[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31092-31107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14337]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5219-1]
RIN 2060-AF99


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule restricts or prohibits 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.
    In this final rule, EPA is issuing decisions on the acceptability 
of certain substitutes proposed by the Agency on September 26, 1994 (59 
FR 49108). 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.
    Public comments received regarding this rulemaking have been fully 
summarized and responded to in the relevant sector sections of this 
rule. Therefore, no separate comment response document has been 
developed to accompany this rulemaking. Copies of the eleven public 
comments received on the NPRM are available in the public docket 
supporting this final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on July 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained in Air 
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 5:30 p.m. weekdays. 
Telephone (202) 260-7549. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable 
fee may be charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Information 
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time or 
Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax (202) 233-9577, Substitutes 
Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, 401 M 
Street, SW (6205J), Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Section 612 Program
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Regulatory History
III. Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Administrative Information

I. Background

    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued 
its initial list of decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability 
of a number of substitutes. Since the March 1994 rulemaking, EPA has 
continued to evaluate and approve substitutes as they are submitted to 
the program.

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. 
[[Page 31093]] 
     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. 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 FRM.
    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 includes 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 determine 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 applications and end-uses which are not specified 
as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes 
unacceptable.
    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 adds 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 C. below present a detailed discussion of the 
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables 
summarizing listing decisions in this final rule are in the Appendix A. 
The comments contained in the 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 
describe 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 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 systems;
     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;
     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 FRM.
    EPA has modified the list of end-uses for this sector for this SNAP 
update. EPA added a new end-use, very low temperature refrigeration. 
Substitutes [[Page 31094]] for this end-use had been reviewed since the 
final rule, and therefore were added to the August 26, 1994 Notice. 
Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a detailed 
description of end-uses other than these. EPA may continue to add other 
end-uses in future SNAP updates.
a. 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 that extremely low temperature regimes are required. Although 
some substitutes may work in both these extremely low temperatures and 
in systems designed to use R-502, they may be acceptable only for this 
end-use because of global warming and atmospheric lifetime concerns. 
These concerns are discussed more fully below.
2. Response to Comments
    a. Use conditions for automotive refrigerants. Two commenters 
requested changes in the information proposed for labels to be placed 
on automobiles retrofitted to use alternative refrigerants. They 
explained that label space is constrained and requested that the 
statements related to the ozone-depleting nature of automotive 
refrigerants be deleted. EPA agrees that the proposed statements were 
too cumbersome. This FRM shortens the relevant phrase for ozone-
depleting refrigerants and eliminates the phrase for non-ozone-
depleting refrigerants.
    One commenter stated that EPA does not have the authority to 
require unique fittings and labels for automotive retrofits. In fact, 
EPA believes its broad mandate under SNAP does provide the authority. 
One important goal of the SNAP program is to ease the transition away 
from ozone-depleting substances. As the number of acceptable 
alternatives increases, the likelihood of contaminating the supply of 
recycled CFC-12 increases. EPA believes the fitting and label 
requirements will help protect consumers and the environment by 
preserving the purity of recycled CFC-12. The requirements will also 
help ensure that clear information exists about the contents of motor 
vehicle air conditioning systems. In addition, EPA has received a 
petition requesting a requirement for fittings and labels. Several 
commenters strongly supported EPA's efforts to reduce the risks of 
cross-contamination of various alternatives. Therefore, this FRM 
retains the fitting and label provisions from the NPRM.
    Several commenters expressed concern that listing a refrigerant 
acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions implies that it is 
effective in all systems, that it is compatible with existing 
equipment, and that it will not affect system life. EPA believes the 
purpose of the SNAP program is to review the human health and 
environmental implications of alternatives and not to ensure the 
effectiveness of new refrigerants or the long-term viability of 
equipment. Certainly the SNAP lists should serve as a useful reference 
to the user community. However, one of the guiding principles of the 
SNAP program is to let the market decide whether there exists a 
``best'' alternative.
    Several commenters asked EPA to require a label for flammable non-
automotive refrigerants. EPA will consider this idea when reviewing 
future submissions.
    b. HCFC Blend Beta and R-401C. Several commenters expressed concern 
that these blends contain flammable substances. As discussed in the 
NPRM, testing has shown that HCFC Blend Beta and R-401C are not 
flammable and do not become flammable through fractionation. Several 
other acceptable refrigerants contain hydrocarbons and other flammable 
components, which can add to a blend's effectiveness. If these 
components are present in small enough amounts, the blends are 
nonflammable.
    Several commenters raised the issue of selective absorption of 
flammable components by the lubricant. They are concerned that over 
time, the oil will concentrate the flammable hydrocarbon, possibly 
yielding a flammable mixture in the system. EPA is not aware of any 
data validating this claim. However, should information become 
available, EPA invites a petition to review its decision on HCFC Blend 
Beta.
    Several commenters expressed concern that HCFC Blend Beta and
R-401C contain class II compounds, HCFC-22 and HCFC-124, respectively. 
While these compounds do contribute to ozone depletion, EPA controls 
their production under the accelerated phaseout. As in the stationary 
end-uses, EPA believes the HCFCs have a role as transitional 
refrigerants. Until the end of production, HCFCs can help ease the 
switch away from the CFCs by providing additional alternatives.
    Several commenters suggest that using blend refrigerants will not 
reduce the cost of retrofitting existing cars to use HFC-134a. Using 
other refrigerants may help reduce these costs for some range of 
models. However, even if it were possible to devise a reliable measure 
of cost reductions for individual cars, EPA's primary interest is the 
human health and environmental issues associated with a refrigerant. 
The market will determine any substitute's success based on cost.
    c. R-403B and R-405A. Several commenters requested that EPA 
consider other factors besides global warming potential (GWP) and 
lifetime and approve R-403B and R-405A, which contain high 
concentrations of perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as substitutes for R-502 and 
CFC-12, respectively. EPA considers energy savings, flammability, and 
toxicity, in addition to ozone depletion potential and global warming 
potential, in its SNAP review. The PFCs as a class have extremely long 
lifetimes and very high GWPs. In addition to potential global warming 
caused by PFCs, their lifetimes mean that any unanticipated effects 
would be irreversible. These factors are significantly higher than 
those of any other class of refrigerants. Although the average GWP of a 
blend may be lower than that of the individual components, when 
released to the atmosphere the components act independently. Thus, the 
PFCs' high GWP and long lifetime will have the same impact as if they 
had been released as pure substances. In accordance with the SNAP 
guiding principles, EPA does not intend to make fine distinctions. 
However, the lifetime and GWP of PFCs pose higher overall risk than the 
other available substitutes.
    Several commenters point out that because R-403B contains HCFC-22, 
intentional venting is already prohibited under section 608, and 
therefore [[Page 31095]] emissions would be minimal. This claim ignores 
the substantial leakage emissions from nearly all refrigeration 
equipment, and especially retail food and industrial refrigeration 
systems.
    One commenter expressed concern that EPA was forcing industry to 
use
R-402A, another refrigerant deemed acceptable under SNAP. EPA 
disagrees, as it has already listed several other alternatives for R-
502, including
R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-408A, and R-507. The commenter also stated 
that using refrigerants other than R-403B would result in the 
production of an untenable amount of contaminated oil requiring special 
handling under RCRA. Exemptions exist for CFC-contaminated oil, and the 
volumes involved would be absorbed easily into the existing used oil 
infrastructure.
    One commenter stated that EPA had departed from its usual listing 
of PFCs as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, and requested 
that EPA include R-403B in the same category. However, EPA has only 
found PFCs acceptable where no other alternative is feasible from a 
technical or safety perspective. A large number of other acceptable 
substitutes exist for R-502 that contain substances with much lower 
GWPs and shorter lifetimes. Thus, this FRM promulgates the 
unacceptability determinations for R-403B and R-405A.
    However, two commenters requested that EPA consider grandfathering 
existing uses of R-403B. In two specific cases, EPA determined that 
grandfathering is appropriate: Industrial process refrigeration and 
refrigerated transport. These cases are explained in detail in the 
section discussing R-403B.
    d. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). One commenter requests that EPA not 
impose a narrowed use limit on PFCs used in heat transfer applications. 
The commenter further suggests that this designation is inconsistent 
with previous narrowed use limits imposed in other sectors. The 
commenter also indicated that EPA has already received ample proof of 
several applications where PFCs are the only viable alternatives.
    EPA believes the PFCs may be the only viable substitutes for 
specific types of existing heat transfer equipment. For example, as 
listed in the SNAP FRM, uranium enrichment plants are already an 
acceptable use for PFCs. This user has already demonstrated that no 
other substitute would work. EPA agrees with the commenter that for 
existing equipment, sufficient evidence exists that no substitutes 
other than PFCs exist. Thus, EPA is allowing the use of PFCs in 
retrofit and existing system designs only.
    For new equipment designs, however, EPA believes other alternatives 
may well exist. Therefore, for new equipment designs, users must 
conduct a study to determine that no other alternative is feasible. 
Note that users need only retain the analysis for their own records; no 
submission of information to EPA is required.
    If EPA were to grant unconditional acceptability, there would be no 
requirement for users to examine other substitutes before adopting 
PFCs. EPA has articulated the view that, because of their high GWPs and 
very long lifetimes, PFCs must remain alternatives of last resort; in 
other words, their use should be limited to those areas where no other 
means exist to replace ODS. While the niche market for PFCs in heat 
transfer applications may be small, EPA has a strong interest in 
restricting its growth. As discussed above, PFCs have extremely long 
lifetimes and high GWPs. EPA strongly encourages manufacturers to 
devise other means of replacing the ODS used in heat transfer.
    The commenter also objects to EPA's description of PFCs as agents 
of last resort. EPA maintains that for new heat transfer equipment, 
systems should use PFCs only where no other alternatives will work. For 
the reasons described in the paragraph above, this FRM retains the 
original language.
    However, EPA agrees with the commenter's request to provide 
additional guidance about the types of systems that may require PFCs. 
EPA has included specific examples in the listing for PFCs.
    The commenter also objected to EPA's reference to future 
rulemakings under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. EPA agrees and has 
removed the reference.
    The commenter further believes EPA should grant acceptance to the 
use of PFCs in several specific end-uses, rather than issuing a 
narrowed use limit determination for heat transfer as a whole. The 
commenter cites as an example the listing of PFCs as acceptable for use 
in uranium enrichment plants. EPA believes that heat transfer systems 
bear enough similarity to be included under one end-use. The 
substitutes list should not be complicated by too many subcategories 
which would result in significant redundancy. The distinction between 
retrofit and new use will allow existing equipment to use non-ODS 
substitutes while still restricting the design of new systems that 
would use PFCs. For the reasons stated above, EPA believes it is 
important to place such a restriction on the design of new systems. 
However, even within new use, the narrowed use limit is intended to 
allow the use of an otherwise unacceptable substitute in cases where 
nothing else is feasible from a safety or technical perspective.
    The commenter also expresses a belief that EPA should not include 
heat transfer systems within the refrigeration and air conditioning 
sector. EPA disagrees and has already issued a final applicability 
determination that Vaportran transformers are appliances that fall 
under regulations issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. While 
heat transfer is not refrigeration in the thermodynamic sense of moving 
heat from a cool area to a warm one, it is a process aimed at 
temperature control.
    The commenter further notes that EPA indicated that the 
refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all mechanical and 
non-mechanical refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat transfer. The 
commenter believes this statement causes confusion by neglecting to 
define ``non-mechanical refrigeration.'' EPA's intention was to include 
alternative processes that do not use a refrigerant in the strictest 
sense, such as evaporative cooling or absorption cycle machinery. The 
term ``mechanical'' is intended to refer to compressor-drive vapor 
compression cycle systems. However, EPA agrees that the statement in 
the NPRM was confusing and has removed the reference to non-mechanical 
refrigeration in this FRM.
    e. Hydrocarbon Blend B. One commenter requested that EPA find 
Hydrocarbon Blend B acceptable based on several reports. EPA had 
previously reviewed the bulk of these reports and found them 
insufficient to demonstrate the safety of this substitute. In addition, 
the statement that Hydrocarbon Blend B has a high ignition point is 
misleading. This blend readily ignites at room temperature in the 
presence of a spark or a flame. No report has supported the notion that 
this blend must be heated to very high temperatures before it will 
propagate a flame. As stated in the SNAP FRM on March 18, 1994, EPA 
requires a comprehensive, scientifically valid risk assessment if a 
refrigerant is flammable, and no such study has been performed. EPA 
therefore maintains its position that Hydrocarbon Blend B is 
unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in automobiles and several 
other end-uses.
3. 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), 
[[Page 31096]] 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.
4. Listing Decisions
    a. Acceptable. CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115 Heat 
Transfer, Retrofit and Existing Equipment Designs.
    (a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are acceptable as 
substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in 
retrofitted heat transfer systems and in existing designs. Although EPA 
normally discusses acceptable substitutes in its Notices, this decision 
is the result of comments received on the proposal. PFCs covered by 
this determination are C3F8, C4F10, 
C5F12, C5F11NO, C6F14, C6F13NO, 
C7F16, C7F15NO, C8F18, C8F16O, 
and C9F21N. PFCs offer high dielectric resistance, 
noncorrosivity, thermal stability, materials compatibility, chemical 
inertness, low toxicity, and nonflammability. In addition, they do not 
contribute to ground-level ozone formation or stratospheric ozone 
depletion. 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 listing PFCs as 
acceptable in heat transfer 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.
    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; and
     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 upon consideration of cost 
and timing of testing and implementation of new substitutes. EPA urges 
industry to develop new alternatives for this end-use that do not 
contain substances with such high GWPs and long lifetimes.
    b. 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 imposing 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. It should be noted that 
EPA primarily reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health 
factors. Issues related to performance and durability fall outside the 
scope of SNAP review.
    To meet the requirements under section 612, 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 
numerical designation of the refrigerant;
* The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used;
* If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, the 
phrase ``ozone depleter''; and
* If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as blended, 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.

    [[Page 31097]]  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 SNAP 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 substitutes available 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, which consists of HCFC-124, 
HFC-134a, and isobutane, 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.
c. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
    (1) CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115 Heat Transfer, New. 
(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in heat transfer 
systems 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. The principal characteristic of concern for PFCs is 
that they have very 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.
    Despite concerns about high global warming potential, EPA is 
listing PFCs as acceptable in certain limited applications because a 
PFC may be the only substitute that can satisfy safety or performance 
requirements. These requirements might include very high dielectric 
strength, noncorrosivity, thermal stability, materials compatibility, 
and chemical inertness. In addition, PFCs do not contribute to 
stratospheric ozone depletion. Examples of applications where PFCs may 
represent the only alternative to ODS include uranium isotope 
separation, chemical processing, electrical inverters, ozone generation 
for water purification, space simulators, air purification, and 
integrated chip manufacturing.
    Users should note, however, that use of a PFC should be an ODS 
substitute of last resort. As the determination states, PFCs should be 
used ``only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due to 
safety or performance requirements.'' Potential users are required to 
conduct a thorough review of other more environmentally acceptable 
substitutes. Although EPA does not require users to submit the results 
of their substitute evaluation, 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; and
     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 would determine whether to grandfather existing uses based 
upon consideration of cost and timing of testing and implementation of 
new substitutes.
    d. Unacceptable Substitutes. (1) R-403B. R-403B, which consists of 
HCFC-22, R-218, and propane, is 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, 
which pose additional risk beyond that of other acceptable substitutes 
for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-218 is over 2000 
years, which means that global warming effects would be essentially 
irreversible. While other substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not 
exhibit such long lifetimes. [[Page 31098]] 
    In addition to direct global warming effects, EPA considers 
indirect impacts associated with changes in energy efficiency. Many 
manufacturers, including that of R-403B, claim energy efficiency gains 
associated with their products. Such gains are highly dependent on 
equipment type, ambient conditions, optimization of the system, and 
other factors. No data demonstrate, however, that R-403B would produce 
such large indirect benefits as to overcome the direct impact of its 
use as compared to the use of other already acceptable substitutes. 
Thus, EPA performed no detailed analysis of the indirect global warming 
impacts of R-403B.
    As discussed in the SNAP FRM, the Agency is authorized to 
grandfather existing uses from a prohibition where appropriate under 
the four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 
(D.C. Cir. 1983). As requested by two commenters, the Agency has 
conducted the four analyses required under this test, and has concluded 
that the balance of equities favors the grandfathering of two current 
uses of R-403B. Within industrial process refrigeration, use of R-403B 
is permitted until supplies purchased prior to September 26, 1994, the 
date EPA proposed to list R-403B as unacceptable, are exhausted. Within 
refrigerated transport, R-403B may be used in systems converted to its 
use as of September 26, 1994 for the lifetime of that particular 
equipment. No use outside these two specific cases is allowed.
    Under the first prong of the Sierra Club analysis, the prohibition 
set forth in this action clearly represents a departure from previously 
established practice, as use of this substitute was not previously 
restricted. However, through the proposed action on September 26, 1994 
EPA provided notice that it was considering a change to this previous 
practice. Therefore, existing users of R-403B who, prior to September 
26, 1994, switched from class I substances and invested in this 
substitute on the assumption that it would be a sufficient improvement 
over the class I used, relied on the fact that use of R-403B was 
unrestricted. Prohibiting their use of the substitute immediately would 
impose a severe economic burden on these users. Although there is a 
substantial interest in applying this requirement immediately, this 
interest is balanced by the fact that the restriction will apply 
immediately to new equipment using R-403B. Therefore, the requirement 
will apply immediately to a substantial number of systems and there 
will be no incentive for future investment in R-403B equipment. These 
factors taken together outweigh any statutory interest in applying the 
new rule immediately to existing users who had invested in R-403 prior 
to September 26, 1994.
    (2) R-405A. R-405A, which is composed of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, HCFC-
142b, and R-c318, is 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. In 
particular, the lifetime of R-c318 is over 3000 years, which means that 
global warming effects would be essentially irreversible. While other 
substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long 
lifetimes.
    In addition to direct global warming effects, EPA considers 
indirect impacts associated with changes in energy efficiency. Many 
refrigerant manufacturers claim energy efficiency gains associated with 
their products. Such gains are highly dependent on equipment type, 
ambient conditions, optimization of the system, and other factors. No 
data demonstrate, however, that R-405A would produce such large 
indirect benefits as to overcome the direct impact of its use as 
compared to the use of other already acceptable substitutes. Thus, EPA 
performed no detailed analysis of the indirect global warming impacts 
of R-405A.
(3) Hydrocarbon Blend B.--Hydrocarbon Blend B is 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. Use of this substitute in very 
leaky end-uses like motor vehicle air conditioning may pose a high risk 
of fire. EPA requires that 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 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 
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 end-use and charge size.
    In motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACS), flammable 
refrigerants pose risks not found in stationary equipment, including 
the potential for explosions in collisions, potential punctures of the 
condenser because of its placement directly behind the grille, 
potential punctures of flexible hoses, the hazard to technicians who 
are not 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 may pose 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 
[[Page 31099]] substitutes from being sold without 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 an 
acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning 
subject to a 25 ppm occupational exposure level for the ca-isomer. The 
use condition is based on the toxicity of this chemical. The Agency's 
analysis of this substitute found that the exposure limit indicated is 
sufficient to protect worker health and that this limit can be met with 
exposure controls. The exposure limit of the HCFC-225 cb isomer is 250 
ppm. The new limit for the ca-isomer should be readily achievable since 
HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45%/55%) blend of ca- and cb-
isomers. In addition, the cleaning equipment where HCFC-225 is used is 
characterized by low emissions, and the manufacturer of HCFC-225 is 
currently conducting personal monitoring to corroborate the projected 
emission levels.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.
    b. Precision Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is an 
acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning subject 
to a 25 ppm occupational exposure level for the ca-isomer. The reasons 
for this decision are described in the preceding section.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes
    a. Metals Cleaning. (1) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane (DBM) is an 
unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. 
Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP (.17), and EPA's analysis 
of use of this chemical in cleaning processes revealed correspondingly 
high ozone depletion effects. In the case of DBM, the Agency's concern 
for high ODP is compounded by the fact that DBM can in some cases be 
used as a drop-in replacement, which could result in greater 
probability of uncontrolled venting to the atmosphere. Since other 
alternatives with lower overall environmental impacts exist for the 
cleaning processes in question, EPA elected to ban use of DBM as a 
cleaning substitute.
    b. Electronics Cleaning. (2) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is an 
unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. 
Reasons for this decision are described in the preceding section.
    c. Precision Cleaning. (3) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is an 
unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning. 
Reasons for this decision are described in the preceding section.

c. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Response to Comments
    One commenter believes that CF3I should not be acceptable for 
use in any fire protection applications until two-year chronic testing 
is done, and should be treated as a suspect carcinogen as defined by 
OSHA regulations, along with appropriate warnings for handlers.
    The commenter bases his belief on two points. First, the commenter 
suggests that the cardiosensitization test resulting in death of a test 
animal is not like the results from Halon 1211, CFC-11 or HCFC-123, 
which resulted in heart arrhythmias followed by recovery when the test 
animal was removed from exposure.
    Second, the commenter states that the results of the genotoxicity 
tests give positive indications that CF3I is potentially a 
carcinogen. The commenter states that the structural relationship of 
CF3I to CH3I, which the commenter states is a known skin 
carcinogen, increases the likelihood that CF3I is a carcinogen.
    The cardiosensitization protocol incorporates simulation of a 
worse-case response by injecting the test animal with epinephrine prior 
to administering the test agent. The standard protocol interpretation 
requires observation of at least five life-threatening ventricular 
arrhythmias in order to conclude that the LOAEL has been attained. This 
response is a precursor to the imminent death of the animal.
    In addition, the response of an animal to a cardiosensitizing agent 
is somewhat random. Whereas one animal may experience heart 
arrhythmias, another animal might experience immediate death by the 
same dose. Thus, the observations of ventricular arrhythmias are 
considered to be the same as observations of death and both are 
considered valid indicators of the LOAEL value.
    Regarding the commenters' concern that CF3I is a carcinogen, 
EPA conducts a risk assessment of an agent by initially asking 
qualitative questions such as: ``Is the structure of the compound 
likely to be carcinogenic, and does the agent test positive in a 
mutagenesis assay? If so, how potent is the reaction, in other words, 
what dosage level gives a positive reaction?''
    CF3I is not a known carcinogen, although it tested positive in 
a mutagenicity screening assay to determine which are potential 
candidates for further testing. The Ames mutagenicity test used as a 
predictor of carcinogenicity is accurate as a predictor approximately 
50 per cent of the time. The ability of this assay to predict for 
carcinogenicity, even given the positive finding, is questionable in 
the case of halogenated compounds.
    Even should it be determined in a two-year carcinogenicity bioassay 
that the agent is a carcinogen, its use under the particular conditions 
representative of fire suppression applications in which could be 
expected only one or a few exposures in a life time, is likely not to 
constitute a cancer risk. A cancer risk usually requires long term 
exposure to the agent.
    If the agent is a very good fire agent, on balance, the risk to 
protect lives overrides the remote concern of carcinogenicity from the 
agent. In such a case, for those situations where a manufacturing or 
service worker or fire fighter would be repeatedly exposed, appropriate 
precautions would be taken. A firefighter is not training in an 
environment where he is not already protected. And in industrial 
settings, the acceptable exposure limits are set using the subchronic 
and chronic data that is available and due precautions are taken, as in 
any other industrial chemical use.
    One commenter requested that the use restrictions on SF6 be 
altered to allow its use as a discharge test agent for all civilian as 
well as military aircraft fire suppression systems. The commenter 
reported that research efforts by private companies, the U.S. Navy, and 
the National Institute for Standards and Technology have identified 
SF6 as the preferred test agent for simulating halon 1301 in 
aircraft fire suppression systems. The commenter indicated that the 
amount of SF6 released in developing and certifying new commercial 
aircraft will be approximately 1,000 pounds per year or less. 
[[Page 31100]] 
    EPA concurs with the commenter's request. EPA is aware that the 
airline industry is conducting a strategic research effort to identify 
new agents for use in new aircraft. Meanwhile, airlines and aircraft 
manufacturers are maintaining banks of recycled halon to service 
existing aircraft as well as new aircraft being built before the new 
systems and aircraft design can be developed and implemented. To 
preserve the stock of recycled halon for critical onboard use, and to 
minimize emission of halon during testing, EPA is broadening the 
language in this final rulemaking to allow the use of SF6 as a 
discharge test agent in commercial as well as military aircraft fire 
suppression systems.
    One commenter took issue with the use of the EPA's statement that 
PFCs are agents of ``last resort'' and that ``in most total flooding 
applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8 
exist.'' The commenter cited cases where confusion resulted in no 
action being taken by the user to move into an alternative. The 
commenter took no issue with the use conditions or the narrowed use 
limits imposed on PFCs in previous SNAP rulemakings. The commenter 
requested that EPA issue guidance on the `narrowed use limits' 
evaluation.
    EPA's use of the term `agent of last resort' is intended to further 
explain, in simple terms, EPA's intention to the end-user. Further, EPA 
cannot agree to eliminate the statement ``in most total flooding 
applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8 
exist.'' This same language was used in the original SNAP rulemaking 
(59 FR 13109, 13110), and conveys to the user that most applications 
can be served by non-PFC technology and should be evaluated as such.
    The narrowed use restriction imposed on PFCs was developed with the 
input of users and industry. EPA was requested to leave the technical 
evaluations to end-users and fire protection engineers, as each use 
scenario presented its own challenges and requirements. It was felt 
that specific guidance by EPA would limit the ability of the fire 
protection community to select and design the most appropriate system 
for each application. Thus, EPA requires that end-users conduct an 
evaluation of the alternatives, and maintain documentation in the event 
a PFC is selected. EPA regrets there is some confusion in the market 
concerning the determination that other alternatives are not 
technically feasible, but to be more specific may inadvertently limit a 
user's choices. EPA is expressly leaving technical evaluations to the 
user community.
2. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    (1) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C3F8. C3F8 is 
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 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 
cardiotoxic NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its 
extinguishment concentration and therefore this agent 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.
    (b) CF3I CF3I is 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 increased ozone-depleting 
effectiveness when released at higher altitudes, the military has 
conducted an analysis of historical releases of Halon 1301 from both 
military and commercial aircraft. Initial assessment indicates 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 [[Page 31101]] 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 be 
suited for use in normally occupied areas.
    (c) Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension. Gelled Halocarbon/
Dry Chemical Suspension is 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.''
    (d) 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.
b. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
    (1) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C3F8. C3F8 is 
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 judgment 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 [[Page 31102]] 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.
     (b) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is acceptable for use 
as a discharge test agent in military uses and civilian aircraft 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 16,500, 24,900 and 36,500 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. 
Similarly, the airline industry has an interest in using SF6 as a 
discharge test agent simulating Halon 1301 in aircraft system 
certification testing to ensure aircraft inflight fire safety. During 
the period of development, FAA certification, and implementation of 
suitable substitutes for aircraft, the airlines will continue to build 
new aircraft with halon systems. The amount of SF6 released in 
developing and certifying these critical systems for commercial 
aircraft will be approximately 1,000 pounds per year or less. EPA 
believes that the quantities involved in these two use sectors are 
moderate, and avoiding the discharge of halon to test new halon systems 
is an immediate priority.
    While SF6 is not currently used in other commercial sector 
testing regimes, EPA is imposing 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.
c. Unacceptable
    (1) Total Flooding. (a) HFC-32. HFC-32 is 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.''
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA 
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for 
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations 
have been documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act
    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule 
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by 
state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires 
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing 
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by 
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be 
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact 
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative 
is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.
    Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure 
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less 
than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a 
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. 
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely 
affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan 
with regard to small governments. However, the rule has the net effect 
of reducing burden from part 82, Stratospheric Protection regulations, 
on regulated entities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any 
rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements. 
The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or 
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 [[Page 31103]] requiring manufacturers to make 
information on such substitutes available.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

V. Additional Information

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional 
information on SNAP contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 
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 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 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 in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 2, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended 
as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

    1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. Section 82.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 82.180  Agency review of SNAP submissions.

    (a) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency will 
publish in the Federal Register on a quarterly basis a complete list of 
the acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to 
date. In the case of substitutes proposed as acceptable with use 
restrictions, proposed as unacceptable or proposed for removal from 
either list, a rulemaking process will ensue. Upon completion of such 
rulemaking, EPA will publish revised lists of substitutes acceptable 
subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits and unacceptable 
substitutes to be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. 
(See Appendices to this subpart.)
 * * * * *
    4. Subpart G is amended by adding appendix B to read as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

 * * * * *

Appendix B to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and 
Unacceptable Substitutes

    Listed in the June 13, 1995 final rule, effective July 13, 1995.

                               Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application           Substitute             Decision             Conditions               Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 Automobile     HFC-134a, R-401C,     Acceptable..........  --must be used with   EPA is concerned that   
 Motor Vehicle Air     HCFC Blend Beta.                            unique fittings.      the existence of       
 Conditioning                                                     --must be used with    several substitutes in 
 (Retrofit and New                                                 detailed labels.      this end-use may       
 Equipment/NIKS).                                                 --all CFC-12 must be   increase the likelihood
                                                                   removed from the      of significant         
                                                                   system prior to       refrigerant cross-     
                                                                   retrofitting.         contamination and      
                                                                  Refer to the text      potential failure of   
                                                                   for a full            both air conditioning  
                                                                   description.          systems and recovery/  
                                                                                         recycling equipment.   
                                                                                        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--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     End-use         Substitute        Decision           Comments      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12,   C3F8, C4F10,     Acceptable only  Users must observe  
 CFC-113, CFC-     C5F12,           where no other   the limitations on 
 114, CFC-115      C5F11NO,         alternatives     PFC acceptability  
 Non-Mechanical    C6F14,           are              by determining that
 Heat Transfer,    C6F13NO,         technically      the physical or    
 New.              C7F16,           feasible due     chemical properties
                   C7F15NO,         to safety or     or other technical 
                   C8F18, C8F16O,   performance      constraints of the 
                   and C9F21N.      requirements.    other available    
                                                     agents preclude    
                                                     their use.         
                                                     Documentation of   
                                                     such measures must 
                                                     be available for   
                                                     review upon        
                                                     request.           
                                                    The principal       
                                                     environmental      
                                                     characteristic of  
                                                     concern for PFCs is
                                                     that they have high
                                                     GWPs and long      
                                                     atmospheric        
                                                     lifetimes. EPA     
                                                     strongly recommends
                                                     recovery and       
                                                     recycling of these 
                                                     substitutes.       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                        
[[Page 31104]]
                 Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     End-use         Substitute        Decision           Comments      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12,   R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 CFC-113, CFC-                                       c318, a PFC, which 
 114, R-500                                          has an extremely   
 Centrifugal                                         high GWP and       
 Chillers                                            lifetime. Other    
 (Retrofit and                                       substitutes exist  
 New Equipment/                                      which do not       
 NIKs).                                              contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12            R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 Reciprocating                                       c318, a PFC, which 
 Chillers                                            has an extremely   
 (Retrofit and                                       high GWP and       
 New Equipment/                                      lifetime. Other    
 NIKs).                                              substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-11, CFC-12,   R-403B.........  Unacceptable...  R-403B contains R-  
 R-502                                               218, a PFC, which  
 Industrial                                          has an extremely   
 Process                                             high GWP and       
 Refrigeration                                       lifetime. Other    
 (Retrofit and                                       substitutes exist  
 New Equipment/                                      which do not       
 NIKs).                                              contain PFCs.      
                  R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
                                                     c318, a PFC, which 
                                                     has an extremely   
                                                     high GWP and       
                                                     lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
CFC-12, R-502     R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 Ice Skating                                         c318, a PFC, which 
 Rinks (Retrofit                                     has an extremely   
 and New                                             high GWP and       
 Equipment/NIKs).                                    lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12, R-502     R-403B.........  Unacceptable...  R-403B contains R-  
 Cold Storage                                        218, a PFC, which  
 Warehouses                                          has an extremely   
 (Retrofit and                                       high GWP and       
 New Equipment/                                      lifetime. Other    
 NIKs).                                              substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
                                                     c318, a PFC, which 
                                                     has an extremely   
                                                     high GWP and       
                                                     lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12, R-500, R- R-403B.........  Unacceptable...  R-403B contains R-  
 502                                                 218, a PFC, which  
 Refrigerated                                        has an extremely   
 Transport                                           high GWP and       
 (Retrofit and                                       lifetime. Other    
 New Equipment/                                      substitutes exist  
 NIKs).                                              which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
                                                     c318, a PFC, which 
                                                     has an extremely   
                                                     high GWP and       
                                                     lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12, R-502     R-403B.........  Unacceptable...  R-403B contains R-  
 Retail Food                                         218, a PFC, which  
 Refrigeration                                       has an extremely   
 (Retrofit and                                       high GWP and       
 New Equipment/                                      lifetime. Other    
 NIKs).                                              substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
                                                     c318, a PFC, which 
                                                     has an extremely   
                                                     high GWP and       
                                                     lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12, R-502     R-403B.........  Unacceptable...  R-403B contains R-  
 Commercial Ice                                      218, a PFC, which  
 Machines                                            has an extremely   
 (Retrofit and                                       high GWP and       
 New Equipment/                                      lifetime. Other    
 NIKs).                                              substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
                                                     c318, a PFC, which 
                                                     has an extremely   
                                                     high GWP and       
                                                     lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12 Vending    R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 Machines                                            c318, a PFC, which 
 (Retrofit and                                       has an extremely   
 New Equipment/                                      high GWP and       
 NIKs).                                              lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12 Water      R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 Coolers                                             c318, a PFC, which 
 (Retrofit and                                       has an extremely   
 New Equipment/                                      high GWP and       
 NIKs).                                              lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
[[Page 31105]]
                                                                        
CFC-12 Household  R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 Refrigerators                                       c318, a PFC, which 
 (Retrofit and                                       has an extremely   
 New Equipment/                                      high GWP and       
 NIKs).                                              lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12, R-502     R-403B.........  Unacceptable...  R-403B contains R-  
 Household                                           218, a PFC, which  
 Freezers                                            has an extremely   
 (Retrofit and                                       high GWP and       
 New Equipment/                                      lifetime. Other    
 NIKs).                                              substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
                                                     c318, a PFC, which 
                                                     has an extremely   
                                                     high GWP and       
                                                     lifetime. Other    
                                                     substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12, R-500     R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 Residential                                         c318, a PFC, which 
 Dehumidifiers                                       has an extremely   
 (Retrofit and                                       high GWP and       
 New Equipment/                                      lifetime. Other    
 NIKs).                                              substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
CFC-12 Motor      R-405A.........  Unacceptable...  R-405A contains R-  
 Vehicle Air                                         c318, a PFC, which 
 Conditioners                                        has an extremely   
 (Retrofit and                                       high GWP and       
 New Equipment/                                      lifetime. Other    
 NIKs).                                              substitutes exist  
                                                     which do not       
                                                     contain PFCs.      
                  Hydrocarbon      Unacceptable...  Flammability is a   
                   Blend B.                          serious concern.   
                                                     Data have not been 
                                                     submitted to       
                                                     demonstrate it can 
                                                     be used safely in  
                                                     this end-use.      
                  Flammable        Unacceptable...  The risks associated
                   Substitutes.                      with using         
                                                     flammable          
                                                     substitutes in this
                                                     end-use have not   
                                                     been addressed by a
                                                     risk assessment.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Solvent Cleaning Sector--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application           Substitute             Decision             Conditions               Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning  HCFC-225 ca/cb......  Acceptable..........  Subject to the        HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is 
 w/CFC-113, MCF.                                                   company set           offered as a 45%-ca/55%-
                                                                   exposure limit of     cb blend. The company  
                                                                   25 ppm of the -ca     set exposure limit of  
                                                                   isomer.               the -ca isomer is 25   
                                                                                         ppm. The 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 w/ HCFC-225 ca/cb......  Acceptable..........  Subject to the        HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is 
 CFC-113, MCF.                                                     company set           offered as a 45%-ca/55%-
                                                                   exposure limit of     cb blend. The company  
                                                                   25 ppm of the -ca     set exposure limit of  
                                                                   isomer.               the -ca isomer is 25   
                                                                                         ppm. The 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--Unacceptable Substitutes                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         End use                    Substitute                     Decision                     Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC-113  Dibromomethane..............  Unacceptable................  High ODP; other          
                                                                                        alternatives exist.     
 Metals cleaning w/MCF...  Dibromomethane..............  Unacceptable................  High ODP; other          
                                                                                        alternatives exist.     
Electronics cleaning w/    Dibromomethane..............  Unacceptable................  High ODP; other          
 CFC-113.                                                                               alternatives exist.     
 Electronics cleaning w/   Dibromomethane..............  Unacceptable................  High ODP; other          
 MCF.                                                                                   alternatives exist.     
[[Page 31106]]
                                                                                                                
 Precision cleaning w/CFC- Dibromomethane..............  Unacceptable................  High ODP; other          
 113.                                                                                   alternatives exist.     
 Precision cleaning w/MCF  Dibromomethane..............  Unacceptable................  High ODP; other          
                                                                                        alternatives exist.     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application           Substitute             Decision             Conditions               Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 Total      C3F8................  Acceptable where      Until OSHA            The comparative design  
 Flooding Agents.                            other alternatives    establishes           concentration based on 
                                             are not technically   applicable            cup burner values is   
                                             feasible due to       workplace             approximately 8.8%.    
                                             performance or        requirements:.       Users must observe the  
                                             safety               For occupied areas     limitations on PFC     
                                             requirements:.        from which            acceptability by making
                                            a. due to their        personnel cannot be   reasonable efforts to  
                                             physical or           evacuated in one      undertake the following
                                             chemical              minute, use is        measures:              
                                             properties, or.       permitted only up    (i) conduct an          
                                            b. where human         to concentrations     evaluation of          
                                             exposure to the       not exceeding the     foreseeable conditions 
                                             extinguishing         cardiotoxicity        of end use;            
                                             agents may approach   NOAEL of 30%.        (ii) determine that     
                                             cardiosensitization  Although no LOAEL      human exposure to the  
                                             levels or result in   has been              other alternative      
                                             other unacceptable    established for       extinguishing agents   
                                             health effects        this product,         may approach or result 
                                             under normal          standard OSHA         in cardiosensitization 
                                             operating             requirements apply,   or other unacceptable  
                                             conditions.           i.e. for occupied     toxicity effects under 
                                                                   areas from which      normal operating       
                                                                   personnel can be      conditions; and        
                                                                   evacuated or egress  (iii) determine that the
                                                                   can occur between     physical or chemical   
                                                                   30 and 60 seconds,    properties or other    
                                                                   use is permitted up   technical constraints  
                                                                   to a concentration    of the other available 
                                                                   not exceeding the     agents preclude their  
                                                                   LOAEL.                use;                   
                                                                  All personnel must    Documentation of such   
                                                                   be evacuated before   measures must be       
                                                                   concentration of      available for review   
                                                                   C3F8 exceeds 30%.     upon request.          
                                                                  Design concentration  The principal           
                                                                   must result in        environmental          
                                                                   oxygen levels of at   characteristic of      
                                                                   least 16%.            concern for PFCs is    
                                                                                         that they have high    
                                                                                         GWPs and long          
                                                                                         atmospheric lifetimes. 
                                                                                         Actual contributions to
                                                                                         global warming depend  
                                                                                         upon the quantities of 
                                                                                         PFCs emitted.          
                                                                                        For additional guidance 
                                                                                         regarding applications 
                                                                                         in which PFCs may be   
                                                                                         appropriate, users     
                                                                                         should consult the     
                                                                                         description of         
                                                                                         potential uses which is
                                                                                         included in the March  
                                                                                         18, 1994 Rulemaking (59
                                                                                         FR 13043).             
                                                                                        See additional comments 
                                                                                         1, 2, 3, 4.            
                      CF3I................  Acceptable in         EPA requires that     Manufacturer has not    
                                             normally unoccupied   any employee who      applied for listing for
                                             areas.                could possibly be     use in normally        
                                                                   in the area must be   occupied areas.        
                                                                   able to escape        Preliminary            
                                                                   within 30 seconds.    cardiosensitization    
                                                                   The employer shall    data indicates that    
                                                                   assure that no        this agent would not be
                                                                   unprotected           suitable for use in    
                                                                   employees enter the   normally occupied      
                                                                   area during agent     areas.                 
                                                                   discharge.           EPA is awaiting results 
                                                                                         of ODP calculations.   
                                                                                        See additional comments 
                                                                                         1, 2, 3, 4.            
                      Gelled Halocarbon/    Acceptable in         EPA requires that     The manufacturer's SNAP 
                       Dry Chemical          normally unoccupied   any employee who      application requested  
                       Suspension.           areas.                could possibly be     listing for use in     
                                                                   in the area must be   unoccupied areas only. 
                                                                   able to escape       See additional comment  
                                                                   within 30 seconds.    2.                     
                                                                   The employer shall                           
                                                                   assure that no                               
                                                                   unprotected                                  
                                                                   employees enter the                          
                                                                   area during agent                            
                                                                   discharge.                                   
                      Inert Gas/Powdered    Acceptable as a       In areas where        The manufacturer's SNAP 
                       Aerosol Blend.        Halon 1301            personnel could       application requested  
                                             substitute in         possibly be           listing for use in     
                                             normally unoccupied   present, as in a      unoccupied areas only. 
                                             areas.                cargo area, EPA      See additional comment  
                                                                   requires that the     2.                     
                                                                   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.                                                                                                 
[[Page 31107]]
                                                                                                                
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--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding Agents  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application           Substitute             Decision             Conditions               Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301, Total     C3F8................  Acceptable where      Until OSHA            The comparative design  
 Flooding Agents.                            other alternatives    establishes           concentration based on 
                                             are not technically   applicable            cup burner values is   
                                             feasible due to       workplace             approximately 8.8%.    
                                             performance or        requirements:.       Users must observe the  
                                             safety               For occupied areas     limitations on PFC     
                                             requirements:.        from which            acceptability by making
                                            a. due to their        personnel cannot be   reasonable efforts to  
                                             physical or           evacuated in one      undertake the following
                                             chemical              minute, use is        measures:              
                                             properties, or.       permitted only up    (i) conduct an          
                                            b. where human         to concentrations     evaluation of          
                                             exposure to the       not exceeding the     foreseeable conditions 
                                             extinguishing         cardiotoxicity        of end use;            
                                             agents may approach   NOAEL of 30%.        (ii) determine that     
                                             cardiosensitization  Although no LOAEL      human exposure to the  
                                             levels or result in   has been              other alternative      
                                             other unacceptable    established for       extinguishing agents   
                                             health effects        this product,         may approach or result 
                                             under normal          standard OSHA         in cardiosensitization 
                                             operating             requirements apply,   or other unacceptable  
                                             conditions.           i.e. for occupied     toxicity effects under 
                                                                   areas from which      normal operating       
                                                                   personnel can be      conditions; and        
                                                                   evacuated or egress  (iii) determine that the
                                                                   can occur between     physical or chemical   
                                                                   30 and 60 seconds,    properties or other    
                                                                   use is permitted up   technical constraints  
                                                                   to a concentration    of the other available 
                                                                   not exceeding the     agents preclude their  
                                                                   LOAEL.                use;                   
                                                                  All personnel must    Documentation of such   
                                                                   be evacuated before   measures must be       
                                                                   concentration of      available for review   
                                                                   C3F8 exceeds 30%.     upon request.          
                                                                  Design concentration  The principal           
                                                                   must result in        environmental          
                                                                   oxygen levels of at   characteristic of      
                                                                   least 16%.            concern for PFCs is    
                                                                                         that they have high    
                                                                                         GWPs and long          
                                                                                         atmospheric lifetimes. 
                                                                                         Actual contributions to
                                                                                         global warming depend  
                                                                                         upon the quantities of 
                                                                                         PFCs emitted.          
                                                                                        For additional guidance 
                                                                                         regarding applications 
                                                                                         in which PFCs may be   
                                                                                         appropriate, users     
                                                                                         should consult the     
                                                                                         description of         
                                                                                         potential uses which is
                                                                                         included in the March  
                                                                                         18, 1994 Final         
                                                                                         Rulemaking (58 FR      
                                                                                         13043).                
                      Sulfurhexa-fluoride   Acceptable as a       ....................  This agent has an       
                       (SF6).                discharge test                              atmospheric lifetime   
                                             agent in military                           greater than 1,000     
                                             uses and in                                 years, with an         
                                             civilian aircraft                           estimated 100-year, 500-
                                             uses only.                                  year, and 1,000-year   
                                                                                         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--Unacceptable Substitutes  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Application       Substitute        Decision           Comments      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 Total  HFC-32.........  Unacceptable...  Data indicate that  
 Flooding Agents.                                    HFC-32 is flammable
                                                     and therefore is   
                                                     not suitable as a  
                                                     halon substitute.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 95-14337 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P