FR 

33304), as well as EPA’s latest 

understanding of all the available 

information. These additional or revised 

considerations include the increased 

proportion of new hybrid and electric 

vehicle sales in the U.S., passenger 

compartment volume, and improved 

assumptions for modeling exercises. In 

this rulemaking, HFO–1234yf risks are 

considered in relation to the risks 

associated with HFC–134a and other 

approved SNAP MVAC alternatives. 

HFC–134a is the predominant ODS 

refrigerant substitute used in passenger 

vehicle MVAC systems. Other SNAPapproved MVAC substitutes have not 

been implemented by car manufacturers 

or car air conditioning system 

manufacturers. 

The EPA’s SNAP program does not 

require that new substitutes be found 

risk-free to be found acceptable. In 

reviewing the acceptability of proposed 

substitutes, EPA considers how each 

substitute can be used within a specific 

end-use and the resulting risks and 

uncertainties surrounding potential 

health and environmental effects. 

IV. SNAP Evaluation of HFO–1234yf 

In the following section, HFO–1234yf 

is evaluated in terms of the SNAP 

criteria defined in § 82.180(a)(7). 

A. Atmospheric Effects and Related 

Health and Environmental Impacts 

HFO–1234yf has an ozone-depletion 

potential (ODP) of nearly zero 4

(Papadimitriou, 2007). By comparison, 

CFC–12 has an ODP of 1.0 and HFC– 

134a has an ODP of 0 (WMO, 2006). 

Generally, the other approved SNAP 

MVAC substitutes have an ODP of less 

than 0.2. 

The global warming potential (GWP) 

of HFO–1234yf is 4, based on a 100 year 

time horizon (Papadimitriou, 2007), 

compared to a value of 1 for carbon 

dioxide. For basis of comparison, CFC– 

12 has a GWP of 10,890 and HFC–134a 

has a GWP of 1,430 (WMO, 2006). The 

other SNAP-approved MVAC 

refrigerants generally have a GWP 

greater than 1000. HFO–1234yf has an 

atmospheric lifetime of only 11 days 

(Papadimitriou, 2007), compared to 100 

years for CFC–12 and 14.0 years for 

HFC–134a. Thus, in terms of direct 

refrigerant emissions, HFO–1234yf 

would have a significantly smaller 

impact on climate compared to the 

ozone depleting substance it replaces 

and other common alternatives available 

in the same end use. 

The Agency believes sufficient 

technical information is available on the 

ODP and GWP of HFO–1234yf, but the 

Agency welcomes additional comment 

on the ODP and GWP values described 

above. The Agency would give the 

greatest weight to peer-reviewed, 

published papers on HFO–1234yf as 

supporting evidence for discussion on 

ODP and GWP. 

We note that one concern about HFO– 

1234yf atmospheric effects is 

trifluoroacetic acid (CF3COOH, TFA). 

TFA is produced from atmospheric 

oxidation of HFO–1234yf. EPA 

understands that the oxidation of HFO– 

1234yf yields >90% TFA, which is 

significantly higher than the yield of 

TFA from HFC–134a and other 

approved SNAP MVAC substitutes. TFA 

is naturally occurring, but at certain 

levels is toxic to aquatic life forms. 

Initial analysis indicates that the 

projected maximum TFA concentration 

in rainwater should not result in a 

significant risk of aquatic toxicity. TFA 

concentration in rainwater was 

investigated because it is difficult to 

predict what the actual TFA 

concentrations will be. This is because 

concentrations of environmental 

contaminants in most fresh water bodies 

fluctuate widely due to varying inputs 

and outputs to most ponds, lakes, and 

streams. Also, use of rainwater TFA 

concentration as a point of comparison 

is more conservative than comparing 

TFA concentrations in water bodies 

because TFA is expected to be diluted 

in most freshwater bodies. The 

exception to this is vernal pools and 

similar seasonal water bodies that have 

no significant outflow capacity (ICF, 

2009). 

After taking into account the nature of 

HFO–1234yf degradation and the 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53448 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

resulting TFA concentration in 

rainwater; regional precipitation 

patterns; the geology of closed aquatic 

systems; and no observed effect 

concentrations (NOEC) for TFA, TFA 

production resulting from HFO–1234yf 

emissions is not expected to pose 

significant harm to aquatic communities 

in the near future. Additional research 

is necessary to determine if significant 

TFA loading is occurring in vernal pools 

near major populations (ICF, 2009). EPA 

is aware of studies to evaluate wet 

deposition effects that are underway at 

the National Institute of Advanced 

Industrial Science and Technology 

(AIST) based in Japan. Their results on 

wet deposition were not available at the 

time of this proposal’s drafting, but EPA 

will consider any relevant findings by 

AIST that become available in a final 

version of this regulation and will 

provide an opportunity for additional 

public comment if the relevant findings 

suggest EPA should change its proposed 

determination. 

Concerns about dry deposition of TFA 

also exist. Initial analysis indicates that 

it may be somewhat of a concern for 

photosynthesis (ICF, 2009). EPA is 

aware of studies to evaluate dry 

deposition effects that are underway at 

AIST. Their results on dry deposition 

were not available at the time of this 

proposal’s drafting, but EPA will 

consider any relevant findings by AIST 

that become available in a final version 

of this regulation and will provide an 

opportunity for additional public 

comment if the relevant findings suggest 

EPA should change its proposed 

determination. The AIST findings will 

be posted in the docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0664) when they are 

available. 

The Agency believes sufficient 

technical information on the TFA 

deposition from HFO–1234yf is 

available for the basis of this proposal; 

however, the Agency welcomes 

additional comment on HFO–1234yf’s 

environmental and atmospheric effects. 

The Agency will give the greatest weight 

to published, peer-reviewed studies. 

The Agency requests comment on the 

impact of increased abundance of TFA 

resulting from the use of HFO–1234yf as 

an MVAC refrigerant in the U.S., and 

the potential impacts of U.S. and 

worldwide use of HFO–1234yf as an 

MVAC refrigerant. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) informed EPA 

that a follow-on study of the 

Papadimitriou 2007 work is under way. 

EPA anticipates the results of this study 

will be published and be made publicly 

available before the Agency issues a 

final rule on the acceptability of HFO– 

1234yf under the SNAP Program. If the 

study becomes available, EPA will 

consider that information in 

determining how to move forward on 

this proposed determination for HFO– 

1234yf. 

Currently available analysis on the 

atmospheric and local air quality 

impacts of HFO–1234yf assumes an 

emissions rate very similar to HFC– 

134a. This assumption leads to a very 

conservative emission rate because it is 

highly likely HFO–1234yf will have a 

lower leak rate compared to HFC–134a 

because HFO–1234yf will cost 

approximately ten times more than 

HFC–134a. There will be an economic 

basis for conserving and preventing the 

release of HFO–1234yf. But the same 

logic implies that the market adoption 

of this alternative may not be high, 

resulting in even lower total emissions. 

We seek comment on whether it is 

appropriate to analyze environmental 

impacts of HFO–1234yf based on the 

current emission rate for HFC–134a in 

MVAC, and if not, what emission rate 

EPA should use in our environmental 

analyses. 

B. General Population Risks From 

Ambient Exposure to Compounds With 

Direct Toxicity and to Increased 

Ground-Level Ozone 

Toxicity: 

EPA’s New Chemicals Program, 

mandated by Section 5 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

conducted a premanufacture review of 

HFO–1234yf. This review assessed the 

potential environmental and human 

health risks associated with the 

substance (Docket EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2008–0918). Based on test data on HFO– 

1234yf, EPA has human health concerns 

for developmental toxicity and lethality 

via inhalation exposure. 

The Workplace Environmental 

Exposure Limit (WEEL) Committee of 

the American Industrial Hygiene 

Association has established a WEEL of 

500 parts per million (ppm) by volume 

on an eight-hour time-weighted average 

(TWA) for HFO–1234yf. See docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664 for the 

WEEL Committee rationale. The 

Committee established a WEEL of 1,000 

ppm by volume on an eight-hour TWA 

for HFC–134a. 

In terms of cardiotoxicity, HFC–134a 

is a cardiac sensitizer at 75,000 ppm 

with a no observed adverse effect level 

(NOAEL) of 50,000 ppm. HFO–1234yf is 

negative in the cardiac sensitization test 

at exposures of up to 120,000 ppm. (See 

‘‘Acute Cardiac Sensitization Study of 

HFO–1234ze and HFO–1234yf in Dogs’’ 

in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664). 

Ground-level Ozone: 

HFO–1234yf could impact local air 

quality (LAQ) through formation of 

ground-level ozone. Photochemical 

ozone creation potential (POCP) 

describes a compound’s potential to 

form ground-level ozone. HFO–1234yf 

has a higher POCP than the 

predominant MVAC refrigerant, HFC– 

134a. HFO–1234yf has a POCP 

comparable to ethylene; ethylene is an 

alkene. According to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change/Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel Special Report, 

alkenes ‘‘have the potential to 

significantly influence ozone formation 

on the urban and regional scales.’’ 

Papadimitriou et al. (2007) indicate that, 

‘‘studies are needed to quantify the 

degradation of [HFO–1234yf] under 

atmospheric conditions for OH- and Clatom-initiated chemistry to fully 

evaluate the impact of these compounds 

and their degradation products on 

climate and air quality.’’ 

An initial assessment says that HFO– 

1234yf could potentially increase 

ground level ozone by >1–4% in certain 

areas, which may affect attainment with 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for ozone (ICF, 2009). The 

reader should note ground-level ozone 

formation is highly variable and 

depends on several factors, such as 

availability of chemical inputs, and 

sunlight and heat. EPA notes that HFO– 

1234yf is defined as a volatile organic 

compound under Clean Air Act 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain 

and maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards. The Agency requests 

comment on the LAQ impacts of HFO– 

1234yf use as an MVAC refrigerant in 

the U.S. and globally. The Agency 

would give the greatest weight to peerreviewed, published papers for 

comments on LAQ impacts. As stated 

earlier, NOAA’s follow-on study of 

HFO–1234yf is expected before the 

Agency issues a final rule on the 

acceptability of HFO–1234yf under the 

SNAP Program. In the meantime, the 

Agency requests comment on whether a 

>1–4% increase in ground level ozone 

is significant. 

C. Ecosystem Risks 

See discussion under Atmospheric 

Effects and Related Health and 

Environmental Impacts. 

D. Occupational Risks 

Occupational risks could come about 

during the manufacture of the 

refrigerant, initial installation of the 

refrigerant at the car assembly plant or 

servicing of the MVAC system. The 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53449 

5These decomposition products have a sharp, 

acrid odor even at concentrations of only a few 

parts per million. 

TSCA New Chemicals Program review 

of HFO–1234yf determined that 

significant industrial or commercial 

worker exposure is unlikely due to CAA 

section 609 technician training, the use 

of CAA section 609 certified refrigerant 

handling equipment, and other 

protective measures. Therefore, the 

proposed manufacture, processing, and 

use of HFO–1234yf are not expected to 

present an unreasonable risk to workers. 

More details can be found at the New 

Chemicals Program’s docket for HFO– 

1234yf, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0918, 

and in the memorandum, ‘‘Risk 

Assessment: P070601 Reflecting 

Deliberations and Decisions from the 3/ 

4/09 Dispo[sition] Meeting’’ in dockets 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664 and EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2008–0918. 

In regards to flammability, with 

proper mitigation and training, the 

frequency of exposure to flammable 

HFO–1234yf concentrations in service 

situations can be managed. Based on 

feedback from certified MVAC service 

technicians, EPA believes that the 

flammability potential of HFO–1234yf is 

within the range of other substances that 

automotive service technicians 

encounter routinely (See docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0017). Training, 

mitigation, and limiting the frequency of 

exposure can reduce any potential risks 

to the technicians. Input from 

technicians confirms this perspective. 

Some car manufacturers have suggested 

that new training for HFO–1234yf 

should be required for all MVAC 

technicians. EPA requests comment on 

whether additional training for service 

technicians on HFO–1234yf should be 

required so that they are knowledgeable 

about the different hazards associated 

with working on HFO–1234yf MVAC 

systems compared to the two systems 

currently in use—i.e., CFC–12 or HFC– 

134a systems. Any specific training 

requirements would be adopted in a 

follow-up Section 609 rulemaking. At 

this point, EPA recommends, but does 

not propose to require, additional 

training and requests input on the need 

for required training for persons using 

HFO–1234yf in an MVAC service/ 

maintenance/disposal scenario. 

E. Consumer Risks 

Risks to consumers as vehicle 

occupants have been evaluated, in the 

context of HFO–1234yf’s flammability 

and toxicity. 

Based on American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 34 testing, HFO–1234yf’s 

lower flammability limit (LFL) is 6.2% 

and upper flammability limit is 12.3% 

(Gradient, 2008), making this refrigerant 

less flammable than HFC–152a, the only 

flammable SNAP-approved MVAC 

refrigerant. Depending on the charge 

size of an HFO–1234yf MVAC system, 

which can range from as little as 400 

grams to as much as 1600 grams (ICF, 

2008a), it is possible in a worst case 

scenario to reach a flammable 

concentration of HFO–1234yf inside the 

passenger compartment. 

In terms of toxicological concerns, the 

TSCA New Chemicals Program review 

of HFO–1234yf determined that 

potential consumer (passenger) 

exposure from refrigerant leak into the 

passenger compartment of a vehicle is 

not expected to present an unreasonable 

risk. However, consumer exposure from 

filling, servicing, or maintaining MVAC 

systems without professional training 

and the use of CAA Section 609 

certified equipment may cause serious 

health effects. Therefore, to prevent this 

risk EPA is also promulgating a 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under 

section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (docket EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2008–0918). This SNUR 

would require submission of a 

Significant New Use Notice to EPA at 

least 90 days before commencing an 

activity that is designated as a 

significant new use of HFO–1234yf. 

F. Flammability 

The proposed upper limit of occupant 

exposure to HFO–1234yf protects 

against the possibility of flammability. It 

is important to note that when burned 

or exposed to high heat, HFO–1234yf 

like all fluorocarbons, including CFC–12 

and HFC–134a, forms acid byproducts 

including hydrofluoric acid (HF)—a 

severe respiratory irritant.5 The 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) has set a 

Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)—8- 

hour occupational exposure limit—for 

HF at 3 ppm which is the upper 

allowable limit for worker exposure. 

Passenger exposure to HF could occur 

as a result of a leak in the presence of 

an ignition source. EPA’s approach in 

setting use conditions is to prevent any 

fire risk associated with HFO–1234yf 

use in MVAC systems, which would 

also prevent any potential passenger 

exposure to HF. EPA understands that 

there is work currently underway that 

examines the issue of pre-ignition HF 

formation. If those studies indicate the 

potential for significant pre-ignition HF 

formation, EPA will consider that 

information in determining how to 

move forward with this proposed rule. 

Additionally, EPA welcomes any 

comment on that study or other studies 

of which EPA is not aware that address 

the potential for pre-ignition HF 

formation. 

Flammable Concentrations Inside the 

Passenger Compartment 

SAE International commissioned a 

risk assessment of HFO–1234yf in 

MVAC systems (Gradient, 2008) based 

on the analytical framework developed 

by EPA and the U.S. Army in a 2006 

alternative refrigerant risk analysis 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0488–0025.2). 

The risk assessment incorporated the 

results of computational fluid dynamic 

(CFD) modeling (by DuPont) of an HFO– 

1234yf leak into the passenger 

compartment. DuPont conducted a 

limited assessment of refrigerant leakage 

into the passenger compartment by 

modeling the first 200 seconds of a leak 

into the passenger compartment. Based 

on their analysis, at least one of their 

simulations (idle vehicle, low fan, 

0.5mm orifice leak, and recirculation 

mode), led to exceeding the HFO– 

1234yf LFL inside the passenger 

compartment. To supplement these 

results, SAE International updated the 

modeling results with field test 

assessments of leaking refrigerant into 

the passenger compartment of Renault/ 

PSA/Fiat and General Motors medium 

and small size cars. The test results 

show that there are some scenarios 

where the LFL was exceeded (Gradient, 

2009). According to the SAE 

International risk assessment report, 

there is ‘‘a potential ignition hazard if a 

smoking-related ignition source is 

present’’ (Gradient, 2008). However, the 

report references a separate field study 

performed by Exponent where an 

experimental release of HFO–1234yf 

was released into the passenger and 

engine compartment of a large vehicle, 

a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria (Exponent, 

2008). In this field study, tested releases 

of HFO–1234yf did not produce 

concentrations above the LFL. However, 

given the fact that flammable conditions 

can come about in the passenger 

compartment, particularly in medium 

and small size cars, the Agency believes 

it is prudent to propose a use condition 

that addresses a possible ignition 

hazard. 

The Agency requests public comment 

on the SAE International/DuPont and 

Exponent reports. Specifically, the 

Agency requests comment on the 

appropriateness of the simulated charge 

size that was used by each report. The 

SAE International/DuPont report 

simulated a 2001 Ford Crown Victoria 

with a 691 gram HFO–1234yf charge. 

The Exponent report used a 1997 Ford 

Crown Victoria with a charge size of 693 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

grams. The 1997 and 2001 Ford Crown 

Victorias were originally designed with 

approximately 966 gram and 1097 grams 

HFC–134a charge size systems (MACS, 

2005). Honeywell presentations have 

indicated the HFO–1234yf charge size is 

90–95% of a HFC–134a charge size 

(Honeywell, 2008). Based on the 

original refrigerant charge size of these 

Crown Victorias, the HFO–1234yf 

charge sizes, in both simulations, are 

not consistent with the 90–95% HFC– 

134a charge sizes described in 

Honeywell presentations and the Crown 

Victorias are undercharged. Charge size 

is an important element in determining 

the probability of a flammable 

concentration. EPA requests comment 

on whether the charge sizes used in the 

DuPont and Exponent simulations are 

consistent with the actual charge sizes 

that would need to be used in MVAC for 

these vehicles. 

The Agency also requests comment on 

the use of a large-size car as a worst-case 

car scenario for a MVAC risk 

assessment. Based on an analysis done 

in 2004–2005, the EPA/U.S. Army risk 

assessment (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2004–0488–0025.2) concluded large 

passenger cars provided the highest 

ratio of refrigerant charge to interior 

compartment volume, and large 

passenger cars were broadly 

representative of the world fleet. Since 

that analysis was performed, there is 

data to indicate the sales of small cars 

have increased, and such sales are likely 

to continue to increase given a 

manufacturing shift towards smaller 

cars (ICF, 2008b). A recent analysis 

showed higher ratios of refrigerant 

charge to interior compartment volume 

in small trucks and two-seaters, 

compared to the large car used in SAE’s 

risk assessment (ICF, 2008a). A higher 

ratio of refrigerant charge to interior 

compartment volume could lead to 

more occurrences of flammable 

concentrations. 

Flammable Concentrations in the 

Engine Compartment 

According to the SAE International 

report, ‘‘the highest value measured in 

the engine compartment (87,000 ppm) 

suggests a potential ignition hazard’’ 

(Gradient, 2008). Although an engine 

compartment field test suggested that it 

was not possible to ignite HFO–1234yf 

(Dupont 2008), temperatures that could 

ignite the refrigerant exist on the 

exhaust manifold. Most car 

manufacturers cover the exhaust 

manifold with a heat shield, but this is 

not a requirement. EPA requests 

comment on the proposed use condition 

that requires protective devices under 

the vehicle hood to avoid any 

flammable concentrations of refrigerant 

coming into the vicinity of hot exhaust 

manifold surfaces. 

Hybrid and electric vehicle sales in 

the U.S. have dramatically increased 

over the past decade (ICF, 2008b). To 

address this change in the market, EPA 

considered the potential for another 

ignition source from the electric power 

source in hybrid and electric cars that 

is not present with gasoline-only 

vehicles. According to DuPont and 

Honeywell’s Guidelines for Use and 

Handling of HFO–1234yf, ‘‘isolation 

techniques or other suitable methods 

should be used to prevent battery and 

power system sparks/arc. In areas where 

processes, procedures or upset 

conditions such as leaks have the 

potential to generate flammable HFO– 

1234yf vapor-in-air concentrations in 

proximity to hybrid vehicle electric 

power sources, isolation and/or 

ventilation should be used.’’ (DuPont/ 

Honeywell, 2008). 

In addition, current hybrid vehicles 

with HFC–134a MVAC systems use 

polyolester (POE) oil as a system 

lubricant, primarily because 

polyalkylene glycol (PAG) oils are 

conductive and can lead to shorts. It is 

not clear if HFO–1234yf MVAC systems 

can work with the POE oil that is 

needed for hybrid vehicles. The EPA 

requests comment on whether the 

flammability of HFO–1234yf combined 

with PAG/POE oils may create a larger 

concern under the hood of hybrid and 

electric vehicles. 

EPA is aware of SAE International 

activities to develop a standard on 

specific risk mitigation strategies to 

avoid flammable concentrations under 

the hood. An excerpt from the latest 

draft of a standard that covers this topic 

is available in the docket. EPA requests 

comment on using such an SAE J 

standard as a use condition to protect 

against flammable concentrations under 

the hood. If SAE adopts a standard that 

reflects a different intent than in the 

current draft and if EPA determines to 

include such a different standard as a 

use condition, EPA would consider 

whether further comment is needed 

before it issued a final rule with that use 

condition. 

Other Flammable Refrigerants and Risk 

Mitigation 

Hydrocarbon refrigerants are 

unacceptable (prohibited) in MVAC 

systems under the SNAP program and 

are specifically prohibited in several 

states. Hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon 

blends must not be used in HFO–1234yf 

MVAC systems. 

The use conditions described in this 

action are specific to HFO–1234yf and 

do not apply to other flammable 

refrigerants. HFO–1234yf is less 

flammable and has a higher LFL than 

HFC–152a, and the proposed use 

conditions for HFO–1234yf would not 

be adequate for HFC–152a. However, 

the interior passenger compartment risk 

mitigation strategies described in the 

HFC–152a proposed and final rules (71 

FR 55140 and 73 FR 33304, 

respectively) can be protective risk 

mitigation strategies for HFO–1234yf. 

EPA refers to the previous discussions 

on HFC–152a risk mitigation strategies 

for manufacturers to consider when 

deciding what risk mitigation strategies 

might be used if HFO–1234yf is found 

acceptable subject to use conditions. 

G. Cost and Availability of the 

Substitute 

Definitive costs for the refrigerant 

have not been shared with the Agency. 

Based on estimates from Honeywell and 

DuPont, the cost of HFO–1234yf will be, 

at least initially, approximately $40–60/ 

pound (Weissler, 2008). The cost of the 

refrigerant will depend on several 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

how much refrigerant will be available 

for sale, the quality of the refrigerant, 

and where the refrigerant is 

manufactured. The cost of HFO–1234yf 

will likely be more than HFC–134a 

because the HFO–1234yf manufacturing 

process requires more energy and more 

steps than HFC–134a. 

The manufacturers of HFO–1234yf 

state the chemical can be available 

when the market requires it. At the 

moment there are no dedicated HFO– 

1234yf manufacturing plants. 

H. Proposed Conclusion on Overall 

Impacts on Human Health and the 

Environment 

On the whole, EPA proposes that the 

conditioned use of HFO–1234yf does 

not present a significantly larger risk to 

human health and the environment 

compared to HFC–134a, the 

predominant ODS refrigerant substitute 

in passenger vehicle MVAC systems and 

other SNAP-approved MVAC refrigerant 

alternatives, and in many cases likely 

poses less risk. Use conditions are 

necessary to address the flammability 

concerns associated with use of HFO– 

1234yf. If it is determined that there are 

possible atmospheric effects of HFO– 

1234yf, those would be controlled by 

Clean Air Act Section 608 and Section 

609 regulatory requirements that 

prohibit the venting, or release, of 

refrigerant during the service, 

maintenance and disposal of 

refrigeration and A/C equipment. EPA 

welcomes comment on this proposal; 

the Agency prefers peer-reviewed, 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53451 

published papers for supporting 

documentation on comments 

concerning technical issues. 

The conditions we are proposing for 

the safe use of HFO–1234yf are outlined 

below. 

V. HFO–1234yf MVAC System Proposed 

Use Conditions 

Use Conditions for HFO–1234yf 

EPA proposes to find HFO–1234yf 

acceptable with use conditions in new 

MVACs as a substitute for CFC–12. This 

proposed determination is limited to 

MVAC systems on passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks; this proposed 

determination does not include any 

other MVAC systems, including those 

on buses, trains, boats, off-road 

equipment, or other vehicles. The 

submission did not specifically request 

use in these other MVAC systems and 

the risks associated with these MVAC 

systems have not been evaluated. 

EPA proposes to find HFO–1234yf 

acceptable with the following use 

conditions: 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

incorporate engineering strategies and/ 

or devices so that leaks into the 

passenger compartment do not result in 

HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above 

the lower flammability limit (LFL) of 

6.2% v/v for more than 15 seconds; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

incorporate engineering strategies and/ 

or devices so that leaks into the engine 

compartment or vehicle electric power 

source storage areas do not result in 

HFO–1234yf concentrations at or above 

the LFL of 6.2% v/v for any period of 

time; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

incorporate protective devices, isolation 

and/or ventilation techniques in areas 

where processes, procedures or upset 

conditions such as leaks have the 

potential to generate HFO–1234yf 

concentrations at or above 6.2% v/v in 

proximity to hybrid/electric vehicle 

electric power sources and exhaust 

manifold surfaces; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

use unique fittings to be identified 

pursuant to SAE standard J639 and 

subject to EPA approval; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

include a detailed label identifying the 

refrigerant and that the refrigerant is 

flammable; 

• HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must 

have a high-pressure compressor cutoff 

switch installed on systems equipped 

with pressure relief devices; and 

• Manufacturers must conduct and 

keep on file Failure Mode and Effect 

Analysis (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated 

in SAE J1739. 

EPA requests public comment on the 

proposed use conditions for HFO– 

1234yf. Amongst other topics, EPA 

requests comment on whether interior 

passenger compartment limits to HFO– 

1234yf should apply only when the 

vehicle ignition is ‘on.’ 

General SNAP MVAC Use Conditions 

On October 16, 1996, EPA 

promulgated a final rule (61 FR 54029) 

establishing certain conditions on the 

use of any refrigerant used as a 

substitute for CFC–12 in MVAC systems 

(appendix D to subpart G of 40 CFR part 

82). That rule provides that EPA would 

list new refrigerant substitutes in future 

notices of acceptability and all such 

refrigerants would be subject to the use 

conditions stated in that rule. Therefore, 

EPA is establishing a use condition that 

unique fittings must be identified 

pursuant to SAE standard J639 adopted 

in 2009 and approved by EPA. 

VI. Additional Information Requested 

The Agency seeks comments on 

topics related to HFO–1234yf that are 

beyond the scope of this Section 612 

proposed rulemaking regarding use of 

HFO–1234yf in new MVAC systems, but 

which could be relevant to future 

actions on HFO–1234yf as a substitute 

refrigerant. Please send information on 

any of the following issues to Margaret 

Sheppard, sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. 

Retrofit Use of HFO–1234yf 

The Honeywell submission requested 

SNAP review of HFO–1234yf in new 

MVAC applications only. Honeywell 

did not petition the Agency to review 

retrofit use of HFO–1234yf. The Agency 

has not fully evaluated the safety issues 

associated with using HFO–1234yf to 

service existing CFC–12 or HFC–134a 

designed MVAC systems. EPA rules 

prohibit the use of flammable 

refrigerants in retrofit systems. 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart 2, App. B (61 FR 

54029). Any person interested in using 

HFO–1234yf in retrofit systems would 

need to petition EPA to change the 

existing unacceptable determination. 

Such an option would require a separate 

SNAP submission and evaluation by 

EPA. EPA suspects that car 

manufacturers are the best qualified, 

and likely the only qualified entity to 

undertake such an application given the 

complexities of going to HFO–1234yf. 

The Agency requests comment on 

whether retrofit kits can effectively meet 

the requirements identified in this 

proposal for new MVAC systems and if 

retrofits have a detrimental impact on 

the MVAC system fuel efficiency. The 

Agency also specifically requests 

comments from car manufacturers on 

retrofitting existing MVAC systems to 

HFO–1234yf. 

Retrofitting HFO–1234yf MVAC Systems 

to Other Alternative Refrigerants 

Individuals, service shops, or 

manufacturers might consider refilling 

or charging MVAC systems designed for 

HFO–1234yf with another refrigerant. 

The Agency has not evaluated the safety 

issues associated with retrofitting HFO– 

1234yf MVAC systems with other 

MVAC refrigerants previously approved 

under SNAP. Because other refrigerants 

may be less expensive, the Agency is 

concerned that consumers may consider 

retrofitting HFO–1234yf systems to use 

other refrigerants. The use conditions 

proposed for HFO–1234yf are specific to 

the properties of this chemical, and 

would not be protective of fire hazards 

that may come about from, for example, 

hydrocarbon refrigerant (HCR) that is 

more flammable. HCRs are more 

flammable than HFO–1234yf. Besides 

the safety concerns of retrofitting to 

another refrigerant, the practice could 

lead to increased refrigerant emissions 

because of materials compatibility or/ 

and leakage due to hose permeation. 

This practice may come about if the 

price of HFO–1234yf is high, or if there 

is limited supply of HFO–1234yf. EPA 

requests comments on this type of 

retrofitting, and provisions that need to 

be made to address this issue, 

particularly in the context of SNAP’s 

general requirement for unique fittings 

for each unique SNAP listed refrigerant. 

VII. Section 609 Requirements for 

HFO–1234yf 

Service equipment, technician 

certification and end-of-life disposal 

specifications will be addressed in a 

follow-on rulemaking(s) under Section 

609 of the Clean Air Act. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ It raises novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53452 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. Burden 

is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This 

proposed rule is an Agency 

determination. It contains no new 

requirements for reporting. The only 

recordkeeping requirement involves 

customary business practice. The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations in subpart G of 40 

CFR part 82 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control numbers 2060–0226 (EPA ICR 

No. 1596.05). This Information 

Collection Request (ICR) included five 

types of respondent reporting and 

record keeping activities pursuant to 

SNAP regulations: submission of a 

SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA 

Addendum, notification for test 

marketing activity, record keeping for 

substitutes acceptable subject to use 

restrictions, and record-keeping for 

small volume uses. This proposed rule 

requires minimal record-keeping of 

studies done to ensure that MVAC 

systems using HFO–1234yf meet the 

requirements set forth in this rule. 

Because it is customary business 

practice that automotive systems 

manufacturers and automobile 

manufacturing companies conduct and 

keep on file failure mode and effect 

analysis (FMEA) on any potentially 

hazardous part or system, we believe 

this requirement will not impose an 

additional paperwork burden. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; for NAICS code 336111 

(Automobile manufacturing), it is <1000 

employees; for NAICS code 336391 

(Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning 

Manufacturing), it is <750 employees; 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; 

and (3) a small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, we certify that this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. The requirements of this 

proposed rule impact car manufacturers 

and car air conditioning system 

manufacturers only; none of these 

businesses qualify as small entities. 

Additionally, car manufacturers and car 

air conditioning system manufacturers 

are not mandated to move to HFO– 

1234yf MVAC systems. EPA is simply 

listing HFO–1234yf as an acceptable 

alternative with use conditions in new 

MVAC systems. This rule allows the use 

of this alternative to ozone depleting 

substances in the MVAC sector and 

outlines the conditions necessary for 

safe use. By approving this refrigerant 

under SNAP, EPA provides additional 

choice to the automotive industry 

which, if adopted, would reduce the 

impact of MVACs on the global 

environment. This rulemaking does not 

mandate the use of HFO–1234yf as a 

refrigerant in new MVACs. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. This regulation 

applies directly to entities that 

manufacture MVAC systems with the 

proposed substitute, and not to 

governmental entities. This proposed 

rule does not mandate a switch to this 

substitute, but rather adds to the list of 

available substitutes from which a 

manufacturer may choose; 

consequently, there is no direct 

economic impact on entities from this 

rulemaking. Also, production-quality 

HFO–1234yf MVAC systems are not 

manufactured yet. Consequently, no 

change in business practice is required 

by this proposed rule. This action 

provides additional technical options 

allowing greater flexibility for industry 

in designing consumer products. Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As 

noted above, this proposed regulation 

would not apply to any governmental 

entity. EPA has determined that this 

rule does not contain a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposal does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies directly to entities that 

manufacture MVAC systems with the 

proposed substitute and not to 

governmental entities. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This proposed rule does not 

significantly or uniquely affect one or 

more Indian tribes, the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes 

because this regulation applies directly 

to entities that manufacture MVAC 

systems with the proposed substitute 

and not to governmental entities. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53453 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in Section IV of this proposed 

rule. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to HFO–1234yf. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action would impact 

manufacturing alternative MVAC 

systems. Preliminary information 

indicates that these new systems will 

have similar fuel efficiency compared to 

currently available MVAC systems. 

Therefore, we conclude that this rule is 

not likely to have any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA proposes to 

use the SAE International standard J639, 

which addresses requirements for safety 

and reliability for HFO–1234yf systems. 

SAE International is the international 

standard setting body for motor vehicle 

requirements. SAE International 

standards are globally recognized and 

adopted by all major car manufacturers 

and system suppliers. These standards 

can be obtained from http:// 

www.sae.org/technical/standards/. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify other potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations; HFO–1234yf is a non 

ozone-depleting substance with a low 

GWP. Based on the toxicological and 

atmospheric work described earlier, 

HFO–1234yf will not have any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This NPRM proposes to require specific 

use conditions for MVAC systems, if car 

manufacturers chose to make MVAC 

systems using this low GWP refrigerant 

alternative. 

IX. References 

The documents below are referenced 

in the preamble. All documents are 

located in the Air Docket at the address 

listed in section titled ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at 

the beginning of this document. Unless 

specified otherwise, all documents are 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0664 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

References 

Dupont and Honeywell. Guidelines for Use 

and Handling of HFO–1234yf (v8.0). 

Exponent. 2008. HFO–1234yf Refrigerant 

Concentration and Ignition Tests in FullScale Vehicle Passenger Cabin and Engine 

Compartment. 

Gradient Corporation. 2008. Risk Assessment 

for Alternative Refrigerant HFO–1234yf. 

Gradient Corporation. 2009. Risk Assessment 

for Alternative Refrigerants HFO–1234yf 

and R–744 (CO2). 

ICF International. 2008a. Air Conditioning 

Refrigerant Charge Size to Passenger 

Compartment Volume Ratio Analysis. 

ICF International. 2008b. Revised 

Characterization of U.S. Hybrid and Small 

Car Sales (Historical and Predicted) and 

Hybrid Vehicle Accidents. 

ICF International. 2009. Revised Draft 

Assessment of the Potential Impacts of 

HFO–1234yf and the Associated 

Production of TFA on Aquatic 

Communities and Local Air Quality. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/ 

Technology & Economic Assessment Panel 

Special Report. 2006. Safeguarding the 

Ozone Layer and the Global Climate 

System: Issues Related to 

Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. 

Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

ipccreports/sroc.htm. 

Interior Climate Control Standards 

Committee of SAE International. 2009. 

Excerpt from draft HFO–1234yf Engine 

Compartment Safety Standard. 

Minor, B., 2008. CRP–1234: CFD Modeling of 

a Large Car—Final Report. 

Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide. 

2005. A/C & Cooling System 

Specifications: 1995–2006. 

Papadimitriou, V., R.K. Talukdar, R.W. 

Portmann, A.R. Ravishankara, and J.B. 

Burkholder. 2007. CF3CF=CH2 and (Z)- 

CF3CF=CHF: Temperature dependent OH 

rate coefficients and global warming 

potentials. Physical Chemistry Chemical 

Physics. 9: 1–13. 

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 

2006. World Meteorological Organization. 

Available at http://www.wmo.int/pages/ 

prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2006/ 

ozone_asst_report.html. 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 2006. Risk Analysis for 

Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle 

Air Conditioning. 

Weissler, P., 2008. Consensus Building on 

Refrigerant Type. Automotive Engineering 

International. 9: 30–32. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 

7671q. 

Subpart G—Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

2. The first table in Appendix B to 

Subpart G of Part 82 is amended by 

adding one new entry to the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

and Unacceptable Substitutes 

REFRIGERANTS-ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments 

* * * * * * * 

CFC–12 Automobile 

Motor Vehicle Air 

Conditioning (New 

equipment in passenger cars and 

trucks only).

HFO–1234yf as a 

substitute for CFC– 

12.

Acceptable subject to 

use conditions.

Engineering strategies and/or devices must 

be incorporated into the system such that 

leaks into the free space 1 of the passenger compartment do not result in HFO– 

1234yf concentrations of 6.2% v/v or 

above in any part of the free space 1 inside the passenger compartment for more 

than 15 seconds.

Additional training for 

service technicians 

recommended. 

Engineering strategies and/or devices must 

be incorporated into the system such that 

leaks into the engine compartment or vehicle electric power source storage areas do 

not result in HFO–1234yf concentrations of 

6.2% v/v or above for any period of time.

Observe Pre-manufacture Notice 

(PMN) regulatory 

decision. 

HFO–1234yf MVAC systems must incorporate protective devices, isolation and/or 

ventilation techniques in areas where 

processes, procedures or upset conditions 

such as leaks have the potential to generate HFO–1234yf concentrations at or 

above 6.2% v/v in proximity to exhaust 

manifold surfaces and hybrid/electric vehicle electric power sources.

Manufacturers must adhere to all the safety 

requirements listed in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J639 

(adopted 2009), including unique fittings 

and flammable refrigerant warning label 

and high-pressure compressor cutoff 

switch and pressure relief devices.

Manufacturers must conduct and keep on file 

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) 

on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739 

(adopted 2009).

1Free space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC module. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–25106 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

RIN 0648–AV15 

Protective Regulations for Killer 

Whales in the Northwest Region Under 

the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of 

extension of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), are issuing 

this notice to advise the public that 

NMFS is extending the public comment 

period for proposed regulations under 

the Endangered Species Act and Marine 

Mammal Protection Act to prohibit 

vessels from approaching killer whales 

within 200 yards and from parking in 

the path of whales for vessels in inland 

waters of Washington State. The 

proposed regulations would also 

prohibit vessels from entering a 

conservation area during a defined 

season. The proposed rule was 

published July 29, 2009, opening a 90- 

day public comment period and 

noticing two public meetings. In 

response to requests from the public, on 

September 17, 2009, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register 

announcing an additional public 

meeting. We are issuing this notice to 

announce an 80-day extension of the 

public comment period in response to 

requests to provide more time for the 

public to review the proposed 

regulation and provide comments. 

We recognize that by extending the 

public comment period, we will not 

have sufficient time to issue a final rule 

prior to the 2010 summer boating 

season. We continue to believe that it is 

important to address the adverse effects 

of vessel traffic on killer whales in the 

near future. In light of the requests we 

have received for an extension of the 

comment period, however, we believe 

additional public outreach will enhance 

both NMFS’ understanding of public 

concerns and the public’s 

understanding of the basis for our 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS