Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 25585

Appendix D To Part 75—Optional SO2

Emissions Data Protocol for Gas-Fired

and Oil-Fired Units [Amended]

14. Appendix D, section 2.1.5.2 is

amended by revising the phrase ‘‘bypass

fuel’’ to read ‘‘backup fuel’’.

15. Appendix D, section 2.1.6.1 is

amended by revising the phrase ‘‘bypass

fuel’’ to read ‘‘backup fuel’’.

Appendix F of Part 75—Conversion

Procedures [Amended]

16. Appendix F, section 3.4, Equation

F–10 is amended by changing the

superscript in the sum from ‘‘n’’ to ‘‘m’’,

to read as follows:

E

E

m

Eq F a

i

i l

m

= −

=

∑ ( . ) 10

Where,

* * * * *

17. Appendix F, section 4.4.1 is

amended by adding Equation F–14b

after the variables for Equation F–14a

and before the variables for Equation F–

14b, to read as follows:

4.4.1

* * * * *

or

CO

F

F

H O

O Eq F b w

c

2 w

2

2

100

20 9

20 9

100

100

14 . . %( . )  −



 



 − 



 



 −

* * * * *

Appendix F, Section 5.5.1—[Amended]

18. Appendix F, Section 5.5.1 is

amended by revising the last variable for

Equation F–19 from ‘‘106’’ to read ‘‘106’’

in the definition for the variable.

Appendix G of Part 75—Determination

of CO2 Emissions [Amended]

Appendix G, Section 4—[Amended]

19. Appendix G, section 4 is amended

by redesignating Equation G–7 as

Equation G–8.

[FR Doc. 96–12482 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–5467–1]

RIN 2060–AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting 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 ozonedepleting 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
25586 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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-andcomment 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.

• 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.

• ASHRAE designation.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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.

• 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.

• ‘‘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.

• 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 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 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 ‘‘dropin’’ 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:

• 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

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.

• 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
25588 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 CO2 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 CO2 can be used at the same

levels and for the same exposure times

as inert gases with added CO2, and

referenced a supporting document,

‘‘Physiological Effects of Abrupt

Exposure to 10% O2 with 4% CO2,’’

dated February 15, 1995. Further, the

commenter explained why EPA’s

concern that added CO2 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 CO2.

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 CO2 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 CO2.

Comment: One manufacturer of this

agent stated that the most recently

published atmospheric information on

CF3I 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 CF3I 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, CF3I 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
25590 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 endpoint 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) CF3I

CF3I is acceptable as a Halon 1211

substitute in nonresidential

applications. CF3I 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.

CF3I 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 CF3I has a

NOAEL of 0.2 per cent and a LOAEL of

0.4 per cent. Personal monitoring for

this agent was conducted using 21⁄2 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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,
25592 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 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 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:

§ 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 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 25593

SOLVENT CLEANING SECTOR—PROPOSED ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS SUBSTITUTES

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

Metals Cleaning with

CFC–113, MCF

and HCFC–141b.

Monochlorotoluenes

and

benzotrifluorides.

Acceptable Subject to a 50 ppm workplace standard

for monochlorotoluenes and a 25 ppm

standard for benzotrifluorides.

The workplace standard for

monochlorotoluenes is based on an

OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for

orthochlorotoluene. The workplace

standard for benzotrifluorides is based

on a recent toxicology study.

Electronics Cleaning

w/ CFC–113, MCF

and HCFC–141b.

Monochlorotoluenes

and

benzotrifluorides.

Acceptable Subject to a 50 ppm workplace standard

for monochlorotoluenes and a 25 ppm

standard for benzotrifluorides.

The workplace standard for

monochlorotoluenes is based on an

OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for

orthochlorotoluene. The workplace

standard for benzotrifluorides is based

on a recent toxicology study.

Precision Cleaning

w/ CFC–113, MCF

and HCFC–141b.

Monochlorotoluenes

and

benzotrifluorides.

Acceptable Subject to a 50 ppm workplace standard

for monochlorotoluenes and a 25 ppm

standard for benzotrifluorides.

The workplace standard for

monochlorotoluenes is based on an

OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for

orthochlorotoluene. 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

[Inert Gas Blend]

B).

Acceptable Until OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements:The Agency does not contemplate personnel remaining 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 exists for the oxygen to

drop below 10%, employees must be

evacuated prior to such oxygen depletion.

EPA does not encourage any employee

to intentionally remain in the area

after system discharge, even in the

event of accidental discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms

and warning mechanisms as specified

by OSHA.

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.

See additional comments 1, 2.

IG–01 (formerly

[Inert Gas Blend]

C).

Acceptable Until OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements:The Agency does not contemplate personnel remaining 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 exists for the oxygen to

drop below 10%, employees must be

evacuated prior to such oxygen depletion.

EPA does not encourage any employee

to intentionally remain in the area

after system discharge, even in the

event of accidental discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms

and warning mechanisms as specified

by OSHA.
25594 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS: TOTAL FLOODING

AGENTS—Continued

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

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.

See additional comments 1, 2.

1—Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.

2—Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must reenter the area.

ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS: STREAMING AGENTS

Application Substitute Decision Comments

Halon 1211 ............... CF3I ............. 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

solvent.

Monochlorotoluenes

and benzotrifluorides.

Acceptable Subject to a 50 ppm workplace standard

for monochlorotoluenes and a 25 ppm

standard for benzotrifluorides.

The workplace standard for

monochlorotoluenes is based on an

OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for

orthochlorotoluene. 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.

Monochlorotoluenes

and benzotrifluorides.

Acceptable Subject to a 50 ppm workplace standard

for monochlorotoluenes and a 25 ppm

standard for benzotrifluorides.

The workplace standard for

monochlorotoluenes is based on an

OSHA PEL of 50 ppm for

orthochlorotoluene. 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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 21

[MM Docket No. 94–131 and PP Docket No.

93–253, FCC 95–230]

Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services

CFR Correction

In title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 20 to 39, revised as of

October 1, 1995, in § 21.902 the first

paragraph (c), (c)(1), and (c)(1)(i)

beginning at the bottom of the first

column on page 91 should be removed.

In the second column paragraph

(c)(1)(ii) was inadvertently omitted and

should read as follows:

§ 21.902 Frequency interference.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) If the great circle path between the

applicant’s proposed transmitter and the

protected service area of any authorized,

or previously–proposed, cochannel or

adjacent–channel station(s) is within

241.41 km (150 miles) or less and 90

percent or more of the path is over water

or within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the coast

or shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean, the

Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, any

of the Great Lakes, or any bay associated

with any of the above (see secs.

21.701(a), 21.901(a) and 74.902 of this

chapter;

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No.90–67, RM–7482, RM–7026,

RM–7057]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Bon Air,

Chester, Mechanicsville, Ruckersville,

Williamsburg and Fort Lee, VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document grants in part

the petition for reconsideration filed by

Capitol Broadcasting Company of

Virginia, denies the petition for partial

reconsideration filed by Keymarket of

Virginia, Inc. and affirms the result in

Second Report and Order, 57 FR 45578

(October 2, 1992). The Second Report

and Order granted a change of

community of license of Station

WDCK(FM)(formerly WQSF(FM)) from

Williamsburg to Fort Lee, Virginia. This

document also dismisses a petition for