[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25585-25594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12625]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5467-1]
RIN 2060-AG12


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for 
Ozone-Depleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes restrictions or prohibitions on 
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives 
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean 
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes 
for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the 
environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of 
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major 
industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to 
expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a 
shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems.
    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued 
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number 
substitutes. In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), 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: Effective date June 21, 1996.
    The information collection requirements contained in Appendix C of 
subpart G of part 82 have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and are not effective until OMB has approved them. EPA 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB 
approval.

ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Public comments and data specific to this 
final rule are in Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South 
Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 
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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax 
(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code 
6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

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

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

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a 
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA 
is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy 
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
    Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making 
it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and 
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance 
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present 
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the 
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the 
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently 
or potentially available.
    Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also 
requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for 
specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable 
alternatives for specific uses.
    Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to 
petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from the 
lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 
days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, 
EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.
    90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any 
person who

[[Page 25586]]

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. Listing of Substitutes

    To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, 
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various 
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The 
outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as 
described above in the Addresses portion of this notice.
    Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the 
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has 
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable 
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; 
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all 
applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is 
illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as 
unacceptable. A pending listing represents substitutes for which the 
Agency has not received complete data or has not completed its review 
of the data.
    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination 
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are 
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such 
substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions 
renders these substitutes unacceptable.
    Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based 
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a 
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of 
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a 
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that 
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies 
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results 
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation 
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected, 
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for 
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety 
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available 
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of 
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as 
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes 
unacceptable.
    In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing decisions on the 
acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the 
Agency. The proposed rulemaking for these decisions was published on 
October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51383). As described in the proposed rule, EPA 
believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any 
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute 
as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, 
or to remove an alternative from either the list of prohibited or 
acceptable substitutes.
    EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to 
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do 
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a 
substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the list of 
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new 
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as 
separate Notices in the Federal Register.
    Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the 
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables 
summarizing listing decisions in this Final Rulemaking are in Appendix 
below. The comments contained in the Appendix 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

Response to Comment
    EPA received one comment supporting the requirement to use unique 
fittings when retrofitting motor vehicle air conditioning systems 
(MVACS). The commenter, however, requested EPA reduce the information 
required on the label. EPA based the labeling requirements very closely 
on SAE J1660 and a petition by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society 
(MACS), and believes all of the information proposed in the NPRM is 
necessary, as clarified below. The commenter requested that EPA remove 
each of the following pieces of information from the label.
    <bullet> Technician name and address.
    EPA requires this information to ensure that both the consumer and 
various agencies know exactly who worked on the vehicle. In addition, 
this information allows the consumer to check that the technician is 
certified to work on MVACS.
    <bullet> ASHRAE designation.

[[Page 25587]]

    The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) assigns unique numbers to new 
refrigerants. Refrigerant properties depend very strongly on both the 
components and the individual percentages within a blend. The 
composition of all ASHRAE-designated refrigerants is public, and EPA 
believes it is important for consumers and technicians to be aware of 
such information if it is available.
    <bullet> Lubricant Manufacturer.
    Given the large number of new refrigerants and lubricants, EPA 
believes the consumer is best served by having this information. This 
information is particularly important since it is extremely difficult 
to test every possible refrigerant/lubricant combination in every 
vehicle.
    <bullet> ``Ozone depleter'' phrase.
    The commenter reasoned that SNAP acceptability was the only 
relevant criterion to protect the ozone layer. Until November 15, 1995, 
however, only ozone-depleting substances were required to be recovered 
from MVACS, and since the composition of certain blends was 
confidential, EPA believed it was important to alert technicians of the 
necessity of recovering the refrigerant during servicing and disposal. 
EPA still believes that this statement does not add significantly to 
the label size and provides useful information to the consumer.
    <bullet> Flammability phrase.
    The commenter requested that this phrase be shortened from ``This 
refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.'' to 
``FLAMMABLE''. However, because flammable refrigerants are not 
currently in use, EPA believes it is extremely important to draw 
attention to a flammable substitute. Technicians and consumers need to 
be aware of the potential hazards posed by flammable refrigerants, and 
the entire phrase serves that purpose better than a single word.
    In addition to the above rationale, the labeling requirements 
cannot be changed each time EPA lists a new refrigerant as acceptable 
for use in MVACS subject to use conditions. The labeling requirements 
were finalized on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 51383) for HCFC Blend Beta, R-
401C, and HFC-134a. It is not reasonable to require vendors of those 
refrigerants to modify their labels or to meet standards not imposed on 
subsequent refrigerants. EPA believes the labeling requirements are 
necessary and appropriate to help the MVAC industry in its transition 
away from CFC-12 in as smooth and safe a manner as possible.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, 
Retrofit and New
    EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this 
end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-
contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems 
and recovery/recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to 
the use of substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the 
recycled CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and 
preserve the purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is imposing several 
conditions on the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning 
refrigerants. For the purposes of this rule, no distinction is made 
between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car 
to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air 
conditioning system using a new refrigerant. Please note that EPA only 
reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health factors.
    When retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any substitute 
refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
    <bullet> Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings 
that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as 
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on 
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all 
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed 
to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A 
refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps 
specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or 
deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be 
a violation of this use condition. In addition, fittings shall meet the 
following criteria, derived from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
standards and recommended practices:

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

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

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

*The name and address of the technician and the company performing the 
retrofit
*The date of the retrofit
*The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE 
refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
*The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
*If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, the 
phrase ``ozone depleter''
*If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured according 
to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take 
appropriate precautions.''

--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be 
permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to 
the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during 
vehicle repair.
--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the 
new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.

    <bullet> No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a 
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be 
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of 
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
    Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels, 
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to 
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such

[[Page 25588]]

discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
    No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a 
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service 
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a 
particular system.
(a) HCFC Blend Delta
    HCFC Blend Delta is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in 
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use 
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described 
above. The composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by 
the manufacturer. This blend contains at least one HCFC, and therefore 
contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-
12. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under 
section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. Its production 
will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule (published 12/
10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components are moderate to low. 
This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the 
blend never becomes flammable.
(b) Blend Zeta
    Blend Zeta is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted 
and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions 
applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above. The 
composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by the 
manufacturer. This blend does not contribute to ozone depletion. The 
GWPS of the components are moderate to low. This blend is nonflammable, 
and leak testing has demonstrated that the blend never becomes 
flammable.

B. Solvents

1. Response to Comment
    In response to EPA's proposal, the Agency received public comment 
stating that the scope of SNAP did not extend to setting workplace 
standards for chemicals. The Agency disagrees with this comment, and it 
discussed in the original SNAP rule-making (59 FR 13044, March 18, 
1994) how it is using section 612 authority under the Clean Air Act to 
set workplace standards as interim measures until OSHA has had an 
opportunity to review and decide on the need for standards under OSHA 
legislative authorities. The commenter suggested that EPA review with 
OSHA its intention of setting these standards. The EPA has already 
taken this step, and EPA and OSHA are in agreement about the ability 
and the need for the SNAP program to set occupational standards as an 
interim regulatory measure until the chemical in question has been 
reviewed by OSHA. Further discussion of this issue is included under 
the Fire Extinguishing section below.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Metals Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. These 
two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for a variety of 
cleaning applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest, 
the only chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes. 
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. 
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace 
standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the 
benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently 
completed by the company interested in commercialization of these 
chemicals, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for 
benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/
benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent hazard of these 
chemicals into account.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.
b. Electronics Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. 
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency 
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25 
ppm for benzotrifluorides.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.
c. Precision Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning. 
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency 
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25 
ppm for benzotrifluorides.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Response to Comments
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's regulation of total 
flooding agents is within the purview of OSHA, and that EPA should 
defer to OSHA rather than create duplicative regulation. Further, the 
commenter states that the conditions EPA has stipulated allowing 
exposure to oxygen deficient atmospheres of 10% to 12% oxygen is 
hazardous and inconsistent with OSHA's requirement for 19.5% oxygen in 
confined spaces. The commenter further advised EPA that OSHA published 
an update to its Respiratory Protection Standard (November 15, 1994, 59 
FR 58906) which includes a chart indicating that oxygen concentrations 
below 16% at sea level should require the extra precautions that go 
with IDLH atmospheres (immediately dangerous to life and health). The 
commenter also pointed out the OSHA regulations requiring predischarge 
alarms. In summary, the commenter recommended (1) that EPA revise the 
proposed rule to be consistent with current OSHA regulation, (2) that 
EPA not establish a 12% ``no effect level'' or a 10% ``lowest effect 
level,'' and (3) that EPA leave this regulatory activity to OSHA.
    Response: EPA would like to direct the commenter's attention to the 
original SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), as 
discussed in the Solvents section above. The Agency responded to many 
comments questioning its authority to promulgate workplace safety

[[Page 25589]]

regulations. To quote earlier language from the Comment Response 
document:

    In imposing conditions of use, EPA does not intend to preempt 
other regulatory authorities, such as those exercised by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other 
government or industrial standard-setting bodies. Rather, EPA hopes 
to fill existing regulatory gaps during the interim period of 
substitution away from ozone-depleting compounds and provide the 
needed margin of protection to human health and the environment 
until other regulatory controls or standards are developed under 
appropriate authorities.
    EPA anticipates applying use conditions only in the rare 
instances where clear regulatory gaps exist, and where an 
unreasonable risk would exist in the absence of any condition. These 
limitations will only remain in place until the appropriate standard 
setting agency acts. Once existing gaps are filled, EPA will rescind 
any conditions which have become redundant. The mechanism for 
informing the public of this change will be the quarterly Federal 
Register notices updating the status of the SNAP lists.

    For the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA had conducted an 
analysis of existing regulation of low oxygen atmospheres and 
determined that none relates to the use of a fixed gaseous system. 
(Available from the EPA Air Docket A-91-42, IV-A-4. ``Evaluation of 
Federal Regulations and Industry Guidelines Governing Minimum Oxygen 
Levels in Work Areas Protected By Gaseous Total Flooding Fire 
Protection Systems,'' Memo from ICF Incorporated to Karen Metchis, EPA, 
1993.) OSHA had a number of inquiries concerning the definition of 
``oxygen deficient atmospheres'', but the definition remained unclear 
with OSHA stating that any atmosphere containing less than 19.5 per 
cent oxygen falls within the definition of ``oxygen deficient 
atmosphere.'' However existing regulations concerned only such things 
as entering tanks (Ventilation Standard, 29 CFR 1910.94), confined 
spaces not intended for occupancy, etc. In addition, the proposed OSHA 
Respiratory Standard cited by the commenter does not apply to fire 
protection systems, except in situations where personnel wish to 
reenter an area that has experienced a system discharge.
    The Agency views discharge of fire extinguishment systems as 
emergency situations, whether they be accidental discharges or 
discharges in response to a fire. In these cases, personnel are 
expected to quickly egress from an area, presumably before discharge 
occurs, but potentially very quickly after discharge. To prohibit use 
of this technology for fear of emergency situations would be akin to 
prohibiting the use of a particular chemical for fear of an accidental 
spill. Both cases represent an emergency situation that should be 
handled accordingly. Inert gas systems are not to be used while 
personnel remain in an area to conduct normal duties.
    Current OSHA regulations (1910.162) allow use of halon in fixed 
extinguishing systems in normally occupied areas in amounts that would 
result in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. The same regulation allows 
use of carbon dioxide systems in normally occupied areas even though 
exposure to discharge of a CO<INF>2 system results in immediate death. 
Thus, it is not inconsistent with current OSHA regulations to design 
fire extinguishing systems that might result in low oxygen atmospheres 
provided that certain protections are present.
    Comment: The manufacturer of one inert gas system commented that 
EPA has erred in determining that inert gases without CO<INF>2 can be 
used at the same levels and for the same exposure times as inert gases 
with added CO<INF>2, and referenced a supporting document, 
``Physiological Effects of Abrupt Exposure to 10% O2 with 4% 
CO<INF>2,'' dated February 15, 1995. Further, the commenter explained 
why EPA's concern that added CO<INF>2 might cause an increased 
inspiration of combustion products is not warranted, by elaborating on 
three exposure scenarios to a fire agent: no-fire, small-fire, and 
large-fire. The commenter pointed out that only in the case of a large 
fire will high levels of combustion products exist and in that case the 
risk of the fire greatly exceeds any incremental risk from the added 
CO<INF>2.
    Response: While EPA generally agrees with the commenter's 
elaboration of the scenarios of exposure, the question of the relative 
importance of the effects of inert gases systems with and without added 
CO<INF>2 in fire protection scenarios is the subject of a current peer 
review on hypoxic atmospheres. Pending the outcome of that assessment, 
EPA may re-propose use conditions on these agents either to increase 
flexibility in the use of these agents and/or to differentiate the use 
conditions applicable to systems with or without added CO<INF>2.
    Comment: One manufacturer of this agent stated that the most 
recently published atmospheric information on CF<INF>3I indicates that 
its atmospheric lifetime is less than one day, the ozone depletion 
potential is less than 0.0008 and more likely below 0.0001, and its 
global warming potential is less than five.
    The commenter further stated that, compared to Halon 1211, its 
weight and volume equivalence are 0.94 and 0.83 respectively. Finally, 
the commenter requested that CF<INF>3I not be referred to as Halon 
13001, as this might confuse the public as to why ``halon'' was being 
replaced by a ``halon.''
    In addition, the manufacturer provided the Agency with the report 
entitled ``Exposure Assessment of Firefighters to Triodide during 
Streaming Scenarios,'' conducted at Tyndall Air Force Base. The results 
of personal monitoring indicated that exposure to this agent during use 
indoors does not exceed its cardiotoxic effect levels.
    Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and will use the 
most recent information on atmospheric characteristics as well as 
weight and volume equivalence, as noted by the commenter. In addition, 
CF<INF>3I will not be labeled Halon 13001 in order to avoid general 
confusion. Finally, the Agency is proceeding to list this agent as 
acceptable for use as a streaming agent in nonresidential uses.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    As was discussed in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA in some 
cases finds acceptable the use of an agent only under certain 
conditions. In implementing its use of conditions, the Agency has 
sought to avoid overlap with other existing regulatory authorities. EPA 
believes that section 612 clearly authorizes imposition of use 
conditions to ensure safe use of replacement agents. EPA's mandate is 
to list agents that ``reduce the overall risk to human health and the 
environment'' for ``specific uses.''
    In light of this authorization, EPA is only intending to set 
conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace until 
OSHA incorporates specific language addressing gaseous agents into OSHA 
regulation. Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section 4(b)(1), OSHA is 
precluded from regulating an area currently being regulated by another 
federal agency. EPA is specifically deferring to OSHA, and has no 
intention to assume responsibility for regulating workplace safety 
especially with respect to fire protection. EPA's workplace use 
conditions will not bar OSHA from regulating under its P.L. 91-596 
authority.
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) IG-55 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] B)
    IG-55 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total flooding

[[Page 25590]]

applications. IG-55, which is comprised of 50% nitrogen and 50% argon, 
is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a level 
that does not support combustion, and, unlike pure carbon dioxide 
systems, sufficient oxygen remains to maintain life support.
    The toxicological issues of concern with inert gas systems differ 
from those of halocarbon agents, in that the end-point for hypoxic (low 
oxygen) atmospheres is asphyxiation while the end-point for halocarbons 
is cardiac sensitization leading to cardiac arrhythmias. Thus, EPA 
requested the manufacturers of the inert gas systems to conduct a peer 
review by a panel of medical specialists to consider specific questions 
concerning exposing the typical working population to this agent. In 
addition, a panel of medical specialists convened by EPA to review all 
inert gas systems concluded that the use conditions imposed by EPA are 
conservative and adequate.
    The results of the peer reviews further convinces us that the SNAP 
conditions previously listed for IG-541 are appropriate for IG-55 and 
IG-01 as well. Specifically, while the terms No Observed Adverse Effect 
Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) refer to 
cardiotoxic effect levels which are not appropriate when discussing 
hypoxic atmospheres, EPA is establishing a `no effect level' for inert 
gas systems at 12% oxygen, and a `lowest effect level' at 10% oxygen.
    Thus, consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) conditions used by EPA for all total flooding 
agents, EPA is specifying that an IG-55 system could be designed to an 
oxygen level of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute, 
but may be designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one 
minute to egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to 
drop below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen 
depletion. A design concentration of less than 10% oxygen may only be 
used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could 
possibly be exposed can egress within 30 seconds.
    EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that 
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen 
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to 
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental 
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning 
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
    EPA intends that all personnel be evacuated from an area prior to, 
or quickly after, discharge. An inert gas system may not be designed 
with the intention of personnel remaining in the area unless 
appropriate protection is provided, such as self-contained breathing 
apparatus.
(2) IG-01 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] C)
    IG-01 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total flooding 
applications. IG-01 is comprised 100% of argon, and as with IG-55, is 
designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a level that 
does not support combustion, while maintaining sufficient oxygen for 
life support.
    As with IG-55, an IG-01 system may be designed to an oxygen level 
of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute, but may be 
designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one minute to 
egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to drop below 
10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen depletion. A 
design concentration of less than 10% may only be used in normally 
unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could possibly be exposed 
can egress within 30 seconds.
    EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that 
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen 
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to 
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental 
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning 
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
    Please refer to the discussion of IG-55 for a fuller description of 
inert gas systems.
3. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
(a) Streaming Agents
(1) CF<INF>3I
    CF<INF>3I is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in 
nonresidential applications. CF<INF>3I is a fluoroiodocarbon with an 
atmospheric lifetime of less than one day due to its rapid photolysis 
in the presence of light. Due to its short atmospheric lifetime of one 
day and its photolytic decomposition mechanism, the resulting GWP of 
this agent is less than 5, while its ODP when released at ground level 
is 0.0008 and more likely below.
    CF<INF>3I has a weight and volume equivalence to Halon 1211 of 0.94 
and 0.83, respectively. While it is potentially a `drop-in' replacement 
for Halon 1211, with some modifications in elastomers or other system 
materials, there exists a question as to whether current technical 
standards allow the reuse of halon 1211 canisters for other chemicals. 
Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard and UL 
listings should be examined in this context.
    Cardiac sensitization data received by the Agency indicate that 
CF<INF>3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent. 
Personal monitoring for this agent was conducted using 2\1/2\ to 13 
pound extinguishers in various indoor applications. The resulting data 
indicate that cardiotoxic levels are not likely to be exceeded when 
used as a streaming agent. While the tests were conducted in different 
scenarios both with and without ventilation, EPA recommends that this 
agent be used in well ventilated areas. Because of the low cardiac 
sensitization values, EPA is prohibiting use of this agent in consumer 
residential applications where the possibility exists of incorrect use 
by untrained users.

D. Aerosols

1. Response to Comment
    As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a 
comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set 
workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency 
disagrees with this comment.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Solvents
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF as aerosol solvents. 
These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for aerosol 
applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest, the only 
chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes. This 
substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. Using 
this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 
50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the benzotrifluorides 
has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently completed by the 
company interested in commercialization of these chemicals, the Agency 
is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides. 
Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures 
should take the inherent hazard of these chemicals into account in 
implementing applications.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own

[[Page 25591]]

standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in no 
way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as defined 
in P.L. 91-596.

E. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks

1. Response to Comment
    As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a 
comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set 
workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency 
disagrees with this comment.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in adhesives, coatings, 
and inks. These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for 
these applications. Of all the substances of commercial interest, the 
only chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes. 
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. 
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace 
standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the 
benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently 
completed by the company interested in commercialization of these 
chemicals, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for 
benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/
benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent toxicity of these 
chemicals into account in implementing applications.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA 
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for 
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations 
have been documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any 
rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements. 
The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or 
the head of the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    The Agency believes that this final rule will not have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has 
therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of 
the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the rule is 
unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule 
exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and 
formal agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering 
is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may 
well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential 
substitutes to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they 
may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such 
substitutes available.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document will be prepared by EPA 
and a copy will be available from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 
M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The 
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The 
reasons for these information requirements are explained in the section 
on automobile air conditioning (III.A.2.a), and will be mandatory once 
the ICR is approved under section 612 of the Clean Air Act.
    EPA estimates that, over a 5 year period, approximately 30 million 
cars will be retrofitted with alternative refrigerants, and that the 
burden to complete and apply a label will not exceed 5 minutes per car. 
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire,

[[Page 25592]]

install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of 
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

V. Additional Information

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional 
information on SNAP contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 
p.m. (EST).
    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the 
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the 
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the 
Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is 
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program 
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Protection of 
Stratospheric Ozone Technology Transfer Network (TTN), Clean Air Act 
Amendment Bulletin Board. The access number for users with a 1200 or 
2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For users with a 9600 bps modem the 
access number is (919) 541-1447. For assistance in accessing this 
service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal business hours (EST). 
Finally, all ozone depletion-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices may be 
retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site, at <a href="http://
www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/usregs.html">http://
www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/usregs.html</a>.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: May 13, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

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

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

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


Sec. 82.180  Agency review of SNAP submissions.

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

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix C to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 
and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the May 22, 1996 Final Rule, 
Effective June 21, 1996

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector-- Acceptable Subject to Use 
Conditions

    HCFC Blend Delta and Blend Zeta are acceptable subject to the 
following conditions when used to retrofit a CFC-12 motor vehicle 
air conditioning system:
    1. Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings that 
is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as 
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on 
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all 
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be 
designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another 
refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and 
can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an 
adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different 
refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In addition, 
fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
    a. When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted, 
conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a 
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism 
in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being 
removed.
    b. 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.
    c. 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.
    d. 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.
    2. When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as 
follows:
    a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the 
air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the 
following information:
    i. The name and address of the technician and the company 
performing the retrofit.
    ii. The date of the retrofit.
    iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the 
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant.
    iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used.
    v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting 
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter.''
    vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured 
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is 
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
    b. This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be 
permanent.
    c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
    d. The label must be affixed to the system over information 
related to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally 
replaced during vehicle repair.
    e. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be 
covered by the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
    3. 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.

[[Page 25593]]



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


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

[[Page 25594]]

                                                                                                                
                                                                    A design               See additional       
                                                                     concentration of       comments 1, 2.      
                                                                     less than 10% may                          
                                                                     only be used in                            
                                                                     normally unoccupied                        
                                                                     areas, as long as                          
                                                                     any employee who                           
                                                                     could possibly be                          
                                                                     exposed can egress                         
                                                                     within 30 seconds.                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.



                           Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Streaming Agents                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Application                 Substitute              Decision                      Comments            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211.....................  CF<INF>3I...............  Acceptable in non-                                        
                                                       residential uses only.                                   
Streaming Agents                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


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

[FR Doc. 96-12625 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P