47768 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of 

Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 

* * * * * 

69. The DHS/CBP—017 Analytical 

Framework for Intelligence (AFI) System of 

Records consists of electronic and paper 

records and will be used by DHS and its 

components. The DHS/CBP—017 Analytical 

Framework for Intelligence (AFI) System of 

Records is a repository of information held 

by DHS to enhance DHS’s ability to: Identify, 

apprehend, and/or prosecute individuals 

who pose a potential law enforcement or 

security risk; aid in the enforcement of the 

customs and immigration laws, and other 

laws enforced by DHS at the border; and 

enhance United States security. This system 

also supports certain other DHS programs 

whose functions include, but are not limited 

to, the enforcement of civil and criminal 

laws; investigations, inquiries, and 

proceedings there under; and national 

security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ 

CBP—017 Analytical Framework for 

Intelligence (AFI) System of Records contains 

information that is collected by, on behalf of, 

in support of, or in cooperation with DHS 

and its components and may contain 

personally identifiable information collected 

by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, 

or international government agencies. 

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security has 

exempted this system from certain provisions 

of the Privacy Act as follows: 

(1) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the 

system is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) 

and (c)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), 

(e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g). 

(2) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the 

system (except for any records that were 

ingested by AFI where the source system of 

records already provides access and/or 

amendment under the Privacy Act) is exempt 

from 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and 

(d)(4). 

(3) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), the 

system is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); 

(e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). 

(4) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), the 

system is exempt from (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), 

and (d)(4). 

(5) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the 

system is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); 

(e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). 

(6) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2),the 

system (except for any records that were 

ingested by AFI where the source system of 

records already provides access and/or 

amendment under the Privacy Act) is exempt 

from (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4). 

(b) Exemptions from these particular 

subsections are justified, on a case-by-case 

basis to be determined at the time a request 

is made, for the following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) 

(Accounting for Disclosures) because release 

of the accounting of disclosures could alert 

the subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation to the existence of that investigation 

and reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DHS as well as the recipient agency. 

Disclosure of the accounting would therefore 

present a serious impediment to law 

enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve 

national security. Disclosure of the 

accounting would also permit the individual 

who is the subject of a record to impede the 

investigation, to tamper with witnesses or 

evidence, and to avoid detection or 

apprehension, which would undermine the 

entire investigative process. 

(2) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) 

because access to the records contained in 

this system of records could inform the 

subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation to the existence of that investigation 

and reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DHS or another agency. Access to the 

records could permit the individual who is 

the subject of a record to impede the 

investigation, to tamper with witnesses or 

evidence, and to avoid detection or 

apprehension. Amendment of the records 

could interfere with ongoing investigations 

and law enforcement activities and would 

impose an unreasonable administrative 

burden by requiring investigations to be 

continually reinvestigated. In addition, 

permitting access and amendment to such 

information could disclose security-sensitive 

information that could be detrimental to 

homeland security. 

(3) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and 

Necessity of Information) because in the 

course of investigations into potential 

violations of federal law, the accuracy of 

information obtained or introduced 

occasionally may be unclear, or the 

information may not be strictly relevant or 

necessary to a specific investigation. In the 

interests of effective law enforcement and 

national security, it is appropriate to retain 

all information that may aid in establishing 

patterns of unlawful activity. 

(4) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of 

Information from Individuals) because 

requiring that information be collected from 

the subject of an investigation would alert the 

subject to the nature or existence of the 

investigation, thereby interfering with that 

investigation and related law enforcement 

and national security activities. 

(5) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to 

Individuals) because providing such detailed 

information could impede law enforcement 

and national security by compromising the 

existence of a confidential investigation or 

reveal the identity of witnesses or 

confidential informants. 

(6) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), 

and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) 

(Agency Rules), because portions of this 

system are exempt from the individual access 

provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons 

noted above, and therefore DHS is not 

required to establish requirements, rules, or 

procedures with respect to such access. 

Providing notice to individuals with respect 

to existence of records pertaining to them in 

the system of records or otherwise setting up 

procedures pursuant to which individuals 

may access and view records pertaining to 

themselves in the system would undermine 

investigative efforts and reveal the identities 

of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and 

confidential informants. 

(7) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of 

Information) because with the collection of 

information for law enforcement purposes, it 

is impossible to determine in advance what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, and 

complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) 

would preclude DHS agents from using their 

investigative training and exercise of good 

judgment to both conduct and report on 

investigations. 

(8) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on 

Individuals) because compliance would 

interfere with DHS’s ability to obtain, serve, 

and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law 

enforcement mechanisms that may be filed 

under seal and could result in disclosure of 

investigative techniques, procedures, and 

evidence. 

(9) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) 

to the extent that the system is exempt from 

other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. 

Dated: July 31, 2012. 

Mary Ellen Callahan, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19336 Filed 8–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118; FRL–9712–4] 

RIN 2060–AG12 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Determination 27 for Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Determination of Acceptability. 

SUMMARY: This Determination of 

Acceptability expands the list of 

acceptable substitutes for ozonedepleting substances under the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program. This action lists 

as acceptable four additional substitutes 

for use in the refrigeration and air 

conditioning sector; two additional 

substitutes in the foam blowing sector; 

one additional substitute in the solvent 

cleaning sector; two additional 

substitutes in the aerosol sector; and one 

additional substitute in the fire 

suppression sector. 

DATES: This determination is effective 

on August 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118 

(continuation of Air Docket A–91–42). 

All electronic documents in the docket 

are listed in the index at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47769 

1TSCA SNAP Addendum Form to EPA for C7 

Fluoroketone. February 22, 2010. 

2Unless otherwise stated, all ODPs in this 

document are from WMO (World Meteorological 

Organization), 2011. Scientific Assessment of 

Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and 

Monitoring Project—Report No. 52, 516 pp., 

Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. This document is 

accessible at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/ 

gaw/ozone_2010/ozone_asst_report.html . 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Air Docket (No. A–91–42), 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sheppard by telephone at 

(202) 343–9163, by facsimile at (202) 

343–2338, by email at 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov, or by mail 

at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Overnight or courier 

deliveries should be sent to the office 

location at 1310 L Street NW., 10th 

floor, Washington, DC 20005. 

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the original SNAP 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 

13044). Notices and rulemakings under 

the SNAP program, as well as other EPA 

publications on protection of 

stratospheric ozone, are available at 

EPA’s Ozone Depletion Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

strathome.html including the SNAP 

portion at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes 

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

B. Foam Blowing 

C. Solvent Cleaning 

D. Aerosols 

E. Fire Suppression 

II. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements and Authority 

for the SNAP Program 

B. EPA’s Regulations Implementing 

Section 612 

C. How the Regulations for the SNAP 

Program Work 

D. Additional Information About the SNAP 

Program 

Appendix A—Summary of Decisions for New 

Acceptable Substitutes 

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes 

This action presents EPA’s most 

recent acceptable listing decisions for 

substitutes in the refrigeration and air 

conditioning, foam blowing, solvent 

cleaning, aerosols and fire suppression 

sectors. For copies of the full list of 

acceptable substitutes for ozonedepleting substances (ODSs) in all 

industrial sectors, visit EPA’s Ozone 

Layer Protection Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/ 

index.html. 

The sections below discuss each 

substitute listing in detail. Appendix A 

contains tables summarizing today’s 

listing decisions for these new 

acceptable substitutes. The statements 

in the ‘‘Further Information’’ column in 

the tables provide additional 

information, but are not legally binding 

under section 612 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). In addition, the ‘‘further 

information’’ may not be a 

comprehensive list of other legal 

obligations you may need to meet when 

using the substitute. Although you are 

not required to follow recommendations 

in the ‘‘further information’’ column of 

the table to use a substitute consistent 

with section 612 of the CAA, EPA 

strongly encourages you to apply the 

information when using these 

substitutes. In many instances, the 

information simply refers to standard 

operating practices in existing industry 

and/or building-code standards. 

However, some of these statements may 

refer to obligations that are enforceable 

or binding under federal or state 

programs other than the SNAP program. 

Many of these recommendations, if 

adopted, would not require significant 

changes to existing operating practices. 

You can find submissions to EPA for 

the use of the substitutes listed in this 

document and other materials 

supporting the decisions in this action 

in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

1. C7 Fluoroketone 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds C7 

Fluoroketone acceptable as a substitute 

for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)–113 for 

use in new and retrofit equipment in 

non-mechanical heat transfer. 

C7 Fluoroketone is marketed under 

the trade name NovecTM 774 and is also 

designated as FK-6-1-12. This substitute 

is a blend of two isomers, 3- 

pentanone,1,1,1,2,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-2,4- 

bis(trifluoromethyl) (Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number [CAS Reg. No.] 

813–44–5) and 3- 

hexanone,1,1,1,2,4,4,5,5,6,6,6- 

undecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) (CAS 

Reg. No. 813–45–6). You may find the 

redacted submission under Docket item 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118–0287 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: C7 

Fluoroketone has no ozone depletion 

potential (ODP). C7 Fluoroketone has a 

100-year integrated (100-yr) global 

warming potential (GWP) of about 1.1

C7 Fluoroketone is considered a volatile 

organic compound (VOC) under Clean 

Air Act (CAA) regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of state implementation plans (SIPs) to 

attain and maintain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The emissions of this 

refrigerant will be limited given it is 

subject to the venting prohibition under 

section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations codified at 40 

CFR 82.154(a)(1). 

Flammability information: C7 

Fluoroketone is not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential 

health effects of this substitute include 

respiratory tract irritation and 

symptoms may include coughing, 

sneezing, nasal discharge, headache, 

hoarseness, and nose and throat pain. 

Contact with the eyes or skin during 

product use is not expected to result in 

significant irritation. Ingestion of C7 

Fluoroketone is not expected to cause 

health effects, and there is no 

anticipated need for first aid if C7 

Fluoroketone contacts the eyes or skin 

or if C7 Fluoroketone is ingested. 

EPA anticipates that C7 Fluoroketone 

will be used consistent with the 

recommendations specified in the 

manufacturer’s material safety data 

sheet (MSDS). The manufacturer 

recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit (AEL) for the workplace of 225 

ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted 

average (8-hr TWA) for C7 

Fluoroketone. EPA anticipates that users 

will be able to meet the manufacturer’s 

recommended workplace exposure limit 

and address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and 

other safety precautions common to the 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

industry. 

Comparison to other refrigerants: C7 

Fluoroketone is not ozone-depleting, 

comparable to a number of other 

acceptable non-ozone-depleting 

substitutes for this end use such as 

hydrofluoroether (HFE)-7100, 

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-245fa and CO2

and in contrast to CFC-113 (with an 

ODP of 1.0 relative to CFC-11), the 

ozone-depleting substance (ODS) which 

it replaces.2 C7 Fluoroketone’s GWP of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
47770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3Unless otherwise stated, all GWPs in this 

document are from: IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 

2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This 

document is accessible at http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. 

4Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. 

‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential 

Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of 

Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, 

Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. 

5Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric 

Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. 

6Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit. 

7Sulbaek Andersen, Nilsson, Neilsen, Johnson, 

Hurley and Wallington, ‘‘Atmospheric chemistry of 

trans-CF3CH=CHCl: Kinetics of the gas-phase 

reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3’’, Jrnl 

of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 

199 (2008) 92–97; and Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles 

D. Undated. ‘‘Three-Dimensional Model Evaluation 

of the Global Warming Potentials for tCFP.’’ 

Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of 

Illinois, Urbana, IL. Draft report, undated. 

8Wang et al. 2011 and Sulbaek Andersen et al., 

2008. Op cit. 

9The ODP of HFC-134a was estimated to be less 

than 1.5 × 10¥5 and the ODP of HFC-125 was 

estimated to be less than 3.0 × 10¥5 using a 

theoretical 2-dimensional model. Ravishankara, A. 

R., A. A. Turnipseed, N. R. Jensen, S. Barone, M. 

Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. Solomon. 1994. Do 

hydrofluorocarbons destroy stratospheric ozone? 

Science 263: 71–75. 10R-502 is a refrigerant blend containing 51.2% 

CFC-115 and 48.8% HCFC-22 by weight. 

about 1 is lower than or comparable to 

that of other non-ozone-depleting 

substitutes in heat transfer uses, such as 

HFE-7100 with a GWP of 297, HFC245fa with a GWP of 1030, and CO2

with a GWP of 1.3 Furthermore, the 

GWP of C7 Fluoroketone is well below 

that of CFC-113, the ODS it is replacing 

(with a GWP of 6130). Flammability and 

toxicity risks are low, as discussed 

above. The potential health effects of C7 

Fluoroketone are common to many 

refrigerants, including many of those 

already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. Thus, EPA finds C7 

Fluoroketone acceptable in the end use 

listed above because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by C7 Fluoroketone is lower than 

or comparable to the risks posed by 

other substitutes found acceptable in the 

same end use. 

2. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene (SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)) 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 

and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)- 

123 for use in new equipment in 

centrifugal chillers. 

Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene ((E)-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene, CAS Reg. No. 102687–65–0) is a 

chlorofluoroalkene marketed under the 

trade names SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) and 

SolsticeTM N12 Refrigerant for this end 

use. You may find the redacted 

submission under Docket item EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0118–0285 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has an ODP of 

0.00024 to 0.00034.4 5 Estimates of this 

compound’s potential to deplete the 

ozone layer found that even with worstcase estimates of emissions which 

assume that this compound would 

substitute for all compounds it could 

replace, the impact on global 

atmospheric ozone abundance would be 

statistically insignificant.6 SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) has a 100-yr GWP reported as 

4.7 to 7 and an atmospheric lifetime of 

approximately 26 to 31 days or less.7 8

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is currently 

considered a VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. The 

manufacturer has petitioned EPA to 

exempt SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) from that 

definition based on its claim that the 

chemical exhibits low photochemical 

reactivity. The emissions of this 

refrigerant will be limited given it is 

subject to the venting prohibition under 

section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations codified at 40 

CFR 82.154(a)(1). 

Flammability information: SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) is not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential 

health effects of this substitute include 

serious eye irritation, skin irritation, and 

frostbite. It may cause central nervous 

system effects such as drowsiness and 

dizziness. The substitute could cause 

asphyxiation if air is displaced by 

vapors in a confined space. 

EPA anticipates that SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) will be used consistent with 

the recommendations specified in the 

manufacturer’s MSDS. The 

manufacturer recommends an AEL of 

300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for SolsticeTM

1233zd(E). EPA anticipates that users 

will be able to meet the manufacturer’s 

recommended workplace exposure limit 

and address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and in 

any other safety precautions common to 

the refrigeration and air conditioning 

industry. 

Comparison to other refrigerants: 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has an ODP of 

0.00024 to 0.00034. This is roughly one 

order of magnitude higher than the 

ODPs of HFCs used in substitute 

refrigerants which are considered to 

have zero ODP, including HFC-134a and 

HFC-125.9 SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)’s ODP 

is well below that of CFC-11 and HCFC123 (with ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 

1.0), the ODSs which it replaces. 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)’s GWP of 4.7 to 7 

is lower than or comparable to that of 

other acceptable substitutes in the same 

end uses, such as HFC-134a with a GWP 

of 1430, HFC-245fa with a GWP of 1030, 

and ammonia with a GWP of 0. Its GWP 

is also well below those of CFC-11 and 

HCFC-123 (with GWPs ranging from 77 

to 4750). Flammability and toxicity risks 

are low, as discussed above. The 

potential health effects of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) are common to many 

refrigerants, including many of those 

already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. Thus, EPA finds trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)) acceptable in the end use 

listed above because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene is lower than or 

comparable to the risks posed by other 

substitutes found acceptable in the same 

end use. 

3. Carbon dioxide (R-744) 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds carbon 

dioxide CO2 or R-744) acceptable as a 

substitute for CFC-12, HCFC-22 and 

blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 

HCFC-142b, and R-502 10 for use in new 

equipment in vending machines. 

Carbon dioxide is also known as CO2, 

CAS Reg. No. 124–38–9, or R–744 when 

used as a refrigerant. We have 

previously listed CO2 as a refrigerant in 

other refrigeration and air conditioning 

end uses (e.g., 77 FR 33315, June 6, 

2012; 74 FR 50129, September 30, 2009; 

60 FR 3318, January 13, 1995). You may 

find the redacted submission under 

docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118– 

0283 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: CO2 has 

no ODP. The 100-yr GWP of CO2 is 1. 

EPA’s regulations codified at 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart F exempt CO2

refrigerant from the venting prohibition 

under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act (see 69 FR 11946; March 12, 2004). 

This section and EPA’s implementing 

regulations prohibit the intentional 

venting or release of substitutes for class 

I or class II ODSs during the repair, 

maintenance, service or disposal of 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

appliances, unless EPA expressly 

exempts a particular substitute 

refrigerant from the venting prohibition, 

as we have done for CO2. 

CO2 is excluded from the definition of 

VOC under Clean Air Act regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47771 

11Hydrofluoroolefins are a subset of 

hydrofluorocarbons that contain double bonds 

between carbon atoms. 

12 ‘‘Atmospheric chemistry of trans-CF3CH=CHF: 

products and mechanisms of hydroxyl radical and 

chlorine atom initiated oxidation, M. S. Javadi, R. 

S<ndergaard, O.J. Nielsen, M. D. Hurley, and T.J. 

Wellington, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 

Discussions 8, 1069–1088, 2008 

(see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 

development of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. 

Flammability information: CO2 is not 

flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential 

health effects of this substitute at lower 

concentrations include loss of 

concentration, headache and shortness 

of breath. The substitute may also 

irritate the skin or eyes or cause 

frostbite. At sufficiently high 

concentrations, it may cause central 

nervous system depression. The 

substitute could cause asphyxiation, if 

air is displaced by vapors in a confined 

space. For additional information 

concerning potential health risks of CO2,

see EPA’s final rule under the SNAP 

program for use of CO2 as a refrigerant 

in motor vehicle air conditioning 

systems (77 FR 33315, June 6, 2012). 

Also, EPA has performed an assessment 

to examine the health and 

environmental risks of this substitute. 

This assessment is available in docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118 under the 

name, ‘‘Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC-12 and R-502 in Vending Machines 

Substitute: Carbon Dioxide.’’ To protect 

against these potential health risks, CO2

has an 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 

5000 ppm in the workplace required by 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and a 15- 

minute recommended short-term 

exposure limit (STEL) of 30,000 ppm 

established by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH). EPA recommends that users 

follow all requirements and 

recommendations specified in the 

MSDS, in American Society for Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) standard 15, and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

industry. Based on the Risk Screen 

analysis described above, we 

recommend installing vending 

machines using CO2 in well-ventilated 

spaces and avoiding confined spaces 

with poor ventilation. We also 

recommend that users of CO2 adhere to 

NIOSH’s STEL and to ASHRAE 15, and 

we expect that users will meet OSHA’s 

PEL. EPA anticipates that users will be 

able to address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS, in 

ASHRAE 15, and other safety 

precautions common in the refrigeration 

and air conditioning industry. 

Comparison to other refrigerants: CO2

is not ozone-depleting, comparable to a 

number of other acceptable non-ozonedepleting substitutes for these end uses, 

including R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, and 

HFC-134a, and in contrast to the ODSs 

CFC-12, HCFC-22 and R-502 (with ODPs 

ranging from 0.04 to 1.0) which it 

replaces. CO2s GWP of 1 is lower than 

or comparable to that of other nonozone-depleting substitutes in the same 

refrigeration and air conditioning end 

use for which we are finding it 

acceptable, such as R-404A with a GWP 

of about 3930, R-407C with a GWP of 

about 1770, R-410A with a GWP about 

2090, and HFC-134a with a GWP about 

1430. Furthermore, the GWP of CO2 is 

well below those of the ODSs it is 

replacing, including CFC-12, HCFC-22 

and R-502 (with GWPs ranging from 

1810 to 10,900). Flammability risks are 

low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks 

can be minimized by use consistent 

with industry standards, 

recommendations in the MSDS, and 

other safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

industry. The potential health effects of 

CO2 are common to many refrigerants, 

including many of those already listed 

as acceptable under SNAP. Thus, EPA 

finds CO2 acceptable in the end uses 

listed above because the overall 

environment and human health risk 

posed by CO2 is lower than or 

comparable to the risks posed by other 

substitutes found acceptable in the same 

end uses. 

4. HFO-1234ze 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds 

hydrofluoroolefin 11 (HFO)-1234ze is 

acceptable as a substitute for: 

• CFC-12, R-500, HCFC-22 and blends 

containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b 

for use in new equipment in 

reciprocating, screw and scroll chillers 

• CFC-11 and HCFC-123 for use in 

new equipment in centrifugal chillers 

HFO-1234ze is also known as HFC1234ze, HFO-1234ze(E) or trans-1,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 

29118–24–9). It is sold under the trade 

name SolsticeTM 1234ze. We have 

previously listed HFO-1234ze as an 

acceptable substitute for a number of 

foam blowing end uses, as an aerosol 

propellant, and as a refrigerant for heat 

transfer (74 FR 50129, September 30, 

2009; 75 FR 34017, June 16, 2010). You 

may find the submission under Docket 

item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118–0282 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: HFO1234ze has no ODP. HFO-1234ze has a 

100-yr GWP of 6 12 and an atmospheric 

lifetime of approximately 2 weeks. HFO1234ze is exempted from the definition 

of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 

CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 

development of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS (June 22, 2012; 77 

FR 37610). The emissions of this 

refrigerant will be limited given it is 

subject to the venting prohibition under 

section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations codified at 40 

CFR 82.154(a)(1). 

Flammability information: HFO1234ze is non-flammable at standard 

temperature and pressure using the 

standard test method ASTM E681. 

However, at higher temperatures it is 

mildly flammable. It is classified as a 

Class 2L (lower flammability, low 

burning velocity) refrigerant under the 

standard ASHRAE 34 (2010). 

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential 

health effects of this substitute at lower 

concentrations include headache, 

nausea, drowsiness and dizziness. The 

substitute may also irritate the skin or 

eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently 

high concentrations, it may cause 

central nervous system depression and 

affect respiration. The substitute could 

cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by 

vapors in a confined space. 

EPA anticipates that HFO-1234ze will 

be used consistent with the 

recommendations specified in the 

manufacturer’s MSDS. The American 

Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) 

recommends a workplace 

environmental exposure limit (WEEL) of 

800 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1234ze. 

EPA anticipates that users will be able 

to meet the workplace exposure limit 

(WEEL) and address potential health 

risks by following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and 

other safety precautions common to the 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

industry. 

Comparison to other refrigerants: 

HFO-1234ze is not ozone-depleting, 

comparable to a number of other 

acceptable non-ozone-depleting 

substitutes for these end uses such as R407C, HFC-134a and ammonia, and in 

contrast to CFC-12, HCFC-22 and R-500 

(with ODPs ranging from 0.04 to 1.0), 

the ODSs which it replaces. HFO1234ze’s GWP of about 6 is lower than 

or comparable to that of other nonozone-depleting substitutes in the same 

refrigeration and air conditioning end 

uses for which we are finding it 

acceptable, such as R-407C with a GWP 

about 1770, HFC-134a with a GWP 

about 1430, and ammonia with a GWP 

of zero. HFO-1234e’s GWP is well below 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
47772 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

13The ODP of HFC-134a was estimated to be less 

than 1.5 × 10¥5 using a theoretical 2-dimensional 

model. Ravishankara et al. 1994. Op. cit. 

that of the ODSs it replaces, including 

CFC-12, HCFC-22 and R-500 with GWPs 

ranging from 1810 to 10,900. 

Flammability and toxicity risks are low, 

as discussed above. The potential health 

effects of HFO-1234ze are common to 

many refrigerants, including many of 

those already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. Thus, EPA finds HFO-1234ze 

acceptable in the end uses listed above 

because the overall environmental and 

human health risk posed by HFO1234ze is lower than or comparable to 

the risks posed by other substitutes 

found acceptable in the same end uses. 

B. Foam Blowing 

1. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene (SolsticeTM Liquid Blowing Agent) 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene is 

acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 

and HCFC-141b in: 

• Rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

• Rigid polyurethane appliance 

• Rigid polyurethane spray, 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich 

panels 

• Rigid polyurethane slabstock and 

other 

• Integral skin polyurethane 

Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene ((E)-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene, CAS Reg. No. 102687–65–0) is a 

chlorofluoroalkene marketed under the 

trade names SolsticeTM 1233zd(E), 

SolsticeTM Liquid Blowing Agent or 

SolsticeTM LBA in these end uses. You 

may find the redacted submission under 

Docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0285 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: The 

environmental information for this 

substitute is set forth in the 

‘‘Environmental information’’ section in 

listing A.2. 

Flammability information: SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) is not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: The 

toxicity information for this substitute is 

set forth in the ‘‘Toxicity and exposure 

data’’ section in listing A.2. 

EPA anticipates that SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) will be used consistent with 

the recommendations specified in the 

manufacturer’s MSDS. The 

manufacturer recommends an AEL of 

300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for SolsticeTM

1233zd(E). EPA anticipates that users 

will be able to meet the manufacturer’s 

recommended workplace exposure limit 

and address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and in 

other safety precautions common to the 

foam blowing industry. 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents: SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has an 

ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034. This is 

roughly one order of magnitude higher 

than the ODP of HFC-134a, a substitute 

foam blowing agent which is considered 

to have zero ODP.13 SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)’s ODP is well below that of 

CFC-11 and HCFC-141b (with ODPs 

ranging from 0.12 to 1.0), the ODSs 

which it replaces. SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)’s GWP of 4.7 to 7 is lower 

than or comparable to that of other nonozone-depleting substitutes in the same 

foam blowing end uses for which we are 

finding it acceptable, such as HFC-245fa 

with a GWP of 1030, HFC-365mfc with 

a GWP of 794 and C3-C6 saturated light 

hydrocarbons with GWPs less than 10. 

Furthermore, SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)’s 

GWP is well below that of CFC-11 and 

HCFC-141b (with GWPs ranging from 

725 to 4750). Flammability and toxicity 

risks are low, as discussed above. The 

potential health effects of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) are common to many foam 

blowing agents, including many of those 

already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. Thus, EPA finds trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)) acceptable in the end uses 

listed above because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene is lower than or 

comparable to the risks posed by other 

substitutes found acceptable in the same 

end uses. 

2. Formacel® Z-6 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds Formacel®

Z-6 is acceptable as a substitute for 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b or blends thereof 

in: 

• Polystyrene extruded boardstock & 

billet 

• Polystyrene extruded sheet 

• Rigid polyurethane appliance foam 

• Rigid polyurethane commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels 

• Integral skin polyurethane 

• Rigid polyurethane slabstock and 

other 

Formacel® Z-6 is a series of blends 

with different percentage contents of the 

same compounds. The submitter has 

claimed its composition as confidential 

business information (CBI). You may 

find the redacted submission under 

Docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0284 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: 

Formacel® Z-6 has no ODP. Formacel®

Z-6 blends range in GWP from 

approximately 370 to 1290. Formacel®

Z-6 does not contain VOCs as defined 

under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. 

Flammability information: Some 

components of the Formacel® Z-6 

blends are flammable. Some specific 

blends are flammable as formulated and 

should be handled with proper 

precautions, as specified by the 

manufacturer. EPA recommends that 

users follow all requirements and 

recommendations specified in the 

MSDS and other safety precautions for 

use of flammable blowing agents used in 

the foam blowing industry. Use of 

Formacel® Z-6 will require safe 

handling and shipping as prescribed by 

OSHA and the Department of 

Transportation (for example, using 

personal safety equipment and 

following requirements for shipping 

hazardous materials at 49 CFR parts 170 

through 173). 

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential 

health effects of this substitute include 

nausea, headache, weakness, or central 

nervous system depression with effects 

such as dizziness, drowsiness, 

confusion, or loss of consciousness. The 

substitute may also irritate the lungs, 

skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At high 

concentrations, the substitute may cause 

irregular heartbeat. The substitute could 

cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by 

vapors in a confined space. EPA 

anticipates that Formacel® Z-6 will be 

used consistent with the 

recommendations specified in the 

manufacturer’s MSDS. The 

manufacturer recommends an AEL of 

1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for Formacel® Z6. The AIHA has established a WEEL of 

1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for at least one 

of the components of Formacel® Z-6. 

EPA anticipates that users will be able 

to meet the manufacturer’s 

recommended workplace exposure limit 

(AEL) and any AIHA WEELs for 

components and will be able to address 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the MSDS and other safety precautions 

common in the foam blowing industry. 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents: Formacel® Z-6 is not ozonedepleting, comparable to a number of 

other acceptable non-ozone-depleting 

substitutes for these end uses, such as 

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa and C3-C6 

saturated light hydrocarbons, and in 

contrast to HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 

(with ODPs ranging from 0.04 to 0.06), 

the ODSs which it replaces. Formacel®

Z-6 blends range in GWP from 370 to 

1290, lower than or comparable to those 

of other non-ozone-depleting substitutes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47773 

14A ceiling limit is a concentration of a chemical 

that no person should be exposed to for any period 

of time in order to prevent adverse health effects. 

in the same foam blowing end uses for 

which we are finding it acceptable, such 

as HFC-134a with a GWP of 1430 and 

HFC-245fa with a GWP of 1030. 

Furthermore, the GWP of Formacel® Z6 is lower than or comparable to that of 

the ODSs it replaces, including HCFC142b and HCFC-22, with GWPs ranging 

from 1810 to 2310. Like many other 

substitutes in this end use, such as HFC365mfc or C3-C6 saturated light 

hydrocarbons, flammability risks can be 

addressed by procedures common in the 

industry. The toxicity risks are low, as 

discussed above. The potential health 

effects of Formacel® Z-6 are common to 

many foam blowing agents, including 

many of those already listed as 

acceptable under SNAP. Thus, EPA 

finds Formacel® Z-6 acceptable in the 

end uses listed above because the 

overall environmental and human 

health risk posed by Formacel® Z-6 is 

lower than or comparable to the risks 

posed by other substitutes found 

acceptable in the same end uses. 

C. Solvent Cleaning 

1. HFE-347pcf2 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds HFE347pcf2 acceptable as a substitute for 

CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFC225ca, HCFC-225cb, and blends thereof 

for use in: 

• Electronics cleaning 

• Precision cleaning 

HFE-347pcf2 is also known as 2,2,2- 

trifluoroethoxy-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 

(CAS Reg. No. 406–78–0). It is marketed 

under the trade name AE–3000. You 

may find the redacted submission under 

Docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0280 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: HFE347pcf2 has no ODP. HFE-347pcf2 has 

a 100-year GWP of 580 and an 

atmospheric lifetime of 7.1 years. HFE347pcf2 is currently defined as a VOC 

under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 

CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 

development of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. The manufacturer 

has petitioned EPA to exempt HFE347pcf2 from that definition based on 

its claim that the chemical exhibits low 

photochemical reactivity. Many states, 

in particular those with areas that are 

not attaining the NAAQS for ozone, 

currently have regulations governing the 

VOC content of solvents. 

Flammability information: HFE347pcf2 is not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential 

health effects of this substitute include 

coughing, dizziness, dullness, 

drowsiness, and headache. Higher 

concentrations can produce heart 

irregularities, central nervous system 

depression, narcosis, unconsciousness, 

respiratory failure, or death. The 

substitute may also irritate the skin or 

eyes. 

An assessment was performed to 

examine the health and environmental 

risks of this substitute. This assessment 

is available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0118 under the name, ‘‘Risk 

Screen on Substitutes CFC-113, Methyl 

Chloroform, and HCFC-141b in Aerosol 

Solvent, Electronics Cleaning, and 

Precision Cleaning Substitute: HFE347pcf2.’’ Based on this analysis, EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to use 

HFE-347pcf2 in electronics and 

precision cleaning without appreciable 

health risks. EPA anticipates that HFE347pcf2 will be used consistent with the 

recommendations specified in the 

MSDS. The manufacturer recommends 

an AEL of 50 ppm (8-hr TWA). EPA 

recommends a ceiling limit 14 of 150 

ppm for HFE-347pcf2. EPA anticipates 

that users will be able to meet the 

workplace exposure limits 

(manufacturer and EPA 

recommendations) based on the risk 

screen mentioned above. We expect that 

users will address potential health risks 

by following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and 

other safety precautions common in the 

solvent cleaning industry. 

Comparison to other solvents: HFE347pcf2’s ODP of zero is less than or 

comparable to that of other substitutes 

in electronics and precision cleaning 

such as perfluorobutyl iodide with an 

ODP of less than 0.005 and HFC4310mee, HFE-7100 and aqueous 

cleaners with no ODP. Its ODP is 

significantly below those of methyl 

chloroform, CFC-113, HCFC-225ca and 

HCFC-225cb (with ODPs ranging from 

0.02 to 0.85), the ODSs it replaces. HFE347pcf2’s GWP of 540 is lower than that 

of some other substitutes in the listed 

end uses, such as HFC-4310mee with a 

GWP of 1640, but higher than the GWP 

of some other substitutes, such as HFE7100 with a GWP of 297 and aqueous 

cleaners with no direct GWP. 

Flammability risks are low and toxicity 

risks will be addressed when used 

according to recommendations in the 

MSDS and other safety precautions 

common in the solvent cleaning 

industry, as discussed above. The 

potential health effects of HFE-347pcf2 

are common to many solvents, 

including many of those already listed 

as acceptable under SNAP. Thus, EPA 

finds HFE-347pcf2 acceptable in the end 

uses listed above because the overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment posed by HFE-347pcf2 is 

lower than or comparable to the risks 

posed by other substitutes found 

acceptable in the same end uses. 

D. Aerosols 

1. HFE-347pcf2 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds HFE347pcf2 acceptable as a substitute for 

CFC-113, methyl chloroform, HCFC141b, and HCFC-225ca, HCFC-225cb, 

and blends thereof for use as an aerosol 

solvent. 

HFE-347pcf2 is also known as 2,2,2- 

Trifluoroethoxy-1,1,2,2- 

tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 406– 

78–0). It is marketed under the trade 

name AE–3000. You may find the 

redacted submission under Docket item 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118–0280 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: The 

environmental information for this 

substitute is set forth in the 

‘‘Environmental information’’ section in 

listing C.1. 

Flammability information: HFE347pcf2 is not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: The 

toxicity information for this substitute is 

set forth in the ‘‘Toxicity and exposure 

data’’ section in listing C.1. 

EPA anticipates that HFE-347pcf2 

will be used consistent with the 

recommendations specified in the 

manufacturer’s MSDS. The 

manufacturer recommends an AEL of 50 

ppm (8-hr TWA). EPA recommends a 

ceiling limit of 150 ppm for HFE347pcf2. 

An assessment was performed to 

examine the health and environmental 

risks of this substitute. This assessment 

is available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0118 under the name, ‘‘Risk 

Screen on Substitutes CFC-113, Methyl 

Chloroform, and HCFC-141b in Aerosol 

Solvent, Electronics Cleaning, and 

Precision Cleaning Substitute: HFE347pcf2.’’ Based on this analysis, we 

recommend using this compound as an 

aerosol solvent with adequate 

ventilation and following good 

industrial hygiene practice due to the 

potential neurotoxic effects of this 

substitute at high acute (short-term) 

concentrations. EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to meet the workplace 

exposure limits (manufacturer and EPA 

recommendations) and address 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the MSDS and other safety precautions 

common during use of aerosol solvents. 

Comparison to other aerosol solvents: 

HFE-347pcf2 is not ozone-depleting, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
47774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

15Wuebbles and Patten, 2010. Atmospheric 

lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropylene and trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model. 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. 

16WMO, 2010. Section 1.3.6.2. 

comparable to that of a number of 

acceptable non-ozone depleting 

substitutes for the aerosol solvent end 

use such as HFC-4310mee, HFE-7100 

and trans-dichloroethylene, and in 

contrast to methyl chloroform, CFC-113, 

HCFC-141b, HCFC-225ca and HCFC225cb (with ODPs ranging from 0.02 to 

0.85), the ODSs it replaces. HFE347pcf2’s GWP of 540 is lower than that 

of some other substitutes for CFC-113 in 

the listed end use, such as HFC4310mee with a GWP of 1640, but 

higher than the GWP of some other 

substitutes, such as HFE-7100 with a 

GWP of 297 and trans-dichloroethylene 

with a GWP less than 10. Its GWP is 

well below that of CFC-113 with a GWP 

of 6130, comparable to that of HCFC141b and HCFC-225cb with GWPs of 

717 and 606, and higher than those for 

methyl chloroform and HCFC-225ca 

(with GWPs of 146 and 122). 

Flammability risks are low, as discussed 

above. Toxicity risks can be managed 

when the guidelines in the 

manufacturer’s MSDS and other safety 

precautions common during use of 

aerosol solvents in industry are 

followed. The potential health effects of 

HFE-347pcf2 are common to many 

solvents, including many of those 

already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. Thus, EPA finds HFE-347pcf2 

acceptable in the end use listed above 

because the overall risk to human health 

and the environment posed by HFE347pcf2 is lower than or comparable to 

the risks posed by other substitutes 

found acceptable in the same end use. 

2. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene (SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)) 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, 

methyl chloroform, HCFC-141b, and 

HCFC-225ca, HCFC-225cb, and blends 

thereof for use as an aerosol solvent. 

Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene ((E)-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene, CAS Reg. No. 102687–65–0) is 

marketed under the trade names 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) and SolsticeTM

Performance Fluid in this end use. You 

may find the redacted submission under 

Docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0285 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Environmental information: The 

environmental information for this 

substitute is set forth in the 

‘‘Environmental information’’ section in 

listing A.2. 

Flammability information: SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) is not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: The 

toxicity information for this substitute is 

set forth in the ‘‘Toxicity and exposure 

data’’ section in listing A.2. 

EPA anticipates that SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) will be used consistent with 

the recommendations specified in the 

manufacturer’s MSDSs. The 

manufacturer recommends an AEL of 

300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for SolsticeTM

1233zd(E). EPA anticipates that users 

will be able to meet the manufacturer’s 

recommended workplace exposure limit 

(AEL) and address potential health risks 

by following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and 

other safety precautions common during 

use of aerosol solvents. 

Comparison to other aerosol solvents: 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has an ODP of 

0.00024 to 0.00034. This is comparable 

to the ODPs of trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene and trichloroethylene 

and an order of magnitude lower than 

the ODP of perchloroethylene, other 

substitutes in the aerosol solvents end 

use that are not regulated as ODS.15,16

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)’s ODP is well 

below those of methyl chloroform, CFC113, HCFC-141b, HCFC-225ca and 

HCFC-225cb (with ODPs ranging from 

0.02 to 0.85), the ODSs it replaces. 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)’s GWP of 4.7 to 7 

is lower than or comparable to that of 

other substitutes in the aerosol solvent 

end use, such as HFC-4310mee with a 

GWP of 1640, HFE-7100 with a GWP of 

297 and trans-dichloroethylene with a 

GWP less than 10. Furthermore, the 

GWP of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is well 

below those of the ODSs being replaced, 

including CFC-113, methyl chloroform, 

HCF-141b, HCFC-225ca and HCFC225cb, with GWPs ranging from 122 to 

6130. Flammability and toxicity risks 

are low, as discussed above. The 

potential health effects of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) are common to many 

solvents, including many of those 

already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. Thus, EPA finds trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)) acceptable in the end use 

listed above because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene is lower than or 

comparable to the risks posed by other 

substitutes found acceptable in the same 

end use. 

E. Fire Suppression 

1. Cold Fire® (Surfactant Blend A) 

EPA’s decision: EPA finds Cold Fire®

(Surfactant Blend A) is acceptable as a 

substitute for halon 1301 for total 

flooding uses in both occupied and 

unoccupied areas. 

Cold Fire® is a liquid fire suppression 

agent. The manufacturer of Cold Fire®

has claimed its composition as CBI. You 

may find the redacted submission under 

Docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0118–0288 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. EPA previously 

listed ‘‘Surfactant Blend A,’’ a blend 

consistent with the composition of Cold 

Fire®, as an acceptable substitute for 

halon 1211 in the streaming end use 

(March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044). 

Environmental information: Cold 

Fire® has no ODP and no GWP. Cold 

Fire® does not contain any VOCs as 

defined under CAA regulations (see 40 

CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 

development of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. 

Cold Fire® is expected to aerosolize 

rapidly during expulsion from the fire 

suppression system and then settle as a 

liquid on surfaces in the space being 

protected, rather than becoming 

airborne and moving to surface waters. 

After settling, cleanup would involve 

washing or rinsing of surfaces. 

Cold Fire® is not biodegradable. 

During cleanup, we recommend that 

discharges of Cold Fire® be collected 

(e.g., mopped) and sealed in containers 

and then disposed of in accordance with 

local, state, and federal requirements 

and as specified in the manufacturer’s 

MSDS. EPA recommends that 

discharges of Cold Fire® not be released 

to waterways. The MSDS also specifies 

that training for safe handling 

procedures be provided to all employees 

that would be likely to dispose of Cold 

Fire® at cleanup. EPA anticipates that 

users will be able to avoid potential 

risks to water and aquatic life by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS. 

Flammability information: Cold Fire®

is non-flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: The 

majority of the constituents in the Cold 

Fire® formulation are classified by the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) as ‘‘generally recognized as safe’’ 

(GRAS) compounds, and the remaining 

constituents are FDA-approved for use 

as direct or indirect food additives. 

These compounds are commonly used 

in food, pharmaceutical, or cosmetic 

applications. Individual constituents 

may cause gastrointestinal discomfort (if 

excessively ingested) or minor irritation 

to the eyes, skin, and/or respiratory 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47775 

17As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, ‘‘interstate 

commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation 

of any product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, and another 

state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any 

product in more than one state, territory, possession 

or District of Columbia. The entry points for which 

a product is introduced into interstate commerce 

are the release of a product from the facility in 

which the product was manufactured, the entry into 

a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer 

releases the product for sale or distribution, and at 

the site of United States Customs clearance. 

tract. Given the low toxicity of its 

constituents, EPA expects no adverse 

health effects when the recommended 

safety precautions and normal industry 

practices are applied and use of the 

substitute is in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s MSDS. To minimize 

worker exposure to any chemicals 

during manufacture, installation, and 

maintenance through an accidental 

release or spill, EPA recommends the 

following: 

• Proper Level C or higher personal 

protective equipment (PPE) be used 

during handling of the substitute (e.g., 

goggles, gloves); 

• adequate ventilation should be in 

place; 

• all spills should be cleaned up 

immediately in accordance with good 

industrial hygiene practices; 

• after spill and cleanup, dispose of 

material(s) contaminated with Cold 

Fire® in accordance with local, state and 

federal laws; 

• training for safe handling 

procedures should be provided to all 

employees that would be likely to 

handle containers of Cold Fire®; and 

• in case of an inadvertent discharge, 

workers should immediately follow the 

instructions listed in the MSDS for Cold 

Fire®. 

The above recommendations are all 

included in the manufacturer’s MSDS. 

EPA anticipates that users will be able 

to address potential health risks by 

following requirements and 

recommendations in the MSDS and 

other safety precautions common during 

use of fire suppressants in industry. 

Comparison to other fire 

suppressants: Cold Fire® has no ODP or 

GWP in contrast to halon 1301 (with an 

ODP of 16 and a GWP of 7140), the ODS 

which it replaces. Cold Fire®’s ODP of 

zero and GWP of zero are comparable to 

or less than those of other acceptable 

non-ozone-depleting substitutes for this 

end use, such as Inert Gas 541 with a 

GWP of 0, HFC-227ea with a GWP of 

3220 and HFC-125 with a GWP of 3500. 

Toxicity risks are low, as discussed 

above. Thus, EPA finds Cold Fire®

(Surfactant Blend A) acceptable in the 

end use listed above because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by Cold Fire® is lower than or 

comparable to the risks posed by other 

substitutes found acceptable in the same 

end use. 

II. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements and 

Authority for the SNAP Program 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to develop a 

program for evaluating alternatives to 

ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). EPA 

refers to this program as the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

program. The major provisions of 

section 612 are: 

1. Rulemaking 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace any class I substance 

(chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and 

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II 

substance (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 

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. 

2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable 

Substitutes 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

publish a list of the substitutes 

unacceptable for specific uses and to 

publish a corresponding list of 

acceptable alternatives for specific uses. 

The list of acceptable substitutes may be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/lists/index.html and the lists of 

‘‘unacceptable,’’ ‘‘acceptable subject to 

use conditions,’’ and ‘‘acceptable 

subject to narrowed use limits’’ 

substitutes are found in the appendices 

to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82. 

3. Petition Process 

Section 612(d) grants the right to any 

person to petition EPA to add a 

substance to, or delete a substance 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. 

4. 90-day Notification 

Section 612(e) directs 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. EPA’s Regulations Implementing 

Section 612 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published 

the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) 

which established the process for 

administering the SNAP program and 

issued EPA’s first lists identifying 

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 

in the major industrial use sectors 

(subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These 

sectors—refrigeration and air 

conditioning; foam blowing; cleaning 

solvents; fire suppression and explosion 

protection; sterilants; aerosols; 

adhesives, coatings and inks; and 

tobacco expansion—are the principal 

industrial sectors that historically 

consumed the largest volumes of ODS. 

Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA 

to list as acceptable those substitutes 

that do not present a significantly 

greater risk to human health and the 

environment as compared with other 

substitutes that are currently or 

potentially available. 

C. How the Regulations for the SNAP 

Program Work 

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone 

who plans to market or produce a 

substitute to replace a class I substance 

or class II substance in one of the eight 

major industrial use sectors must 

provide notice to the Agency, including 

health and safety information on the 

substitute, at least 90 days before 

introducing it into interstate commerce 

for significant new use as an alternative. 

40 CFR 82.176(a). This requirement 

applies to the persons planning to 

introduce the substitute into interstate 

commerce,17 which typically are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
47776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

18As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘end-use’’ means 

processes or classes of specific applications within 

major industrial sectors where a substitute is used 

to replace an ODS. 

19The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ 

referring to submissions for which EPA has not 

reached a determination, under this provision. 

chemical manufacturers but may 

include importers, formulators, 

equipment manufacturers, and endusers when they are responsible for 

introducing a substitute into 

commerce.18 The 90-day SNAP review 

process begins once EPA receives the 

submission and determines that the 

submission includes complete and 

adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The 

CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 

82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute 

earlier than 90 days after notice has 

been provided to the Agency. 

The Agency has identified four 

possible decision categories for 

substitutes that are submitted for 

evaluation: acceptable; acceptable 

subject to use conditions; acceptable 

subject to narrowed use limits; and 

unacceptable 19 (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Use 

conditions and narrowed use limits are 

both considered ‘‘use restrictions’’ and 

are explained below. Substitutes that are 

deemed acceptable with no use 

restrictions (no use conditions or 

narrowed use limits) can be used for all 

applications within the relevant enduses within the sector. Substitutes that 

are acceptable subject to use restrictions 

may be used only in accordance with 

those restrictions. 

After reviewing a substitute, the 

Agency may make a determination that 

a substitute is acceptable only if certain 

conditions in the way that the substitute 

is used are met to minimize risks to 

human health and the environment. 

EPA describes such substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions.’’ 

Entities that use these substitutes 

without meeting the associated use 

conditions are in violation of EPA’s 

SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). 

For some substitutes, the Agency may 

permit a narrowed range of use within 

an end-use or sector. For example, the 

Agency may limit the use of a substitute 

to certain end-uses or specific 

applications within an industry sector. 

EPA describes these substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits.’’ A person using a substitute that 

is acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits in applications and end-uses that 

are not consistent with the narrowed 

use limit is using the substitute in an 

unacceptable manner and is in violation 

of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s 

SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). 

The Agency publishes its SNAP 

program decisions in the Federal 

Register (FR). EPA publishes decisions 

concerning substitutes that are deemed 

acceptable subject to use restrictions 

(use conditions and/or narrowed use 

limits), or substitutes deemed 

unacceptable, as proposed rulemakings 

to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment, before 

publishing final decisions. 

In contrast, EPA publishes decisions 

concerning substitutes that are deemed 

acceptable with no restrictions in 

‘‘notices of acceptability’’ or 

‘‘determinations of acceptability,’’ rather 

than as proposed and final rules. As 

described in the preamble to the rule 

initially implementing the SNAP 

program (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994), 

EPA does not believe that rulemaking 

procedures are necessary to list 

alternatives that are acceptable without 

restrictions because such listings neither 

impose any sanction nor prevent anyone 

from using a substitute. 

Many SNAP listings include 

‘‘Comments’’ or ‘‘Further Information’’ 

to provide additional information on 

substitutes. Since this additional 

information is not part of the regulatory 

decision, these statements are not 

binding for use of the substitute under 

the SNAP program. However, regulatory 

requirements so listed are binding under 

other regulatory programs (e.g., worker 

protection regulations promulgated by 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA)). The ‘‘Further 

Information’’ classification does not 

necessarily include all other legal 

obligations pertaining to the use of the 

substitute. While the items listed are not 

legally binding under the SNAP 

program, EPA encourages users of 

substitutes to apply all statements in the 

‘‘Further Information’’ column in their 

use of these substitutes. In many 

instances, the information simply refers 

to sound operating practices that have 

already been identified in existing 

industry and/or building codes or 

standards. Thus many of the statements, 

if adopted, would not require the 

affected user to make significant 

changes in existing operating practices. 

D. Additional Information About the 

SNAP Program 

For copies of the comprehensive 

SNAP lists of substitutes or additional 

information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s 

Ozone Depletion Web site at: 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/index.html. 

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the March 18, 1994, 

SNAP final rulemaking (59 FR 13044), 

codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 

A complete chronology of SNAP 

decisions and the appropriate citations 

is found at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/chron.html. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 27, 2012. 

Sarah Dunham, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF 

ACCEPTABLE DECISIONS 

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 1

Centrifugal chillers (new only) ............... Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

as a substitute for CFC-11 and 

HCFC-123.

Acceptable ............. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of approximately 0.00024 to 

0.00034. It has a 100-year (100-yr) global warming potential (GWP) of 4.7 to 7. Its Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) is 102687–65–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 300 ppm over an 8-hour time-weighted average 

(8-hr TWA) for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

HFO-1234ze as a substitute for CFC11 and HCFC-123.Acceptable ............. HFO-1234ze is also known as HFO-1234ze(E), HFC1234ze or trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. 

No. 29118–24–9). HFO-1234ze has a 100-yr GWP of 6. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47777 

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 1

The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has 

established a workplace environmental exposure limit 

(WEEL) of 800 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFO-1234ze. 

Reciprocating, screw and scroll chillers 

(new only).

HFO-1234ze as a substitute for CFC12, R-500, HCFC-22 and HCFC 

blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 

HCFC-142b.

Acceptable ............. HFO-1234ze is also known as HFO-1234ze(E), HFC1234ze or trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. 

No. 29118–24–9). HFO-1234ze has a 100-yr GWP of 6. 

The AIHA has established a WEEL of 800 ppm (8-hr TWA) 

for HFO-1234ze. 

Vending machines (new only) ............... Carbon dioxide (CO2 or R-744) as a 

substitute for CFC-12, HCFC-22 and 

R-502.

Acceptable ............. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) has established a required 8 hour/day, 40 hour/ 

week permissible exposure limit (PEL) for CO2 of 5000 

ppm. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) has established a 15-minute recommended short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 30,000 

ppm. 

EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and 

recommendations specified in American Society for 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE) standard 15. 

EPA recommends placing vending machines using CO2 in 

well-ventilated spaces. 

Non-mechanical heat transfer (new and 

retrofit).

C7 Fluoroketone (FK–6–1–12 or 

NovecTM 774) as a substitute for 

CFC-113.

Acceptable ............. C7 Fluoroketone has a 100-year global warming potential 

of approximately 1. This substitute is a blend of two isomers, 3-pentanone,1,1,1,2,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-2,4- 

bis(trifluoromethyl) (CAS Reg. No. 813–44–5) and 3- 

hexanone,1,1,1,2,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-undecafluoro-2- 

(trifluoromethyl) (CAS Reg. No. 813–45–6). 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 225 ppm (8-hr TWA) for C7 Fluoroketone. 

1Observe recommendations in the manufacturer’s MSDS and guidance for all listed refrigerants. 

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS

End use Substitute Decision Further information 1

Rigid polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated 

boardstock.

Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

as a substitute for CFC-11 or HCFC141b.

Acceptable ............. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of approximately 0.00024 to 0.00034. It has a 100-yr GWP of 

4.7 to 7. Its CAS Reg. No. is 102687–65–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

Rigid polyurethane appliance ................ Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

as a substitute for CFC-11 or HCFC141b.

Acceptable ............. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of approximately 0.00024 to 0.00034. It has a 100-year GWP 

of 4.7 to 7. Its CAS Reg. No. is 102687–65–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

Formacel® Z–6 as a substitute for 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for Formacel® Z–6. 

Rigid polyurethane spray, commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels.

Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

as a substitute for CFC-11 or HCFC141b.

Acceptable ............. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of approximately 0.00024 to 0.00034. It has a 100-year GWP 

of 4.7 to 7. Its CAS Reg. No. is 102687–65–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels.Formacel® Z–6 as a substitute for 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b or blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for Formacel® Z–6. 

Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

as a substitute for CFC-11 or HCFC141b.

Acceptable ............. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of approximately 0.00024 to 0.00034. It has a 100-year GWP 

of 4.7 to 7. Its CAS Reg. No. is 102687–65–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

Formacel® Z–6 as a substitute for 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b or blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for Formacel® Z–6. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
47778 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—Continued 

End use Substitute Decision Further information 1

Polystyrene: extruded sheet .................. Formacel® Z–6 as a substitute for 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b or blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for Formacel® Z–6. 

Extruded polystyrene, boardstock and 

billet.

Formacel® Z–6 as a substitute for 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b or blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for Formacel® Z–6. 

Integral skin polyurethane ...................... Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

as a substitute for CFC-11 or HCFC141b.

Acceptable ............. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of approximately 0.00024 to 0.00034. It has a 100-year GWP 

of 4.7 to 7. Its CAS Reg. No. is 102687–65–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

Formacel® Z–6 as a substitute for 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b or blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for Formacel® Z–6. 

1 Observe recommendations in the manufacturer’s MSDS and manufacturer’s guidance for using all listed foam blowing agents. 

AEROSOLS

End-uses Substitute Decision Further information 

Solvents ................................................. HFE-347pcf2 as a substitute for CFC113, methyl chloroform, HCFC-141b 

and HCFC-225ca, HCFC-225cb, and 

blends thereof.

Acceptable ............. HFE-347pcf2 has a 100-yr GWP of 580. Its CAS Reg. No. 

is 406–78–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 50 ppm (8-hr TWA) for this substitute. EPA recommends a ceiling limit (maximum concentration) of 150 

ppm for HFE-347pcf2. 

Observe recommendations in the manufacturer’s MSDS 

and guidance for using this substitute, particularly with 

respect to proper ventilation and other industrial hygiene 

practices. 

Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 

as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl 

chloroform, HCFC-141b and HCFC225ca, HCFC-225cb, and blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of approximately 0.00024 to 0.00034. It has a 100-year GWP 

of 4.7 to 7. Its CAS Reg. No. is 102687–65–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 300 ppm (8-hr TWA) for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

Observe recommendations in the manufacturer’s MSDS 

and guidance for using this substitute. 

SOLVENT CLEANING

End-uses Substitute Decision Further information 

Electronics cleaning, Precision cleaning HFE-347pcf2 as a substitute for CFC113, methyl chloroform, and HCFC225ca, HCFC-225cb, and blends 

thereof.

Acceptable ............. HFE-347pcf2 has a 100-yr GWP of 580. Its CAS Reg. No. 

is 406–78–0. 

The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure 

limit of 50 ppm (8-hr TWA) for this substitute. EPA recommends a ceiling limit (maximum concentration) of 150 

ppm for HFE-347pcf2. 

Observe recommendations in the manufacturer’s MSDS 

and guidance for using this substitute, particularly with 

respect to proper ventilation and other industrial hygiene 

practices. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION

End-use Substitute Decision Further information1 2

Total flooding systems (occupied and 

unoccupied areas).

Cold Fire® (Surfactant Blend A) as a 

substitute for halon 1301.

Acceptable ............. Observe recommendations in the manufacturer’s MSDS 

and guidance for using this substitute. 

1EPA recommends that users consult Section VIII of the OSHA Technical Manual for information on selecting the appropriate types of personal protective equipment for all listed fire suppression agents. EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., 

respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes. 2 Use of all listed fire suppression agents should conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR Part 1910, subpart L, §§ 1910.160 and 1910.162. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 47779 

[FR Doc. 2012–19688 Filed 8–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–0307; FRL–9713–3] 

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Arkansas has applied to the 

EPA for Final authorization of the 

changes to its hazardous waste program 

under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for Final 

authorization, and is authorizing the 

State’s changes through this immediate 

final action. The EPA is publishing this 

rule to authorize the changes without a 

prior proposal because we believe this 

action is not controversial and do not 

expect comments that oppose it. Unless 

we receive written comments which 

oppose this authorization during the 

comment period, the decision to 

authorize Arkansas’ changes to its 

hazardous waste program will take 

effect. If we receive comments that 

oppose this action, we will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

withdrawing this rule before it takes 

effect, and a separate document in the 

proposed rules section of this Federal 

Register will serve as a proposal to 

authorize the changes. 

DATES: This Final authorization will 

become effective on October 9, 2012 

unless the EPA receives adverse written 

comment by September 10, 2012. If the 

EPA receives such comment, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

immediate final rule in the Federal 

Register and inform the public that this 

authorization will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: patterson.alima@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, 

Regional Authorization Coordinator, 

State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Alima Patterson, 

Region 6, Regional Authorization 

Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight 

Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning 

and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

Instructions: Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

regulations.gov, or email. The Federal 

regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. You can view and 

copy Arkansas’ application and 

associated publicly available materials 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday 

through Friday at the following 

locations: Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality, 8101 Interstate 

30, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219–8913, 

(501) 682–0876, and EPA, Region 6, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733, phone number (214) 665–8533. 

Interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least two 

weeks in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal 

Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division, (214) 

665–8533, EPA Region 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, and 

Email address patterson.alima@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received Final 

authorization from the EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask the EPA to authorize 

the changes. Changes to State programs 

may be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to the EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

124, 260 through 266, 267, 268, 270, 

273, and 279. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

We conclude that Arkansas’ 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Arkansas 

Final authorization to operate its 

hazardous waste program with the 

changes described in the authorization 

application. Arkansas has responsibility 

for permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities within its borders 

(except in Indian Country) and for 

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program application, subject to the 

limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that the EPA promulgates 

under the authority of HSWA take effect 

in authorized States before they are 

authorized for the requirements. Thus, 

the EPA will implement those 

requirements and prohibitions in 

Arkansas including issuing permits, 

until the State is granted authorization 

to do so. 

C. What is the effect of today’s 

authorization decision? 

The effect of this decision is that a 

facility in Arkansas subject to RCRA 

will now have to comply with the 

authorized State requirements instead of 

the equivalent Federal requirements in 

order to comply with RCRA. Arkansas 

has enforcement responsibilities under 

its State hazardous waste program for 

violations of such program, but the EPA 

retains its authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

which include, among others, authority 

to: 

• Do inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits and 

• Take enforcement actions after 

notice to and consultation with the 

State. 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES