[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