[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23678]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 26, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 9 and 82




Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Proposed Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 82

[FRL-5078-4]

 
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on 
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives 
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean 
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes 
for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the 
environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of 
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major 
industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to 
expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a 
shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems.
    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on 
the acceptability and unacceptability of a number substitutes. In this 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its preliminary 
decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes not previously 
reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at determinations on the 
acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media 
evaluation of risks to human health and the environment by sector end-
use.
    Today's action proposes new additions to the list of controlled or 
prohibited substitutes. As described in the final rule for the SNAP 
program, EPA does believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is 
required to place any alternative on the list of prohibited 
substitutes, to list an alternative as acceptable only under certain 
use conditions or certain narrow end-use applications.
    EPA does not, however, believe that rulemaking procedures are 
required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such 
listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior 
license to use a substitute. Consequently, EPA is adding substitutes to 
the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on 
new listings. Updates to the acceptable lists are published as separate 
notices in the Federal Register. A comprehensive compilation of all 
listings will be published annually.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document 
must be submitted by November 10, 1994.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax 
(202) 233-9577, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric 
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and 
Radiation, Washington, DC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

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


I. Overview of This Action
II. Section 612 Program
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Regulatory History
III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Additional Information

Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Listing Decisions

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a 
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA 
is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy 
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
    Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making 
it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and 
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance 
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present 
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the 
Administrator has identified an alternative that: (1) Reduces the 
overall risk to human health and the environment; and (2) is currently 
or potentially available.
    Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also 
requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for 
specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable 
alternatives for specific uses.
    Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to 
petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from the 
lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 
days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, 
EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional 6 months.
    90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any 
person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to 
notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing 
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new 
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also 
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety 
studies on such substitutes.
    Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall 
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources 
to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and 
developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial 
applications.
    Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a 
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and 
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and 
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

B. Regulatory History

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR 
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program 
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major 
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air 
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and 
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and 
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal 
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-
depleting compounds.
    The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product, 
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or 
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who 
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety 
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into 
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This 
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include 
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for 
introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

    To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, 
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various 
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The 
outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as 
described above in the ADDRESSES portion of this notice.
    Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the 
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has 
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable 
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; 
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used with no 
limits for all applications within the relevant sector end-use. 
Conversely, it is illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by 
SNAP as unacceptable. A pending listing represents substitutes for 
which the Agency has not received complete data or has not completed 
its review of the data.
    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination 
that a substitute is acceptable only if conditions of use are met to 
minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such 
substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions 
renders these substitutes unacceptable.
    Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based 
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a 
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of 
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a 
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that 
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies 
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results 
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation 
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected, 
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for 
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety 
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available 
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of 
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as 
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes 
unacceptable.
    In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its 
preliminary decision on the acceptability of certain substitutes not 
previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for 
the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment 
rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of 
prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under 
certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an 
alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable 
substitutes.
    EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to 
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do 
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a 
substitute. Consequently, EPA is adding substitutes to the list of 
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new 
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as 
separate notices in the Federal Register.
    Parts A. through E. below present a detailed discussion of the 
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables 
summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are 
in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A provide additional 
information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the 
regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. 
Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to 
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. 
However, EPA encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply all 
comments in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the 
comments simply allude to sound operating practices that have already 
been identified in existing industry and/or building-code standards. 
Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require significant 
changes in existing operating practices for the affected industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. Overview
    The refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all uses of 
class I and class II substances to produce cooling, including 
mechanical and non-mechanical refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat 
transfer. Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a more 
detailed description of this sector.
    The refrigeration and air conditioning sector is divided into the 
following end-uses:
     commercial comfort air conditioning;
     industrial process refrigeration system;
     industrial process air conditioning;
     ice skating rinks;
     uranium isotope separation processing;
     cold storage warehouses;
     refrigerated transport;
     retail food refrigeration;
     vending machines;
     water coolers;
     commercial ice machines;
     household refrigerators;
     household freezers;
     residential dehumidifiers;
     motor vehicle air conditioning;
     residential air conditioning and heat pumps;
     non-mechanical heat transfer; and
     very low temperature refrigeration.
    In addition, each end-use is divided into retrofit and new 
equipment applications. EPA has not necessarily reviewed substitutes in 
every end-use for this NPRM.
    EPA has modified the list of end-uses for this sector for this SNAP 
update. First, EPA has changed the name of the heat transfer end-use to 
non-mechanical heat transfer. This change is intended to avoid 
confusion between systems that move heat from a cool area to a warm one 
(mechanical refrigeration) and systems that simply aid the movement of 
heat away from warm areas (non-mechanical heat transfer). The second 
change is that EPA added a new end-use, very low temperature 
refrigeration. Substitutes for this end-use have been reviewed since 
the final rule, and therefore have been added for this SNAP update. 
Finally, EPA has also reviewed substitutes for CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-
503 industrial process refrigeration. Please refer to the final SNAP 
rule (59 FR 13044) for a detailed description of end-uses other than 
these three. EPA may continue to add other end-uses in future SNAP 
updates.
    a. Non-mechanical Heat Transfer. As discussed above, this end-use 
includes all cooling systems that rely on a fluid to remove heat from a 
heat source to a cooler area, rather than relying on mechanical 
refrigeration to move heat from a cool area to a warm one. Generally, 
there are two types of systems: systems with fluid pumps, referred to 
as recirculating coolers, and those that rely on natural convection 
currents, known as thermosyphons.
    b. Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. Medical freezers, freeze-
dryers, and other small appliances require extremely reliable 
refrigeration cycles. These systems must meet stringent technical 
standards that do not normally apply to refrigeration systems. They 
usually have very small charges. Because they operate at very high 
vapor pressures, and because performance is critically affected by any 
charge loss, standard maintenance for these systems tends to reduce 
leakage to a level considerably below that for other types of 
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.
    c. CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503 Industrial Process Refrigeration. This 
end-use differs from other types of industrial refrigeration only in 
the extremely low temperature regimes that are required. Although some 
substitutes may work in both these extremely low temperatures and in 
systems designed to use R-502, they are acceptable only for this end-
use because of global warming and atmospheric lifetime concerns. These 
concerns are discussed more fully below.
2. Substitutes for Refrigerants
    Substitutes fall into eight broad categories. Seven of these 
categories are chemical substitutes used in the same vapor compression 
cycle as the ozone-depleting substances being replaced. They include 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 
hydrocarbons, refrigerant blends, ammonia, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 
chlorine systems. The eighth category includes alternative technologies 
that generally do not rely on vapor compression cycles. Please refer to 
the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for more discussion of these broad 
categories.
    a. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. (1) CFC-12 Automobile and 
Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit and New. EPA is 
concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end-use may 
increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination 
and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/
recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to the use of 
substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the recycled 
CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and preserve the 
purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is proposing several conditions on 
the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the 
purposes of this rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and 
``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant 
includes all procedures that result in the air conditioning system 
using a new refrigerant.
    In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any 
substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
     Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings 
that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as 
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on 
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all 
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed 
to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A 
refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps 
specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or 
deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be 
a violation of this use condition. In addition, fittings shall meet the 
following criteria, derived from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
standards and recommended practices:

--When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted, conversion 
assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock 
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner 
that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.
--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the 
vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660, 
as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which 
are specific to HFC-134a.
--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere, 
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the 
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is 
waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief device.
--All CFC-12 service ports shall be retrofitted with conversion 
assemblies or shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with 
CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached with 
a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism 
in a manner that prevents the device from being removed.
     When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as 
follows:

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

    *--the name and address of the technician and the company 
performing the retrofit
    *--the date of the retrofit
    *--the trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE 
refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
    *--the type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
    *--if the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, 
the statement ``This refrigerant contains an ozone-depleting substance 
and it is therefore subject to the venting prohibition, recycling, and 
other provisions of regulations issued under section 609 of the Clean 
Air Act.''
    *--if the refrigerant is not or does not contain any ozone-
depleting substances, the statement ``This refrigerant does not deplete 
stratospheric ozone, and as of November 15, 1995, at the latest, it is 
subject to the venting prohibition, recycling, and other provisions of 
regulations issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act.''
    *--if the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured 
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. 
Take appropriate precautions.''

--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be 
permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to 
the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during 
vehicle repair.
--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the 
new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.

     No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a 
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be 
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of 
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
    Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels, 
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to 
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such 
discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
    No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a 
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service 
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a 
particular system.
    (a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in 
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use 
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described 
above. HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP 
and atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which 
have been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC-
134a's contribution to global warming could be significant in leaky 
end-uses such as motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACS). EPA 
has determined that the use of HFC-134a in these applications is 
acceptable because industry continues to develop technology to limit 
emissions. In addition, the number of available substitutes for use in 
MVACS is currently limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its toxicity 
is low. While HFC-134a is compatible with most existing refrigeration 
and air conditioning equipment parts, it is not compatible with the 
mineral oils currently used in such systems. An appropriate ester-
based, polyalkylene glycol-based, or other type of lubricant should be 
used. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or the retrofit kit 
manufacturer for further information.
    (b) R-401C. R-401C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-
124, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new 
motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions 
applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above. HCFC-22 
and HCFC-124 contribute to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree 
than CFC-12. The production of HCFC-22 will be phased out according to 
the accelerated phaseout schedule (published 12/10/93, 58 FR 65018). 
The GWP of HCFC-22 is somewhat higher than other alternatives for this 
end-use. Experimental data indicate that HCFC-22 may leak through 
flexible hosing in mobile air conditioners at a high rate. In order to 
preserve the blend's composition and to reduce its contribution to 
global warming, EPA strongly recommends using barrier hoses when hose 
assemblies need to be replaced during a retrofit procedure. The GWPs of 
the other components are low. Although this blend does contain one 
flammable constituent, the blend itself is not flammable. Leak testing 
demonstrated that the blend never becomes flammable.
    (c) HCFC Blend Beta. HCFC Blend Beta is acceptable as a substitute 
for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, 
subject to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air 
conditioning described above. The composition of this blend has been 
claimed confidential by the manufacturer. This blend contains at least 
one HCFC, and therefore contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much 
lesser degree than CFC-12. Regulations regarding recycling and 
reclamation issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this 
blend. Its production will be phased out according to the accelerated 
schedule (published 12/10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components 
are moderate to low. This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has 
demonstrated that the blend never becomes flammable.
    b. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. (1) Non-mechanical 
Heat Transfer, New and Retrofit.
    (a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are proposed acceptable as 
substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in new 
and retrofitted thermosyphons and recirculating coolers only where no 
other alternatives are technically feasible due to safety or 
performance requirements. PFCs covered by this determination are 
C3F8, C4F10, C5F12, C5F11NO, 
C6F14, C6F13NO, C7F16, C7F15NO, 
C8F18, C8F16O, AND C9F21N. PFCs offer 
high dielectric resistance and they are low in toxicity and 
nonflammable. The principal characteristic of concern for PFCs is that 
they have long atmospheric lifetimes and have the potential to 
contribute to global climate change. For instance, C5F12 has 
a lifetime of 4,100 years and a 100-year GWP of 5,600. PFCs are also 
included in the Climate Change Action Plan which broadly instructs EPA 
to use section 612 of the CAA, as well as voluntary programs, to 
control emissions. Despite these concerns, EPA is proposing to list 
PFCs as acceptable in certain small applications because they may be 
the only substitutes that can satisfy safety or performance 
requirements. For example, a transformer may require very high 
dielectric strength, or a heat transfer system for a chlorine 
manufacturing process could require compatibility with the process 
stream.
    Users should note, however, that use of a PFC should be a last 
resort. As the proposed determination states, PFCs should be used 
``only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due to 
safety or performance requirements.'' This statement requires users to 
conduct a thorough search for other substitutes. Although EPA does not 
require users to submit information on such a search, companies must 
keep the results on file for future reference.
    In cases where users must adopt PFCs, they should make every effort 
to:
     Recover and recycle these fluids during servicing
     Adopt maintenance practices that reduce leakage as much as 
is technically feasible
     Recover these fluids after the end of the equipment's 
useful life and either recycle them or destroy them
     Continue to search for other long-term alternatives
    Users of PFCs should note that if other alternatives become 
available, EPA could be petitioned to list PFCs as unacceptable due to 
the availability of other suitable substitutes. If such a petition were 
granted, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only upon consideration 
of cost and timing of testing and implementation of new substitutes. In 
addition, while this listing allows for use of PFCs in some new 
systems, a petition indicating widespread design of systems using PFCs 
where other alternatives exist could adversely impact any 
grandfathering decisions.
    EPA believes these end-uses are covered under section 608 of the 
CAA and encourages voluntary compliance with the recycling and leak 
repair provisions of that rule until new rulemakings specifically 
address non-ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    c. Unacceptable Substitutes.
(1) R-403B
    R-403B, which consists of HCFC-22, R-218, and propane, is proposed 
unacceptable as a substitute for R-502 in the following new and 
retrofitted end-uses:
     industrial process refrigeration;
     cold storage warehouses;
     refrigerated transport;
     retail food refrigeration;
     commercial ice machines; and
     household freezers.
    R-218, perfluoropropane, has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. 
Although this substitute may offer energy efficiency gains, its 
lifetime and direct GWP pose additional risk beyond that of other 
substitutes for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-218 is 
over 2000 years, which means that global warming and other effects 
would be essentially irreversible. EPA believes that while other 
substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long 
lifetimes.
(2) R-405A
    R-405A, which is composed of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, HCFC-142b, and R-
c318, is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and 
R-502 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:
     commercial comfort air conditioning;
     industrial process refrigeration;
     ice skating rinks;
     cold storage warehouses;
     refrigerated transport;
     retail food refrigeration;
     vending machines;
     water coolers;
     commercial ice machines;
     household refrigerators;
     household freezers;
     residential dehumidifiers; and
     motor vehicle air conditioning.
    R-405A was listed as HCFC/HFC/fluoroalkane Blend A in previous 
notices. R-405A contains a high proportion of R-c318, 
cycloperfluorobutane, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. 
Although this substitute may offer energy efficiency gains, its 
lifetime and direct GWP pose additional risk beyond that of other 
substitutes for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-c318 
is over 3000 years, which means that global warming and other effects 
would be essentially irreversible. EPA believes that while other 
substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long 
lifetimes.
(3) Hydrocarbon Blend B
    Hydrocarbon Blend B is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:
     commercial comfort air conditioning;
     ice skating rinks;
     cold storage warehouses;
     refrigerated transport;
     retail food refrigeration;
     vending machines;
     water coolers;
     commercial ice machines;
     household refrigerators;
     household freezers;
     residential dehumidifiers; and
     motor vehicle air conditioning.
    Flammability is the primary concern. EPA believes the use of this 
substitute in very leaky uses like motor vehicle air conditioning may 
pose a high risk of fire. EPA requires a risk assessment be conducted 
to demonstrate this blend may be safely used in any CFC-12 end-uses. 
The manufacturer of this blend has not submitted such a risk 
assessment, and EPA therefore finds it unacceptable.
(4) Flammable Substitutes
    Flammable substitutes, defined as having flammability limits as 
measured according to ASTM E-681 with modifications included in Society 
of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J1657, including blends 
which become flammable during fractionation, are proposed unacceptable 
as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioning 
systems.
    Flammable refrigerants differ from traditional substances in 
several ways: potential gains in energy efficiency, reductions in 
direct contribution to global warming, and additional risks from fire. 
Flammable refrigerants may be good substitutes in systems designed with 
fire risks in mind. In addition, in certain circumstances, they may 
serve well as substitutes in retrofit uses. EPA encourages research 
efforts into the use of flammable refrigerants, but remains concerned 
about the dangers. Because of these concerns, EPA has established the 
requirement that manufacturers of flammable refrigerants conduct 
detailed risk assessments in all end-uses. The risks from flammability 
are extremely sensitive to the size of charge and end-use.
    In MVACS, flammable refrigerants pose risks not found in stationary 
equipment, including the potential for collisions, the placement of the 
condenser directly behind the grille, flexible hoses which could be 
punctured, the hazard to technicians who are expecting to handle 
flammable fluids, the danger to passengers from evaporator leaks, and 
the dangers to personnel involved in disposal of old automobiles. Due 
to the length of SNAP review, certain substitutes have been marketed 
which EPA believes may pose substantial risk to users. The intent of 
the 90-day review process was not to allow manufacturers to market 
risky substitutes, but rather to ensure a thorough review. Because of 
potential risks to users and service personnel, EPA finds it necessary 
to find all flammable substitutes unacceptable in retrofitted 
automotive air conditioning to prevent hazardous substitutes from being 
marketed prior to a thorough risk assessment.
    EPA continues to encourage investigation of all substitute 
refrigerants, including flammable substances. This unacceptable 
determination only applies to retrofitted MVACS. If a manufacturer 
wishes an acceptable determination for a flammable substitute in MVACS, 
this risk assessment must be conducted in a scientifically valid 
manner. EPA will consider such a risk assessment in any determination 
on the substitute.

B. Solvents

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    a. Electronics Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is proposed 
acceptable subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-113 and 
MCF in electronics cleaning. The HCFC-225 ca isomer has a company-set 
exposure limit of 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the HCFC-
225 cb isomer is 250 ppm. These limits should be readily achievable 
since HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45%/50%) blend of -ca 
and -cb isomers. In addition, the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning 
equipment where HCFC-225 is used, typically has very low emissions.
    b. Precision Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is proposed 
acceptable subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-113 and 
MCF in precision cleaning. The HCFC-225 ca isomer has a company-set 
exposure limit of 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the HCFC-
225 cb isomer is 250 ppm. These limits should be readily achievable 
since HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45%/50%) blend of -ca 
and -cb isomers. In addition, the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning 
equipment where HCFC-225 is used, typically has very low emissions.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes
    a. Metals Cleaning. (1) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is proposed 
as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. 
Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and other alternatives 
exist which do not pose comparable risk.
    b. Electronics Cleaning. (2) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is 
proposed as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in 
electronics cleaning. Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and 
other alternatives exist.
    c. Precision Cleaning. (3) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is 
proposed as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision 
cleaning. Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and other 
alternatives exist.

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    a. Total Flooding Agents. (1) C3F8. C3F8 is 
proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives 
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: 
(a) Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human 
exposure to the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or 
result in other unacceptable health effects under normal operating 
conditions. This proposed agent is subject to the same use conditions 
stipulated for all total flooding agents, that is:
     Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within 
one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations 
exceeding its NOAEL.
     Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than 
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration 
greater than its LOAEL.
     Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only 
permitted in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any 
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall 
assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent 
discharge.
    Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C3F8 can 
extinguish fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 7.30 
per cent and therefore has a design concentration of 8.8 per cent. The 
cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its 
extinguishment concentration and therefore is safe for use in occupied 
areas. This agent can replace Halon 1301 by a ratio of 2 to 1 by 
weight.
    Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation by 
displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 per cent, a 
design concentration of 22.6 per cent may reduce oxygen levels to 
approximately 16 per cent, the minimum level considered to be required 
to prevent impaired judgement or other physiological effects. Thus, the 
oxygen level resulting from discharge of this agent must be at least 16 
per cent.
    C3F8 has no ozone depletion potential, and is 
nonflammable, essentially non-toxic, and is not a VOC. However, this 
agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100-year GWP of 
6100. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of C3F8, the 
Agency is finding this chemical acceptable only in those limited 
instances where no other alternative is technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements. In most total flooding 
applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8 
exist. EPA intends that users select C3F8 out of need and 
that this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus, a user must 
determine that the requirements of the specific end-use preclude use of 
other available alternatives.
    Users must observe the limitations on C3F8 acceptability 
by undertaking the following measures: (i) conduct an evaluation of 
foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human exposure 
to the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach or result in 
cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity effects under normal 
operating conditions; and (iii) determine that the physical or chemical 
properties or other technical constraints of the other available agents 
preclude their use.
    EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions of this 
agent by limiting testing of C3F8 to that which is essential 
to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering C3F8 
from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or 
servicing; and destroying or recycling C3F8 for later use. 
EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship 
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
    (2) CF3I. CF3I is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute in normally unoccupied areas. Any employee that could 
possibly be in the area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The 
employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area 
during agent discharge.
    CF3I (Halon 13001) is a fluoroiodocarbon with an atmospheric 
lifetime of only 1.15 days due to its rapid photolysis in the presence 
of light. The resulting GWP of this agent is less than one, and its ODP 
when released at ground level is likely to be extremely low, with 
current conservative estimates ranging from .008 to .01. Complete 
analysis of the ozone depleting potential of this agent will be 
available in the near future.
    Anticipating EPA's concern about releases of CF3I from 
aircraft, and the associated likelihood of a higher ODP value when 
released at altitude, the military has conducted an analysis of 
historical releases of Halon 1301 from both military and commercial 
aircraft. Initial assessment indicate that emissions from U.S. military 
aircraft appear to have averaged about 56 pounds annually, of which 2 
pounds were emitted above 30,000 feet. Commercial aircraft worldwide 
released an estimated average of 933 pounds of Halon 1301 annually, of 
which 158 pounds was released above 30,000 feet. While EPA is awaiting 
the results of the ODP calculations of CF3I, it is unlikely that 
such low emissions at high altitude will pose a significant threat to 
the ozone layer.
    Interest in this agent is very high because it may constitute a 
drop-in replacement to Halon 1301 on a weight and volume basis. Initial 
tests have shown its weight equivalence for fire extinguishment to be 
1.36, and its volume equivalence to be 1.0, while for explosion 
inertion it is 1.42 and 1.04 respectively. The research community is 
continuing to qualify the properties of this agent, including its 
materials compatibility, its storage stability and its effectiveness. 
While the manufacturer's SNAP submission only requests listing in 
normally unoccupied areas, preliminary cardiosensitization data 
received by the Agency indicate that CF3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per 
cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent, and thus this agent would not 
suitably be for use in normally occupied areas.
    (3) Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension. Gelled Halocarbon/
Dry Chemical Suspension is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute in normally unoccupied areas. Any employee who could 
possibly be in the area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The 
employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area 
during agent discharge.
    The manufacturer is proposing to blend either of two halocarbons 
(HFC-125 or HFC-134a) with either ammonium polyphosphate (which is not 
corrosive) or monoammonium phosphate (which is corrosive on hard 
surfaces). An initial assessment of inhalation toxicology of fine 
particulates indicates that some risk exists of inhalation exposure 
when the particles are below a certain size compared to the mass per 
cubic meter in air. Particle sizes less than 10 to 15 microns and a 
mass above the ACGIH nuisance dust levels raise concerns which need to 
be further studied. In a total flooding application, the exposure 
levels may be of concern. In addition, because the discharge of powders 
obscures vision, evacuation could be impeded. EPA is asking 
manufacturers of total flooding systems using powdered aerosols to 
submit to the Agency a review of the medical implications of inhaling 
atmospheres flooded with fine powder particulates. While the 
manufacturer requested a SNAP listing for unoccupied areas only, EPA 
would not consider its use in occupied areas until the requested peer 
review is complete. Meanwhile, EPA is finding this technology 
acceptable for use in normally unoccupied areas.
    For further discussion of this agent, including a review of 
particle size distributions, see the listing under ``Streaming Agents--
Acceptable.''
    (4) Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol Blend. Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol 
Blend is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in normally unoccupied 
areas. In areas where personnel could possibly be present, as in a 
cargo area, the employer shall provide a pre-discharge employee alarm 
capable of being perceived above ambient light or noise levels for 
alerting employees before system discharge. The pre-discharge alarm 
shall provide employees time to safely exit the discharge area prior to 
system discharge.
    This alternative agent is formulated from a mixture of dry powders 
pressed together into pill form. Upon exposure to heat from a fire, a 
pyrotechnic charge initiates a series of exothermic, gas-producing 
reactions composed mainly of a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and 
water vapor, with small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, 
nitrogen dioxide, and solid residues. The oxygen level in the room is 
largely depleted, thus extinguishing the fire.
    The manufacturer has proposed this technology for use in normally 
unoccupied areas only, such as engine nacelles and engine compartments, 
aircraft dry bay areas and unoccupied cargo areas. Comparing agents 
alone, deployment of 2.0 pounds of this agent at 400 deg.F has an 
equivalent fire suppression effectiveness to 1.0 pound of Halon 1301 at 
70 deg.F.
    This agent has no ODP. The carbon dioxide generated in the 
combustion of this agent has a GWP of 1.
2. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
    a. Total Flooding Agents. (1) C3F8. C3F8 is 
proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives 
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: 
a) due to their physical or chemical properties or b) where human 
exposure to the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or 
result in other unacceptable health effects under normal operating 
conditions. This agent is subject to the use conditions stipulated for 
all total flooding agents, that is:
     Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within 
one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations 
exceeding its NOAEL.
     Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than 
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration 
greater than its LOAEL.
     Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only 
permitted in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any 
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall 
assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent 
discharge.
    Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C3F8 can 
extinguish fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 7.30 
per cent and therefore has a design concentration of 8.8 per cent. The 
cardiotoxic NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its 
extinguishment concentration; therefore, it is safe for use in occupied 
areas. This agent has a weight equivalence of two-to-one by weight 
compared to Halon 1301.
    Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation by 
displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 per cent, a 
design concentration of 22.6 per cent may reduce oxygen levels to 
approximately 16 per cent, the minimum level considered to be required 
to prevent impaired judgement or other physiological effects. Thus, the 
oxygen level resulting from discharge of this agent must be at least 16 
per cent.
    This agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100-
year GWP of 6,100. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of 
C3F8, the Agency is finding this chemical acceptable only in 
those limited instances where no other alternative is technically 
feasible due to performance or safety requirements. In most total 
flooding applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to 
C3F8 exist. EPA intends that users select C3F8 out 
of need and that this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus, 
a user must determine that the requirements of the specific end-use 
preclude use of other available alternatives.
    Users must observe the limitations on C3F8 acceptability 
by undertaking the following measures: (i) conduct an evaluation of 
foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human exposure 
to the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach or result in 
cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity effects under normal 
operating conditions; and (iii) determine that the physical or chemical 
properties or other technical constraints of the other available agents 
preclude their use.
    EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions of this 
agent by limiting testing of C3F8 to that which is essential 
to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering C3F8 
from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or 
servicing; and destroying or recycling C3F8 for later use. 
EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship 
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
    (2) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is acceptable for use 
as a discharge test agent in military uses only. Sulfur Hexafluoride is 
a nonflammable, nontoxic gas which is colorless and odorless. With a 
density of approximately five times that of air, it is one of the 
heaviest known gases. SF6 is relatively inert, and has an 
atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years, with a 100-year, 500-year, and 
1,000-year GWP of 16,100, 26,110 and 32,803 respectively.
    This agent has been developed by the U.S. Navy as a test gas 
simulant in place of halon in new halon total flooding systems on ships 
which have been under construction prior to identification and 
qualification of substitute agents. Halon systems are no longer 
included in designs for new ships. The Navy estimates its annual usage 
to be less than 10,000 pounds annually, decreasing over time. Thus, the 
Agency believes that the quantities involved are not significant.
    While SF6 is not currently used in the commercial sector and 
new halon systems are rarely installed, EPA is proposing a narrowed use 
limit to ensure that emissions of this agent remain minimal. The NFPA 
12a and NFPA 2001 standards recommend that halon or other total 
flooding gases not be used in discharge testing, but that alternative 
methods of ensuring enclosure and piping integrity and system 
functioning be used. Alternative methods can often be used, such as the 
``door fan'' test for enclosure integrity, UL 1058 testing to ensure 
system functioning, pneumatic test of installed piping, and a ``puff'' 
test to ensure against internal blockages in the piping network. These 
stringent design and testing requirements have largely obviated the 
need to perform a discharge test for total flood systems containing 
either Halon 1301 or a substitute agent.
3. Proposed Unacceptable
    a. Total Flooding. (1) HFC-32. HFC-32 is proposed unacceptable as a 
total flooding agent. HFC-32 has been determined to be flammable, with 
a large flammability range, and is therefore inappropriate as a halon 
substitute when used as a pure agent. This agent was proposed 
acceptable in the first SNAP proposed rulemaking (58 FR 28093, May 12, 
1993) but public comment received indicated agreement about the 
flammability characteristics of this agent. EPA is not aware of any 
interest in commercializing this agent as a fire suppression agent.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires that 
federal agencies examine the effects of their regulations on small 
entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a final rule-making, it must prepare a regulatory flexibility 
analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not required if the head of the 
Agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
605(b).
    The agency believes that this final rule will not have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has 
therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of 
the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the rule is 
unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule 
exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and 
formal Agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering 
is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may 
well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential 
substitutes to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they 
may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such 
substitues available.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no 
information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

V. Additional Information

    Contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996, 
Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. (EST).
    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the 
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the 
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the 
Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is 
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program 
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Technology Transfer 
Network (TTN), Clean Air Act Amendment Bulletin Board. The access 
number for users with a 1200 or 2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For 
users with a 9600 bps modem the access number is (919) 541-1447. For 
assistance in accessing this service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal 
business hours (EST).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: September 16, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

Appendix A to the Preamble: Summary of Proposed Decisions 

                          Refrigerants--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       End-Use              Substitute             Decision                           Comments                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 Automobile      HFC-134a, R-401C,     Proposed acceptable   EPA is concerned that the existence of       
 Motor Vehicle Air      HCFC Blend Beta.      when (1) used with    several substitutes in this end-use may     
 Conditioning                                 unique fittings and   increase the likelihood of significant      
 (Retrofit and New                            detailed labels and   refrigerant cross-contamination and         
 Equipment/NIKS).                             (2) all CFC-12 has    potential failure of both air conditioning  
                                              been removed from     systems and recovery/recycling equipment. In
                                              the system prior to   addition, a smooth transition to the use of 
                                              retrofitting. Refer   substitutes strongly depends on the         
                                              to the text for a     continued purity of the recycled CFC-12     
                                              full description..    supply.                                     
                                                                   For the purposes of this rule, no distinction
                                                                    is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in''
                                                                    refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a   
                                                                    new refrigerant includes all procedures that
                                                                    result in the air conditioning system using 
                                                                    a new refrigerant.                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Refrigerants--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       End-Use              Substitute             Decision                           Comments                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-   C3F8, C4F10, C6F12,   Proposed acceptable   Users must observe the limitations on PFC    
 113, CFC-114, CFC-     C6F11NO, C6F14,       only where no other   acceptability by determining that the       
 115 Non-Mechanical     C6F13NO, C7F16,       alternatives are      physical or chemical properties or other    
 Heat Transfer          C7F15NO, C8F18,       technically           technical constraints of the other available
 (Retrofit and New).    C8F16O, AND C9F21N.   feasible due to       agents preclude their use. Documentation of 
                                              safety or             such measures must be available for review  
                                              performance           upon request.                               
                                              requirements.        The principal environmental characteristic of
                                                                    concern for PFCs is that they have high GWPs
                                                                    and long atmospheric lifetimes.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Refrigerants--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       End-Use              Substitute             Decision                           Comments                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-   R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 113, CFC-114, R-500                          Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 Centrifugal Chillers                                               substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 (Retrofit and New                                                                                              
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12 Reciprocating   R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 Chillers (Retrofit                           Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 and New Equipment/                                                 substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 NIKs).                                                                                                         
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-502  R-403B..............  Proposed              R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an   
 Industrial Process                           Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 Refrigeration                                                      substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 (Retrofit and New                                                                                              
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
                                              Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
                                                                    substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
CFC-12, R-502 Ice      R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 Skating Rinks                                Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 (Retrofit and New                                                  substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12, R-502 Cold     R-403B..............  Proposed              R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an   
 Storage Warehouses                           Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 (Retroit and New                                                   substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
                                              Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
                                                                    substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12, R-500, R-502   R-403B..............  Proposed              R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an   
 Refrigerated                                 Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 Transport (Retrofit                                                substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 and New Equipment/                                                                                             
 NIKs).                                                                                                         
                       R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
                                              Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
                                                                    substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12, R-502 Retail   R-403B..............  Proposed              R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an   
 Food Refrigeration                           Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 (Retrofit and New                                                  substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
                                              Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
                                                                    substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12, R-502          R-403B..............  Proposed              R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an   
 Commercial Ice                               Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 Machines (Retrofit                                                 substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 and New Equipment/                                                                                             
 NIKs).                                                                                                         
                       R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
                                              Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
                                                                    substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12 Vending         R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 Machines (Retrofit                           Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 and New Equipment/                                                 substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 NIKs).                                                                                                         
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12 Water Coolers   R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 (Retrofit and New                            Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                   substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12 Household       R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 Refrigerators                                Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 (Retrofit and New                                                  substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12, R-502          R-403B..............  Proposed              R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an   
 Household Freezers                           Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 (Retrofit and New                                                  substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
                                              Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
                                                                    substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12, R-500          R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 Residential                                  Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 Dehumidifiers                                                      substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 (Retrofit and New                                                                                              
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
CFC-12 Motor Vehicle   R-405A..............  Proposed              R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an  
 Air Conditioners                             Unacceptable.         extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other      
 (Retrofit and New                                                  substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
 Equipment/NIKs).                                                                                               
                       Hydrocarbon Blend     Proposed              Flammability is a serious concern. Data have 
                        Beta.                 Unacceptable.         not been submitted to demonstrate it can be 
                                                                    used safely in this end-use.                
                       Flammable             Proposed              The risks associated with using flammable    
                        Substitutes.          Unacceptable.         substitutes in this end-use have not been   
                                                                    addressed by a risk assessment.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions Substitutes               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Application          Substitute           Decision           Conditions                  Comments            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics         HCFC-225 ca/cb....  Acceptable........  Subject to the      HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered 
 Cleaning w/CFC-                                             company set         as a 45%-ca/55%-cb blend. The  
 113, MCF.                                                   exposure limit of   company set exposure limit of  
                                                             25 ppm of the -ca   the -ca isomer is 25 ppm. The  
                                                             isomer.             company set exposure limit of  
                                                                                 the -cb isomer is 250 ppm. It  
                                                                                 is the Agency's opinion that   
                                                                                 with the low emission cold     
                                                                                 cleaning and vapor degreasing  
                                                                                 equipment designed for this    
                                                                                 use, the 25 ppm limit of the   
                                                                                 HCFC-225 ca isomer can be met. 
                                                                                 The company is submitting      
                                                                                 further exposure monitoring    
                                                                                 data.                          
Precision Cleaning  HCFC-225 ca/cb....  Acceptable........  Subject to the      HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered 
 w/CFC-113, MCF.                                             company set         as a 45%-ca/55%-cb blend. The  
                                                             exposure limit of   company set exposure limit of  
                                                             25 ppm of the -ca   the -ca isomer is 25 ppm. The  
                                                             isomer.             company set exposure limit of  
                                                                                 the -cb isomer is 250 ppm. It  
                                                                                 is the Agency's opinion that   
                                                                                 with the low emission cold     
                                                                                 cleaning and vapor degreasing  
                                                                                 equipment designed for this    
                                                                                 use, the 25 ppm limit of the   
                                                                                 HCFC-225 ca isomer can be met. 
                                                                                 The company is submitting      
                                                                                 further exposure monitoring    
                                                                                 data.                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       End use              Substitute             Decision                          Comments                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC- Dibromomethane......  Unacceptable........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.          
 113.                                                                                                           
Metals cleaning w/MCF  Dibromomethane......  Unacceptable........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.          
Electronics cleaning   Dibromomethane......  Unacceptable........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.          
 w/CFC-113.                                                                                                     
Electronics cleaning   Dibromomethane......  Unacceptable........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.          
 w/MCF.                                                                                                         
Precision cleaning w/  Dibromomethane......  Unacceptable........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.          
 CFC-113.                                                                                                       
Precision cleaning w/  Dibromomethane......  Unacceptable........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.          
 MCF.                                                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Application         Substitute           Decision           Conditions                  Comments            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301........  C3F8..............  Proposed            Until OSHA          The comparative design          
Total flooding                           acceptable where    establishes         concentration based on cup     
 agents                                  other               applicable          burner values is approximately 
                                         alternatives are    workplace           8.8%.                          
                                         not technically     requirements, EPA  Users must observe the          
                                         feasible due to     proposes: For       limitations on PFC             
                                         performance or      occupied areas      acceptability by making        
                                         safety              from which          reasonable efforts to undertake
                                         requirements:       personnel cannot    the following measures:        
                                        a. due to their      be evacuated in    (i) conduct an evaluation of    
                                         physical or         one minute, use     foreseeable conditions of end  
                                         chemical            is permitted only   use;                           
                                         properties, or      up to              (ii) determine that human       
                                        b. where human       concentrations      exposure to the other          
                                         exposure to the     not exceeding the   alternative extinguishing      
                                         extinguishing       cardiotoxicity      agents may approach or result  
                                         agents may          NOAEL of 30.        in cardiosensitization or other
                                         approach           Although no LOAEL    unacceptable toxicity effects  
                                         cardiosensitizati   has been            under normal operating         
                                         on levels or        established for     conditions; and                
                                         result in other     this product,      (iii) determine that the        
                                         unacceptable        standard OSHA       physical or chemical properties
                                         health effects      requirements        or other technical constraints 
                                         under normal        apply, i.e. for     of the other available agents  
                                         operating           occupied areas      preclude their use;            
                                         conditions.         from which         Documentation of such measures  
                                                             personnel can be    must be available for review   
                                                             evacuated or        upon request.                  
                                                             egress can occur   The principal environmental     
                                                             between 30 and 60   characteristic of concern for  
                                                             seconds, use is     PFCs is that they have high    
                                                             permitted up to a   GWPs and long atmospheric      
                                                             concentration not   lifetimes. Actual contributions
                                                             exceeding the       to global warming depend upon  
                                                             LOAEL.              the quantities of PFCs emitted.
                                                            All personnel must  For additional guidance         
                                                             be evacuated        regarding applications in which
                                                             before              PFCs may be appropriate, users 
                                                             concentration of    should consult the description 
                                                             C3F8 exceeds 30%.   of potential uses which is     
                                                            Design               included in the March 18, 1994 
                                                             concentration       Rulemaking (59 FR 13043).      
                                                             must result in     See additional comments 1, 2, 3,
                                                             oxygen levels of    4.                             
                                                             at least 16%.                                      
                    CF3I..............  Proposed            EPA proposes that   Manufacturer has not applied for
                                         acceptable in       any employee who    listing for use in normally    
                                         normally            could possibly be   occupied areas. Preliminary    
                                         unoccupied areas.   in the area must    cardiosensitization data       
                                                             be able to escape   indicates that this agent would
                                                             within 30           not be suitable for use in     
                                                             seconds. The        normally occupied areas.       
                                                             employer shall     EPA is awaiting results of ODP  
                                                             assure that no      calculations.                  
                                                             unprotected        See additional comments 1, 2, 3,
                                                             employees enter     4.                             
                                                             the area during                                    
                                                             agent discharge.                                   
                    Gelled halocarbon/  Proposed            EPA proposes that   The manufacturer's SNAP         
                     dry chemical        acceptable in       any employee who    application requested listing  
                     suspension.         normally            could possibly be   for use in unoccupied areas    
                                         unoccupied areas.   in the area must    only.                          
                                                             be able to escape  See additional comment 2.       
                                                             within 30                                          
                                                             seconds. The                                       
                                                             employer shall                                     
                                                             assure that no                                     
                                                             unprotected                                        
                                                             employees enter                                    
                                                             the area during                                    
                                                             agent discharge.                                   
                    Inert gas/powdered  Proposed            In areas where      The manufacturer's SNAP         
                     aerosol blend.      acceptable as a     personnel could     application requested listing  
                                         Halon 1301          possibly be         for use in unoccupied areas    
                                         substitute in       present, as in a    only.                          
                                         normally            cargo area, EPA    See additional comment 2.       
                                         unoccupied areas.   proposes that the                                  
                                                             employer shall                                     
                                                             provide a pre-                                     
                                                             discharge                                          
                                                             employee alarm                                     
                                                             capable of being                                   
                                                             perceived above                                    
                                                             ambient light or                                   
                                                             noise levels for                                   
                                                             alerting                                           
                                                             employees before                                   
                                                             system discharge.                                  
                                                             The pre-discharge                                  
                                                             alarm shall                                        
                                                             provide employees                                  
                                                             time to safely                                     
                                                             exit the                                           
                                                             discharge area                                     
                                                             prior to system                                    
                                                             discharge.                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments                                                                                             
1--Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.                              
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must enter/reenter the
  area.                                                                                                         
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance   
  requirements.                                                                                                 
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and  
  recycled for later use or destroyed.                                                                          


  Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding 
                                                     Agents                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Application         Substitute           Decision           Conditions                  Comments            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301........  C3F8..............  Proposed            Until OSHA          The comparative design          
Total flooding                           acceptable where    establishes         concentration based on cup     
 agents.                                 other               applicable          burner values is approximately 
                                         alternatives are    workplace           8.8%.                          
                                         not technically     requirements:      Users must observe the          
                                         feasible due to    For occupied areas   limitations on PFC             
                                         performance or      from which          acceptability by making        
                                         safety              personnel cannot    reasonable efforts to undertake
                                         requirements:       be evacuated in     the following measures:        
                                        a. due to their      one minute, use    (i) conduct an evaluation of    
                                         physical or         is permitted only   foreseeable conditions of end  
                                         chemical            up to               use;                           
                                         properties, or      concentrations     (ii) determine that human       
                                        b. where human       not exceeding the   exposure to the other          
                                         exposure to the     cardiotoxicity      alternative extinguishing      
                                         extinguishing       NOAEL of 30%.       agents may approach or result  
                                         agents may         Although no LOAEL    in cardiosensitization or other
                                         approach            has been            unacceptable toxicity effects  
                                         cardiosensitizati   established for     under normal operating         
                                         on levels or        this product,       conditions; and                
                                         result in other     standard OSHA      (iii) determine that the        
                                         unacceptable        requirements        physical or chemical properties
                                         health effects      apply, i.e. for     or other technical constraints 
                                         under normal        occupied areas      of the other available agents  
                                         operating           from which          preclude their use;            
                                         conditions.         personnel can be   Documentation of such measures  
                                                             evacuated or        must be available for review   
                                                             egress can occur    upon request.                  
                                                             between 30 and 60  The principal environmental     
                                                             seconds, use is     characteristic of concern for  
                                                             permitted up to a   PFCs is that they have high    
                                                             concentration not   GWPs and long atmospheric      
                                                             exceeding the       lifetimes. Actual contributions
                                                             LOAEL.              to global warming depend upon  
                                                            All personnel must   the quantities of PFCs emitted.
                                                             be evacuated       For additional guidance         
                                                             before              regarding applications in which
                                                             concentration of    PFCs may be appropriate, users 
                                                             C3F8 exceeds 30%.   should consult the description 
                                                            Design               of potential uses which is     
                                                             concentration       included in the March 18, 1994 
                                                             must result in      Final Rulemaking (58 FR 13043).
                                                             oxygen levels of                                   
                                                             at least 16%..                                     
                    Sulfurhexafluoride  Proposed            ..................  This agent has an atmospheric   
                     (SF6).              acceptable as a                         lifetime greater than 1,000    
                                         discharge test                          years, with an estimated 100-  
                                         agent in military                       year, 500-year, and 1,000-year 
                                         uses only.                              GWP of 16,100, 26,110, and     
                                                                                 32,803 respectively. Users     
                                                                                 should limit testing only to   
                                                                                 that which is essential to meet
                                                                                 safety or performance          
                                                                                 requirements.                  
                                                                                This agent is only used to test 
                                                                                 new Halon 1301 systems.        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application            Substitute             Decision                           Comments                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301...........  HFC-32..............  Proposed              Data indicate that HFC-32 is flammable and   
Total flooding                                unacceptable.         therefore is not suitable as a halon        
 agents.                                                            substitute.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-23678 Filed 9-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P