Federal Register, Volume 60 Issue 190 (Monday, October 2, 1995)

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 190 (Monday, October 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51383-51390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24271]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5306-4]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes
for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the
environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major
industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to
expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a
shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number
substitutes. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is
issuing its preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain
substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at
determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency
completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the
environment by sector end-use.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document
must be submitted by November 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42,
Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may be
inspected between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202)
260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFC part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite review, a
second copy of the comments should be sent to Sally Rand, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, S.W., 6205-J, Washington, D.C. 20460. Information designated as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR, part 2 subpart B
must be sent directly to the contact person for this notice. However,
the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a non-confidential
version of their comments to the docket as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax
(202) 233-9577, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and
Radiation, Washington, D.C. 20460

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

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

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

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

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

B. Regulatory History

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

[[Page 51384]]
end-users when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into
commerce.

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

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

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners,
Retrofit and New
EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this
end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-
contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems
and recovery/recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to
the use of substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the
recycled CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and
preserve the purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is proposing several
conditions on the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning
refrigerants. For the purposes of this rule, no distinction is made
between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car
to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air
conditioning system using a new refrigerant. Please note that EPA only
reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health factors.
In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any
substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings
that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed
to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A
refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps
specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or
deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be
a violation of this use condition. In addition, fittings shall meet the
following criteria, derived from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
standards and recommended practices:

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

[[Page 51385]]
incompatible for use with CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting
with a device attached with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate
mechanical latching mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from
being removed.

When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as
follows:

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

* the name and address of the technician and the company performing
the retrofit
*the date of the retrofit
*the trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE
refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
*the type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
*if the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance,
the phrase ``ozone depleter''
*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.

No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such
discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a
particular system.
(a) HCFC Blend Delta
HCFC Blend Delta is proposed acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12
in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the
use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described
above. The composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by
the manufacturer. This blend contains at least one HCFC, and therefore
contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-
12. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under
section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. Its production
will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule (published 12/
10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components are moderate to low.
This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the
blend never becomes flammable.
(b) Blend Zeta
Blend Zeta is proposed 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 does not contribute to ozone depletion.
The GWPs of the components are moderate to low. This blend is
nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the blend never
becomes flammable.

B. Solvents

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Metals Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable
subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals
cleaning. These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for a
variety of cleaning applications. Of all the structures of commercial
interest, the only chemical with an Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the
monochlorotoluenes. This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure
Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is
proposing to set a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes
as a group. None of the benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a
toxicological study recently completed by the company interested in
commercialization of these chemicals, the Agency is proposing to set a
workplace standard of 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides. Companies intending
to use monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the
inherent hazard of these chemicals into account in implementing
applications.
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. Electronics Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable
subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in
electronics cleaning. For the reasons described in the section on
metals cleaning, the Agency is proposing to set a workplace standard of
50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides.
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.
c. Precision Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable
subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in
precision cleaning. For the reasons described in the section on metals
cleaning, the Agency is proposing to set a workplace standard of 50 ppm
for monochlorotoluenes and 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under Pub. L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards
in no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in Pub. L. 91-596.

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

As was discussed in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA in some
cases finds acceptable the use of an agent only under certain
conditions. In implementing its use of conditions, the Agency has
sought to avoid overlap

[[Page 51386]]
with other existing regulatory authorities. EPA believes that section
612 clearly authorizes imposition of use conditions to ensure safe use
of replacement agents. EPA's mandate is to list agents that ``reduce
the overall risk to human health and the environment'' for ``specific
uses.'' In light of this authorization, EPA is only intending to set
conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace until
OSHA incorporates specific language addressing gaseous agents into OSHA
regulation. Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section 4(b)(1), OSHA is
precluded from regulating an area currently being regulated by another
federal agency. EPA is specifically deferring to OSHA, and has no
intention to assume responsibility for regulating workplace safety
especially with respect to fire protection. EPA's workplace use
conditions will not bar OSHA from regulating under its Pub. L. 91-596
authority.
1. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) IG-55 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] B)
IG-55 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total
flooding applications. IG-55, which is comprised of 50% nitrogen and
50% argon, is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to
a level that does not support combustion, and, unlike pure carbon
dioxide systems, sufficient oxygen remains to maintain life support.
The toxicological issues of concern with inert gas systems differ
from those of halocarbon agents, in that the end-point for hypoxic (low
oxygen) atmospheres is asphyxiation while the end-point for halocarbons
is cardiosensitization leading to cardiac arrhythmias. Thus, EPA
requested the manufacturers of the newly proposed inert gas systems to
conduct a peer review by a panel of medical specialists to consider
specific questions concerning exposing the typical working population
to this agent. A similar review was conducted at EPA's request by the
manufacturer of IG-541, which simultaneously lowers oxygen and raises
CO2 levels.
The results of the peer review and discussions with other medical
specialists further convinces us that the SNAP conditions previously
listed for IG-541 are appropriate for IG-55 and IG-01 as well.
Specifically, while the terms No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)
and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) refer to cardiotoxic
effect levels which are not appropriate when discussing hypoxic
atmospheres, EPA intends to propose a `no effect level' for inert gas
systems at 12% oxygen, and a `lowest effect level' at 10% oxygen.
Thus, consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) conditions used by EPA for all total flooding
agents, EPA proposes that an IG-55 system could be designed to an
oxygen level of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute,
but may be designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one
minute to egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to
drop below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen
depletion. A design concentration of less than 10% oxygen may only be
used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could
possibly be exposed can egress within 30 seconds.
EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
The question has been raised concerning the benefits or dangers of
added carbon dioxide in other inert gas systems. The added CO2
induces increased respiration after an exposure of approximately 3 to 5
minutes, which ensures adequate oxygen uptake by the brain. EPA's
review of IG-541 (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994) considered this
parameter, and the Agency believed that the CO2 offered an added
margin of safety. However, questions remain as to the relative `risk
balanced' distinction between an inert gas system with, and one
without, added CO2. Fire scenarios are unpredictable, and
therefore the amount of combustion products are also unpredictable. It
is difficult to evaluate whether deeper breathing due to added CO2
under different fire circumstances may also be bringing in more
combustion products and thus constitute an increased risk. EPA believes
on the basis of the peer review that in the event of an accidental
discharge where there is no fire, the added CO2 in the mixture
will serve as a margin of safety for protected populations. EPA also
recognizes the known physiological benefits of added CO2 to
prevent brain hypoxia in other applications. Therefore, EPA will be
working with other regulatory agencies and the technical community to
further delineate appropriate use conditions for the use of the varying
inert gas systems in the fire protection sector.
EPA intends that all personnel be evacuated from an area prior to,
or quickly after, discharge. An inert gas system may not be designed
with the intention of personnel remaining in the area unless
appropriate protection is provided, such as self-contained breathing
apparatus.
(2) IG-01 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] C)
IG-01 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total
flooding applications. IG-01 is comprised 100% of argon, and as with
IG-55, is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a
level that does not support combustion, while maintaining sufficient
oxygen for life support.
As with IG-55, EPA proposes that an IG-01 system may be designed to
an oxygen level of 10% if employees can egress the area within one
minute, but may be designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer
than one minute to egress the area. If the possibility exists for the
oxygen to drop below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such
oxygen depletion. A design concentration of less than 10% may only be
used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could
possibly be exposed can egress within 30 seconds.
EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
Please refer to the discussion of IG-55 for a fuller description of
inert gas systems.
2. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Streaming Agents
(1) CF3I is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in
nonresidential applications. 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. Due to the short
atmospheric lifetime of this chemical and the photolytic decomposition
mechanism, the resulting GWP is essentially equivalent to that of
CO2, which is 1. The ODP when released at ground level is
extremely low, with current conservative estimates ranging from .008 to
.01. Detailed kinetic data and three dimensional modeling efforts are
currently in progress, and are expected to reduce these values
significantly.

[[Page 51387]]

CF3I has a weight and volume equivalence to Halon 1211 of 0.94
and 0.97 respectively. While it is potentially a `drop-in' replacement
for Halon 1211, with some modifications in elastomers or other system
materials, there exists a question as to whether current technical
standards allow the reuse of halon 1211 canisters for other chemicals.
Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard and UL
listings should be examined in this context.
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.
Previous studies of exposure to streaming agents indicate that actual
exposure to a trained firefighter in a well-ventilated area will not
exceed these values. However, the manufacturer is required to conduct
personal monitoring tests to verify exposure levels in scenarios
representative of its potential market prior to receiving a final SNAP
acceptability listing. Because of the low cardiosensitization values,
EPA is proposing to prohibit use of this agent in consumer residential
applications where the possibility of incorrect use by untrained users
is high.

D. Aerosols

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Solvents
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable
subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF as aerosol
solvents. These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for
aerosol applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest, the
only chemical with an Occupational Health and Safety Administration
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes.
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm.
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is proposing to set a
workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of
the benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study
recently completed by the company interested in commercialization of
these chemicals, the Agency is proposing to set a workplace standard of
25 ppm for benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use
monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent
hazard of these chemicals into account in implementing applications.
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.

E. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable
subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in
adhesives, coatings, and inks. These two classes of chemicals are being
sold as blends for these applications. Of all the substances of
commercial interest, the only chemical with an Occupational Health and
Safety Administration (OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the
monochlorotoluenes. This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure
Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is
proposing to set a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes
as a group. None of the benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a
toxicological study recently completed by the company interested in
commercialization of these chemicals, the Agency is proposing to set a
workplace standard of 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides. Companies intending
to use monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the
inherent toxicity of these chemicals into account in implementing
applications.
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.

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

[[Page 51388]]
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 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: September 25, 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. Sec. 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.)
* * * * *
3. Subpart G is amended by adding the following Appendix C to read
as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *
Appendix C to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the [FR publication date of
final rule] final rule, effective [30 days after FR publication date of
rule].

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

[[Page 51389]]
Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Cleaning with CFC-113, Monochlorotoluenes and Acceptable.......... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace standard for monochlorotoluenes is
MCF and HCFC-141b. benzotrifluorides. workplace standard for based on an OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for
monochlorotoluenes and orthochlorotoluene. The workplace standard for
a 25 ppm standard for benzotrifluorides is based on a recent
benzotrifluorides. toxicology study.
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- Monochlorotoluenes and Acceptable.......... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace standard for monochlorotoluenes is
113, MCF and HCFC-141b. benzotrifluorides. workplace standard for based on an OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for
monochlorotoluenes and orthochlorotoluene. The workplace standard for
a 25 ppm standard for benzotrifluorides is based on a recent
benzotrifluorides. toxicology study.
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC- Monochlorotoluenes and Acceptable.......... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace standard for monochlorotoluenes is
113, MCF and HCFC-141b. benzotrifluorides. workplace standard for based on an OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for
monochlorotoluenes and orthochlorotoluene. The workplace standard for
a 25 ppm standard for benzotrifluorides is based on a recent
benzotrifluorides. toxicology study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301--Total IG-55 (formerly [Inert Proposed Until OSHA establishes applicable workplace The Agency does not
Flooding Agents. Gas Blend] B). Acceptable. requirements: contemplate personnel
EPA proposes that an IG-55 system may be designed remaining in the space after
to an oxygen level of 10% if employees can system discharge during a
egress the area within one minute, but may be fire without Self Contained
designed only to the 12% oxygen level if it Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
takes longer than one minute to egress the area. as required by OSHA.
If the possibility exists for the oxygen to drop EPA does not encourage any
below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to employee to intentionally
such oxygen depletion. A design concentration of remain in the area after
less than 10% may only be used in normally system discharge, even in
unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who the event of accidental
could possibly be exposed can egress within 30 discharge. In addition, the
seconds. system must include alarms
and warning mechanisms as
specified by OSHA.
See additional comments 1, 2.
IG-01 (formerly [Inert Proposed Until OSHA establishes applicable workplace The Agency does not
Gas Blend] C). Acceptable. requirements: contemplate personnel
EPA proposes that an IG-55 system may be designed remaining in the space after
to an oxygen level of 10% if employees can system discharge during a
egress the area within one minute, but may be fire without Self Contained
designed only to the 12% oxygen level if it Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
takes longer than one minute to egress the area. as required by OSHA.
If the possibility exists for the oxygen to drop EPA does not encourage any
below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to employee to intentionally
such oxygen depletion. remain in the area after
A design concentration of less than 10% may only system discharge, even in
be used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as the event of accidental
any employee who could possibly be exposed can discharge. In addition, the
egress within 30 seconds. system must include alarms
and warning mechanisms as
specified by OSHA.
See additional comments 1, 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 reenter the area.

[[Page 51390]]
Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211-- CF3I............ Proposed Acceptable in The manufacturer intends to conduct personal
Streaming Agents. non-residential uses monitoring tests to verify exposure levels.
only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aerosols--Proposed Acceptable Subjet to Use Conditions Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF and HCFC- Monochlorotoluenes and Acceptable Subject to a 50 ppm workplace The workplace standard for monochlorotoluenes is
141b as solvent. benzotrifluorides. standard for based on an OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for
monochlorotoluenes and a 25 orthochlorotoluene. The workplace standard for
ppm standard for benzotrifluorides is based on a recent
benzotrifluorides. toxicology study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adhesives, Coatings and Inks--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF and Monochlorotoluenes Acceptable Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace standard
HCFC-141b. and workplace standard for for monochlorotoluenes
benzotrifluorides. monochlorotoluenes and is based on an OSHA
a 25 ppm standard for PEL of 50 ppm for
benzotrifluorides. orthochlorotoluene.
The workplace standard
for benzotrifluorides
is based on a recent
toxicology study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 95-24271 Filed 9-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P