Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
Related Material
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27873-27888]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21my97-33]
[[Page 27873]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Proposed Rule
[[Page 27874]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5827-2]
RIN 2060-AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean
Air Act of 1990, which requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for the
ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.
Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and
unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors.
The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away
from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into substitutes
posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on
the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of substitutes. In
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its
preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes not
previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at determinations on the
acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media
evaluation of risks to human health and the environment by sector end-
use.
DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document
must be submitted by June 20, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42,
Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket
may be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone
(202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite review, a
second copy of the comments should be sent to Carol Weisner,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 6205-J, Washington, DC 20460. Information
designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR,
part 2 subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this
document. However, the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit
a non-confidential version of their comments to the docket as well.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Weisner at (202) 233-9193 or fax
(202) 233-9665, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and
Radiation (6205-J), Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier
deliveries should be sent to our 501-3rd Street, NW, Washington, DC
20001 location.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of This Action
This action is divided into six sections, including this overview:
I. Overview of This Action
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Additional Information
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making
it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) Reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also
requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for
specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable
alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to
petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from the
lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90
days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition,
EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any
person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to
notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety
studies on such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources
to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and
developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.
B. Regulatory History
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: Refrigeration and air
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-
depleting compounds.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance.
Anyone who produces a substitute must provide the Agency with
health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before
introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an
alternative. This requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but
may include importers, formulators or end-users when they are
responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.
III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducts screens of health and
[[Page 27875]]
environmental risks posed by various substitutes for ozone-depleting
compounds in each use sector. The outcome of these risks screens can be
found in the public docket, as described above in the ADDRESSES portion
of this document.
Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has
identified five possible decision categories: Acceptable; acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;
unacceptable; and pending. Fully acceptable substitutes (i.e. no
restrictions) can be used for all applications within the relevant
sector end-use. Conversely, it is illegal to replace an ODS with a
substitute listed by SNAP as unacceptable. A pending listing represents
substitutes for which the Agency has not received complete data or has
not completed its review of the data.
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such
substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions
renders these substitutes unacceptable.
Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its
preliminary decision on the acceptability of certain substitutes not
previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for
the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment
rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of
prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under
certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an
alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the list of
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as
separate notices of acceptability in the Federal Register.
Parts A. through F. below present a detailed discussion of the
proposed substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are
in Appendix E. The comments contained in Appendix E to Subpart G of 40
CFR part 82 provide additional information on a substitute. Since
comments are not part of the regulatory decision, they are not
mandatory for use of a substitute. Nor should the comments be
considered comprehensive with respect to other legal obligations
pertaining to the use of the substitute. However, EPA encourages users
of acceptable substitutes to apply all comments in their application of
these substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply allude to
sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if
adopted, would not require significant changes in existing operating
practices for the affected industry.
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Class I
1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. CFC-12 Automobile and
Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit and New (1)
Notification Requirements for Existing Refrigerants.
In previous rulemakings, EPA has imposed conditions on the use of
MVAC refrigerants, including the requirement that they be used with
unique fittings and that vehicles be labeled when retrofitted to a new
refrigerant. In addition, new refrigerants must be submitted with
designs for fittings, and samples of both fittings and labels. EPA now
proposes to apply these submission requirements to the following
existing refrigerants: HFC-134a, FRIGC, Freezone, Ikon, R-406A, GHG-X4,
Hot Shot, GHG-HP, and Freeze-12, each of which was previously listed as
acceptable subject to use conditions. In accordance with the
requirements for new refrigerants, EPA proposes that the manufacturers
must submit, within 30 days of the effective date of the final rule
resulting from this NPRM:
Designs for service ports and hose connections, including
both high-side and low-side fittings;
Sample fittings of each type;
Sample labels, printed in the unique color chosen by the
manufacturer.
EPA will review the fittings and test for cross-connections between
the new fitting and existing fittings for other refrigerants. At the
same time, EPA will compare the background color of the sample label to
those of other refrigerants. If the fittings are unique and cannot be
mechanically cross-threaded, and the label color is unique to that
refrigerant, EPA will issue a letter to the manufacturer confirming
that the fittings and labels meet the use conditions. This confirmation
letter will be sent within 30 days of receipt of the submission. EPA
will then update a package of materials containing specifications for
existing fittings. This package will be provided to manufacturers of
new refrigerants and others who request it, to lower the risk of
duplicating fittings already in use.
If the fittings or the label color are not, in fact, unique, EPA
will issue a letter to the manufacturer indicating so. Continued use of
the refrigerant with the non-unique fittings will constitute a
violation of the unique fittings use condition.
EPA does not anticipate that these provisions will affect the
majority of the existing refrigerants because the manufacturers have
already submitted designs and sample labels and fittings for review.
However, it is necessary to formalize these submission requirements to
level the playing field and ensure that EPA has official submissions on
which to base future actions. For example, EPA will rely on designs and
samples to determine whether the submitted versions are actually being
used on cars. Similarly, EPA will rely on the submissions to determine
whether a given fitting satisfies the uniqueness criteria proposed
below.
(2) Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings. In previous rulemakings,
EPA has relied on refrigerant manufacturers to design unique fittings
with no further guidance. In this NPRM, EPA clarifies minimum criteria
for uniqueness. EPA proposes that all fittings for alternative
[[Page 27876]]
refrigerants must meet the following requirements:
High-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants,
including CFC-12;
Low-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from low-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants,
including CFC-12;
High-side screw-on fittings for a given refrigerant must
differ from low-side screw-on fittings for that refrigerant, to protect
against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure one;
High-side screw-on fittings for each alternative
refrigerant must differ from low-side screw-on fittings for CFC-12;
High-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other
refrigerants, including CFC-12;
Low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants,
including CFC-12;
High-side quick-connect fittings for a given refrigerant
must differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for that refrigerant,
to protect against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure
one;
For each type of container, the fitting for each
refrigerant must differ from the fitting for that type of container for
all other refrigerants, including CFC-12.
For screw-on fittings, EPA proposes that ``differ'' means that
either the diameter must differ by at least \1/16\ inch or the thread
direction must be reversed (i.e. right-handed vs. left-handed). Simply
changing the thread pitch is not sufficient. An additional requirement
for screw-on fittings, and the essential one for quick-connect
fittings, is that a person using normal force and normal tools
(including wrenches) must not be able to cross-connect fittings.
Following are some examples:
A \3/8\ (\6/16\) inch outside diameter screw-on fitting
with a right-hand thread differs from a \5/16\ inch outside diameter
screw-on fitting with a right-hand thread;
A \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a
left-hand thread differs from a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on
fitting with a right-hand thread;
A \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a
right-hand thread pitch of 18 threads/inch does not differ from a \3/8\
inch outside screw-on diameter fitting with a right-hand thread pitch
of 24 threads/inch;
A quick-connect fitting differs from another quick-connect
fitting if all combinations of the same type male and female parts
(high, low, small can, 30-lb. cylinder) will not connect using normal
tools.
(i) All previously listed refrigerants and all future refrigerants.
For refrigerants previously listed as acceptable subject to use
conditions, and for refrigerants submitted in the future, the use
conditions in force for retrofitted systems are proposed to apply to
new vehicles. In addition, the criteria for uniqueness of fittings
discussed above are proposed to apply, and all labels must meet UL
Standard 969-1995.
Since only HFC-134a is currently being used in new cars, the use
conditions were originally worded in such a way that a reasonable
interpretation would exclude their applicability to new cars. This
proposal extends the unique fittings and labels requirements to new
cars. EPA does not anticipate that this clarification will result in
any additional burden, since all new cars already use HFC-134a fittings
and labels. However, EPA invites comment on this proposal. Note that
the use conditions above replace only the fittings, labeling, and
``top-off'' conditions applicable to previously listed refrigerants.
Other conditions, such as the requirement to replace existing hoses
with barrier hoses, still apply to various refrigerants as listed in
the original rule.
In addition, as explained above, EPA believes it is necessary to
provide criteria for the uniqueness of fittings. This use condition
will apply these criteria formally to existing refrigerants. Finally,
the UL standard relates to permanence of labels, and is already part of
the applicable Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard.
(ii) HFC-134a, FRIGC FR-12, Freezone, Ikon, R-406A, GHG-X4, Hot
Shot, GHG-HP, and Freeze-12. For these refrigerants, all of which have
previously been found acceptable subject to use conditions, the
submission requirements discussed above are proposed to apply.
As discussed above, EPA believes that applying these requirements
formally will level the playing field between existing refrigerants and
new submissions. In addition, formal submissions of designs and sample
labels and fittings will allow EPA to monitor compliance with the other
use conditions.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. NARM-502.
NARM-502, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-152a, is
proposed unacceptable as a substitute for R-502 in all new and
retrofitted end-uses.
HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year global warming
potential (GWP) is 11,700. Both of these characteristics are
considerably higher than other HFCS and HCFCS. Numerous other
acceptable R-502 substitutes do not contain such high global warming
components. The Climate Change Action Plan directs EPA to reduce the
use of high global warming gases. Therefore, the use of this blend as
an R-502 substitute is proposed unacceptable.
b. NARM-12. NARM-12, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-
152a, is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in all new
and retrofitted end-uses.
HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year GWP is 11,700.
Both of these characteristics are considerably higher than other HFCs
and HCFCs. Numerous other acceptable R-502 substitutes do not contain
such high global warming components. The Climate Change Action Plan
directs EPA to reduce the use of high global warming gases. Therefore,
the use of this blend as an R-502 substitute is proposed unacceptable.
B. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Class II
1. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. NARM-22. NARM-22, which consists of
HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-152a, is proposed unacceptable as a substitute
for HCFC-22 in all new and retrofitted end-uses.
NARM-22 contains HCFC-22. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
replace a class II refrigerant with a blend containing a class II
refrigerant. Listing this blend as acceptable would be a barrier to a
smooth transition away from ozone-depleting refrigerants. Other
alternatives to HCFC-22 are already acceptable that do not contain any
ozone-depleting refrigerants.
In addition, HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year
GWP is 11,700. Both of these characteristics are considerably higher
than other HFCs and HCFCs. Other acceptable HCFC-22 substitutes do not
contain such high global warming components. The 1993 Climate Change
Action Plan directs EPA to reduce the use of high global warming gases.
For this reason, and the fact that NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, the use of
this blend as an HCFC-22 substitute is proposed unacceptable.
C. Solvents Cleaning
1. Chlorobromomethane. Chlorobromomethane (CBM) has been used as a
fire suppressant and has the designation of Halon 1011. EPA has
received notification that it can also be used as a solvent and a
potential
[[Page 27877]]
substitute for the ozone depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl chloroform
(MCF) and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission requesting
consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in
solvents cleaning of metals and electronics and in precision cleaning.
Analysis of the available toxicity data base for CBM raises significant
questions concerning its suitability as a solvent substitute for CFC-
113, or methyl chloroform, or HCFC-141b in metals cleaning, electronics
cleaning, and precision cleaning; and as a solvent agent in aerosols
and in adhesives, coatings and inks. In a subchronic study, at a dose
level of 500 parts per million (ppm), adverse effects were evident in
the livers of rats. At 1000 ppm, both guinea pigs and rabbits showed
decreased spermatogenesis, but no studies of reproductive or
developmental effects have been conducted. In addition, mutagenicity
tests with CBM in microorganisms yielded consistently positive results.
In mammalian systems, CBM induced sister chromatid exchanges. Thus the
mutagenic effects of CBM are unmistakable.
In 1989, EPA established a one day health advisory for water
contaminated with CBM at 50 ppm. A longer term health advisory was
established at 4.57 ppm for this compound in drinking water. OSHA
established an occupational Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 200 ppm
based on the ``grandfathered'' Threshold Limit Value (TLV) which dates
back to 1961. This compound was not reviewed by OSHA in the 1989
proposed revision process. In 1991, the only use noted for this
chemical by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) was as a liquid (streaming agent) fire suppressant. They
recommended an 8 hour TLV of 200 ppm consistent with the PEL. The
potential widespread use of CBM as a solvent substitute in the light of
its toxicity profile and significant data gaps imply a much lower
workplace limit. Based upon the lowest observed adverse effect level of
500 ppm in rats, the SNAP evaluation suggests a more appropriate
occupational exposure limit (OEL) to lie in the range of 2 and 5 ppm,
making this compound unsuitable for use as a solvent.
Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion
potential (ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives exist
with much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. As a
result of these recent ODP findings and the potential widespread use of
CBM in occupational settings unable to meet an OEL of 5 ppm, EPA
proposes this agent as unacceptable. Relevant reports and analyses on
these issues have been placed in the public docket for this SNAP
submission.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. Metals Cleaning.
(1) HFC-4310mee.
HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and
methyl chloroform (MCF) in metals cleaning subject to a 200 ppm time-
weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm workplace
exposure ceiling. This chemical does not deplete the ozone layer since
it does not contain chlorine or bromine. Review under the SNAP program
and the PMN program determined that a time-weighted average workplace
exposure standard of 200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
ppm would be adequately protective of human health and that companies
can meet these exposure limits using the types of equipment specified
in the product safety information provided by the chemical
manufacturer.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under Pub. L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards
in no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in Public Law 91-596.
3. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Metals Cleaning.
(1) Chlorobromomethane.
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for
CFC-113, methyl chloroform (MCF), and HCFC-141b in metals cleaning.
Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion potential
(ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28, and toxicity concerns exist based
on potential widespread use in occupational settings not meeting an
appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other alternatives exist with much lower ODP
and do not pose a comparable risk.
b. Electronics Cleaning.
(1) Chlorobromomethane.
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for
CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in electronics cleaning.
Recent authoritative research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17
to .28, and toxicity concerns exist based on potential widespread use
in occupational settings not meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other
alternatives exist with much lower ODP and do not pose a comparable
risk. For example, hydrofluoroethers (HFE) and HFC-4310 mee do not
contain chlorine and have no ODP.
c. Precision Cleaning.
(1) Chlorobromomethane.
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for
CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b in precision cleaning. Recent authoritative
research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28, and toxicity
concerns exist based on potential widespread use in occupational
settings not meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other alternatives
exist with much lower ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. For
example, hydrofluoroethers (HFE) and HFC-4310 mee do not contain
chlorine and have no ODP.
D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Chlorobromomethane. As discussed in Solvents Cleaning above, CBM
has been used for fire suppression and explosion inertion, and is
designated Halon 1011. In the fire suppression and explosion protection
sector, Halon 1011 has been used as a total flooding agent, in lieu of
Halon 1301, for the purpose of preventing fires in the engine nacelles
of aircraft, principally in the military. EPA understands the use of
Halon 1011 for this purpose has been extremely limited, and demand for
its future use is likely to be very small, given other alternatives.
Recent authoritative research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17
to 0.28. Other alternatives exist for total flooding applications with
much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. For example,
HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, as well as several inert gases, have no ODP. As
a result of these recent ODP findings, EPA proposes this agent
unacceptable as a substitute for Halon 1301.
2. Petition. EPA has received a Petition asking for reconsideration
of the wording of use conditions for PFCs and other long-lived gases.
The Petitioner believes that while it is EPA's stated intent that PFCs
be used as the agent of last resort when no other agent is acceptable
due to performance or safety requirements, the regulatory language is
unclear, potentially resulting in some users adopting PFCs
inappropriately. The regulatory language in the March 18, 1994,
Rulemaking (59 FR 13044, 13159) states the following:
C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due
to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may
approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other
[[Page 27878]]
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
This same language applies for use of other PFCs in this sector as
well.
EPA has discussed this language in rulemakings, letters and public
forums to ensure that the public understands that a PFC may be used if
no other commercially available agent will provide adequate protection
against the specific fire hazard given the technical or environmental
constraints of the application or if the use of other agents in the
application in question would exceed safe toxicity levels. For
halocarbons, cardiac sensitization is the primary endpoint of concern,
and for inert gases, hypoxia is the relevant endpoint. The SNAP
rulemaking describes the concentrations at which each agent can be
safely used.
The Petitioner suggests the following changes to the use conditions
for long-lived gases to allay confusion:
PFCs or other long-lived gases may only be used ``* * * (1) when
physical or chemical properties necessitate their use, or (2) when
the use of another SNAP accepted alternative would result in
exposures beyond its applicable use conditions (e.g., below the
minimum O2 content, egress times greater than 30 seconds
with design concentrations greater than LOAEL,) or (3) when the use
of other SNAP accepted alternatives would permanently impair the
health of those in the discharge area.
EPA agrees that the choice of words ``may approach
cardiosensitizations levels'' may be confusing to the public and thus
proposes to accept the petitioner's suggestion by substituting the
phrase ``may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.''
Applicable use conditions refer to the cardiac sensitization levels
stipulated in the SNAP use conditions for halocarbons, minimum oxygen
and maximum CO2 levels stipulated in the use conditions for
inert gas systems, or other use conditions as may be stipulated in a
SNAP rulemaking. The new language is consistent with the intent of the
current conditions as it was discussed in the preamble to the March 18,
1994, rulemaking. Thus, this change reflects no change in policy but
only clarification, and would apply to all PFCs currently listed under
the SNAP program, including C4F10,
C6F14, and C3F8. The use
condition proposed for PFCs would read as follows:
CxFy is proposed acceptable as a Halon
[1211 or 1301] substitute where other alternatives are not
technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a)
Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human
exposure to the agents may result in failure to meet applicable use
conditions or in other unacceptable health effects under normal
operating conditions.
The Petitioner did not make a cogent case for changing the phrase
``or result in other unacceptable health effects under normal operating
conditions'' and thus EPA rejects suggested changes to that phrase at
this time.
3. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. Total Flooding
Agents.
(1) C3F8.
C3F8 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use
condition on this agent.
(2) C4F10.
C4F10 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
See the preceding dicussion of the changes made to the use
condition on this agent.
(3) HFC-236fa.
HFC-236fa is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute when
manufactured using any process that does not convert
perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single step.
HFC-236fa may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion
applications, and may be used in fire suppression applications where
other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not technically feasible due
to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
In the event of the development of acceptable alternatives which
EPA finds should not only replace Halon 1301 and HFC-236a in new
systems, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only to the extent
warranted by cost and timing as outlined in the original SNAP rule
discussion of grandfathering of unacceptable substitutes (59 FR 13057).
As discussed in the initial SNAP rulemaking (58 FR 13044, March 18,
1994), until OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements, total
flooding agents are acceptable by the Agency for use in occupied areas
only under the following conditions:
1. Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within one
minute, the employer shall not use the agent in concentrations
exceeding its NOAEL.
2. Where egress takes greater than 30 seconds but less than one
minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration greater
than its LOAEL.
3. Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only permitted
in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any employee
in the area can escape within 30 seconds.
The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the
area during agent discharge. These conditions will no longer apply once
OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements.
The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0 per cent and
its LOAEL is 15 per cent. Cup burner tests with heptane indicate that
the extinguishment concentration for this agent is 5.3 per cent, thus
making its calculated design concentration 6.4 per cent. Compared to
the cardiac sensitization values, these concentrations provide a
sufficient margin of safety for use in a normally occupied area.
In the March 18, 1994 final SNAP rule (58 FR 13044), EPA required
manufacturers to submit information on manufacturing processes to allow
an assessment of the risks posed to the general public and workers. EPA
clarified in that action that acceptability determinations made on the
basis of one company's submission would apply to the same chemical
produced by other manufacturers, obviating the need for duplicative
reporting requirements and review. However, manufacturers who believe a
given manufacturing process may pose additional risks beyond those
posed by other processes were required to alert EPA to that increased
hazard. The February 8, 1996 (61 FR 4736) Notice of Acceptability
specifically discussed the manufacturing process used in making HFC-
236fa, and that discussion is repeated below.
EPA is aware of several methods for manufacturing HFC-236fa,
including one that produces HFC-236fa directly from PFIB. PFIB is an
extremely toxic substance that could pose risks in very small
concentrations. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate to distinguish
among the different methods for producing HFC-236fa. This acceptability
determination does not prohibit the manufacture of HFC-236fa directly
from PFIB. Rather, it finds
[[Page 27879]]
acceptable the production of HFC-236fa in processes that do not convert
PFIB directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. If a manufacturer wishes
to produce HFC-236fa directly from PFIB, it must submit that process to
EPA for review under SNAP.
HFC-236fa can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.3 by weight and
1.5 by volume. Due to its relatively high boiling point of minus 1.6
degrees centigrade, this agent may not be suitable in a low temperature
environment. Its greatest potential appears to be in explosion
suppression and in applications benefited by a misting or liquid
discharge.
HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone, however, it has an
atmospheric lifetime of 250 years and a 100-year GWP of 6300. Concerns
have been raised about this agent's potential atmospheric effects.
Thus, this agent should be handled so as to minimize unnecessary
emissions. Ways to minimize emissions include: Avoiding discharge
testing and training; providing a high level of maintenance to avoid
leaks and accidental discharges; recovering HFC-236fa from the fire
protection equipment in conjunction with testing or servicing; and
destroying HFC-236fa or recycling it for later use.
While HFC-236fa may be used without prejudice in explosion
protection applications, before users adopt it for general fire
suppression applications they must first ascertain that other non-PFC
substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements. That is, if a PFC is the only other
substitute that is technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements, then this agent may be used in a general fire suppression
application. Potential users are expected to evaluate the technical
feasibility of other non-PFC substitutes or alternatives to determine
their adequacy to control the particular fire risk. Such assessment may
include an evaluation of the performance or functional effectiveness of
the non-PFC agents' effectiveness for the intended applications as well
as the risk to personnel potentially exposed to the agents. Similarly,
use of HFC-236fa due to toxicological concerns would be appropriate
where use of other non-PFC substitutes or alternatives would violate
the workplace safety use conditions set forth in the SNAP rulemakings
(58 FR 13044).
To assist users in their evaluation for general fire suppression
applications, EPA has prepared a list of vendors manufacturing halon
substitutes and alternatives. Although users are not required to report
the results of their investigation to EPA, companies must retain these
results in company files for future reference.
4. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. a. Streaming
Agents. (1) C6F14
C6F14 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1211
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use
condition on this agent.
(2) HFC-236fa.
HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in non-
residential applications when manufactured using any process that does
not convert perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a
single step. The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0 per
cent and its LOAEL is 15 per cent. Cup burner tests with heptane
indicate that the extinguishment concentration for this agent is 5.3
per cent. Compared to Halon 1211, HFC-236fa has a weight equivalence of
1.1 to 1.5.
As discussed above, HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone,
however, it has an atmospheric lifetime of 250 years and a 100-year GWP
of 6300. Concerns have been raised about this agent's potential
atmospheric effects. Thus, EPA recommends that users minimize
unnecessary emissions by limiting testing only to that which is
essential to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering HFC-
236fa from the fire protection equipment in conjunction with testing or
servicing; and destroying HFC-236fa or recycling it for later use. EPA
encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
Further, this agent may not be used in residential applications,
e.g., by a private individual in applications in or around a permanent
or temporary household, during recreation, or for any personal use or
enjoyment. Use in watercraft or aircraft is excluded from the
definition of residential use.
(3) HFC-227ea.
HFC-227ea is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in
nonresidential applications. The weight equivalence of this agent is
1.66 pounds per pound of Halon 1211. It has a cardiac sensitization
NOAEL of 9.0 per cent, and a LOAEL of 10.5% or greater. Its cup burner
extinguishment value is 5.8%.
This agent has no ozone depletion potential, a 100-year GWP of 2050
relative to carbon dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of 31 years. It
is already listed as acceptable for use in total flooding applications
as an alternative to Halon 1301 (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13107).
b. Total Flooding Agents.
(1) C3F8.
C3F8 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions.
See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use
condition on this agent.
(2) C4F10. C4F10 is
proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements:
(a) Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human
exposure to the agents may result in failure to meet applicable use
conditions or in other unacceptable health effects under normal
operating conditions.
See the preceding discussion of the changes made to the use
condition on this agent.
(3) HFC-236fa. HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute
when manufactured using any process that does not convert
perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single step.
HFC-236fa may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion
applications, and may be used in fire suppression applications where
other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not technically feasible due
to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due to their physical or
chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents may
result in failure to meet applicable use conditions or result in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions. Please
see the section on ``Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions''
for a complete discussion of this agent. This agent is subject to the
use conditions delineated in the above section.
5. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Total Flooding Agents. (1)
Chlorobromomethane.
[[Page 27880]]
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for Halon
1301 in total flooding applications. Recent authoritative research
establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives
exist for total flooding applications with lower or no ODP and do not
pose a comparable risk. For example, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, as well as
several inert gases, have no ODP.
E. Aerosols
1. Chlorobromomethane. Chlorobromomethane (CBM) has been used as a
fire suppressant and has the designation of Halon 1011. EPA has
received notification that it can also be used as a solvent and a
potential substitute for the ozone depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl
chloroform (MCF) and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission
requesting consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113
and MCF in solvents cleaning of metals and electronics and in precision
cleaning. Analysis of the available toxicity data base for CBM raises
significant questions concerning its suitability as a solvent
substitute for CFC-113, or methyl chloroform, or HCFC-141b in metals
cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision cleaning; and as a
solvent agent in aerosols and in adhesives, coatings and inks. In a
subchronic study, at a dose level of 500 ppm, adverse effects were
evident in the livers of rats. At 1000 ppm, both guinea pigs and
rabbits showed decreased spermatogenesis, but no studies of
reproductive or developmental effects have been conducted. In addition,
mutagenicity tests with CBM in microorganisms yielded consistently
positive results. In mammalian systems, CBM induced sister chromatid
exchanges. Thus the mutagenic effects of CBM are unmistakable.
In 1989, EPA established a one day health advisory for water
contaminated with CBM at 50 ppm. A longer term health advisory was
established at 4.57 ppm for this compound in drinking water. OSHA
established an occupational Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 200 ppm
based on the ``grandfathered'' Threshold Limit Value (TLV) which dates
back to 1961. This compound was not reviewed by OSHA in the 1989
proposed revision process. In 1991, the only use noted for this
chemical by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) was as a liquid (streaming agent) fire suppressant. They
recommended an 8 hour TLV of 200 ppm consistent with the PEL. The
potential widespread use of CBM as a solvent substitute in the light of
its toxicity profile and significant data gaps imply a much lower
workplace limit. Based upon the lowest observed adverse effect level of
500 ppm in rats, the SNAP evaluation suggests a more appropriate
occupational exposure limit (OEL) to lie in the range of 2 and 5 ppm,
making this compound unsuitable for use as a solvent.
Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion
potential (ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives exist
with much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. As a
result of these recent ODP findings and the potential widespread use of
CBM in occupational settings unable to meet an OEL of 5 ppm, EPA
proposes this agent as unacceptable.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. a. Solvents. (1) HFC-
4310mee HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113
and methyl chloroform (MCF) in aerosols subject to a 200 ppm time-
weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm workplace
exposure ceiling. This chemical does not deplete the ozone layer since
it does not contain chlorine or bromine. Review under the SNAP program
and the PMN program determined that a time-weighted average workplace
exposure standard of 200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
ppm would be adequately protective of human health. Based on the
results of exposure assessment studies, it is EPA's opinion that
companies can meet the 200 ppm limit of the HFC-4310mee in defluxing
and cleaning providing that the standard operating procedures and
employee work habits are conducted in accordance with the procedures
specified in the product safety information provided by the chemical
manufacturer.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under Pub. L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards
in no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in Pub. L. 91-596.
(2) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 ca/cb is proposed as an acceptable
substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF) in aerosols subject
to a 25 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard of the
HCFC-225ca isomer. HCFC-225 ca/cb HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered as a
45%-ca/55%-cb blend. The company-set exposure limit of the -ca isomer
is 25 ppm. The company-set exposure limit of the -cb isomer is 250 ppm.
Based on the results of exposure assessment studies, it is EPA's
opinion that companies can meet the 25 ppm limit of the HCFC-225 ca
isomer in defluxing and cleaning providing that the standard operating
procedures and employee work habits are conducted in accordance with
the procedures specified in the product safety information provided by
the chemical manufacturer.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under Pub. L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards
in no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in Pub. L. 91-596.
3. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Solvents. (1) Chlorobromomethane
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113
and methyl chloroform in aerosols. Recent authoritative research
establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28, and toxicity concerns
exist based on potential widespread use in occupational settings not
meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other alternatives exist with much
lower ODP and do not pose a comparable risk.
F. Adhesives, coatings and inks
1. Chlorobromomethane. Chlorobromomethane (CBM) has been used as a
fire suppressant and has the designation of Halon 1011. EPA has
received notification that it can also be used as a solvent and a
potential substitute for the ozone-depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl
chloroform (MCF) and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission
requesting consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113
and MCF in solvents cleaning of metals and electronics and in precision
cleaning. Analysis of the available toxicity data base for CBM raises
significant questions concerning its suitability as a solvent
substitute for CFC-113, or methyl chloroform, or HCFC-141b in metals
cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision cleaning; and as a
solvent agent in aerosols and in adhesives, coatings and inks. In a
subchronic study, at a dose level of 500 ppm, adverse effects were
evident in the livers of rats. At 1000 ppm, both guinea pigs and
rabbits showed decreased spermatogenesis, but no studies of
reproductive or developmental effects have been conducted. In addition,
mutagenicity tests with CBM in microorganisms yielded consistently
positive results. In mammalian systems, CBM induced sister chromatid
[[Page 27881]]
exchanges. Thus the mutagenic effects of CBM are unmistakable.
In 1989, EPA established a one day health advisory for water
contaminated with CBM at 50 ppm. A longer term health advisory was
established at 4.57 ppm for this compound in drinking water. OSHA
established an occupational Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 200 ppm
based on the ``grandfathered'' Threshold Limit Value (TLV) which dates
back to 1961. This compound was not reviewed in the 1989 proposed
revision process. In 1991, the only use noted for this chemical by
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) was
as a liquid (streaming agent) fire suppressant. They recommended an 8
hour TLV of 200 ppm consistent with the PEL. The potential widespread
use of CBM as a solvent substitute in the light of its toxicity profile
and significant data gaps imply a much lower workplace limit. Based
upon the lowest observed adverse effect level of 500 ppm in rats, the
SNAP evaluation suggests a more appropriate occupational exposure limit
(OEL) to lie in the range of 2 and 5 ppm, making this compound
unsuitable for use as a solvent.
Recent authoritative research establishes an ozone depletion
potential (ODP) range for CBM of 0.17 to 0.28. Other alternatives exist
with much lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable risk. As a
result of these recent ODP findings and the potential widespread use of
CBM in occupational settings unable to meet an OEL of 5 ppm, EPA
proposes this potential substitute, CBM, as unacceptable.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes. a. Solvents. (1) Chlorobromomethane.
Chlorobromomethane is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113
and methyl chloroform in adhesives, coatings and inks. Recent
authoritative research establishes an ODP range for CBM of 0.17 to
0.28, and toxicity concerns exist based on potential widespread use in
occupational settings not meeting an appropriate OEL of 5 ppm. Other
alternatives exist with much lower ODP and do not pose a comparable
risk. For example, water-based formulations and other acceptable
solvent formulations with no ODP are broadly used and readily
available.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations
have been documented in the public record.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most
cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative
is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments. However, this proposed rule has
the net effect of reducing burden from part 82, Stratospheric
Protection regulations, on regulated entities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because costs of the SNAP
requirements as a whole are expected to be minor. In fact, this
proposed rule offers regulatory relief to small businesses by providing
acceptable alternatives to phased-out ozone-depleting substances.
Additionally, the SNAP rule exempts small sectors and end-uses from
reporting requirements and formal agency review. To the extent that
information gathering is more expensive and time-consuming for small
companies, the actions proposed herein may well provide benefits for
small businesses anxious to examine potential substitutes to any ozone-
depleting class I and class II substances they may be using, by
requiring manufacturers to make information on such substitutes
available. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., that are not already approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). OMB has reviewed and approved two Information Collection
Requests by EPA which are described in the March 18, 1994 rulemaking
(59 FR 13044, at 13121, 13146-13147) and in the October 16, 1996
rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at 54038-54039). The OMB Control Numbers are
2060-0226 and 2060-0350.
V. Additional Information
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional
information on SNAP, contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
800-296-1996,
[[Page 27882]]
Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. (EST).
For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the
Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TTN), Clean Air Act Amendment Bulletin Board. The access
number for users with a 1200 or 2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For
users with a 9600 bps modem the access number is (919) 541-1447. For
assistance in accessing this service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal
business hours (EST). Finally, all EPA publications on protection of
stratospheric ozone are available from the Ozone World Wide Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/index.html.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 14, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Subpart G is amended by adding the following appendix E to read
as follows:
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
* * * * *
Appendix E to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the [FR publication date] final
rule, effective [30 days after FR publication date].
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings
that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as
appropriate) must be designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant.
Specifications for the fittings similar to those found in SAE J639 and
samples of all fittings must be submitted to EPA at the same time as
the initial SNAP submission, or the submission will be considered
incomplete. These fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent
cross-charging with another refrigerant.
The fittings must be used on all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. A refrigerant may only be used
with the fittings and can taps specifically intended for that
refrigerant and designed by the manufacturer of the refrigerant. Using
a refrigerant with a fitting designed by anyone else, even if it is
different from fittings used with other refrigerants, will be a
violation of this use condition. Using an adapter or deliberately
modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be a violation
of this use condition.
Fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
--When existing CFC-12 service ports are retrofitted, conversion
assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner
that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.
--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the
vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660,
as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which
are specific to HFC-134a.
--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere,
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is
waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief device.
--All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion assemblies
shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-12 related
service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a thread lock
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner
that prevents the device from being removed.
A label must be used as follows:
--The person conducting the retrofit or installing the system must
apply a label to the air conditioning system in the engine compartment
that contains the following information:
* the name and address of the technician and the company performing
the retrofit
* the date of the retrofit
* the trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE
refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
* the type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
* if the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance,
the phrase ``ozone depleter''
* if the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681 at normal atmospheric pressure and 25 degrees
Celsius, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take
appropriate precautions.''
--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to
the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during
vehicle repair.
--Information about the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by
the new label must be rendered permanently unreadable.
No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All CFC-12 end uses, retrofit and NARM-12................ Proposed Unacceptable.. This blend contains HFC-
new. 23, which has an
extremely high GWP and
lifetime. Other
substitutes for CFC-12
exist that do not
contain HFC-23.
[[Page 27883]]
All R-502 end uses, retrofit and new NARM-502............... Proposed Unacceptable.. This blend contains HFC-
23, which has an
extremely high GWP and
lifetime. Other
substitutes for R-502
exist that do not
contain HFC-23.
All HCFC-22 end uses, retrofit and NARM-22................ Proposed Unacceptable.. This blend contains HCFC-
new. 22, and it is
inappropriate to use
such a blend as a
substitute for HCFC-22.
In addition, this blend
contains HFC-23, which
has an extremely high
GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes for HCFC-22
exist that do not
contain HFC-23.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvents Cleaning Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC-113........... HFC-4310mee............ Proposed Acceptable.... Subject to a 200 ppm
time-weighted average
workplace exposure
standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
Metals cleaning w/MCF............... HFC-4310mee............ Proposed Acceptable.... Subject to a 200 ppm
time-weighted average
workplace exposure
standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvents Cleaning Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning with CFC-113........ Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Metals cleaning with methyl Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
chloroform (MCF). concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Metals cleaning with HCFC-141b...... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Electronics cleaning with CFC-113... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Electronics cleaning with MCF....... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Electronics cleaning with HCFC-141b. Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Precision cleaning with CFC-113..... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Precision cleaning with MCF......... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Precision cleaning with HCFC-141b... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Streaming Agents Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211.......................... HFC-227ea................. Proposed Acceptable in ...................... See comments 1, 2.
nonresidential uses
only.
Streaming Agents.................... HFC-236fa................. Proposed Acceptable in ...................... See comments 1, 2.
nonresidential uses
when manufactured
using any process that
does not convert
perfluoroisobutylene
(PFIB) directly to HFC-
236fa in a single step.
[[Page 27884]]
C6F14..................... Acceptable for ...................... Users must observe the limitations on
nonresidential uses PFC acceptability by taking the
where other following measures:
alternatives are not (i) conduct an evaluation of
technically feasible foreseeable conditions of end use;
due to performance or (ii) determine that the physical or
safety requirements:. chemical properties or other
a. due to the physical technical constraints of the other
or chemical properties available agents preclude their use;
of the agent, or and
b. where human exposure (iii) determine that human exposure
to the extinguishing to the other alternative
agent may result in extinguishing agents may result in
failure to meet failure to meet applicable use
applicable use conditions or in other unacceptable
conditions or in other health effects under normal
unacceptable health operating conditions.
effects under normal Documentation of such measures must
operating conditions. be available for review upon
request.
The principal environmental
characteristic of concern for PFCs
is that they have high GWPs and long
atmospheric lifetimes. Actual
contributions to global warming
depend upon the quantities of PFCs
emitted.
For additional guidance regarding
applications in which PFCs may be
appropriate, users should consult
the description of potential uses
which is included in the March 18,
1994 Final Rulemaking (59 FR 13044).
See additional comments 1, 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments:
1--Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
2--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
Total Flooding Agents Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301.................... HFC-236fa........... Proposed Until OSHA The comparative
Total Flooding Agents......... Acceptable. establishes design concentration
o when applicable based on cup burner
manufactured workplace values is
using any requirements:. approximately 6.4%.
process that For occupied Users must observe
does not convert areas from the limitations on
perfluoroisobuty which personnel HFC-236fa
lene (PFIB) cannot be acceptability by
directly to HFC- evacuated in taking the following
236fa in a one minute, use measures:
single step.. is permitted (i) conduct an
o for use in only up to evaluation of
explosion concentrations foreseeable
suppression and not exceeding conditions of end
explosion the use;
inertion cardiotoxicity (ii) determine that
applications, NOAEL of 10%.. human exposure to
and. For occupied the other
o for use in fire areas from alternative
suppression which personnel extinguishing agents
applications can be may result in
where other non- evacuated or failure to meet
PFC agents or egress can applicable use
alternatives are occur between conditions or in
not technically 30 and 60 other unacceptable
feasible due to seconds, use is health effects under
performance or permitted up to normal operating
safety a concentration conditions; and
requirements:. not exceeding (iii) determine that
a. due to their the LOAEL of the physical or
physical or 15%.. chemical properties
chemical All personnel or other technical
properties, or. must be constraints of the
b. where human evacuated other available
exposure to the before agents preclude
extinguishing concentration their use.
agents may of HFC-236fa Documentation of such
result in exceeds 15%.. measures must be
failure to meet Design available for review
applicable use concentration upon request.
conditions or in must result in Feasible for use in a
other oxygen levels normally occupied
unacceptable of at least area.
health effects 16%.. See additional
under normal comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
operating
conditions..
[[Page 27885]]
C4F10............... Proposed Until OSHA The comparative
Acceptable where establishes design concentration
other applicable based on cup burner
alternatives are workplace values is
not technically requirements:. approximately 8.8%.
feasible due to For occupied Users must observe
performance or areas from the limitations on
safety which personnel PFC acceptability by
requirements:. cannot be taking the following
a. due to their evacuated in measures:
physical or one minute, use (i) conduct an
chemical is permitted evaluation of
properties, or. only up to foreseeable
b. where human concentrations conditions of end
exposure to the not exceeding use;
extinguishing the (ii) determine that
agents may cardiotoxicity human exposure to
result in NOAEL of 30%.. the other
failure to meet Although no alternative
use conditions LOAEL has been extinguishing agents
or in other established for may result in
unacceptable this product, failure to meet
health effects standard OSHA applicable use
under normal requirements conditions or in
operating apply, i.e., other unacceptable
conditions.. for occupied health effects under
areas from normal operating
which personnel conditions; and
can be (iii) determine that
evacuated or the physical or
egress can chemical properties
occur between or other technical
30 and 60 constraints of the
seconds, use is other available
permitted up to agents preclude
a concentration their use.
not exceeding Documentation of such
the LOAEL.. measures must be
All personnel available for review
must be upon request.
evacuated The principal
before environmental
concentration characteristic of
of C4F10 concern for PFCs is
exceeds 40%.. that they have high
Design GWPs and long
concentration atmospheric
must result in lifetimes. Actual
oxygen levels contributions to
of at least global warming
16%.. depend upon the
quantities of PFCs
emitted.
For additional
guidance regarding
applications in
which PFCs may be
appropriate, users
should consult the
description of
potential uses which
is included in the
March 18, 1994 Final
Rulemaking (59 FR
13044.)
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
Halon 1301.................... C3F8................ Proposed Until OSHA The comparative
Total Flooding Agents......... Acceptable where establishes design concentration
other applicable based on cup burner
alternatives are workplace values is
not technically requirements:. approximately 8.8%.
feasible due to For occupied Users must observe
performance or areas from the limitations on
safety which personnel PFC acceptability by
requirements:. cannot be taking the following
a. due to their evacuated in measures:
physical or one minute, use (i) conduct an
chemical is permitted evaluation of
properties, or. only up to foreseeable
b. where human concentrations conditions of end
exposure to the not exceeding use;
extinguishing the (ii) determine that
agents may cardiotoxicity human exposure to
result in NOAEL of 30%.. the other
failure to meet Although no alternative
use conditions LOAEL has been extinguishing agents
or in other established for may result in
unacceptable this product, failure to meet
health effects standard OSHA applicable use
under normal requirements conditions or in
operating apply, i.e., other unacceptable
conditions.. for occupied health effects under
areas from normal operating
which personnel conditions; and
can be (iii) determine that
evacuated or the physical or
egress can chemical properties
occur between or other technical
30 and 60 constraints of the
seconds, use is other available
permitted up to agents preclude
a concentration their use.
not exceeding Documentation of such
the LOAEL.. measures must be
All personnel available for review
must be upon request.
evacuated The principal
before environmental
concentration characteristic of
of C3F8 exceeds concern for PFCs is
30%.. that they have high
Design GWPs and long
concentration atmospheric
must result in lifetimes. Actual
oxygen levels contributions to
of at least global warming
16%.. depend upon the
quantities of PFCs
emitted.
For additional
guidance regarding
applications in
which PFCs may be
appropriate, users
should consult the
description of
potential uses which
is included in the
March 18, 1994 Final
Rulemaking (59 FR
13044.)
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments
1--Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
recycled for later use or destroyed.
[[Page 27886]]
Total Flooding Agents Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301.................... HFC-236fa........... Proposed Until OSHA The comparative
Total Flooding Agents......... Acceptable. establishes design concentration
when manufactured applicable based on cup burner
using any workplace values is
process that requirements: approximately 6.4%.
does not convert For occupied Users must observe
perfluoroisobuty areas from the limitations on
lene (PFIB) which personnel HFC-236fa
directly to HFC- cannot be acceptability by
236fa in a evacuated in taking the following
single step one minute, use measures:
for use in is permitted (i) conduct an
explosion only up to evaluation of
suppression and concentrations foreseeable
explosion not exceeding conditions of end
inertion the use;
applications, cardiotoxicity (ii) determine that
and NOAEL of 10%. human exposure to
for use in fire For occupied the other
suppression areas from alternative
applications which personnel extinguishing agents
where other non- can be may result in
PFC agents or evacuated or failure to meet
alternatives are egress can applicable use
not technically occur between conditions or in
feasible due to 30 and 60 other unacceptable
performance or seconds, use is health effects under
safety permitted up to normal operating
requirements: a concentration conditions; and
a. due to their not exceeding (iii) determine that
physical or the LOAEL of the physical or
chemical 15%. chemical properties
properties, or All personnel or other technical
b. where human must be constraints of the
exposure to the evacuated other available
extinguishing before agents preclude
agents may concentration their use.
result in of HFC-236fa Documentation of such
failure to meet exceeds 15%. measures must be
applicable use Design available for review
conditions or in concentration upon request.
other must result in Feasible for use in a
unacceptable oxygen levels normally occupied
health effects of at least 16%. area.
under normal See additional
operating comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
conditions.
Halon 1301.................... C3F8................ Proposed Until OSHA The comparative
Total Flooding Agents......... Acceptable where establishes design concentration
other applicable based on cup burner
alternatives are workplace values is
not technically requirements: approximately 8.8%.
feasible due to For occupied Users must observe
performance or areas from the limitations on
safety which personnel PFC acceptability by
requirements: cannot be undertaking the
a. due to their evacuated in following measures:
physical or one minute, use (i) conduct an
chemical is permitted evaluation of
properties, or only up to foreseeable
b. where human concentrations conditions of end
exposure to the not exceeding use;
extinguishing the (ii) determine that
agents may cardiotoxicity human exposure to
result in NOAEL of 30% the other
failure to meet Although no alternative
use conditions LOAEL has been extinguishing agents
or in other established for may result in
unacceptable this product, failure to meet
health effects standard OSHA applicable use
under normal requirements conditions or in
operating apply, i.e., other unacceptable
conditions. for occupied health effects under
areas from normal operating
which personnel conditions; and
can be (iii) determine that
evacuated or the physical or
egress can chemical properties
occur between or other technical
30 and 60 constraints of the
seconds, use is other available
permitted up to agents preclude
a concentration their use.
not exceeding Documentation of such
the LOAEL. measures must be
All personnel available for review
must be upon request.
evacuated The principal
before environmental
concentration characteristic of
of C3F8 exceeds concern for PFCs is
30%. that they have high
Design GWPs and long
concentration atmospheric
must result in lifetimes. Actual
oxygen levels contributions to
of at least 16%. global warming
depend upon the
quantities of PFCs
emitted.
For additional
guidance regarding
applications in
which PFCs may be
appropriate, users
should consult the
description of
potential uses which
is included in the
March 18, 1994 Final
RUlemaking (59 FR
13044.)
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
[[Page 27887]]
C4F10............... Proposed Until OSHA The comparative
Acceptable where establishes design concentration
other applicable based on cup burner
alternatives are workplace values is
not technically requirements: approximately 8.8%.
feasible due to For occupied Users must observe
performance or areas from the limitations on
safety which personnel PFC acceptability by
requirements: cannot be undertaking the
a. due to their evacuated in following measures:
physical or one minute, use (i) conduct an
chemical is permitted evaluation of
properties, or only up to foreseeable
b. where human concentrations conditions of end
exposure to the not exceeding use;
extinguishing the (ii) determine that
agents may cardiotoxicity human exposure to
result in NOAEL of 30%. the other
failure to meet Although no alternative
use conditions LOAEL has been extinguishing agents
or in other established for may result in
unacceptable this product, failure to meet
health effects standard OSHA applicable use
under normal requirements conditions or in
operating apply, i.e., other unacceptable
conditions for occupied health effects under
areas from normal operating
which personnel conditions; and
can be (iii) determine that
evacuated or the physical or
egress can chemical properties
occur between or other technical
30 and 60 constraints of the
seconds, use is other available
permitted up to agents preclude
a concentration their use.
not exceeding Documentation of such
the LOAEL. measures must be
All personnel available for review
must be upon request.
evacuated The principal
before Design environmental
concentration characteristic of
of C4F10 concern for PFCs is
exceeds 40%. that they have high
Design GWPs and long
concentration atmospheric
must result in lifetimes. Actual
oxygen levels contributions to
of at least 16%. global warming
depend upon the
quantities of PFCs
emitted.
For additional
guidance regarding
applications in
which PFCs may be
appropriate, users
should consult the
description of
potential uses which
is included in the
March 18, 1994 Final
Rulemaking (59 FR
13044.)
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments
1--Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
recycled for later use or destroyed.
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 Total Flooding Agents.... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP; other
alternatives exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols w/ CFC-113...... HFC-4310 mee........... Proposed Acceptable.... Subject to a 200 ppm
time-weighted average
workplace exposure
standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
Solvent in aerosols w/ MCF.......... HFC-4310 mee........... Proposed Acceptable.... Subject to a 200 ppm
time-weighted average
workplace exposure
standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
Solvent in aerosols w/ CFC-113...... HCFC-225ca/cb.......... Proposed Acceptable.... Subject to a time
weighted average
exposure limit of 25
ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
isomer.
Solvent in aerosols w/ MCF.......... HCFC-225ca/cb.......... Proposed Acceptable.... Subject to a time
weighted average
exposure limit of 25
ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
isomer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols with CFC-113.... Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
[[Page 27888]]
Solvent in aerosols with MCF........ Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
concerns; other
alternatives exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in adhesive, coatings, and Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
inks with CFC-113. concerns; other
alternatives exist.
Solvent in adhesives, coatings, and Chlorobromomethane..... Proposed Unacceptable.. High ODP, toxicity
inks with MCF. concerns; other
alternatives exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 97-13209 Filed 5-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081026155841im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}