25604 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION TABLE OF IOAA FEES PROPOSED FOR ELIMINATION—Continued

Fee cite Rule/form/schedule Amount Description

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (‘‘Advisers Act’’)

17 CFR 275.0–5(d) ................................................. Rule 0–5 ........................ 150 Application under the Advisers Act.

17 CFR 275.203–3(a) ............................................. Rule 203–3 .................... 150 Advisers Act registration fee.

1 (First/subseq.).

Dated: May 16, 1996.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12777 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 291

RIN 1076–AD67

Establishing Departmental Procedures

To Authorize Class III Gaming on

Indian Lands When a State Raises an

Eleventh Amendment Defense To Suit

Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory

Act

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

name of the issuing agency and the CFR

part number for the advance notice of

proposed rulemaking regarding Class III

Indian gaming on Indian lands

published on May 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Skibine, Director, Indian Gaming

Management Staff, (202) 219–4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning

on page 21394 in the issue of Friday,

May 10, 1996, make the following

corrections on page 21394:

1. In the heading of the document,

under the heading ‘‘Department of the

Interior,’’ the issuing agency was

previously listed as the National Indian

Gaming Commission. This should be

changed to read Bureau of Indian

Affairs.

2. In the CFR heading of the

document, the CFR citation was

previously listed as 25 CFR Part 525.

This should be changed to read 25 CFR

Part 291.

3. The agency in the AGENCY caption

is corrected to read ‘‘Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Interior.’’

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–12763 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–5507–6]

RIN 2060–AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes

restrictions or prohibitions on

substitutes for ozone depleting

substances ((ODS)) 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

ODS 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 of substitutes. In this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is

issuing its preliminary decisions on the

acceptability of certain substitutes not

previously reviewed by the Agency. To

arrive at determinations on the

acceptability of substitutes, the Agency

completed a cross-media evaluation of

risks to human health and the

environment by sector end-use.

DATES: Written comments or data

provided in response to this document

must be submitted by June 21, 1996. A

public hearing, if requested, will be held

in Washington, D.C. Any hearing will be

strictly limited to the subject matter of

this proposal, the scope of which is

discussed below. If such a hearing is

requested, it will be held on June 6,

1996, and the comment period would

then be extended to July 8, 1996.

Anyone who wishes to request a hearing

should call Sally Rand at (202) 233–

9739 by May 29, 1996. Interested

persons may contact the Stratospheric

Protection Hotline at 1–800–296–1996

to learn if a hearing will be held and to

obtain the date and location of the

hearing.

ADDRESSES: Public Comments. Written

comments and data should be sent to

Docket A–91–42, Central Docket

Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S.

Environmental Agency, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket

may be inspected between 8 a.m. and

4:00 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202)

260–7549; fax (202) 260–4400. As

provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable

fee may be charged for photocopying.

To expedite review, a second copy of

the comments should be sent to Sally

Rand, Stratospheric Protection Division,

Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 6205–J,

Washington, DC. 20460. Information

designated as Confidential Business

Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 2

subpart B must be sent directly to the

contact person for this notice. However,

the Agency is requesting that all

respondents submit a non-confidential

version of their comments to the docket

as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25605

I. Overview of This Action

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Additional Information

Appendix: Summary of Proposed

Listing Decisions

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act

authorizes EPA to develop a program for

evaluating alternatives to ozonedepleting substances. EPA refers to this

program as the Significant New

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program.

The major provisions of section 612 are:

Rulemaking—Section 612(c) requires EPA

to promulgate rules making it unlawful to

replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,

halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl

chloroform, methyl bromide, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II

(hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with

any substitute that the Administrator

determines may present adverse effects to

human health or the environment where the

Administrator has identified an alternative

that (1) reduces the overall risk to human

health and the environment, and (2) is

currently or potentially available.

Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable

Substitutes—Section 612(c) also requires

EPA to publish a list of the substitutes

unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must

publish a corresponding list of acceptable

alternatives for specific uses.

Petition Process—Section 612(d) grants the

right to any person to petition EPA to add a

substitute to or delete a substitute from the

lists published in accordance with section

612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or

deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the

petition, EPA must publish the revised lists

within an additional six months.

90-day Notification—Section 612(e)

requires EPA to require any person who

produces a chemical substitute for a class I

substance to notify the Agency not less than

90 days before new or existing chemicals are

introduced into interstate commerce for

significant new uses as substitutes for a class

I substance. The producer must also provide

the Agency with the producer’s unpublished

health and safety studies on such substitutes.

Outreach—Section 612(b)(1) states that the

Administrator shall seek to maximize the use

of federal research facilities and resources to

assist users of class I and II substances in

identifying and developing alternatives to the

use of such substances in key commercial

applications.

Clearinghouse—Section 612(b)(4) requires

the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse

of alternative chemicals, product substitutes,

and alternative manufacturing processes that

are available for products and manufacturing

processes which use class I and II substances.

B. Regulatory History

On March 18, 1994, EPA published

the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR

13044) which described the process for

administering the SNAP program and

issued EPA’s first acceptability lists for

substitutes in the major industrial use

sectors. These sectors include:

refrigeration and air conditioning; foam

blowing; solvent cleaning; fire

suppression and explosion protection;

sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings

and inks; and tobacco expansion. These

sectors comprise the principal industrial

sectors that historically consume large

volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.

The Agency defines a ‘‘substitute’’ as

any chemical, product substitute, or

alternative manufacturing process,

whether existing or new, that could

replace a class I or class II substance.

Anyone who produces a substitute must

provide the Agency with health and

safety studies on the substitute at least

90 days before introducing it into

interstate commerce for significant new

use as an alternative. This requirement

applies to chemical manufacturers, but

may include importers, formulators or

end-users when they are responsible for

introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable

and acceptable substitutes, EPA

conducts screens of health and

environmental risks posed by various

substitutes for ozone-depleting

compounds in each use sector. The

outcome of these risk screens can be

found in the public docket.

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 for that

end-use. 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. Such substitutes are

placed on the acceptable subject to use

conditions lists. Use of such substitutes

in ways that are inconsistent with such

use conditions renders these substitutes

unacceptable.

Even though the Agency can restrict

the use of a substitute based on the

potential for adverse effects, it may be

necessary to permit a narrowed range of

use within a sector end-use because of

the lack of alternatives for specialized

applications. Users intending to adopt a

substitute acceptable with narrowed use

limits must ascertain that other

acceptable alternatives are not

technically feasible. Companies must

document the results of their evaluation,

and retain the results on file for the

purpose of demonstrating compliance.

This documentation shall include

descriptions of substitutes examined

and rejected, processes or products in

which the substitute is needed, reason

for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,

performance, technical or safety

standards, and the anticipated date

other substitutes will be available and

projected time for switching to other

available substitutes. Use of such

substitutes in application and end-uses

which are not specified as acceptable in

the narrowed use limit renders these

substitutes unacceptable.

In this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its

preliminary decision to restrict use of

certain substitutes not previously

reviewed by the Agency. As described

in the final rule for the SNAP program

(59 FR 13044), EPA believes that noticeand-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 periodically adds

substitutes to the list of acceptable

alternatives without first requesting

comment on new listings. Updates to

the acceptable and pending lists are

published in separate Notices in the

Federal Register.

Parts A. through C. below present a

detailed discussion of the proposed

substitute listing determinations by

major use sector. Tables summarizing

listing decisions in this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking are in Appendix

A. The comments contained in

Appendix A provide additional

information on a substitute. Since

comments are not part of the regulatory

decision, they are not mandatory for use

of a substitute. Nor should the

comments be considered comprehensive

with respect to other legal obligations

pertaining to the use of the substitute.

However, EPA encourages users of
25606 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules

substitutes to apply all comments in

their application of these substitutes. In

many instances, the comments simply

allude to sound operating practices that

have already been identified in existing

industry and/or building-code

standards. Thus, many of the comments,

if adopted, would not require significant

changes in existing operating practices

for the affected industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. CFC–12 Automobile and Nonautomobile 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 crosscontamination and preserve the purity

of recycled refrigerants, EPA is

proposing several conditions on the use

of all motor vehicle air conditioning

refrigerants. For the purposes of this

proposed rule, no distinction is made

between ‘‘retrofit’’ and ‘‘drop-in’’

refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a

new refrigerant includes all procedures

that result in the air conditioning

system using a new refrigerant. Please

note that EPA only reviews refrigerants

based on environmental and health

factors.

In particular, when retrofitting a CFC–

12 system to use any substitute

refrigerant, the following conditions

must be met:

• Each refrigerant may only be used with

a set of fittings that is unique to that

refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as

appropriate) must be used with all containers

of the refrigerant, on can taps, on recovery,

recycling, and charging equipment, and on

all air conditioning system service ports.

These fittings must be designed to

mechanically prevent cross-charging with

another refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be

used with the fittings and can taps

specifically intended for that refrigerant.

Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a

fitting to use a different refrigerant will be a

violation of this use condition. In addition,

fittings shall meet the following criteria,

derived from Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended

practices:

—When existing CFC–12 service ports are to

be retrofitted, conversion assemblies shall

attach to the CFC–12 fitting with a thread

lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical

latching mechanism in a manner that

permanently prevents the assembly from

being removed.

—All conversion assemblies and new service

ports must satisfy the vibration testing

requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of

SAE J1660, as applicable, excluding

references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064,

which are specific to HFC–134a.

—In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant

to the atmosphere, systems shall have a

device to limit compressor operation before

the pressure relief device will vent

refrigerant. This requirement is waived for

systems that do not feature such a pressure

relief device.

—All CFC–12 service ports 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.

• 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 ozonedepleting 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.

• No substitute refrigerant may be used to

‘‘top-off’’ a system that uses another

refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be

recovered in accordance with regulations

issued under section 609 of the CAA prior to

charging with a substitute.

Since these use conditions necessitate

unique fittings and labels, it will be

necessary for developers of automotive

refrigerants to consult with EPA about

the existence of other alternatives. Such

discussions will lower the risk of

duplicating fittings already in use.

No determination guarantees

satisfactory performance from a

refrigerant. Consult the original

equipment manufacturer or service

personnel for further information on

using a refrigerant in a particular

system.

(a) All refrigerants. All refrigerants listed

in future notices as being acceptable as

substitutes for CFC–12 in retrofitted and

new motor vehicle air conditioners are

proposed to be subject to the use

conditions described above.

In the March 18, 1994 FRM (59 FR

13044), EPA established that the public

would be informed via a Notice when

substitutes are added to the acceptable

list. If EPA intended to place any

restrictions, including use conditions,

on the use of a substitute, that

determination would require full noticeand-comment rulemaking. In this

NPRM, however, EPA proposes to

modify that approach for motor vehicle

air conditioning systems (MVACS).

As explained above, EPA is concerned

about potential cross-contamination

because of the large number of MVAC

refrigerants. In this NPRM, EPA is

proposing to impose the same use

conditions on all future MVAC

refrigerants as were imposed on HFC–

134a and HCFC Blend Beta (60 FR

31092), and were proposed for HCFC

Blend Delta and Blend Zeta (60 FR

51383). Because of EPA’s interest in

timely review of substitute refrigerants,

EPA believes it is appropriate to

propose that these use conditions be

applied to all future refrigerants for use

in motor vehicle air conditioning,

thereby removing the requirement for

future notice-and-comment rulemaking

on this issue. In the future, EPA will

add refrigerants to the list of automotive

substitutes that are acceptable subject to

use conditions without notice-andcomment rulemaking. Such action will

occur in the same manner as Notices of

Acceptability. If further restrictions are

necessary for a specific refrigerant (for

example, if a substitute is found

unacceptable), then EPA will propose

such action in notice-and-comment

rulemaking.

(b) R–406A. R–406A, which consists of

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and isobutane,

is proposed acceptable as a substitute

for CFC–12 in retrofitted and new motor

vehicle air conditioners, subject to the

use conditions applicable to motor

vehicle air conditioning described

above, in addition to the requirement

that retrofitting an MVAC system to R–

406A must include replacing nonbarrier hoses with barrier hoses.

Because HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b

contribute to ozone depletion, this

blend is considered a transitional

alternative. Regulations regarding

recycling and reclamation issued under

section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply

to this blend. HCFC–142b has one of the

highest ODPS among the HCFCS. The

GWPS of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b are
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25607

somewhat high. Although HCFC–142b

and isobutane are flammable, the blend

is not. After significant leakage,

however, this blend may become weakly

flammable. The manufacturer has

performed a risk assessment that

demonstrates that it can be used safely

in this end-use. There is concern that

HCFC–22 will seep out of traditional

hoses. Thus, at the manufacturer’s

suggestion, EPA is imposing an

additional condition that barrier hoses

must be used with R–406A. Note: R–

406A is sold under the trade names

‘‘GHG’’ and ‘‘McCool.’’

The R–406A submission contained

the first risk assessment that attempted

to quantify the additional risk posed by

using a refrigerant that is nonflammable

but that may fractionate to a flammable

state. EPA invites comment on this risk

assessment, which may be obtained

from USEPA Air Docket A–91–42, file

VI–D–120. The assessment concludes

that an additional 0.018 injuries will

occur per million vehicles annually.

This value is extremely low. In addition,

even an error of a factor of 100 would

still result in very low additional risk.

(c) HCFC Blend Lambda. HCFC Blend

Lambda, which consists of HCFC–22,

HCFC–142b, and isobutane, is proposed

acceptable as a substitute for CFC–12 in

retrofitted and new motor vehicle air

conditioners, subject to the use

conditions applicable to motor vehicle

air conditioning described above, in

addition to the requirement that HCFC

Blend Lambda must be used with barrier

hoses. Because HCFC–22 and HCFC–

142b contribute to ozone depletion, they

will be phased out of production.

Therefore, this blend will be used

primarily as a retrofit refrigerant.

However, HCFC Blend Lambda is

acceptable for use in new systems,

subject to the same use conditions.

Regulations regarding recycling and

reclamation issued under section 608 of

the Clean Air Act apply to this blend.

HCFC–142b has one of the highest

ODPS among the HCFCS. The GWPS of

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b are

somewhat high. Although HCFC–142b

and isobutane are flammable, the blend

is not. After significant leakage, this

blend may become weakly flammable.

However, this blend contains more

HCFC–22 and less of the two flammable

components than R–406A, and therefore

should be at least as safe to use as R–

406A. In addition, as discussed above in

the R–406A section, the manufacturer

has performed a risk assessment that

demonstrates that R–406A can be used

safely in this end-use. Finally, as stated

above, this blend contains even lower

percentages of flammable components

than R–406A.

There is concern that HCFC–22 will

seep out of traditional hoses. Thus, at

the manufacturer’s suggestion, EPA is

imposing an additional condition that

barrier hoses must be used with R–

406A. Note: this blend is sold under the

trade name ‘‘GHG-HP.’’

(d) HCFC Blend Xi, HCFC Blend

Omicron. HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC

Blend Omicron, both of which consist of

HCFC–22, HCFC–124, HCFC–142b, and

isobutane, are proposed acceptable as

substitutes for CFC–12 in retrofitted and

new motor vehicle air conditioners,

subject to the use conditions applicable

to motor vehicle air conditioning

described above, in addition to the

requirement that these blends must be

used with barrier hoses. Because HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b contribute to ozone

depletion, they will be phased out of

production. Therefore, these blends will

be used primarily as retrofit refrigerants.

However, these blends are acceptable

for use in new systems, subject to the

same use conditions. Regulations

regarding recycling and reclamation

issued under section 608 of the Clean

Air Act apply to these blends. HCFC–

142b has one of the highest ODPS

among the HCFCS. The GWPS of HCFC–

22 and HCFC–142b are somewhat high.

Although HCFC–142b and isobutane are

flammable, these blends are not. In

addition, testing on these blends has

shown that they do not become

flammable after leaks. EPA is concerned

that HCFC–22 will seep out of

traditional hoses. Thus, EPA is

proposing an additional condition that

barrier hoses must be used with HCFC

Blend Xi and HCFC Blend Omicron.

Note: HCFC Blend Xi is being sold

under the trade names ‘‘GHG–X4’’,

‘‘Autofrost’’, and ‘‘Chill-It,’’ and HCFC

Blend Omicron is being sold under the

trade names ‘‘Hot Shot’’ and ‘‘Kar

Kool.’’

B. Solvent Cleaning

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) HFC–4310mee. HFC–4310mee is

proposed as an acceptable substitute for

CFC–113 and methyl chloroform (MCF)

in electronics cleaning subject to a 200

ppm time-weighted average workplace

exposure standard and a 400 ppm

workplace exposure ceiling. HFC–

4310mee is a new chemical that has just

completed review by EPA’s

Premanufacture Notice Program under

the Toxic Substances Control Act. This

chemical does not deplete the ozone

layer since it does not contain chlorine

or bromine. It does have some potential

to contribute to global warming since its

500-year Global Warming Potential

(GWP) is 520 and it has a 20.8 year

lifetime. However, the GWP and lifetime

for HFC–4310 are both lower than the

GWP and lifetime for CFC–113 and

significantly lower than for PFCs, which

are other substitutes for ozone-depleting

solvents.

HFC–4310mee does exhibit some

toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA, and

causes central nervous system effects at

relatively low levels. However, these

effects are reversible and cease once

chemical exposure is eliminated.

Review under the SNAP program and

the PMN program determined that a

time-weighted average workplace

exposure standard of 200 ppm and a

workplace exposure ceiling of 400 ppm

would be adequately protective of

human health and that companies could

readily meet these exposure limits using

the types of equipment specified in the

product safety information provided by

the chemical manufacturer.

These workplace standards are

designed to protect worker safety until

the Occupational 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. Precision Cleaning

(a) HFC–4310mee. HFC–4310mee is

proposed as an acceptable substitute for

CFC–113 and methyl chloroform in

precision cleaning subject to a 200 ppm

time-weighted average workplace

exposure standard and a 400 ppm

workplace exposure ceiling. The

reasoning behind this determination is

presented above in the section on

electronics cleaning.

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.

2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use

Limits

a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) Perfluoropolyethers.

Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as

acceptable substitutes for CFC–113 and

MCF in the electronics cleaning sector

for high performance, precisionengineered applications only where

reasonable efforts have been made to

ascertain that other alternatives are not

technically feasible due to performance
25608 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules

or safety requirements. These chemicals

have global warming characteristics

comparable to the perfluorocarbons and,

as a result, are proposed to be subject to

the same restrictions. A full discussion

of the global warming concerns and

related risk management decision can be

found under 59 FR 13044 (March 18,

1994, at p. 13094)

b. Precision Cleaning.

(a) Perfluoropolyethers.

Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as

acceptable substitutes for CFC–113 and

MCF in the precision cleaning sector for

high performance, precision-engineered

applications only where reasonable

efforts have been made to ascertain that

other alternatives are not technically

feasible due to performance or safety

requirements. These chemicals have

global warming characteristics

comparable to the perfluorocarbons and,

as a result, are proposed to be subject to

the same restrictions. A full discussion

of the global warming concerns and

related risk management decision can be

found under 59 FR 13044 (March 18,

1994, at p. 13094).

3. Unacceptable

a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) HCFC–141b. HCFC–141b is

unacceptable as a substitute for CFC–

113 and MCF in electronics cleaning

under existing rules (59 FR 13044;

March 18, 1994); today’s notice

proposes to amend this unacceptability

determination and proposes existing

uses of HCFC–141b as acceptable in

high-performance electronics cleaning

until January 1, 1997. This proposed

determination extends the use date for

HCFC–141b in solvent cleaning, but

only for existing users in highperformance electronics and only for

one year. The extension does not affect

the production phaseout date for HCFC–

141b, which is January 1, 2003.

The extension should not be viewed

as a reason to postpone replacement of

141b. Alternatives exist for nearly all

solvent cleaning applications of 141b,

and the principal reason for the

extension is the long lead time

necessary to test, select, and implement

a chosen substitute in high-performance

applications where stringent

qualifications testing is the norm.

Existing regulations affect 141b in two

ways. Under the production phaseout

for ozone-depleting substances (ODS),

141b has a phaseout date of January 1,

2003. This regulation, developed under

section 604 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

states that chemical manufacturers will

no longer be allowed to manufacture

141b as of that date (40 CFR Part 82,

Subpart G, Appendix A). HCFC–141b is

also subject to a number of use

restrictions relevant to solvent cleaning

operations. According to regulations

developed under section 612 of the

CAA—the SNAP program—the only

companies allowed to use 141b in

solvent cleaning equipment are existing

users. Existing users were defined in the

March 1994 determination as companies

who had 141b-based solvent cleaning

equipment in place as of April 18, 1994.

No new substitutions into 141b for

solvent cleaning were permitted, and

even existing users may use 141b only

until January 1, 1996. This use ban date

for existing users is the subject of the

extension in today’s proposal. HCFCS,

including 141b, are also covered by

other use restrictions such as the

nonessential ban (section 610) and

labeling (section 611). The 610 and 611

regulations are not discussed here. If

you need more information about these

regulations, call the Stratospheric Ozone

Protection Hotline at 1–800–296–1996.

Many users and vendors of 141b have

requested that the Agency postpone the

effective date of the use ban under

SNAP for solvent cleaning beyond

January 1, 1996. In response to these

petitions, EPA is proposing an

extension. Note, however, that the only

change is that existing uses in highperformance electronics cleaning would

be permitted for an additional year until

January 1, 1997. (Precision cleaning

uses are also extended in today’s

proposal, but are listed in the next

section.) ‘‘High-performance

electronics’’ would include high-value

added components for aerospace,

military, or medical applications such

as hybrid circuits or other electronics

for missile guidance systems. The

existing policy of no new substitutions

into 141b is maintained and uses of

141b in metals cleaning and basic

electronics cleaning would still end as

of January 1, 1996. These restricted

applications include cleaning of basic,

formed metal parts and high-volume

electronics cleaning such as

components for consumer electronics.

An important distinction is that

‘‘solvent cleaning’’ in the SNAP

program is defined to cover

replacements of ODS in industrial

cleaning, either in vapor degreasing or

cold cleaning. It does not include

aerosol applications, which are covered

separately under the SNAP program. It

also does not include other solvent

cleaning uses of ODS such as in textile

cleaning, dry cleaning, flushing of

automotive air conditioning systems, or

hand wiping. This means, for instance,

that the use ban date does not apply to

141b used for hand wiping. However,

users should understand that although

these uses are not currently governed by

the SNAP program, responsible

corporate policy would be to implement

alternatives to ODS where possible.

Additionally, SNAP reserves the right to

regulate any use where significant

environmental differences exist in the

choice of alternatives.

To minimize the paperwork burden,

no reporting is proposed for companies

that qualify for an extension.

The extension is not an excuse to

delay selecting an alternative. The

principal reason for extending the

permissible period of use for 141b in

these narrowed applications is not that

alternatives do not exist, but that users

need more time to qualify and

implement alternatives. Even with the

extension, uses of 141b in the specified

applications will only be permitted for

another 12 months beyond the current

use ban date. This additional time can

only be used productively if users begin

now to select, test, order equipment and

materials, etc.

The search for alternatives should

include not just aqueous and semiaqueous alternatives, but also recently

developed cleaning chemicals and

technologies. Information on vendors of

substitutes is available from the

Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline.

Call 1–800–296–1996 and ask for the

Vendor List for Precision Cleaning. In

addition, EPA has more detailed

information available on topics such as

retrofitting 141b degreasers to use HFCS

or on cleaning of medical devices.

b. Precision Cleaning.

(a) HCFC–141b. HCFC–141b is

unacceptable as a substitute for CFC–

113 and MCF in precision cleaning

under existing rules (59 FR 13044;

March 18, 1994); today’s notice

proposes to amend this unacceptability

determination and proposes existing

uses of HCFC–141b as acceptable in

precision cleaning until January 1, 1997.

This proposed determination extends

the use date for HCFC–141b in solvent

cleaning, but only for existing users in

precision cleaning and only for one

year. The extension does not affect the

production phaseout date for HCFC–

141b, which is January 1, 2003.

For a full discussion of the rationale

for extension, please see the previous

section on electronics cleaning. This

discussion applies in full to users of

precision cleaning, which for purposes

of this extension is defined to include

cleaning of devices of high-value added,

precision-engineered parts such as

precision ball bearings for navigational

devices, or other components for

aerospace, or medical uses.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25609

C. Aerosols

1. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use

Limits

a. Solvents.

(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons

(PFCs) are proposed as acceptable

substitutes for CFC–113 and MCF for

aerosol applications only where

reasonable efforts have been made to

ascertain that other alternatives are not

technically feasible due to performance

or safety requirements. EPA is

proposing to permit the use of PFCs in

aerosols applications despite their

global warming potential since so few

nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist

and this sector presents a high

probability of worker exposure and

safety risks. PFCs are already subject to

similar restrictions in the solvents

cleaning sector due to global warming

concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18,

1994). This decision, if implemented as

proposed, will allow users to select

PFCs in the event of performance or

safety concerns while guarding against

widespread, unnecessary use of these

potent greenhouse gases.

(b) Perfluoropolyethers.

Perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) are

proposed as acceptable substitutes for

CFC–113 and MCF for aerosol

applications only where reasonable

efforts have been made to ascertain that

other alternatives are not technically

feasible due to performance or safety

requirements. EPA is proposing to

permit the use of perfluoropolyethers in

aerosols applications despite their

global warming potential since so few

nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist

and this sector presents a high

probability of worker exposure and

safety risks. PFCs, which have global

warming potentials comparable to the

PFPEs, are already subject to similar

restrictions in the solvents cleaning

sector due to global warming concerns

(59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This

decision, if implemented as proposed,

will allow users to select

perfluoropolyethers in the event of

performance or safety concerns while

guarding against widespread,

unnecessary use of these potent

greenhouse gases.

2. Unacceptable

a. Propellants.

(a) SF6. SF6 is proposed as

unacceptable substitute for CFC–11,

CFC–12, HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b in

aerosol applications. This chemical has

been of commercial interest as a

compressed gas propellant substitute for

ozone-depleting propellants. It has an

atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and

a 100-year global warming potential

(GWP) of 24,900. CFC–11, in contrast,

has a lifetime of 50 years and a GWP of

4,000. Formulators have indicated to the

EPA that other compressed gases such

as CO2 would work equally well and

could be formulated at similar or lower

cost.

3. Amendment to List of Substances

Being Replaced

EPA proposes today to add CFC–12

and CFC–114 to the list of aerosol

propellants being replaced by

substitutes reviewed under SNAP. This

will ensure that companies replacing

these CFCS in their products will be

able to adhere to SNAP rulings in the

replacement process. The

environmental trade-offs associated

with replacing CFC–12 and CFC–114

versus CFC–11 do not change

significantly, since the ODPS for all the

CFCS are roughly the same.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.’’

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, OMB notified EPA that it

considers this a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order and EPA submitted this

action to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations have been

documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

EPA to prepare a budgetary impact

statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by state,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the Agency to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

affected by the rule. Section 205

requires that regulatory alternatives be

considered before promulgating a rule

for which a budgetary impact statement

is prepared. The Agency must select the

least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the rule’s objectives, unless there is an

explanation why this alternative is not

selected or this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule is

estimated to result in the expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector of less than $100

million in any one year, the Agency has

not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative. Because small governments

will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this proposed rule, the

Agency is not required to develop a plan

with regard to small governments.

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

proposed 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

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.
25610 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been 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 has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1774.01) and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740. The

reasons for these information

requirements are explained in the

section on automobile air conditioning

(III.A.1.a), and the requirements will be

mandatory under section 612 of the

Clean Air Act once the ICR is approved.

EPA is proposing to apply the

information requirements described

above to this rulemaking, previous

similar rulemakings, and future

rulemakings. Therefore, once the ICR is

approved and this proposed rule is

finalized, the ICR will also apply to

requirements described in rules

published on June 13, 1995 (60 FR

31092) and a rule expected to be

published in April, 1996.

EPA estimates that the burden of

learning about the requirements will be

approximately ten minutes, and that

filling out each required label itself will

take under one minute. 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,

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.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after May 22,

1996, a comment to OMB is best assured

of having its full effect if OMB receives

it by June 21, 1996. The final rule will

respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

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

title6/usregs.html.

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 proposed

amended as follows:

PART 82—PROTECTION OF

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for part 82

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414, 7601,

7671–7671q.

2. Section 82.180 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to read as

follows:

§ 82.180 Agency review of SNAP

submissions.

(a) * * *

(8) * * *

(ii) Communication of Decision to the

Public. The Agency will publish in the

Federal Register periodic updates to the

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 D to read as follows:

Subpart G—Significant New Alternatives

Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix D to Subpart G—Substitutes

Subject to Use Restrictions and

Unacceptable Substitutes Listed

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

Proposed Use Conditions

R–406A/‘‘GHG’’/‘‘McCool’’, ‘‘GHG–HP’’,

‘‘GHG–X4’’/‘‘Autofrost’’/‘‘Chill-It’’, ‘‘Hot

Shot’’/‘‘Kar Kool’’, and all refrigerants when

listed in subsequent notices, are proposed

acceptable subject to the following

conditions when used to retrofit a CFC–12

motor vehicle air conditioning system or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25611

when used in a new 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 shall be

retrofitted with conversion assemblies or

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 ozonedepleting 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.

SOLVENT CLEANING SECTOR—PROPOSED ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS SUBSTITUTES

Application Substitute Proposed Decision Conditions Comments

Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC–

113 and MCF.

HFC–4310mee Acceptable ..... Subject to a 200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm workplace exposure ceiling.

Precision Cleaning w/ CFC–

113 and MCF.

HFC–4310mee Acceptable ..... Subject to a 200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm workplace exposure ceiling.

SOLVENT SECTOR—PROPOSED ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

Application Substitute Proposed decision Comments

Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC–113

and MCF.

Perfluoropolyethers ......... Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable

substitutes for CFC–113 and MCF in the precision cleaning sector for high performance, precision-engineered applications only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that

other alternatives are not technically feasible due

to performance or safety requirements.

PFPEs have similar global warming profile to

the PFCs, and the

SNAP decision on

PFPEs parallels that

for PFCs.

Precision Cleaning w/ CFC–113

and MCF.

Perfluoropolyethers ......... Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable

substitutes for CFC–113 and MCF in the precision cleaning sector for high performance, precision-engineered applications only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that

other alternatives are not technically feasible due

to performance or safety requirements.

PFPEs have similar global warming profile to

the PFCs, and the

SNAP decision on

PFPEs parallels that

for PFCs.

PROPOSED UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Proposed decision Comments

Electronics Cleaning w/

CFC–113 and MCF.

HCFC–141b Extension of existing unacceptability determination to grant existing uses in high-performance

electronics permission to continue until January 1, 1997.

This proposed determination extends the use

date for HCFC–141b in solvent cleaning, but

only for existing users in high-performance

electronics and only for one year.
25612 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Proposed Rules

PROPOSED UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued

End-use Substitute Proposed decision Comments

Precision Cleaning w/

CFC–113 and MCF.

HCFC–141b Extension of existing unacceptability determination to grant existing uses in precision cleaning permission to continue until January 1,

1997.

This proposed determination extends the use

date for HCFC–141b in solvent cleaning, but

only for existing users in precision cleaning

and only for one year.

AEROSOLS SECTOR—PROPOSED ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

Application Substitute Proposed Decision Comments

CFC–113, MCF, and

HCFC–141b as aerosol solvents.

Perfluorocarbons ............ Perfluorocarbons are proposed as acceptable substitutes for aerosol applications

only where reasonable efforts have been

made to ascertain that other alternatives

are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

PFCs have extremely long atmospheric lifetimes and high Global Warming Potentials. This decision reflects these concerns

and is patterned after the SNAP decision

on PFCs in the solvent cleaning sector.

Perfluoropolyethers ......... Perfluorocarbons are proposed as acceptable substitutes for aerosol applications

only where reasonable efforts have been

made to ascertain that other alternatives

are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

PFPEs have similar global warming profile

to the PFCs, and the SNAP decision on

PFPEs parallels that for PFCs in the solvent cleaning sector.

PROPOSED UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

CFC–11, CFC–12, HCFC–22, and

HCFC–142b as aerosol propellants.

SF6 Unacceptable ..... SF6 has the highest GWP of all industrial gases, and other compressed

gases meet user needs in this application equally well.

[FR Doc. 96–12624 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

JAMES MADISON MEMORIAL

FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION

45 CFR Part 2400

Fellowship Program Requirements

AGENCY: James Madison Memorial

Fellowship Foundation.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The following are proposed

revised regulations governing the

annual competition for James Madison

Fellowships and the obligations of

James Madison Fellows. These

regulation would update and replace

several aspects of the the Foundation’s

existing regulations as implemented by

the James Madison Memorial

Fellowship Act of 1986. These revised

regulations would govern the

qualifications and applications of

candidates for fellowships; the selection

of Fellows by the Foundation; the

graduate programs Fellows must pursue;

the terms and conditions attached to

awards; the Foundation’s annual

Summer Institute on the Constitution;

and related requirements and

expectations regarding fellowships.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: James Madison Memorial

Fellowship Foundation, 2000 K Street,

NW, Suite 303, Washington, DC 20006–

1809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lewis F. Larsen, (202) 653–8700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

reason for the proposed changes to the

Foundation’s regulations comes as a

result of the Foundation’s desire to

clarify several of the rules and

regulations which James Madison

Fellows must observe when accepting

their fellowships. Although many of the

changes are minor insertions of words

and punctuation, this document

specifically expands the definition

section to include further detailed

definitions on Credit Hour Equivalent,

Incomplete, Repayment, Satisfactory

Progress, Stipend, Teaching Obligation,

Termination and Withdrawal. The

Foundation now encourages James

Madison Fellows to choose a graduate

program which does not include the

writing of a thesis. Graduate programs

for which Fellows may apply have been

broadened to included political science.

Finally, a section entitled ‘‘Teaching

Obligation’’ was added to further clarify

the obligation to teach, required by the

Foundation once each fellow has earned

a master’s degree.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2400

Education, Fellowships.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Paul A. Yost, Jr.,

President.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble and under authority of 20

U.S.C. 4501 et seq., chapter XXIV, title

45 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended by revising part 2400 to read

as follows:

Chapter XXIV—James Madison Memorial

Fellowship Foundation

PART 2400—FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

REQUIREMENTS

Subpart A—General

2400.1 Purposes.

2400.2 Annual competition.

2400.3 Eligibility.

2400.4 Definitions.

Subpart B—Application

2400.10 Application.

2400.11 Faculty representatives.

Subpart C—Application Process

2400.20 Preparation of application.

2400.21 Contents of application.

2400.22 Application deadline.