[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27874-27888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13209]



[[Page 27873]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 27874]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5827-2]
RIN 2060-AG12


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's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives 
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean 
Air Act of 1990, which requires EPA to evaluate 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 substitutes 
posing other environmental problems.
    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on 
the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of 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 June 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42, 
Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket 
may be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone 
(202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a 
reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite review, a 
second copy of the comments should be sent to Carol Weisner, 
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. 
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 6205-J, Washington, DC 20460. Information 
designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR, 
part 2 subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this 
document. 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: Carol Weisner at (202) 233-9193 or fax 
(202) 233-9665, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric 
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and 
Radiation (6205-J), Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier 
deliveries should be sent to our 501-3rd Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20001 location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

    This action is divided into six 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

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 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

[[Page 27875]]

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 document.
    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. Fully acceptable substitutes (i.e. no 
restrictions) 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 adds substitutes to the list of 
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new 
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as 
separate notices of acceptability in the Federal Register.
    Parts A. through F. 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 E. The comments contained in Appendix E to Subpart G of 40 
CFR part 82 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--Class I
    1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. CFC-12 Automobile and 
Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit and New (1) 
Notification Requirements for Existing Refrigerants.
    In previous rulemakings, EPA has imposed conditions on the use of 
MVAC refrigerants, including the requirement that they be used with 
unique fittings and that vehicles be labeled when retrofitted to a new 
refrigerant. In addition, new refrigerants must be submitted with 
designs for fittings, and samples of both fittings and labels. EPA now 
proposes to apply these submission requirements to the following 
existing refrigerants: HFC-134a, FRIGC, Freezone, Ikon, R-406A, GHG-X4, 
Hot Shot, GHG-HP, and Freeze-12, each of which was previously listed as 
acceptable subject to use conditions. In accordance with the 
requirements for new refrigerants, EPA proposes that the manufacturers 
must submit, within 30 days of the effective date of the final rule 
resulting from this NPRM:
     Designs for service ports and hose connections, including 
both high-side and low-side fittings;
     Sample fittings of each type;
     Sample labels, printed in the unique color chosen by the 
manufacturer.
    EPA will review the fittings and test for cross-connections between 
the new fitting and existing fittings for other refrigerants. At the 
same time, EPA will compare the background color of the sample label to 
those of other refrigerants. If the fittings are unique and cannot be 
mechanically cross-threaded, and the label color is unique to that 
refrigerant, EPA will issue a letter to the manufacturer confirming 
that the fittings and labels meet the use conditions. This confirmation 
letter will be sent within 30 days of receipt of the submission. EPA 
will then update a package of materials containing specifications for 
existing fittings. This package will be provided to manufacturers of 
new refrigerants and others who request it, to lower the risk of 
duplicating fittings already in use.
    If the fittings or the label color are not, in fact, unique, EPA 
will issue a letter to the manufacturer indicating so. Continued use of 
the refrigerant with the non-unique fittings will constitute a 
violation of the unique fittings use condition.
    EPA does not anticipate that these provisions will affect the 
majority of the existing refrigerants because the manufacturers have 
already submitted designs and sample labels and fittings for review. 
However, it is necessary to formalize these submission requirements to 
level the playing field and ensure that EPA has official submissions on 
which to base future actions. For example, EPA will rely on designs and 
samples to determine whether the submitted versions are actually being 
used on cars. Similarly, EPA will rely on the submissions to determine 
whether a given fitting satisfies the uniqueness criteria proposed 
below.
    (2) Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings. In previous rulemakings, 
EPA has relied on refrigerant manufacturers to design unique fittings 
with no further guidance. In this NPRM, EPA clarifies minimum criteria 
for uniqueness. EPA proposes that all fittings for alternative

[[Page 27876]]

refrigerants must meet the following requirements:
     High-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, 
including CFC-12;
     Low-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from low-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, 
including CFC-12;
     High-side screw-on fittings for a given refrigerant must 
differ from low-side screw-on fittings for that refrigerant, to protect 
against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure one;
     High-side screw-on fittings for each alternative 
refrigerant must differ from low-side screw-on fittings for CFC-12;
     High-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other 
refrigerants, including CFC-12;
     Low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants, 
including CFC-12;
     High-side quick-connect fittings for a given refrigerant 
must differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for that refrigerant, 
to protect against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure 
one;
     For each type of container, the fitting for each 
refrigerant must differ from the fitting for that type of container for 
all other refrigerants, including CFC-12.
    For screw-on fittings, EPA proposes that ``differ'' means that 
either the diameter must differ by at least \1/16\ inch or the thread 
direction must be reversed (i.e. right-handed vs. left-handed). Simply 
changing the thread pitch is not sufficient. An additional requirement 
for screw-on fittings, and the essential one for quick-connect 
fittings, is that a person using normal force and normal tools 
(including wrenches) must not be able to cross-connect fittings. 
Following are some examples:
     A \3/8\ (\6/16\) inch outside diameter screw-on fitting 
with a right-hand thread differs from a \5/16\ inch outside diameter 
screw-on fitting with a right-hand thread;
     A \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a 
left-hand thread differs from a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on 
fitting with a right-hand thread;
     A \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a 
right-hand thread pitch of 18 threads/inch does not differ from a \3/8\ 
inch outside screw-on diameter fitting with a right-hand thread pitch 
of 24 threads/inch;
     A quick-connect fitting differs from another quick-connect 
fitting if all combinations of the same type male and female parts 
(high, low, small can, 30-lb. cylinder) will not connect using normal 
tools.
    (i) All previously listed refrigerants and all future refrigerants. 
For refrigerants previously listed as acceptable subject to use 
conditions, and for refrigerants submitted in the future, the use 
conditions in force for retrofitted systems are proposed to apply to 
new vehicles. In addition, the criteria for uniqueness of fittings 
discussed above are proposed to apply, and all labels must meet UL 
Standard 969-1995.
    Since only HFC-134a is currently being used in new cars, the use 
conditions were originally worded in such a way that a reasonable 
interpretation would exclude their applicability to new cars. This 
proposal extends the unique fittings and labels requirements to new 
cars. EPA does not anticipate that this clarification will result in 
any additional burden, since all new cars already use HFC-134a fittings 
and labels. However, EPA invites comment on this proposal. Note that 
the use conditions above replace only the fittings, labeling, and 
``top-off'' conditions applicable to previously listed refrigerants. 
Other conditions, such as the requirement to replace existing hoses 
with barrier hoses, still apply to various refrigerants as listed in 
the original rule.
    In addition, as explained above, EPA believes it is necessary to 
provide criteria for the uniqueness of fittings. This use condition 
will apply these criteria formally to existing refrigerants. Finally, 
the UL standard relates to permanence of labels, and is already part of 
the applicable Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard.
    (ii) HFC-134a, FRIGC FR-12, Freezone, Ikon, R-406A, GHG-X4, Hot 
Shot, GHG-HP, and Freeze-12. For these refrigerants, all of which have 
previously been found acceptable subject to use conditions, the 
submission requirements discussed above are proposed to apply.
    As discussed above, EPA believes that applying these requirements 
formally will level the playing field between existing refrigerants and 
new submissions. In addition, formal submissions of designs and sample 
labels and fittings will allow EPA to monitor compliance with the other 
use conditions.
    2. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. NARM-502.
    NARM-502, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-152a, is 
proposed unacceptable as a substitute for R-502 in all new and 
retrofitted end-uses.
    HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year global warming 
potential (GWP) is 11,700. Both of these characteristics are 
considerably higher than other HFCS and HCFCS. Numerous other 
acceptable R-502 substitutes do not contain such high global warming 
components. The Climate Change Action Plan directs EPA to reduce the 
use of high global warming gases. Therefore, the use of this blend as 
an R-502 substitute is proposed unacceptable.
    b. NARM-12. NARM-12, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-
152a, is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in all new 
and retrofitted end-uses.
    HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year GWP is 11,700. 
Both of these characteristics are considerably higher than other HFCs 
and HCFCs. Numerous other acceptable R-502 substitutes do not contain 
such high global warming components. The Climate Change Action Plan 
directs EPA to reduce the use of high global warming gases. Therefore, 
the use of this blend as an R-502 substitute is proposed unacceptable.
B. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Class II
    1. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. NARM-22. NARM-22, which consists of 
HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-152a, is proposed unacceptable as a substitute 
for HCFC-22 in all new and retrofitted end-uses.
    NARM-22 contains HCFC-22. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to 
replace a class II refrigerant with a blend containing a class II 
refrigerant. Listing this blend as acceptable would be a barrier to a 
smooth transition away from ozone-depleting refrigerants. Other 
alternatives to HCFC-22 are already acceptable that do not contain any 
ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    In addition, HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year 
GWP is 11,700. Both of these characteristics are considerably higher 
than other HFCs and HCFCs. Other acceptable HCFC-22 substitutes do not 
contain such high global warming components. The 1993 Climate Change 
Action Plan directs EPA to reduce the use of high global warming gases. 
For this reason, and the fact that NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, the use of 
this blend as an HCFC-22 substitute is proposed unacceptable.
C. Solvents Cleaning
    1. Chlorobromomethane. Chlorobromomethane (CBM) has been used as a 
fire suppressant and has the designation of Halon 1011. EPA has 
received notification that it can also be used as a solvent and a 
potential

[[Page 27877]]

substitute for the ozone depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl chloroform 
(MCF) and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission requesting 
consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in 
solvents cleaning of metals and electronics and in precision cleaning. 
Analysis of the available toxicity data base for CBM raises significant 
questions concerning its suitability as a solvent substitute for CFC-
113, or methyl chloroform, or HCFC-141b in metals cleaning, electronics 
cleaning, and precision cleaning; and as a solvent agent in aerosols 
and in adhesives, coatings and inks. In a subchronic study, at a dose 
level of 500 parts per million (ppm), adverse effects were evident in 
the livers of rats. At 1000 ppm, both guinea pigs and rabbits showed 
decreased spermatogenesis, but no studies of reproductive or 
developmental effects have been conducted. In addition, mutagenicity 
tests with CBM in microorganisms yielded consistently positive results. 
In mammalian systems, CBM induced sister chromatid exchanges. Thus the 
mutagenic effects of CBM are unmistakable.
    In 1989, EPA established a one day health advisory for water 
contaminated with CBM at 50 ppm. A longer term health advisory was 
established at 4.57 ppm for this compound in drinking water. OSHA 
established an occupational Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 200 ppm 
based on the ``grandfathered'' Threshold Limit Value (TLV) which dates 
back to 1961. This compound was not reviewed by OSHA in the 1989 
proposed revision process. In 1991, the only use noted for this 
chemical by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
(ACGIH) was as a liquid (streaming agent) fire suppressant. They 
recommended an 8 hour TLV of 200 ppm consistent with the PEL. The 
potential widespread use of CBM as a solvent substitute in the light of 
its toxicity profile and significant data gaps imply a much lower 
workplace limit. Based upon the lowest observed adverse effect level of 
500 ppm in rats, the SNAP evaluation suggests a more appropriate 
occupational exposure limit (OEL) to lie in the range of 2 and 5 ppm, 
making this compound unsuitable for use as a solvent.
    Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion 
potential (ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives exist 
with much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. As a 
result of these recent ODP findings and the potential widespread use of 
CBM in occupational settings unable to meet an OEL of 5 ppm, EPA 
proposes this agent as unacceptable. Relevant reports and analyses on 
these issues have been placed in the public docket for this SNAP 
submission.
    2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. Metals Cleaning.
    (1) HFC-4310mee.
    HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and 
methyl chloroform (MCF) in metals cleaning subject to a 200 ppm time-
weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm workplace 
exposure ceiling. This chemical does not deplete the ozone layer since 
it does not contain chlorine or bromine. Review under the SNAP program 
and the PMN program determined that a time-weighted average workplace 
exposure standard of 200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400 
ppm would be adequately protective of human health and that companies 
can meet these exposure limits using the types of equipment specified 
in the product safety information provided by the chemical 
manufacturer.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Health and Safety 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 Public Law 91-596.
    3. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Metals Cleaning.
    (1) Chlorobromomethane.
    Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-113, methyl chloroform (MCF), and HCFC-141b in metals cleaning. 
Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion potential 
(ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28, and toxicity concerns exist based 
on potential widespread use in occupational settings not meeting an 
appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other alternatives exist with much lower ODP 
and do not pose a comparable risk.
    b. Electronics Cleaning.
    (1) Chlorobromomethane.
    Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in electronics cleaning. 
Recent authoritative research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 
to .28, and toxicity concerns exist based on potential widespread use 
in occupational settings not meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other 
alternatives exist with much lower ODP and do not pose a comparable 
risk. For example, hydrofluoroethers (HFE) and HFC-4310 mee do not 
contain chlorine and have no ODP.
    c. Precision Cleaning.
    (1) Chlorobromomethane.
    Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b in precision cleaning. Recent authoritative 
research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28, and toxicity 
concerns exist based on potential widespread use in occupational 
settings not meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other alternatives 
exist with much lower ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. For 
example, hydrofluoroethers (HFE) and HFC-4310 mee do not contain 
chlorine and have no ODP.
D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
    1. Chlorobromomethane. As discussed in Solvents Cleaning above, CBM 
has been used for fire suppression and explosion inertion, and is 
designated Halon 1011. In the fire suppression and explosion protection 
sector, Halon 1011 has been used as a total flooding agent, in lieu of 
Halon 1301, for the purpose of preventing fires in the engine nacelles 
of aircraft, principally in the military. EPA understands the use of 
Halon 1011 for this purpose has been extremely limited, and demand for 
its future use is likely to be very small, given other alternatives. 
Recent authoritative research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 
to 0.28. Other alternatives exist for total flooding applications with 
much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. For example, 
HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, as well as several inert gases, have no ODP. As 
a result of these recent ODP findings, EPA proposes this agent 
unacceptable as a substitute for Halon 1301.
    2. Petition. EPA has received a Petition asking for reconsideration 
of the wording of use conditions for PFCs and other long-lived gases. 
The Petitioner believes that while it is EPA's stated intent that PFCs 
be used as the agent of last resort when no other agent is acceptable 
due to performance or safety requirements, the regulatory language is 
unclear, potentially resulting in some users adopting PFCs 
inappropriately. The regulatory language in the March 18, 1994, 
Rulemaking (59 FR 13044, 13159) states the following:

    C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due 
to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or 
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may 
approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other

[[Page 27878]]

unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.

This same language applies for use of other PFCs in this sector as 
well.
    EPA has discussed this language in rulemakings, letters and public 
forums to ensure that the public understands that a PFC may be used if 
no other commercially available agent will provide adequate protection 
against the specific fire hazard given the technical or environmental 
constraints of the application or if the use of other agents in the 
application in question would exceed safe toxicity levels. For 
halocarbons, cardiac sensitization is the primary endpoint of concern, 
and for inert gases, hypoxia is the relevant endpoint. The SNAP 
rulemaking describes the concentrations at which each agent can be 
safely used.
    The Petitioner suggests the following changes to the use conditions 
for long-lived gases to allay confusion:

    PFCs or other long-lived gases may only be used ``* * * (1) when 
physical or chemical properties necessitate their use, or (2) when 
the use of another SNAP accepted alternative would result in 
exposures beyond its applicable use conditions (e.g., below the 
minimum O2 content, egress times greater than 30 seconds 
with design concentrations greater than LOAEL,) or (3) when the use 
of other SNAP accepted alternatives would permanently impair the 
health of those in the discharge area.

    EPA agrees that the choice of words ``may approach 
cardiosensitizations levels'' may be confusing to the public and thus 
proposes to accept the petitioner's suggestion by substituting the 
phrase ``may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.'' 
Applicable use conditions refer to the cardiac sensitization levels 
stipulated in the SNAP use conditions for halocarbons, minimum oxygen 
and maximum CO2 levels stipulated in the use conditions for 
inert gas systems, or other use conditions as may be stipulated in a 
SNAP rulemaking. The new language is consistent with the intent of the 
current conditions as it was discussed in the preamble to the March 18, 
1994, rulemaking. Thus, this change reflects no change in policy but 
only clarification, and would apply to all PFCs currently listed under 
the SNAP program, including C4F10, 
C6F14, and C3F8. The use 
condition proposed for PFCs would read as follows:

    CxFy is proposed acceptable as a Halon 
[1211 or 1301] substitute where other alternatives are not 
technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a) 
Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human 
exposure to the agents may result in failure to meet applicable use 
conditions or in other unacceptable health effects under normal 
operating conditions.

    The Petitioner did not make a cogent case for changing the phrase 
``or result in other unacceptable health effects under normal operating 
conditions'' and thus EPA rejects suggested changes to that phrase at 
this time.
    3. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. Total Flooding 
Agents.
    (1) C3F8.
    C3F8 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or 
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may 
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other 
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
    See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use 
condition on this agent.
    (2) C4F10.
    C4F10 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or 
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may 
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other 
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
    See the preceding dicussion of the changes made to the use 
condition on this agent.
    (3) HFC-236fa.
    HFC-236fa is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute when 
manufactured using any process that does not convert 
perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. 
HFC-236fa may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion 
applications, and may be used in fire suppression applications where 
other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not technically feasible due 
to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or 
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may 
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other 
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
    In the event of the development of acceptable alternatives which 
EPA finds should not only replace Halon 1301 and HFC-236a in new 
systems, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only to the extent 
warranted by cost and timing as outlined in the original SNAP rule 
discussion of grandfathering of unacceptable substitutes (59 FR 13057).
    As discussed in the initial SNAP rulemaking (58 FR 13044, March 18, 
1994), until OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements, total 
flooding agents are acceptable by the Agency for use in occupied areas 
only under the following conditions:
    1. Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within one 
minute, the employer shall not use the agent in concentrations 
exceeding its NOAEL.
    2. Where egress takes greater than 30 seconds but less than one 
minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration greater 
than its LOAEL.
    3. Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only permitted 
in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any employee 
in the area can escape within 30 seconds.
    The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the 
area during agent discharge. These conditions will no longer apply once 
OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements.
    The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0 per cent and 
its LOAEL is 15 per cent. Cup burner tests with heptane indicate that 
the extinguishment concentration for this agent is 5.3 per cent, thus 
making its calculated design concentration 6.4 per cent. Compared to 
the cardiac sensitization values, these concentrations provide a 
sufficient margin of safety for use in a normally occupied area.
    In the March 18, 1994 final SNAP rule (58 FR 13044), EPA required 
manufacturers to submit information on manufacturing processes to allow 
an assessment of the risks posed to the general public and workers. EPA 
clarified in that action that acceptability determinations made on the 
basis of one company's submission would apply to the same chemical 
produced by other manufacturers, obviating the need for duplicative 
reporting requirements and review. However, manufacturers who believe a 
given manufacturing process may pose additional risks beyond those 
posed by other processes were required to alert EPA to that increased 
hazard. The February 8, 1996 (61 FR 4736) Notice of Acceptability 
specifically discussed the manufacturing process used in making HFC-
236fa, and that discussion is repeated below.
    EPA is aware of several methods for manufacturing HFC-236fa, 
including one that produces HFC-236fa directly from PFIB. PFIB is an 
extremely toxic substance that could pose risks in very small 
concentrations. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate to distinguish 
among the different methods for producing HFC-236fa. This acceptability 
determination does not prohibit the manufacture of HFC-236fa directly 
from PFIB. Rather, it finds

[[Page 27879]]

acceptable the production of HFC-236fa in processes that do not convert 
PFIB directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. If a manufacturer wishes 
to produce HFC-236fa directly from PFIB, it must submit that process to 
EPA for review under SNAP.
    HFC-236fa can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.3 by weight and 
1.5 by volume. Due to its relatively high boiling point of minus 1.6 
degrees centigrade, this agent may not be suitable in a low temperature 
environment. Its greatest potential appears to be in explosion 
suppression and in applications benefited by a misting or liquid 
discharge.
    HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone, however, it has an 
atmospheric lifetime of 250 years and a 100-year GWP of 6300. Concerns 
have been raised about this agent's potential atmospheric effects. 
Thus, this agent should be handled so as to minimize unnecessary 
emissions. Ways to minimize emissions include: Avoiding discharge 
testing and training; providing a high level of maintenance to avoid 
leaks and accidental discharges; recovering HFC-236fa from the fire 
protection equipment in conjunction with testing or servicing; and 
destroying HFC-236fa or recycling it for later use.
    While HFC-236fa may be used without prejudice in explosion 
protection applications, before users adopt it for general fire 
suppression applications they must first ascertain that other non-PFC 
substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements. That is, if a PFC is the only other 
substitute that is technically feasible due to performance or safety 
requirements, then this agent may be used in a general fire suppression 
application. Potential users are expected to evaluate the technical 
feasibility of other non-PFC substitutes or alternatives to determine 
their adequacy to control the particular fire risk. Such assessment may 
include an evaluation of the performance or functional effectiveness of 
the non-PFC agents' effectiveness for the intended applications as well 
as the risk to personnel potentially exposed to the agents. Similarly, 
use of HFC-236fa due to toxicological concerns would be appropriate 
where use of other non-PFC substitutes or alternatives would violate 
the workplace safety use conditions set forth in the SNAP rulemakings 
(58 FR 13044).
    To assist users in their evaluation for general fire suppression 
applications, EPA has prepared a list of vendors manufacturing halon 
substitutes and alternatives. Although users are not required to report 
the results of their investigation to EPA, companies must retain these 
results in company files for future reference.
    4. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. a. Streaming 
Agents. (1) C6F14
    C6F14 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1211 
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or 
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may 
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other 
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
    See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use 
condition on this agent.
    (2) HFC-236fa.
    HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in non-
residential applications when manufactured using any process that does 
not convert perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a 
single step. The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0 per 
cent and its LOAEL is 15 per cent. Cup burner tests with heptane 
indicate that the extinguishment concentration for this agent is 5.3 
per cent. Compared to Halon 1211, HFC-236fa has a weight equivalence of 
1.1 to 1.5.
    As discussed above, HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone, 
however, it has an atmospheric lifetime of 250 years and a 100-year GWP 
of 6300. Concerns have been raised about this agent's potential 
atmospheric effects. Thus, EPA recommends that users minimize 
unnecessary emissions by limiting testing only to that which is 
essential to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering HFC-
236fa from the fire protection equipment in conjunction with testing or 
servicing; and destroying HFC-236fa or recycling it for later use. EPA 
encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship 
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
    Further, this agent may not be used in residential applications, 
e.g., by a private individual in applications in or around a permanent 
or temporary household, during recreation, or for any personal use or 
enjoyment. Use in watercraft or aircraft is excluded from the 
definition of residential use.
    (3) HFC-227ea.
    HFC-227ea is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in 
nonresidential applications. The weight equivalence of this agent is 
1.66 pounds per pound of Halon 1211. It has a cardiac sensitization 
NOAEL of 9.0 per cent, and a LOAEL of 10.5% or greater. Its cup burner 
extinguishment value is 5.8%.
    This agent has no ozone depletion potential, a 100-year GWP of 2050 
relative to carbon dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of 31 years. It 
is already listed as acceptable for use in total flooding applications 
as an alternative to Halon 1301 (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13107).
    b. Total Flooding Agents.
    (1) C3F8.
    C3F8 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or 
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may 
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other 
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
    See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use 
condition on this agent.
    (2) C4F10. C4F10 is 
proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives 
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: 
(a) Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human 
exposure to the agents may result in failure to meet applicable use 
conditions or in other unacceptable health effects under normal 
operating conditions.
    See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use 
condition on this agent.
    (3) HFC-236fa. HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute 
when manufactured using any process that does not convert 
perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. 
HFC-236fa may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion 
applications, and may be used in fire suppression applications where 
other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not technically feasible due 
to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or 
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may 
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or result in other 
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions. Please 
see the section on ``Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' 
for a complete discussion of this agent. This agent is subject to the 
use conditions delineated in the above section.
    5. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Total Flooding Agents. (1) 
Chlorobromomethane.

[[Page 27880]]

Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for Halon 
1301 in total flooding applications. Recent authoritative research 
establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives 
exist for total flooding applications with lower or no ODP and do not 
pose a comparable risk. For example, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, as well as 
several inert gases, have no ODP.
E. Aerosols
    1. Chlorobromomethane. Chlorobromomethane (CBM) has been used as a 
fire suppressant and has the designation of Halon 1011. EPA has 
received notification that it can also be used as a solvent and a 
potential substitute for the ozone depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl 
chloroform (MCF) and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission 
requesting consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 
and MCF in solvents cleaning of metals and electronics and in precision 
cleaning. Analysis of the available toxicity data base for CBM raises 
significant questions concerning its suitability as a solvent 
substitute for CFC-113, or methyl chloroform, or HCFC-141b in metals 
cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision cleaning; and as a 
solvent agent in aerosols and in adhesives, coatings and inks. In a 
subchronic study, at a dose level of 500 ppm, adverse effects were 
evident in the livers of rats. At 1000 ppm, both guinea pigs and 
rabbits showed decreased spermatogenesis, but no studies of 
reproductive or developmental effects have been conducted. In addition, 
mutagenicity tests with CBM in microorganisms yielded consistently 
positive results. In mammalian systems, CBM induced sister chromatid 
exchanges. Thus the mutagenic effects of CBM are unmistakable.
    In 1989, EPA established a one day health advisory for water 
contaminated with CBM at 50 ppm. A longer term health advisory was 
established at 4.57 ppm for this compound in drinking water. OSHA 
established an occupational Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 200 ppm 
based on the ``grandfathered'' Threshold Limit Value (TLV) which dates 
back to 1961. This compound was not reviewed by OSHA in the 1989 
proposed revision process. In 1991, the only use noted for this 
chemical by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
(ACGIH) was as a liquid (streaming agent) fire suppressant. They 
recommended an 8 hour TLV of 200 ppm consistent with the PEL. The 
potential widespread use of CBM as a solvent substitute in the light of 
its toxicity profile and significant data gaps imply a much lower 
workplace limit. Based upon the lowest observed adverse effect level of 
500 ppm in rats, the SNAP evaluation suggests a more appropriate 
occupational exposure limit (OEL) to lie in the range of 2 and 5 ppm, 
making this compound unsuitable for use as a solvent.
    Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion 
potential (ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives exist 
with much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. As a 
result of these recent ODP findings and the potential widespread use of 
CBM in occupational settings unable to meet an OEL of 5 ppm, EPA 
proposes this agent as unacceptable.
    2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. Solvents. (1) HFC-
4310mee HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 
and methyl chloroform (MCF) in aerosols subject to a 200 ppm time-
weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm workplace 
exposure ceiling. This chemical does not deplete the ozone layer since 
it does not contain chlorine or bromine. Review under the SNAP program 
and the PMN program determined that a time-weighted average workplace 
exposure standard of 200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400 
ppm would be adequately protective of human health. Based on the 
results of exposure assessment studies, it is EPA's opinion that 
companies can meet the 200 ppm limit of the HFC-4310mee in defluxing 
and cleaning providing that the standard operating procedures and 
employee work habits are conducted in accordance with the procedures 
specified in the product safety information provided by the chemical 
manufacturer.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Health and Safety 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.
    (2) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 ca/cb is proposed as an acceptable 
substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF) in aerosols subject 
to a 25 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard of the 
HCFC-225ca isomer. HCFC-225 ca/cb HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered as a 
45%-ca/55%-cb blend. The company-set exposure limit of the -ca isomer 
is 25 ppm. The company-set exposure limit of the -cb isomer is 250 ppm. 
Based on the results of exposure assessment studies, it is EPA's 
opinion that companies can meet the 25 ppm limit of the HCFC-225 ca 
isomer in defluxing and cleaning providing that the standard operating 
procedures and employee work habits are conducted in accordance with 
the procedures specified in the product safety information provided by 
the chemical manufacturer.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Health and Safety 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.
    3. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Solvents. (1) Chlorobromomethane 
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 
and methyl chloroform in aerosols. Recent authoritative research 
establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28, and toxicity concerns 
exist based on potential widespread use in occupational settings not 
meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other alternatives exist with much 
lower ODP and do not pose a comparable risk.
F. Adhesives, coatings and inks
    1. Chlorobromomethane. Chlorobromomethane (CBM) has been used as a 
fire suppressant and has the designation of Halon 1011. EPA has 
received notification that it can also be used as a solvent and a 
potential substitute for the ozone-depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl 
chloroform (MCF) and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission 
requesting consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 
and MCF in solvents cleaning of metals and electronics and in precision 
cleaning. Analysis of the available toxicity data base for CBM raises 
significant questions concerning its suitability as a solvent 
substitute for CFC-113, or methyl chloroform, or HCFC-141b in metals 
cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision cleaning; and as a 
solvent agent in aerosols and in adhesives, coatings and inks. In a 
subchronic study, at a dose level of 500 ppm, adverse effects were 
evident in the livers of rats. At 1000 ppm, both guinea pigs and 
rabbits showed decreased spermatogenesis, but no studies of 
reproductive or developmental effects have been conducted. In addition, 
mutagenicity tests with CBM in microorganisms yielded consistently 
positive results. In mammalian systems, CBM induced sister chromatid

[[Page 27881]]

exchanges. Thus the mutagenic effects of CBM are unmistakable.
    In 1989, EPA established a one day health advisory for water 
contaminated with CBM at 50 ppm. A longer term health advisory was 
established at 4.57 ppm for this compound in drinking water. OSHA 
established an occupational Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 200 ppm 
based on the ``grandfathered'' Threshold Limit Value (TLV) which dates 
back to 1961. This compound was not reviewed in the 1989 proposed 
revision process. In 1991, the only use noted for this chemical by 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) was 
as a liquid (streaming agent) fire suppressant. They recommended an 8 
hour TLV of 200 ppm consistent with the PEL. The potential widespread 
use of CBM as a solvent substitute in the light of its toxicity profile 
and significant data gaps imply a much lower workplace limit. Based 
upon the lowest observed adverse effect level of 500 ppm in rats, the 
SNAP evaluation suggests a more appropriate occupational exposure limit 
(OEL) to lie in the range of 2 and 5 ppm, making this compound 
unsuitable for use as a solvent.
    Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion 
potential (ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives exist 
with much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. As a 
result of these recent ODP findings and the potential widespread use of 
CBM in occupational settings unable to meet an OEL of 5 ppm, EPA 
proposes this potential substitute, CBM, as unacceptable.
    2. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Solvents. (1) Chlorobromomethane. 
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 
and methyl chloroform in adhesives, coatings and inks. Recent 
authoritative research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to 
0.28, and toxicity concerns exist based on potential widespread use in 
occupational settings not meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other 
alternatives exist with much lower ODP and do not pose a comparable 
risk. For example, water-based formulations and other acceptable 
solvent formulations with no ODP are broadly used and readily 
available.

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 proposed 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, this proposed 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 (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities because costs of the SNAP 
requirements as a whole are expected to be minor. In fact, this 
proposed rule offers regulatory relief to small businesses by providing 
acceptable alternatives to phased-out ozone-depleting substances. 
Additionally, the SNAP rule exempts small sectors and end-uses from 
reporting requirements and formal agency review. To the extent that 
information gathering is more expensive and time-consuming for small 
companies, the actions proposed herein 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. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no information 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., that are not already approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). OMB has reviewed and approved two Information Collection 
Requests by EPA which are described in the March 18, 1994 rulemaking 
(59 FR 13044, at 13121, 13146-13147) and in the October 16, 1996 
rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at 54038-54039). The OMB Control Numbers are 
2060-0226 and 2060-0350.

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,

[[Page 27882]]

Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. (EST).
    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the 
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the 
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the 
Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is 
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program 
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Technology Transfer 
Network (TTN), Clean Air Act Amendment Bulletin Board. The access 
number for users with a 1200 or 2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For 
users with a 9600 bps modem the access number is (919) 541-1447. For 
assistance in accessing this service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal 
business hours (EST). Finally, all EPA publications on protection of 
stratospheric ozone are available from the Ozone World Wide Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/index.html.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: May 14, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

    2. Subpart G is amended by adding the following appendix E to read 
as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

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

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

     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 designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant. 
Specifications for the fittings similar to those found in SAE J639 and 
samples of all fittings must be submitted to EPA at the same time as 
the initial SNAP submission, or the submission will be considered 
incomplete. These fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent 
cross-charging with another refrigerant.
    The fittings must be used on all containers of the refrigerant, on 
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all 
air conditioning system service ports. A refrigerant may only be used 
with the fittings and can taps specifically intended for that 
refrigerant and designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant. Using 
a refrigerant with a fitting designed by anyone else, even if it is 
different from fittings used with other refrigerants, will be a 
violation of this use condition. Using an adapter or deliberately 
modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be a violation 
of this use condition.
    Fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:

--When existing CFC-12 service ports are 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 not retrofitted with conversion assemblies 
shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-12 related 
service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a thread lock 
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner 
that prevents the device from being removed.

     A label must be used as follows:

--The person conducting the retrofit or installing the system 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 measured 
according to ASTM E681 at normal atmospheric pressure and 25 degrees 
Celsius, 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 about the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by 
the new label must be rendered permanently 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.

                      Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                       Substitute                Decision                 Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All CFC-12 end uses, retrofit and     NARM-12................  Proposed Unacceptable..  This blend contains HFC-
 new.                                                                                    23, which has an       
                                                                                         extremely high GWP and 
                                                                                         lifetime. Other        
                                                                                         substitutes for CFC-12 
                                                                                         exist that do not      
                                                                                         contain HFC-23.        

[[Page 27883]]

                                                                                                                
All R-502 end uses, retrofit and new  NARM-502...............  Proposed Unacceptable..  This blend contains HFC-
                                                                                         23, which has an       
                                                                                         extremely high GWP and 
                                                                                         lifetime. Other        
                                                                                         substitutes for R-502  
                                                                                         exist that do not      
                                                                                         contain HFC-23.        
All HCFC-22 end uses, retrofit and    NARM-22................  Proposed Unacceptable..  This blend contains HCFC-
 new.                                                                                    22, and it is          
                                                                                         inappropriate to use   
                                                                                         such a blend as a      
                                                                                         substitute for HCFC-22.
                                                                                         In addition, this blend
                                                                                         contains HFC-23, which 
                                                                                         has an extremely high  
                                                                                         GWP and lifetime. Other
                                                                                         substitutes for HCFC-22
                                                                                         exist that do not      
                                                                                         contain HFC-23.        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Solvents Cleaning Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                       Substitute                Decision                Conditions       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC-113...........  HFC-4310mee............  Proposed Acceptable....  Subject to a 200 ppm    
                                                                                         time-weighted average  
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         standard and a 400 ppm 
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         ceiling.               
Metals cleaning w/MCF...............  HFC-4310mee............  Proposed Acceptable....  Subject to a 200 ppm    
                                                                                         time-weighted average  
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         standard and a 400 ppm 
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         ceiling.               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Solvents Cleaning Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                       Substitute                Decision                 Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning with CFC-113........  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Metals cleaning with methyl           Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
 chloroform (MCF).                                                                       concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Metals cleaning with HCFC-141b......  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Electronics cleaning with CFC-113...  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Electronics cleaning with MCF.......  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Electronics cleaning with HCFC-141b.  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Precision cleaning with CFC-113.....  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Precision cleaning with MCF.........  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Precision cleaning with HCFC-141b...  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Streaming Agents Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                        Substitute                  Decision               Conditions                       Comments              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211..........................  HFC-227ea.................  Proposed Acceptable in   ......................  See comments 1, 2.                   
                                                                   nonresidential uses                                                                  
                                                                   only.                                                                                
Streaming Agents....................  HFC-236fa.................  Proposed Acceptable in   ......................  See comments 1, 2.                   
                                                                   nonresidential uses                                                                  
                                                                   when manufactured                                                                    
                                                                   using any process that                                                               
                                                                   does not convert                                                                     
                                                                   perfluoroisobutylene                                                                 
                                                                   (PFIB) directly to HFC-                                                              
                                                                   236fa in a single step.                                                              

[[Page 27884]]

                                                                                                                                                        
                                      C6F14.....................  Acceptable for           ......................  Users must observe the limitations on
                                                                   nonresidential uses                              PFC acceptability by taking the     
                                                                   where other                                      following measures:                 
                                                                   alternatives are not                            (i) conduct an evaluation of         
                                                                   technically feasible                             foreseeable conditions of end use;  
                                                                   due to performance or                           (ii) determine that the physical or  
                                                                   safety requirements:.                            chemical properties or other        
                                                                  a. due to the physical                            technical constraints of the other  
                                                                   or chemical properties                           available agents preclude their use;
                                                                   of the agent, or                                 and                                 
                                                                  b. where human exposure                          (iii) determine that human exposure  
                                                                   to the extinguishing                             to the other alternative            
                                                                   agent may result in                              extinguishing agents may result in  
                                                                   failure to meet                                  failure to meet applicable use      
                                                                   applicable use                                   conditions or in other unacceptable 
                                                                   conditions or in other                           health effects under normal         
                                                                   unacceptable health                              operating conditions.               
                                                                   effects under normal                            Documentation of such measures must  
                                                                   operating conditions.                            be available for review upon        
                                                                                                                    request.                            
                                                                                                                   The principal environmental          
                                                                                                                    characteristic of concern for PFCs  
                                                                                                                    is that they have high GWPs and long
                                                                                                                    atmospheric lifetimes. Actual       
                                                                                                                    contributions to global warming     
                                                                                                                    depend upon the quantities of PFCs  
                                                                                                                    emitted.                            
                                                                                                                   For additional guidance regarding    
                                                                                                                    applications in which PFCs may be   
                                                                                                                    appropriate, users should consult   
                                                                                                                    the description of potential uses   
                                                                                                                    which is included in the March 18,  
                                                                                                                    1994 Final Rulemaking (59 FR 13044).
                                                                                                                    See additional comments 1, 2.       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments:                                                                                                                                    
1--Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.                
2--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.     


                    Total Flooding Agents Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed use Limits                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End use                  Substitute            Decision         Conditions            Comments      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301....................  HFC-236fa...........  Proposed           Until OSHA        The comparative      
Total Flooding Agents.........                         Acceptable.        establishes       design concentration
                                                      o when              applicable        based on cup burner 
                                                       manufactured       workplace         values is           
                                                       using any          requirements:.    approximately 6.4%. 
                                                       process that      For occupied      Users must observe   
                                                       does not convert   areas from        the limitations on  
                                                       perfluoroisobuty   which personnel   HFC-236fa           
                                                       lene (PFIB)        cannot be         acceptability by    
                                                       directly to HFC-   evacuated in      taking the following
                                                       236fa in a         one minute, use   measures:           
                                                       single step..      is permitted     (i) conduct an       
                                                      o for use in        only up to        evaluation of       
                                                       explosion          concentrations    foreseeable         
                                                       suppression and    not exceeding     conditions of end   
                                                       explosion          the               use;                
                                                       inertion           cardiotoxicity   (ii) determine that  
                                                       applications,      NOAEL of 10%..    human exposure to   
                                                       and.              For occupied       the other           
                                                      o for use in fire   areas from        alternative         
                                                       suppression        which personnel   extinguishing agents
                                                       applications       can be            may result in       
                                                       where other non-   evacuated or      failure to meet     
                                                       PFC agents or      egress can        applicable use      
                                                       alternatives are   occur between     conditions or in    
                                                       not technically    30 and 60         other unacceptable  
                                                       feasible due to    seconds, use is   health effects under
                                                       performance or     permitted up to   normal operating    
                                                       safety             a concentration   conditions; and     
                                                       requirements:.     not exceeding    (iii) determine that 
                                                      a. due to their     the LOAEL of      the physical or     
                                                       physical or        15%..             chemical properties 
                                                       chemical          All personnel      or other technical  
                                                       properties, or.    must be           constraints of the  
                                                      b. where human      evacuated         other available     
                                                       exposure to the    before            agents preclude     
                                                       extinguishing      concentration     their use.          
                                                       agents may         of HFC-236fa     Documentation of such
                                                       result in          exceeds 15%..     measures must be    
                                                       failure to meet   Design             available for review
                                                       applicable use     concentration     upon request.       
                                                       conditions or in   must result in   Feasible for use in a
                                                       other              oxygen levels     normally occupied   
                                                       unacceptable       of at least       area.               
                                                       health effects     16%..            See additional       
                                                       under normal                         comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
                                                       operating                                                
                                                       conditions..                                             

[[Page 27885]]

                                                                                                                
                                C4F10...............  Proposed           Until OSHA        The comparative      
                                                       Acceptable where   establishes       design concentration
                                                       other              applicable        based on cup burner 
                                                       alternatives are   workplace         values is           
                                                       not technically    requirements:.    approximately 8.8%. 
                                                       feasible due to   For occupied      Users must observe   
                                                       performance or     areas from        the limitations on  
                                                       safety             which personnel   PFC acceptability by
                                                       requirements:.     cannot be         taking the following
                                                      a. due to their     evacuated in      measures:           
                                                       physical or        one minute, use  (i) conduct an       
                                                       chemical           is permitted      evaluation of       
                                                       properties, or.    only up to        foreseeable         
                                                      b. where human      concentrations    conditions of end   
                                                       exposure to the    not exceeding     use;                
                                                       extinguishing      the              (ii) determine that  
                                                       agents may         cardiotoxicity    human exposure to   
                                                       result in          NOAEL of 30%..    the other           
                                                       failure to meet   Although no        alternative         
                                                       use conditions     LOAEL has been    extinguishing agents
                                                       or in other        established for   may result in       
                                                       unacceptable       this product,     failure to meet     
                                                       health effects     standard OSHA     applicable use      
                                                       under normal       requirements      conditions or in    
                                                       operating          apply, i.e.,      other unacceptable  
                                                       conditions..       for occupied      health effects under
                                                                          areas from        normal operating    
                                                                          which personnel   conditions; and     
                                                                          can be           (iii) determine that 
                                                                          evacuated or      the physical or     
                                                                          egress can        chemical properties 
                                                                          occur between     or other technical  
                                                                          30 and 60         constraints of the  
                                                                          seconds, use is   other available     
                                                                          permitted up to   agents preclude     
                                                                          a concentration   their use.          
                                                                          not exceeding    Documentation of such
                                                                          the LOAEL..       measures must be    
                                                                         All personnel      available for review
                                                                          must be           upon request.       
                                                                          evacuated        The principal        
                                                                          before            environmental       
                                                                          concentration     characteristic of   
                                                                          of C4F10          concern for PFCs is 
                                                                          exceeds 40%..     that they have high 
                                                                         Design             GWPs and long       
                                                                          concentration     atmospheric         
                                                                          must result in    lifetimes. Actual   
                                                                          oxygen levels     contributions to    
                                                                          of at least       global warming      
                                                                          16%..             depend upon the     
                                                                                            quantities of PFCs  
                                                                                            emitted.            
                                                                                           For additional       
                                                                                            guidance regarding  
                                                                                            applications in     
                                                                                            which PFCs may be   
                                                                                            appropriate, users  
                                                                                            should consult the  
                                                                                            description of      
                                                                                            potential uses which
                                                                                            is included in the  
                                                                                            March 18, 1994 Final
                                                                                            Rulemaking (59 FR   
                                                                                            13044.)             
                                                                                           See additional       
                                                                                            comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
Halon 1301....................  C3F8................  Proposed           Until OSHA        The comparative      
Total Flooding Agents.........                         Acceptable where   establishes       design concentration
                                                       other              applicable        based on cup burner 
                                                       alternatives are   workplace         values is           
                                                       not technically    requirements:.    approximately 8.8%. 
                                                       feasible due to   For occupied      Users must observe   
                                                       performance or     areas from        the limitations on  
                                                       safety             which personnel   PFC acceptability by
                                                       requirements:.     cannot be         taking the following
                                                      a. due to their     evacuated in      measures:           
                                                       physical or        one minute, use  (i) conduct an       
                                                       chemical           is permitted      evaluation of       
                                                       properties, or.    only up to        foreseeable         
                                                      b. where human      concentrations    conditions of end   
                                                       exposure to the    not exceeding     use;                
                                                       extinguishing      the              (ii) determine that  
                                                       agents may         cardiotoxicity    human exposure to   
                                                       result in          NOAEL of 30%..    the other           
                                                       failure to meet   Although no        alternative         
                                                       use conditions     LOAEL has been    extinguishing agents
                                                       or in other        established for   may result in       
                                                       unacceptable       this product,     failure to meet     
                                                       health effects     standard OSHA     applicable use      
                                                       under normal       requirements      conditions or in    
                                                       operating          apply, i.e.,      other unacceptable  
                                                       conditions..       for occupied      health effects under
                                                                          areas from        normal operating    
                                                                          which personnel   conditions; and     
                                                                          can be           (iii) determine that 
                                                                          evacuated or      the physical or     
                                                                          egress can        chemical properties 
                                                                          occur between     or other technical  
                                                                          30 and 60         constraints of the  
                                                                          seconds, use is   other available     
                                                                          permitted up to   agents preclude     
                                                                          a concentration   their use.          
                                                                          not exceeding    Documentation of such
                                                                          the LOAEL..       measures must be    
                                                                         All personnel      available for review
                                                                          must be           upon request.       
                                                                          evacuated        The principal        
                                                                          before            environmental       
                                                                          concentration     characteristic of   
                                                                          of C3F8 exceeds   concern for PFCs is 
                                                                          30%..             that they have high 
                                                                         Design             GWPs and long       
                                                                          concentration     atmospheric         
                                                                          must result in    lifetimes. Actual   
                                                                          oxygen levels     contributions to    
                                                                          of at least       global warming      
                                                                          16%..             depend upon the     
                                                                                            quantities of PFCs  
                                                                                            emitted.            
                                                                                           For additional       
                                                                                            guidance regarding  
                                                                                            applications in     
                                                                                            which PFCs may be   
                                                                                            appropriate, users  
                                                                                            should consult the  
                                                                                            description of      
                                                                                            potential uses which
                                                                                            is included in the  
                                                                                            March 18, 1994 Final
                                                                                            Rulemaking (59 FR   
                                                                                            13044.)             
                                                                                           See additional       
                                                                                            comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments                                                                                             
1--Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.                              
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must reenter the area.
                                                                                                                
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance   
  requirements.                                                                                                 
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and  
  recycled for later use or destroyed.                                                                          


[[Page 27886]]


                       Total Flooding Agents Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End use                  Substitute            Decision         Conditions            Comments      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301....................  HFC-236fa...........  Proposed           Until OSHA        The comparative      
Total Flooding Agents.........                         Acceptable.        establishes       design concentration
                                                      when manufactured   applicable        based on cup burner 
                                                       using any          workplace         values is           
                                                       process that       requirements:     approximately 6.4%. 
                                                       does not convert  For occupied      Users must observe   
                                                       perfluoroisobuty   areas from        the limitations on  
                                                       lene (PFIB)        which personnel   HFC-236fa           
                                                       directly to HFC-   cannot be         acceptability by    
                                                       236fa in a         evacuated in      taking the following
                                                       single step        one minute, use   measures:           
                                                      for use in          is permitted     (i) conduct an       
                                                       explosion          only up to        evaluation of       
                                                       suppression and    concentrations    foreseeable         
                                                       explosion          not exceeding     conditions of end   
                                                       inertion           the               use;                
                                                       applications,      cardiotoxicity   (ii) determine that  
                                                       and                NOAEL of 10%.     human exposure to   
                                                      for use in fire    For occupied       the other           
                                                       suppression        areas from        alternative         
                                                       applications       which personnel   extinguishing agents
                                                       where other non-   can be            may result in       
                                                       PFC agents or      evacuated or      failure to meet     
                                                       alternatives are   egress can        applicable use      
                                                       not technically    occur between     conditions or in    
                                                       feasible due to    30 and 60         other unacceptable  
                                                       performance or     seconds, use is   health effects under
                                                       safety             permitted up to   normal operating    
                                                       requirements:      a concentration   conditions; and     
                                                      a. due to their     not exceeding    (iii) determine that 
                                                       physical or        the LOAEL of      the physical or     
                                                       chemical           15%.              chemical properties 
                                                       properties, or    All personnel      or other technical  
                                                      b. where human      must be           constraints of the  
                                                       exposure to the    evacuated         other available     
                                                       extinguishing      before            agents preclude     
                                                       agents may         concentration     their use.          
                                                       result in          of HFC-236fa     Documentation of such
                                                       failure to meet    exceeds 15%.      measures must be    
                                                       applicable use    Design             available for review
                                                       conditions or in   concentration     upon request.       
                                                       other              must result in   Feasible for use in a
                                                       unacceptable       oxygen levels     normally occupied   
                                                       health effects     of at least 16%.  area.               
                                                       under normal                        See additional       
                                                       operating                            comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
                                                       conditions.                                              
Halon 1301....................  C3F8................  Proposed           Until OSHA        The comparative      
Total Flooding Agents.........                         Acceptable where   establishes       design concentration
                                                       other              applicable        based on cup burner 
                                                       alternatives are   workplace         values is           
                                                       not technically    requirements:     approximately 8.8%. 
                                                       feasible due to   For occupied      Users must observe   
                                                       performance or     areas from        the limitations on  
                                                       safety             which personnel   PFC acceptability by
                                                       requirements:      cannot be         undertaking the     
                                                      a. due to their     evacuated in      following measures: 
                                                       physical or        one minute, use  (i) conduct an       
                                                       chemical           is permitted      evaluation of       
                                                       properties, or     only up to        foreseeable         
                                                      b. where human      concentrations    conditions of end   
                                                       exposure to the    not exceeding     use;                
                                                       extinguishing      the              (ii) determine that  
                                                       agents may         cardiotoxicity    human exposure to   
                                                       result in          NOAEL of 30%      the other           
                                                       failure to meet   Although no        alternative         
                                                       use conditions     LOAEL has been    extinguishing agents
                                                       or in other        established for   may result in       
                                                       unacceptable       this product,     failure to meet     
                                                       health effects     standard OSHA     applicable use      
                                                       under normal       requirements      conditions or in    
                                                       operating          apply, i.e.,      other unacceptable  
                                                       conditions.        for occupied      health effects under
                                                                          areas from        normal operating    
                                                                          which personnel   conditions; and     
                                                                          can be           (iii) determine that 
                                                                          evacuated or      the physical or     
                                                                          egress can        chemical properties 
                                                                          occur between     or other technical  
                                                                          30 and 60         constraints of the  
                                                                          seconds, use is   other available     
                                                                          permitted up to   agents preclude     
                                                                          a concentration   their use.          
                                                                          not exceeding    Documentation of such
                                                                          the LOAEL.        measures must be    
                                                                         All personnel      available for review
                                                                          must be           upon request.       
                                                                          evacuated        The principal        
                                                                          before            environmental       
                                                                          concentration     characteristic of   
                                                                          of C3F8 exceeds   concern for PFCs is 
                                                                          30%.              that they have high 
                                                                         Design             GWPs and long       
                                                                          concentration     atmospheric         
                                                                          must result in    lifetimes. Actual   
                                                                          oxygen levels     contributions to    
                                                                          of at least 16%.  global warming      
                                                                                            depend upon the     
                                                                                            quantities of PFCs  
                                                                                            emitted.            
                                                                                           For additional       
                                                                                            guidance regarding  
                                                                                            applications in     
                                                                                            which PFCs may be   
                                                                                            appropriate, users  
                                                                                            should consult the  
                                                                                            description of      
                                                                                            potential uses which
                                                                                            is included in the  
                                                                                            March 18, 1994 Final
                                                                                            RUlemaking (59 FR   
                                                                                            13044.)             
                                                                                           See additional       
                                                                                            comments 1, 2, 3, 4.

[[Page 27887]]

                                                                                                                
                                C4F10...............  Proposed           Until OSHA        The comparative      
                                                       Acceptable where   establishes       design concentration
                                                       other              applicable        based on cup burner 
                                                       alternatives are   workplace         values is           
                                                       not technically    requirements:     approximately 8.8%. 
                                                       feasible due to   For occupied      Users must observe   
                                                       performance or     areas from        the limitations on  
                                                       safety             which personnel   PFC acceptability by
                                                       requirements:      cannot be         undertaking the     
                                                      a. due to their     evacuated in      following measures: 
                                                       physical or        one minute, use  (i) conduct an       
                                                       chemical           is permitted      evaluation of       
                                                       properties, or     only up to        foreseeable         
                                                      b. where human      concentrations    conditions of end   
                                                       exposure to the    not exceeding     use;                
                                                       extinguishing      the              (ii) determine that  
                                                       agents may         cardiotoxicity    human exposure to   
                                                       result in          NOAEL of 30%.     the other           
                                                       failure to meet   Although no        alternative         
                                                       use conditions     LOAEL has been    extinguishing agents
                                                       or in other        established for   may result in       
                                                       unacceptable       this product,     failure to meet     
                                                       health effects     standard OSHA     applicable use      
                                                       under normal       requirements      conditions or in    
                                                       operating          apply, i.e.,      other unacceptable  
                                                       conditions         for occupied      health effects under
                                                                          areas from        normal operating    
                                                                          which personnel   conditions; and     
                                                                          can be           (iii) determine that 
                                                                          evacuated or      the physical or     
                                                                          egress can        chemical properties 
                                                                          occur between     or other technical  
                                                                          30 and 60         constraints of the  
                                                                          seconds, use is   other available     
                                                                          permitted up to   agents preclude     
                                                                          a concentration   their use.          
                                                                          not exceeding    Documentation of such
                                                                          the LOAEL.        measures must be    
                                                                         All personnel      available for review
                                                                          must be           upon request.       
                                                                          evacuated        The principal        
                                                                          before Design     environmental       
                                                                          concentration     characteristic of   
                                                                          of C4F10          concern for PFCs is 
                                                                          exceeds 40%.      that they have high 
                                                                         Design             GWPs and long       
                                                                          concentration     atmospheric         
                                                                          must result in    lifetimes. Actual   
                                                                          oxygen levels     contributions to    
                                                                          of at least 16%.  global warming      
                                                                                            depend upon the     
                                                                                            quantities of PFCs  
                                                                                            emitted.            
                                                                                           For additional       
                                                                                            guidance regarding  
                                                                                            applications in     
                                                                                            which PFCs may be   
                                                                                            appropriate, users  
                                                                                            should consult the  
                                                                                            description of      
                                                                                            potential uses which
                                                                                            is included in the  
                                                                                            March 18, 1994 Final
                                                                                            Rulemaking (59 FR   
                                                                                            13044.)             
                                                                                           See additional       
                                                                                            comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments                                                                                             
1--Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.                              
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must reenter the area.
                                                                                                                
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance   
  requirements.                                                                                                 
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and  
  recycled for later use or destroyed.                                                                          


                   Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                       Substitute                Decision                 Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 Total Flooding Agents....  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP; other         
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Aerosols Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                       Substitute                Decision                Conditions       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols w/ CFC-113......  HFC-4310 mee...........  Proposed Acceptable....  Subject to a 200 ppm    
                                                                                         time-weighted average  
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         standard and a 400 ppm 
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         ceiling.               
Solvent in aerosols w/ MCF..........  HFC-4310 mee...........  Proposed Acceptable....  Subject to a 200 ppm    
                                                                                         time-weighted average  
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         standard and a 400 ppm 
                                                                                         workplace exposure     
                                                                                         ceiling.               
Solvent in aerosols w/ CFC-113......  HCFC-225ca/cb..........  Proposed Acceptable....  Subject to a time       
                                                                                         weighted average       
                                                                                         exposure limit of 25   
                                                                                         ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
                                                                                         isomer.                
Solvent in aerosols w/ MCF..........  HCFC-225ca/cb..........  Proposed Acceptable....  Subject to a time       
                                                                                         weighted average       
                                                                                         exposure limit of 25   
                                                                                         ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
                                                                                         isomer.                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Aerosols Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                       Substitute                Decision                 Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols with CFC-113....  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    

[[Page 27888]]

                                                                                                                
Solvent in aerosols with MCF........  Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
                                                                                         concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End use                       Substitute                Decision                 Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in adhesive, coatings, and    Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
 inks with CFC-113.                                                                      concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
Solvent in adhesives, coatings, and   Chlorobromomethane.....  Proposed Unacceptable..  High ODP, toxicity      
 inks with MCF.                                                                          concerns; other        
                                                                                         alternatives exist.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 97-13209 Filed 5-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P