[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25604-25612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12624]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5507-6]
RIN 2060-AG12


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on 
substitutes for ozone depleting substances ((ODS)) under the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives 
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean 
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes 
for the ODS to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. 
Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and 
unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors. 
The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away 
from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into high-risk 
substitutes posing other environmental problems.
    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued 
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of 
substitutes. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is 
issuing its preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain 
substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at 
determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency 
completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the 
environment by sector end-use.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document 
must be submitted by June 21, 1996. A public hearing, if requested, 
will be held in Washington, D.C. Any hearing will be strictly limited 
to the subject matter of this proposal, the scope of which is discussed 
below. If such a hearing is requested, it will be held on June 6, 1996, 
and the comment period would then be extended to July 8, 1996. Anyone 
who wishes to request a hearing should call Sally Rand at (202) 233-
9739 by May 29, 1996. Interested persons may contact the Stratospheric 
Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to learn if a hearing will be held 
and to obtain the date and location of the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Public Comments. Written comments and data should be sent to 
Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. 
Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. 
Telephone (202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFR 
part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite 
review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Sally Rand, 
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. 
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 6205-J, Washington, DC. 20460. Information 
designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 
2 subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this 
notice. However, the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a 
non-confidential version of their comments to the docket as well.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

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


[[Page 25605]]


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

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a 
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA 
refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy 
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

    Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules 
making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, 
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and 
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may 
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the 
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the 
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is 
currently or potentially available.
    Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) 
also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable 
for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of 
acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
    Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person 
to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from 
the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency 
has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the 
petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional 
six months.
    90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any 
person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to 
notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing 
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant 
new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must 
also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and 
safety studies on such substitutes.
    Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall 
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and 
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in 
identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such 
substances in key commercial applications.
    Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a 
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, 
and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for 
products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II 
substances.

B. Regulatory History

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR 
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program 
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major 
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air 
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and 
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and 
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal 
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-
depleting compounds.
    The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product 
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or 
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who 
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety 
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into 
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This 
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include 
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for 
introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

    To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, 
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various 
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The 
outcome of these risk screens can be found in the public docket.
    Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the 
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has 
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable 
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; 
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all 
applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is 
illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as 
unacceptable for that end-use. A pending listing represents substitutes 
for which the Agency has not received complete data or has not 
completed its review of the data.
    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination 
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are 
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Such 
substitutes are placed on the acceptable subject to use conditions 
lists. Use of such substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such 
use conditions renders these substitutes unacceptable.
    Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based 
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a 
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of 
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a 
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that 
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies 
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results 
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation 
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected, 
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for 
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety 
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available 
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of 
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as 
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes 
unacceptable.
    In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its 
preliminary decision to restrict use of certain substitutes not 
previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for 
the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that 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 periodically adds substitutes to the list 
of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new 
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published in 
separate Notices in the Federal Register.
    Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the 
proposed substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables 
summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are 
in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A provide additional 
information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the 
regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. 
Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to 
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. 
However, EPA encourages users of

[[Page 25606]]

substitutes to apply all comments in their application of these 
substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply allude to sound 
operating practices that have already been identified in existing 
industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if 
adopted, would not require significant changes in existing operating 
practices for the affected industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air 
Conditioners, Retrofit and New. EPA is concerned that the existence of 
several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of 
significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of 
both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment. In 
addition, a smooth transition to the use of substitutes strongly 
depends on the continued purity of the recycled CFC-12 supply. In order 
to prevent cross-contamination and preserve the purity of recycled 
refrigerants, EPA is proposing several conditions on the use of all 
motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the purposes of this 
proposed rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-
in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes 
all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a new 
refrigerant. Please note that EPA only reviews refrigerants based on 
environmental and health factors.
    In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any 
substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:

     Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of 
fittings that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or 
female, as appropriate) must be used with all containers of the 
refrigerant, on can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging 
equipment, and on all air conditioning system service ports. These 
fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging 
with another refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the 
fittings and can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. 
Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a 
different refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In 
addition, fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended 
practices:

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

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

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

    * The name and address of the technician and the company 
performing the retrofit
    * The date of the retrofit
    * The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the 
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
    * The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
    * If the refrigerant is or contains an 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 
discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
    No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a 
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service 
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a 
particular system.

(a) All refrigerants. All refrigerants listed in future notices as 
being acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor 
vehicle air conditioners are proposed to be subject to the use 
conditions described above.
    In the March 18, 1994 FRM (59 FR 13044), EPA established that the 
public would be informed via a Notice when substitutes are added to the 
acceptable list. If EPA intended to place any restrictions, including 
use conditions, on the use of a substitute, that determination would 
require full notice-and-comment rulemaking. In this NPRM, however, EPA 
proposes to modify that approach for motor vehicle air conditioning 
systems (MVACS).
    As explained above, EPA is concerned about potential cross-
contamination because of the large number of MVAC refrigerants. In this 
NPRM, EPA is proposing to impose the same use conditions on all future 
MVAC refrigerants as were imposed on HFC-134a and HCFC Blend Beta (60 
FR 31092), and were proposed for HCFC Blend Delta and Blend Zeta (60 FR 
51383). Because of EPA's interest in timely review of substitute 
refrigerants, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose that these use 
conditions be applied to all future refrigerants for use in motor 
vehicle air conditioning, thereby removing the requirement for future 
notice-and-comment rulemaking on this issue. In the future, EPA will 
add refrigerants to the list of automotive substitutes that are 
acceptable subject to use conditions without notice-and-comment 
rulemaking. Such action will occur in the same manner as Notices of 
Acceptability. If further restrictions are necessary for a specific 
refrigerant (for example, if a substitute is found unacceptable), then 
EPA will propose such action in notice-and-comment rulemaking.

(b) R-406A. R-406A, which consists of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and 
isobutane, is proposed acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in 
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use 
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described 
above, in addition to the requirement that retrofitting an MVAC system 
to R-406A must include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier hoses. 
Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, this blend 
is considered a transitional alternative. Regulations regarding 
recycling and reclamation issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act 
apply to this blend. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPS among the 
HCFCS. The GWPS of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are

[[Page 25607]]

somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and isobutane are flammable, the 
blend is not. After significant leakage, however, this blend may become 
weakly flammable. The manufacturer has performed a risk assessment that 
demonstrates that it can be used safely in this end-use. There is 
concern that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses. Thus, at the 
manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional condition that 
barrier hoses must be used with R-406A. Note: R-406A is sold under the 
trade names ``GHG'' and ``McCool.''
    The R-406A submission contained the first risk assessment that 
attempted to quantify the additional risk posed by using a refrigerant 
that is nonflammable but that may fractionate to a flammable state. EPA 
invites comment on this risk assessment, which may be obtained from 
USEPA Air Docket A-91-42, file VI-D-120. The assessment concludes that 
an additional 0.018 injuries will occur per million vehicles annually. 
This value is extremely low. In addition, even an error of a factor of 
100 would still result in very low additional risk.

(c) HCFC Blend Lambda. HCFC Blend Lambda, which consists of HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and isobutane, is proposed acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject 
to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning 
described above, in addition to the requirement that HCFC Blend Lambda 
must be used with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b 
contribute to ozone depletion, they will be phased out of production. 
Therefore, this blend will be used primarily as a retrofit refrigerant. 
However, HCFC Blend Lambda is acceptable for use in new systems, 
subject to the same use conditions. Regulations regarding recycling and 
reclamation issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to this 
blend. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPS among the HCFCS. The GWPS 
of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and 
isobutane are flammable, the blend is not. After significant leakage, 
this blend may become weakly flammable. However, this blend contains 
more HCFC-22 and less of the two flammable components than R-406A, and 
therefore should be at least as safe to use as R-406A. In addition, as 
discussed above in the R-406A section, the manufacturer has performed a 
risk assessment that demonstrates that R-406A can be used safely in 
this end-use. Finally, as stated above, this blend contains even lower 
percentages of flammable components than R-406A.
    There is concern that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses. 
Thus, at the manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional 
condition that barrier hoses must be used with R-406A. Note: this blend 
is sold under the trade name ``GHG-HP.''

(d) HCFC Blend Xi, HCFC Blend Omicron. HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend 
Omicron, both of which consist of HCFC-22, HCFC-124, HCFC-142b, and 
isobutane, are proposed acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in 
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use 
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described 
above, in addition to the requirement that these blends must be used 
with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone 
depletion, they will be phased out of production. Therefore, these 
blends will be used primarily as retrofit refrigerants. However, these 
blends are acceptable for use in new systems, subject to the same use 
conditions. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued 
under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to these blends. HCFC-142b 
has one of the highest ODPS among the HCFCS. The GWPS of HCFC-22 and 
HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and isobutane are 
flammable, these blends are not. In addition, testing on these blends 
has shown that they do not become flammable after leaks. EPA is 
concerned that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses. Thus, EPA is 
proposing an additional condition that barrier hoses must be used with 
HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend Omicron. Note: HCFC Blend Xi is being sold 
under the trade names ``GHG-X4'', ``Autofrost'', and ``Chill-It,'' and 
HCFC Blend Omicron is being sold under the trade names ``Hot Shot'' and 
``Kar Kool.''

B. Solvent Cleaning

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute 
for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF) in electronics cleaning subject 
to a 200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 
400 ppm workplace exposure ceiling. HFC-4310mee is a new chemical that 
has just completed review by EPA's Premanufacture Notice Program under 
the Toxic Substances Control Act. This chemical does not deplete the 
ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It does have 
some potential to contribute to global warming since its 500-year 
Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 520 and it has a 20.8 year lifetime. 
However, the GWP and lifetime for HFC-4310 are both lower than the GWP 
and lifetime for CFC-113 and significantly lower than for PFCs, which 
are other substitutes for ozone-depleting solvents.
    HFC-4310mee does exhibit some toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA, 
and causes central nervous system effects at relatively low levels. 
However, these effects are reversible and cease once chemical exposure 
is eliminated. Review under the SNAP program and the PMN program 
determined that a time-weighted average workplace exposure standard of 
200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400 ppm would be adequately 
protective of human health and that companies could readily meet these 
exposure limits using the types of equipment specified in the product 
safety information provided by the chemical manufacturer.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.

B. Precision Cleaning

(a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute 
for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in precision cleaning subject to a 
200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm 
workplace exposure ceiling. The reasoning behind this determination is 
presented above in the section on electronics cleaning.
    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.
2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
    a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable 
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics cleaning sector for 
high performance, precision-engineered applications only where 
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives 
are not technically feasible due to performance

[[Page 25608]]

or safety requirements. These chemicals have global warming 
characteristics comparable to the perfluorocarbons and, as a result, 
are proposed to be subject to the same restrictions. A full discussion 
of the global warming concerns and related risk management decision can 
be found under 59 FR 13044 (March 18, 1994, at p. 13094)
    b. Precision Cleaning.

(a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable 
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the precision cleaning sector for 
high performance, precision-engineered applications only where 
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives 
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. 
These chemicals have global warming characteristics comparable to the 
perfluorocarbons and, as a result, are proposed to be subject to the 
same restrictions. A full discussion of the global warming concerns and 
related risk management decision can be found under 59 FR 13044 (March 
18, 1994, at p. 13094).
3. Unacceptable
    a. Electronics Cleaning.

(a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 
and MCF in electronics cleaning under existing rules (59 FR 13044; 
March 18, 1994); today's notice proposes to amend this unacceptability 
determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in 
high-performance electronics cleaning until January 1, 1997. This 
proposed determination extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent 
cleaning, but only for existing users in high-performance electronics 
and only for one year. The extension does not affect the production 
phaseout date for HCFC-141b, which is January 1, 2003.
    The extension should not be viewed as a reason to postpone 
replacement of 141b. Alternatives exist for nearly all solvent cleaning 
applications of 141b, and the principal reason for the extension is the 
long lead time necessary to test, select, and implement a chosen 
substitute in high-performance applications where stringent 
qualifications testing is the norm.
    Existing regulations affect 141b in two ways. Under the production 
phaseout for ozone-depleting substances (ODS), 141b has a phaseout date 
of January 1, 2003. This regulation, developed under section 604 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), states that chemical manufacturers will no longer 
be allowed to manufacture 141b as of that date (40 CFR Part 82, Subpart 
G, Appendix A). HCFC-141b is also subject to a number of use 
restrictions relevant to solvent cleaning operations. According to 
regulations developed under section 612 of the CAA--the SNAP program--
the only companies allowed to use 141b in solvent cleaning equipment 
are existing users. Existing users were defined in the March 1994 
determination as companies who had 141b-based solvent cleaning 
equipment in place as of April 18, 1994. No new substitutions into 141b 
for solvent cleaning were permitted, and even existing users may use 
141b only until January 1, 1996. This use ban date for existing users 
is the subject of the extension in today's proposal. HCFCS, including 
141b, are also covered by other use restrictions such as the 
nonessential ban (section 610) and labeling (section 611). The 610 and 
611 regulations are not discussed here. If you need more information 
about these regulations, call the Stratospheric Ozone Protection 
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
    Many users and vendors of 141b have requested that the Agency 
postpone the effective date of the use ban under SNAP for solvent 
cleaning beyond January 1, 1996. In response to these petitions, EPA is 
proposing an extension. Note, however, that the only change is that 
existing uses in high-performance electronics cleaning would be 
permitted for an additional year until January 1, 1997. (Precision 
cleaning uses are also extended in today's proposal, but are listed in 
the next section.) ``High-performance electronics'' would include high-
value added components for aerospace, military, or medical applications 
such as hybrid circuits or other electronics for missile guidance 
systems. The existing policy of no new substitutions into 141b is 
maintained and uses of 141b in metals cleaning and basic electronics 
cleaning would still end as of January 1, 1996. These restricted 
applications include cleaning of basic, formed metal parts and high-
volume electronics cleaning such as components for consumer 
electronics.
    An important distinction is that ``solvent cleaning'' in the SNAP 
program is defined to cover replacements of ODS in industrial cleaning, 
either in vapor degreasing or cold cleaning. It does not include 
aerosol applications, which are covered separately under the SNAP 
program. It also does not include other solvent cleaning uses of ODS 
such as in textile cleaning, dry cleaning, flushing of automotive air 
conditioning systems, or hand wiping. This means, for instance, that 
the use ban date does not apply to 141b used for hand wiping. However, 
users should understand that although these uses are not currently 
governed by the SNAP program, responsible corporate policy would be to 
implement alternatives to ODS where possible. Additionally, SNAP 
reserves the right to regulate any use where significant environmental 
differences exist in the choice of alternatives.
    To minimize the paperwork burden, no reporting is proposed for 
companies that qualify for an extension.
    The extension is not an excuse to delay selecting an alternative. 
The principal reason for extending the permissible period of use for 
141b in these narrowed applications is not that alternatives do not 
exist, but that users need more time to qualify and implement 
alternatives. Even with the extension, uses of 141b in the specified 
applications will only be permitted for another 12 months beyond the 
current use ban date. This additional time can only be used 
productively if users begin now to select, test, order equipment and 
materials, etc.
    The search for alternatives should include not just aqueous and 
semi-aqueous alternatives, but also recently developed cleaning 
chemicals and technologies. Information on vendors of substitutes is 
available from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline. Call 1-800-
296-1996 and ask for the Vendor List for Precision Cleaning. In 
addition, EPA has more detailed information available on topics such as 
retrofitting 141b degreasers to use HFCS or on cleaning of medical 
devices.
    b. Precision Cleaning.

(a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 
and MCF in precision cleaning under existing rules (59 FR 13044; March 
18, 1994); today's notice proposes to amend this unacceptability 
determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in 
precision cleaning until January 1, 1997. This proposed determination 
extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent cleaning, but only for 
existing users in precision cleaning and only for one year. The 
extension does not affect the production phaseout date for HCFC-141b, 
which is January 1, 2003.
    For a full discussion of the rationale for extension, please see 
the previous section on electronics cleaning. This discussion applies 
in full to users of precision cleaning, which for purposes of this 
extension is defined to include cleaning of devices of high-value 
added, precision-engineered parts such as precision ball bearings for 
navigational devices, or other components for aerospace, or medical 
uses.

[[Page 25609]]

C. Aerosols

1. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
    a. Solvents.

(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are proposed as 
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications 
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other 
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety 
requirements. EPA is proposing to permit the use of PFCs in aerosols 
applications despite their global warming potential since so few 
nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a high 
probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs are already 
subject to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to 
global warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision, 
if implemented as proposed, will allow users to select PFCs in the 
event of performance or safety concerns while guarding against 
widespread, unnecessary use of these potent greenhouse gases.

(b) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) are proposed as 
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications 
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other 
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety 
requirements. EPA is proposing to permit the use of perfluoropolyethers 
in aerosols applications despite their global warming potential since 
so few nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a 
high probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs, which have 
global warming potentials comparable to the PFPEs, are already subject 
to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to global 
warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision, if 
implemented as proposed, will allow users to select perfluoropolyethers 
in the event of performance or safety concerns while guarding against 
widespread, unnecessary use of these potent greenhouse gases.
2. Unacceptable
    a. Propellants.

(a) SF6. SF6 is proposed as unacceptable substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in aerosol applications. This chemical has been 
of commercial interest as a compressed gas propellant substitute for 
ozone-depleting propellants. It has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 
years and a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 24,900. CFC-11, 
in contrast, has a lifetime of 50 years and a GWP of 4,000. Formulators 
have indicated to the EPA that other compressed gases such as CO2 
would work equally well and could be formulated at similar or lower 
cost.
3. Amendment to List of Substances Being Replaced
    EPA proposes today to add CFC-12 and CFC-114 to the list of aerosol 
propellants being replaced by substitutes reviewed under SNAP. This 
will ensure that companies replacing these CFCS in their products will 
be able to adhere to SNAP rulings in the replacement process. The 
environmental trade-offs associated with replacing CFC-12 and CFC-114 
versus CFC-11 do not change significantly, since the ODPS for all the 
CFCS are roughly the same.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 25610]]

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1774.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE 
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740. The reasons for these information requirements are explained in 
the section on automobile air conditioning (III.A.1.a), and the 
requirements will be mandatory under section 612 of the Clean Air Act 
once the ICR is approved.
    EPA is proposing to apply the information requirements described 
above to this rulemaking, previous similar rulemakings, and future 
rulemakings. Therefore, once the ICR is approved and this proposed rule 
is finalized, the ICR will also apply to requirements described in 
rules published on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31092) and a rule expected to 
be published in April, 1996.
    EPA estimates that the burden of learning about the requirements 
will be approximately ten minutes, and that filling out each required 
label itself will take under one minute. Burden means the total time, 
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a 
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 22, 1996, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 21, 1996. 
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

V. Additional Information

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

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

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

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

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


Sec. 82.180  Agency review of SNAP submissions.

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

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix D to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and 
Unacceptable Substitutes Listed

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Proposed Use Conditions

    R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'', ``GHG-X4''/``Autofrost''/
``Chill-It'', ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'', and all refrigerants when 
listed in subsequent notices, are proposed acceptable subject to the 
following conditions when used to retrofit a CFC-12 motor vehicle 
air conditioning system or

[[Page 25611]]

when used in a new motor vehicle air conditioning system:

1. Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings that is 
unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as 
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on 
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all 
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be 
designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another 
refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and 
can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an 
adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different 
refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In addition, 
fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
    a. When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted, 
conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a 
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism 
in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being 
removed.
    b. All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy 
the vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE 
J1660, as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE 
J2064, which are specific to HFC-134a.
    c. In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the 
atmosphere, systems shall have a device to limit compressor 
operation before the pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. 
This requirement is waived for systems that do not feature such a 
pressure relief device.
    d. All CFC-12 service ports shall be retrofitted with conversion 
assemblies or shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use 
with CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device 
attached with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical 
latching mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from being 
removed.
2. When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as follows:
    a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the 
air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the 
following information:
    i. The name and address of the technician and the company 
performing the retrofit
    ii. The date of the retrofit
    iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the 
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
    iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
    v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting 
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter''
    vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured 
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is 
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
    b. This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be 
permanent.
    c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
    d. The label must be affixed to the system over information 
related to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally 
replaced during vehicle repair.
    e. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be 
covered by the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
    3. No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a system 
that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be 
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of 
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.

               Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Application                   Substitute          Proposed Decision         Conditions        Comments 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC-   HFC-4310mee                Acceptable.........  Subject to a 200 ppm             
 113 and MCF.                                                                   time-weighted                   
                                                                                average workplace               
                                                                                exposure standard               
                                                                                and a 400 ppm                   
                                                                                workplace exposure              
                                                                                ceiling.                        
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113  HFC-4310mee                Acceptable.........  Subject to a 200 ppm             
 and MCF.                                                                       time-weighted                   
                                                                                average workplace               
                                                                                exposure standard               
                                                                                and a 400 ppm                   
                                                                                workplace exposure              
                                                                                ceiling.                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Solvent Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Application                      Substitute                   Proposed decision             Comments   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC-   Perfluoropolyethers............  Perfluoropolyethers are          PFPEs have     
 113 and MCF.                                                    proposed as acceptable           similar global
                                                                 substitutes for CFC-113 and      warming       
                                                                 MCF in the precision cleaning    profile to the
                                                                 sector for high performance,     PFCs, and the 
                                                                 precision-engineered             SNAP decision 
                                                                 applications only where          on PFPEs      
                                                                 reasonable efforts have been     parallels that
                                                                 made to ascertain that other     for PFCs.     
                                                                 alternatives are not                           
                                                                 technically feasible due to                    
                                                                 performance or safety                          
                                                                 requirements.                                  
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113  Perfluoropolyethers............  Perfluoropolyethers are          PFPEs have     
 and MCF.                                                        proposed as acceptable           similar global
                                                                 substitutes for CFC-113 and      warming       
                                                                 MCF in the precision cleaning    profile to the
                                                                 sector for high performance,     PFCs, and the 
                                                                 precision-engineered             SNAP decision 
                                                                 applications only where          on PFPEs      
                                                                 reasonable efforts have been     parallels that
                                                                 made to ascertain that other     for PFCs.     
                                                                 alternatives are not                           
                                                                 technically feasible due to                    
                                                                 performance or safety                          
                                                                 requirements.                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             End-use                      Substitute            Proposed decision               Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/CFC-113     HCFC-141b                Extension of existing      This proposed            
 and MCF.                                                    unacceptability            determination extends   
                                                             determination to grant     the use date for HCFC-  
                                                             existing uses in high-     141b in solvent         
                                                             performance electronics    cleaning, but only for  
                                                             permission to continue     existing users in high- 
                                                             until January 1, 1997.     performance electronics 
                                                                                        and only for one year.  

[[Page 25612]]

                                                                                                                
Precision Cleaning w/CFC-113 and   HCFC-141b                Extension of existing      This proposed            
 MCF.                                                        unacceptability            determination extends   
                                                             determination to grant     the use date for HCFC-  
                                                             existing uses in           141b in solvent         
                                                             precision cleaning         cleaning, but only for  
                                                             permission to continue     existing users in       
                                                             until January 1, 1997.     precision cleaning and  
                                                                                        only for one year.      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                       Aerosols Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Application                      Substitute                Proposed Decision           Comments       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b as  Perfluorocarbons................  Perfluorocarbons are    PFCs have extremely   
 aerosol solvents.                                                 proposed as             long atmospheric     
                                                                   acceptable              lifetimes and high   
                                                                   substitutes for         Global Warming       
                                                                   aerosol applications    Potentials. This     
                                                                   only where reasonable   decision reflects    
                                                                   efforts have been       these concerns and is
                                                                   made to ascertain       patterned after the  
                                                                   that other              SNAP decision on PFCs
                                                                   alternatives are not    in the solvent       
                                                                   technically feasible    cleaning sector.     
                                                                   due to performance or                        
                                                                   safety requirements.                         
                                Perfluoropolyethers.............  Perfluorocarbons are    PFPEs have similar    
                                                                   proposed as             global warming       
                                                                   acceptable              profile to the PFCs, 
                                                                   substitutes for         and the SNAP decision
                                                                   aerosol applications    on PFPEs parallels   
                                                                   only where reasonable   that for PFCs in the 
                                                                   efforts have been       solvent cleaning     
                                                                   made to ascertain       sector.              
                                                                   that other                                   
                                                                   alternatives are not                         
                                                                   technically feasible                         
                                                                   due to performance or                        
                                                                   safety requirements.                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                    Substitute               Decision                     Comments         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and HCFC-   SF6                Unacceptable................  SF6 has the highest GWP of
 142b as aerosol propellants.                                                          all industrial gases, and
                                                                                       other compressed gases   
                                                                                       meet user needs in this  
                                                                                       application equally well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-12624 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P