[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22982-23002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10630]



[[Page 22981]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-
Depleting Substances; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 1999 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 22982]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-6332-3]
RIN 2060-AG12


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action imposes 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 Clean Air 
Act, as amended in 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 has since issued 
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of 
substitutes. In this Final Rule (FRM), EPA is issuing its decisions on 
the acceptability of certain substitutes included in a May 21, 1997 
notice of proposed rulemaking. Specifically, this action clarifies the 
criteria for unique fittings used in motor vehicle air-conditioning 
systems, and addresses the acceptability of certain substitutes in the 
fire suppression, solvent, and aerosol sectors, and the unacceptability 
of substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning, solvents, 
aerosols, fire suppression, and adhesives, coatings, & inks sectors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data are available in Docket A-91-42, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAR Docket and Information 
Center, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC 
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on 
weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-7548; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 
40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Protection Hotline 
at (800) 296-1996. Kelly Davis at (202) 564-2303 or fax (202) 565-2096, 
Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Mail 
Code 6205J, Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries 
should be sent to 501 3rd Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20001. EPA's 
Ozone World Wide Web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/

snap/''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is divided into four sections:

I. Section 612 Program
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Regulatory History
II. Listing of Substitutes
III. Administrative Requirements
IV. Additional Information

I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 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 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 (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 consumed 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.

II. Listing of Substitutes

    To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, 
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risk 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, as 
described above in the Addresses portion of this document.
    Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the 
risk

[[Page 22983]]

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., those 
with 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 risk to human health and the environment. Such 
substitutes are described as ``acceptable subject to use conditions.'' 
Use of such substitutes without meeting associated use conditions 
renders these substitutes unacceptable and subjects the user to 
enforcement for violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act.
    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 applications and end-uses which are not specified 
as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes 
unacceptable.
    In this final rule, EPA is issuing its decision on the 
acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the 
Agency. Today's rule incorporates decisions proposed on May 21, 1997, 
at 62 FR 27873 (referred to hereinafter as ``the proposal''). 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.
    Parts A-E below present a detailed discussion of the substitute 
listing determinations by major use sector. Tables summarizing listing 
decisions in this Final Rule are in Table 1 and Appendix H. Appendix H 
will appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 82. 
Listings in Table 1 will not appear in the CFR and add to the list of 
alternatives acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not 
impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a 
substitute. The comments contained in Appendix H provide additional 
information on substitutes determined to be either unacceptable, 
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable subject to use 
conditions. 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 substitutes to apply all comments in their application of these 
substitutes, regardless of any regulatory requirements. 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) Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings
    Current SNAP regulations require that each refrigerant used in 
motor vehicle air conditioning may only be used with a set of fittings 
that is unique to that refrigerant. This final rule clarifies minimum 
criteria for uniqueness of fittings.
    In the course of retrofitting a motor vehicle air-conditioning 
(MVAC) system, servicers of these systems, whether professional 
technicians or do-it-yourselfers, must affix fittings that are designed 
to work only with that refrigerant. To meet that goal, servicers must 
install fittings that satisfy the requirements set forth below.
     High-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, 
including CFC-12, and from low-side screw-on fittings for 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 quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other 
refrigerants, including CFC-12 (if they exist);
     Low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants, 
including CFC-12 (if they exist);
     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, ``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. For quick-connect fittings, ``differ'' 
means 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.

[[Page 22984]]

    The sole exception to the \1/16\ inch difference requirement is the 
difference between the small can fittings for GHG-X4 and R-406A. The 
GHG-X4 small can fitting uses a metric measurement, and is slightly 
less than \1/16\ inch larger than the small can fitting for R-406A. EPA 
has concluded that these fittings will not cross-connect, and therefore 
they may be used. No other exception exists, although EPA will consider 
any requests on a case-by-case basis.
2. Response to Comments
    A commenter noted that the fittings for small cans of GHG-X4 are 
not \1/16\ inch different from those of other refrigerants, and 
expressed concern that the fittings would be disallowed under the 
criteria for uniqueness in today's rule. The commenter further 
suggested that because the fittings were metric and EPA had confirmed 
they would not cross-thread with other fittings, that an exception be 
granted. EPA agrees and discusses this above.

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 
unacceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 in all new and retrofitted 
end-uses.
    NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, which is a class II ozone-depleting 
substance. 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 
global warming potential (GWP) is 11,700.\1\ 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 
narrow the scope of uses allowed for HFCs with high global warming 
potentials where better alternatives exist. For this reason, and the 
fact that NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, the use of this blend as an HCFC-22 
substitute is unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes cited in this document are 
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report 
entitled Climate Change 1995--The Science of Climate Change, IPCC 
Second Assessment Report. More recent values for GWPs and 
atmospheric lifetimes published in the Scientific Assessment of 
Ozone Depletion: 1998, World Meteorological Organization Global 
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project--Report No. 44, may be 
somewhat different than the values cited here but do not alter any 
of the technical or policy determinations by EPA in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Solvents Cleaning

1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Metals Cleaning
    (1) HFC-4310mee
    HFC-4310mee is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl 
chloroform (MCF) in metals cleaning. This chemical does not deplete the 
ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. Review under 
the SNAP program and the Toxic Substances Control Act premanufacture 
notification program determined that a time-weighted average workplace 
exposure standard of 200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400 
ppm established by the submitting company would adequately protect 
human health and that the industry can meet these exposure limits using 
the types of equipment specified in the product safety information 
provided by the chemical manufacturer. The ceiling limit, established 
by the submitting company, was set based on a potential acute central 
nervous system effect above 1500 ppm.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes
a. Chlorobromomethane
    Chlorobromomethane (CBM) is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-
113, methyl chloroform (MCF), and HCFC-141b in metals cleaning, 
electronics cleaning and precision cleaning. CBM, also called Halon 
1011, has been used as a fire suppressant. EPA has received 
notification that it can also be used as a solvent and that it is a 
potential substitute for the ozone-depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl 
chloroform 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, electronics, and in precision cleaning.
    Recent model analyses establish a best estimate for the ozone 
depletion potential (ODP) for CBM in the range of 0.07 to 0.15. 
Numerous other alternatives exist with either zero or much lower ODP 
that do not pose a comparable risk.
3. Response to Comments
Commenters identified six issues related to the proposed determination 
for chlorobromomethane:
     Ozone depletion potential of chlorobromomethane;
     Uncertainty in ODP calculation;
     CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b;
     Comparison of CBM with CFC-113;
     CBM under the Montreal Protocol phaseout;
     Toxicological issues regarding CBM.
a. Ozone Depletion Potential of Chlorobromomethane
    A number of the comments questioned the science employed in 
calculating the ODP of CBM. Other comments included studies to 
determine ODP conducted by separate groups. As these studies were 
completed, they were added to the docket during the comment period. The 
differences in estimates from the studies resulted in a conference 
among the modelers to compare results, and two of the modelers were 
found to have made miscalculations that affected their initial ODP 
estimates. Because the commenters were not privy to these collaborative 
conversations amongst the modelers, the Agency offers the following 
chronology to clarify the sequence of events leading to the agreement 
on ODP values.
    The initial studies performed on CBM were the following: 
``Estimates of the Atmospheric Lifetime and ODP of CBM,'' (Ko and 
Chang, 1994); Calculation of the ODP of CBM (Pyle and Bekki, 1994); 
``Evaluation of ODP for CBM and 1-Bromo-Propane,'' (Wuebbles, Jain, and 
Patten, 1997). These studies produced ODP estimates for CBM ranging 
from 0.05 to 0.28. Because of inconsistencies between the models, Pyle, 
Bekki and Wuebbles met in the spring of 1997 to discuss the proper 
modeling procedures and appropriate variables to be used. The Pyle/
Bekki model had not taken into account several key factors used in the 
standard assessments for determining ODP in international forums (e.g., 
WMO, 1995). The meeting resulted in a clarification of various model 
parameters (e.g., atmospheric lifetimes and atmospheric transport of 
different ozone-depleting compounds, relative reactivity of bromine, 
losses to the ocean sink), and recalculation of the original values. 
Based on their reanalyses, the group estimated the ODP for CBM, 
including the ocean sink, to be in the range of 0.07-0.15.
    Based on additional sensitivity analyses on the potential effects 
of the ocean sink and the nearly negligible effects of the soil sink, 
Wuebbles et al. (1997) determined an ODP range of 0.11-0.13. 
Subsequently, extensive revisions were made to the underlying two-
dimensional model to reflect recent data on various parameters 
including tropospheric chemistry and kinetic

[[Page 22985]]

rates, atmospheric transport rates, and ozone hole processes. Based on 
these changes, Wuebbles et al. (1998) derived an ODP for CBM in the 
range of 0.08-0.1, with the range reflecting uncertainty in the ocean 
sink for CBM. A semi-empirical model used by a researcher in the NOAA 
Aeronomy Laboratory generated an ODP range comparable to the range 
derived in the analyses described above (Solomon, 1997).
    Considering all available model results, EPA concludes that the 
best estimate for the ODP of CBM lies in the range 0.07 to 0.15 when an 
estimate for the ocean sink is included. This range is similar to the 
ODP for HCFC-141b, a compound also unacceptable for use as a solvent or 
adhesive, and whose use as a solvent is allowed only for specific 
aerosol applications exempted from the nonessential products 
prohibition under section 610 of the Clean Air Act.
b. Uncertainty in ODP Calculation
    One commenter suggested that EPA should not make decisions until 
all areas of uncertainty are resolved and areas of disagreement among 
researchers have been understood. In fact, the Agency has attempted to 
gather and assess all available information from the full range of 
experts on the ODP of chlorobromomethane. Under section 612 of the CAA, 
the Agency has the obligation to reduce the overall risk to human 
health and the environment associated with substitutes to ozone-
depleting substances. If new data become available after final 
rulemaking that are contrary to the current scientific understanding, 
section 612 of the CAA allows the Agency to reconsider its SNAP 
decision in response to either a petition or additional information.
c. CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b
    A commenter stated that in the past, the Agency has approved HCFC-
141b while expressing concern for its ODP of 0.11, but that such 
approval was warranted to assist in the goal of the Montreal Protocol 
and section 612 of the CAA to move usage away from other compounds with 
higher ODPs (e.g., CFCs). The commenter believed that the same analysis 
applies to CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b. The Agency disagrees with 
this comparison. In the case of HCFC-141b, there were no other viable 
alternatives for specific end-uses, and consequently HCFC-141b was 
deemed acceptable despite its relatively high ODP. HCFC-141b is 
scheduled for a production phaseout in 2003, and has been listed as 
unacceptable in many specific end-uses, including solvent end-uses, 
because available alternatives exist with a lower ODP. HCFC-141b use is 
banned under section 610 of the Clean Air Act (the nonessential 
products ban) for many uses, with exemptions limited to aerosol 
applications of wasp and hornet sprays, mold release agents, solvent 
cleaners for electronics applications, lubricants, aircraft maintenance 
products, and spinnerette cleaner lubricants. Considering that the ODP 
range for CBM is comparable to that of HCFC-141b and HCFC-141b is 
unacceptable as a substitute solvent in all end-uses, the Agency sees 
no environmental benefit to approving CBM.
d. Comparison of CBM with CFC-113
    One commenter declared that the U.S. EPA must compare the ODP of 
CBM only to that of CFC-113, and not to the ODP of other substitutes. 
The Agency disagrees; under section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
the Agency is required to compare substitutes to each other when they 
are available:

    ``* * * it shall be unlawful to replace any class I or class II 
substance with any substitute substance which the Administrator 
determines may present adverse effects to human health or the 
environment, when the Administrator has identified an alternative 
that reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment 
and is currently or potentially available.''

    Recent model analyses establish a best estimate for the ODP for CBM 
in the range of 0.07 to 0.15. Numerous other alternatives exist with 
either zero or a much lower ODP that do not pose a comparable risk. 
Therefore, while the Agency does compare the substitute to the 
substance being replaced, if there are alternatives that pose a lower 
overall risk, EPA cannot list the substitute as acceptable.
e. CBM under the Montreal Protocol Phaseout
    A commenter stated that the Montreal Protocol does not require the 
phaseout of CBM. While Parties to the Protocol have agreed to phase out 
many ozone-depleting substances, many other chemicals that pose risks 
to the ozone layer, including CBM, have not yet been addressed. 
Nevertheless, the CAA gives EPA authority to take actions more 
stringent than the Montreal Protocol, and the Agency believes that 
section 612 of the Act requires EPA to list CBM as an unacceptable 
substitute because of the environmental and health effect risks that it 
poses.
f. Toxicological Issues regarding CBM
    Many commenters submitted comments regarding toxicological issues 
related to CBM. EPA is not addressing comments raised on toxicity 
issues at this time because the SNAP decision is based solely on the 
ODP of CBM.

D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Total Flooding Agents
    (1) C3F8
    C3F8 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute 
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or 
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing 
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
    See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4) 
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for 
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to 
this agent in this end-use.
    (2) C4F10
    C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or 
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing 
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
    See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4) 
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for 
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to 
this agent in this end-use.
    (3) HFC-236fa
    HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute when 
manufactured using any process that does not convert 
perfluoroisobutylene directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. HFC-236fa 
may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion 
applications without use limits, 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) 
because their physical or chemical properties, or (b) where human 
exposure to the extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet 
applicable use conditions.
    As discussed in the initial SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13044, March 18, 
1994), total flooding agents are acceptable 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

[[Page 22986]]

concentrations exceeding its ``no observed adverse effect level'' 
(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 ``lowest observed adverse effect level'' (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.
    4. The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter 
the area during agent discharge.
    These conditions were derived from an OSHA safety and health 
standard governing fire protection systems used in all workplaces (29 
CFR part 1910, subpart L). This OSHA standard is designed to limit 
employee exposures to toxic levels of gaseous agents used in fixed 
total flood systems. Because OSHA had not set specific workplace 
standards for halon substitutes, EPA adopted the relevant provisions of 
29 CFR part 1910, subpart L to govern the general use of halon 
substitute gaseous agents. As stated in the original SNAP rulemaking, 
EPA specifically defers to OSHA and has no intention to assume 
responsibility for regulating workplace safety in regard to fire 
protection (59 FR 13099 and 13101; also see discussion directly below).
    The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0% (by volume) 
and its LOAEL is 15%. Cup burner tests with heptane indicate that the 
extinguishment concentration for this agent is 5.3%, thus making its 
calculated design concentration 6.4%. Compared to the cardiac 
sensitization values, these concentrations provide a sufficient margin 
of safety for use in a normally occupied area. 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.
    The exposure concentration limits referred to here, set as 
conditions of acceptability under SNAP, are intended to protect worker 
safety in the absence of OSHA or other workplace limits established 
under voluntary consensus bodies. As suggested by the court in Southern 
Pacific Transp. Co. v. Usery, 539 F.2nd 386 (5th Cir.1976), ``the scope 
of the exemption created by [OSHA] Sec. 4(b)(1) is determined by the 
[Agency's] intent.'' EPA wishes to clarify that it has no intention of 
duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal 
protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, 
hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety 
and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon 
substitutes. In accordance with the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d), EPA will work in 
consultation with OSHA to encourage development of technical standards 
to be adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Once applicable 
consensus standards are established, EPA will rescind the workplace 
standards established under this rulemaking.
    In the original March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13099), the 
Agency made clear that in cases like this (where EPA finds acceptable 
the use of an agent only under certain conditions), we have sought to 
avoid overlap with other existing regulatory authorities. In setting 
conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace under 
SNAP, EPA has specifically deferred to OSHA's other regulations that 
govern workplace safety. As stated in the preamble to the original SNAP 
rule at 59 FR 13099, ``EPA has no intention to assume responsibility 
for regulating workplace safety especially with respect to fire 
protection, nor does the Agency intend SNAP regulations to bar OSHA 
from regulating under its Public Law 91-596 authority.''
    In the March 18, 1994 final SNAP rule (59 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 involving the same chemical 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 
perfluoroisobutylene (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 
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 does not deplete stratospheric ozone. However, it has an 
atmospheric lifetime of 209 years and a 100-year GWP of 6300. Concerns 
have been raised about this agent's potential atmospheric effects. 
Please see discussion in the ``Response to Comments'' section II.D.4 on 
this issue. This agent should be handled so as to minimize unnecessary 
emissions, including: avoiding discharge testing and training; 
providing a high level of maintenance to avoid leaks and accidental 
discharges; recovering HFC-236fa from fire protection equipment in 
conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroying HFC-236fa or 
recycling it for later use. In addition, EPA encourages manufacturers 
to develop aggressive product stewardship programs to help users avoid 
such unnecessary emissions.
    While HFC-236fa may be used without ``last resort'' use 
restrictions in explosion protection applications, this is not so for 
other total flooding applications, see section II.D.2 below. Before 
users adopt it for general fire suppression applications in the total 
flooding end-use, they must first ascertain that other non-PFC 
substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements. In contrast, 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 for the intended applications as 
well as the risk to personnel potentially exposed to the agent. 
Similarly, use of HFC-236fa 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 and thus pose risks of 
adverse health effects.
    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

[[Page 22987]]

retain these results for five years for future reference.
2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Total Flooding Agents
    (1) C3F8
    C3F8 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute 
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or 
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing 
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
    See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4) 
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for 
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to 
this agent in this end-use.
    (2) C4F10
    C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or 
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing 
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
    See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4) 
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for 
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to 
this agent in this end-use.
    (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) because of their physical or 
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing 
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions. Please 
see the section on ``Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' (II.D.1) 
for a complete discussion of this agent. This agent is subject to the 
use conditions stated in that section.
b. Streaming Agents
    (1) C6F14
    C6F14 is acceptable as a Halon 1211 
substitute in nonresidential applications where other alternatives are 
not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a) 
because of their physical or chemical, or (b) where human exposure to 
the extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet applicable use 
conditions.
    See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4) 
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. No applicable use 
conditions exist for this agent in the streaming agent end-use.
    (2) HFC-236fa
    HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in 
nonresidential 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% and 
its LOAEL is 15%. (See preceding discussion regarding OSHA, HFC-236fa, 
and voluntary consensus workplace standards in section II.D.1) Cup 
burner tests with heptane indicate that the extinguishment 
concentration for this agent is 5.3%. Compared to Halon 1211, HFC-236fa 
has a weight equivalence of 1.08 to 2.15.
    As discussed above, HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone. 
However, it has an atmospheric lifetime of 209 years and a 100-year GWP 
of 6300. Concerns have been raised about this agent's potential 
atmospheric effects. Please see discussion in ``Response to Comments'' 
section II.D.4 regarding this issue. This agent should be handled so as 
to minimize unnecessary emissions, including: 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. In addition, 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. As discussed in the ``Response to 
Comments'' section II.D.4, the use of this agent in local application 
extinguishing systems in textile process machinery is considered to be 
a streaming agent application.
    (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%, and a LOAEL of 10.5%. (See preceding discussion 
regarding OSHA and voluntary consensus workplace standards in section 
II. D.1) Its cup burner extinguishment value is 5.8%.
    This agent has no ozone depletion potential, a 100-year GWP of 
2,900 relative to carbon dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of 36.5 
years. It is already listed as acceptable subject to use conditions for 
use in total flooding applications as an alternative to Halon 1301 (See 
59 FR 13107, March 18, 1994).
3. Unacceptable Substitutes
a. Total Flooding Agents
    (1) Chlorobromomethane
    Chlorobromomethane (CBM) is unacceptable as a substitute for Halon 
1301 in total flooding applications. Recent analyses establish an ODP 
range for CBM of 0.07 to 0.15. Other alternatives exist for total 
flooding applications with lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable 
risk. For example, HFC-227ea, as well as several inert gases, have no 
ODP. Additionally, current OSHA regulations prohibit the use of CBM as 
an extinguishing agent in fixed fire extinguishing systems where 
employees may be exposed. See 29 CFR 1910.160(b)(11).
4. Response to Comments
    EPA received 197 letters with comments related to proposed halon 
substitute listings in the NPRM. Many of the letters were identical. 
This section summarizes the major comments and provides EPA's response 
to those comments. A supplemental response to comments document that 
addresses the remaining comments is available in the public docket for 
this rulemaking. The comments addressed in this document are grouped 
into the following four major categories:
     Limits on PFCs and other long-lived gases;
     HFC-236fa;
     Unrelated issues;
     Chlorobromomethane.
a. Limits on PFCs and Other Long-lived Gases
    (1) Description of Use Limits
    In the May 21, 1997 proposal, EPA proposed a change in the 
description of the use limits (often referred to as ``last resort'' use 
limits, first described in the June 13, 1995 final rule, 60 FR 31100) 
applicable to PFCs and other long-lived gases. Two commenters supported 
EPA's stated purpose in clarifying the

[[Page 22988]]

language but disagreed with the proposed change in language. One of the 
commenters opposed the proposed change because it eliminates the 
existing reference to cardiac sensitization. The commenter suggests 
that, despite EPA's statement that it is not changing but only 
clarifying policy, this change could be viewed by fire protection 
professionals, who might not read the preamble discussion, as a reduced 
concern by EPA for cardiac sensitization and therefore a change in 
policy. This commenter proposed alternative language, as follows:

    ``[X] is proposed acceptable as a Halon [1211/1301] substitute 
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) due to their chemical or 
physical properties or (b) where human exposure may result in 
exposure to agent concentrations at or above established cardiac 
sensitization levels or below safe oxygen levels, in a failure to 
meet other applicable use conditions or in other unacceptable health 
effects under normal operating conditions.''

    In response, EPA reiterates that the proposed change in language is 
indeed a clarification of, not a change in, policy and that reference 
to ``failure to meet applicable use conditions'' is the most precise 
way to refer to the existing use conditions for any halon substitute. 
Existing SNAP use conditions for ``clean agent'' halon substitutes 
(meaning they dissipate rapidly, leaving no residue thereby avoiding 
secondary damage to the property they are protecting) are generally 
based on two measurements of exposure to health risks: the 
concentration and the length of time a person is exposed to the agent. 
To describe the applicable use conditions as ``exposure to agent 
concentrations at or above established cardiac sensitization levels or 
below safe oxygen levels'' is imprecise (as is the original language, 
``may approach cardiac sensitization levels'') because it refers only 
to the exposure concentration, i.e., a ``NOAEL,'' ``LOAEL,'' ``no 
effect level,'' or ``lowest effect level,'' and not to the length of 
exposure.
    The applicable use conditions for each SNAP-listed acceptable halon 
substitute are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations chart in a 
column immediately adjacent to the decision column containing the 
narrowed use limit language, if applicable. See 40 CFR part 82, subpart 
G, appendices A through G. It is easy for any fire protection 
professional to check the applicable use conditions to see the cardiac 
sensitization NOAEL or LOAEL, or the oxygen deprivation ``no effect 
level'' or ``lowest effect level'' by simply reading the next column of 
the chart for a particular halon substitute. Thus, EPA believes the 
commenter's concerns are addressed by EPA's proposed revised language 
and therefore rejects the proposed alternative language suggested by 
this commenter.
    A second commenter supported EPA's proposed change in language, 
with one exception. The exception is EPA's proposed decision not to 
change the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable health effects 
under normal operating conditions.'' The commenter suggests that this 
language may still allow for too much latitude regarding ability to 
select PFCs as an acceptable alternative. The commenter recommends 
deleting the phrase or, if that is not possible, changing the phrase to 
specify the type of unacceptable health effects, i.e., hypoxia for 
inert gases or cardiac sensitization for halocarbons. This would 
prevent system designers or specifiers from using theoretical or 
potentially insignificant health effects to justify the use of PFCs.
    EPA acknowledges that the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable 
health effects under normal operating conditions'' is vague, and leaves 
open the possibility of citing unnamed health effects as reasons for 
using otherwise unacceptable halon substitutes. EPA's use of this 
phrase in the original language was intended to refer to hypoxia for 
inert gases. Other than halocarbon clean agents for which cardiac 
sensitization is the health effect of concern, inert gases were the 
only type of clean agents for which use conditions were imposed. In 
making the proposed change to ``failure to meet applicable use 
conditions,'' EPA no longer needs the phrase ``or result in other 
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions'' because 
both specified health effects, i.e., cardiac sensitization and hypoxia, 
are incorporated by reference to the ``applicable use conditions'' of 
halon substitutes. EPA's proposal should have made a corresponding 
change to delete the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable health 
effects under normal operating conditions,'' or it should have 
specifically identified other health effects that would be the basis of 
proposed use conditions for particular agents. The phrase adds no 
information without identifying specific health concerns, and 
contributes to the imprecision of the original language. Thus, EPA 
accepts the commenter's suggestion to delete this phrase, which EPA 
neglected to do in the proposal. The final language reads as follows:

    ``[X] is proposed acceptable as a Halon [1211/1301] substitute 
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or 
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the 
extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet applicable use 
conditions.''

    (2) Changes to ``Comments'' Column in CFR
    Each substitute reviewed under SNAP and found unacceptable, 
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable subject to use 
conditions is listed in charts in the Code of Federal Regulations by 
end-use. For each substitute, ``comments'' may be listed in a separate 
column, and they provide additional information on a substitute 
intended to help users apply sound operating practices (e.g., existing 
industry standards) for listed substitutes. EPA proposed a change to 
the ``comments'' which apply to halon substitutes for which the ``last 
resort'' use limits apply. One comment was received that opposed 
changing the language from ``making reasonable effort to undertake the 
following measures'' to ``taking the following measures.'' The 
commenter cites SNAP regulations at Sec. 82.180(b)(2), where the users 
intending to adopt a restricted substitute are directed as follows:

    --82.180(b)(2) Acceptable subject to use conditions. . . . Where 
users intending to adopt a substitute acceptable to use conditions 
must make reasonable efforts to ascertain that other alternatives 
are not feasible due to safety, performance or technical reasons, 
documentation of this assessment must be retained on file for the 
purpose of demonstrating compliance.

    The commenter objects that EPA has not provided any basis for 
making the change, and that any changes to an existing regulation must 
be justified and explained. The commenter states this change unfairly 
singles out PFCs, and could confuse the user community in light of the 
regulatory language cited above.
    EPA may have caused some confusion by incorrectly indicating in the 
preamble of the proposed rule that the ``last resort'' use limits at 
issue here are ``use conditions,'' when in fact they are not; instead, 
they are ``narrowed use limits.'' The instructions to users are worded 
differently in the regulatory text for these two different types of 
listing decisions.
    ``Narrowed use limits'' are described in Sec. 82.180(b)(3) of the 
SNAP regulations, which provides that:

    -82.180(b)(3) Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. . . . 
Users intending to adopt a substitute acceptable with narrowed use 
limits must ascertain that other alternatives are not technically 
feasible. Companies must document the results of

[[Page 22989]]

their evaluation, and retain the results on file for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance.''

    The ``comments'' language, as proposed, that users must observe the 
limits by ``taking'' certain steps, conforms to the regulatory language 
that users ``must ascertain'' that other alternatives are not 
technically feasible. Thus, EPA is not changing the regulatory language 
but rather providing ``comment'' language that is consistent with the 
existing regulations. Although these instructions are contained in the 
``comments'' column of the appendix to the final rule, the source of 
the instructions is the SNAP regulation itself. The only change is in 
the summary of this regulatory language which appears in the 
``comments'' column as a convenience to users of substitutes.
    This change in wording does not ``unfairly single out'' PFCs. EPA 
notes that the same ``last resort'' use restrictions apply to a non-PFC 
substitute, HFC-236fa, which is listed in this final rule as acceptable 
as a total flooding agent subject to these narrowed use limits.
    (3) Procedural Aspects of EPA's review
    The May 21, 1997 proposal discussed a petition that EPA received 
asking for reconsideration of the wording of use conditions for PFCs 
and other long-lived gases. EPA received one comment expressing concern 
that the procedure for EPA's review of this petition might be used in 
the future as a way to urge changes in proposed use conditions without 
providing sufficient technical justification for those changes. 
Specifically, the commenter raises a concern that it did not receive 
notice from EPA of the petition, as Sec. 82.184(d)(1) of the SNAP 
regulations requires. Although, it is the original submitter of the 
substitutes which were the subject of the petition. Additionally, the 
commenter notes that the SNAP rule allows EPA to submit the petition 
for review by appropriate experts inside and outside EPA prior to 
proceeding to a proposed rule. The commenter recommends that EPA should 
rely on this provision in the future to engage in technical dialogue 
with affected companies and other stakeholders to ensure that any 
proposed rule resulting from the petition reflects such technical 
input.
    In response, EPA regrets any concerns that may have been raised by 
the Agency's process in reviewing this petition, and assures the public 
that the Agency does not view the petition process as a way for 
interested parties to urge changes in SNAP regulatory conditions 
without providing sufficient technical justification for those changes. 
EPA acknowledges that the Agency failed to formally notify the 
commenter upon receipt of the petition, and EPA apologizes for this 
failure. EPA notes, however, that the commenter did contact the Agency 
to discuss the petition. This initial contact was followed by several 
discussions between representatives of EPA and representatives of the 
commenter over several months, as well as a letter from the commenter 
to EPA discussing the merits of the petition.
    Although EPA failed to meet the required notice provision of 
Sec. 82.184(d)(1) of the SNAP regulations, the purpose of the notice 
requirement-- to provide the opportunity to communicate on the merits 
of the petition--was in fact fulfilled. EPA did not deny any 
opportunity to the commenter to participate in discussing the merits of 
the petition. EPA has placed in the docket for this rulemaking a 
description of the contacts between EPA staff and the commenter's staff 
on this subject; it is EPA's belief that the commenter fully 
participated in the process of commenting on the merits of the 
petition.
    EPA agrees that in certain cases it may be appropriate to engage in 
technical dialogue with affected companies and other stakeholders to 
ensure that any proposed rule resulting from a petition reflects such 
technical input. However, the Agency notes that the SNAP regulations do 
not require such dialogue; rather, the regulations provide EPA with the 
discretion to allow internal or external experts an opportunity to 
review the petition. The Agency will determine on a case-by-case basis 
if and when to seek review by outside experts and whether additional 
dialogue with others is appropriate. In addition, Sec. 82.184(d)(5) of 
the SNAP regulations requires EPA to follow standard rulemaking 
procedures whenever the Agency grants a petition to change an 
acceptable listing by imposing or deleting use conditions or limits, 
among other actions. Such rulemaking procedures require public notice 
and comment, which afford interested parties the opportunity to comment 
on the merits of EPA's decision on a petition, or to recommend that EPA 
consult with outside experts or others in a particular case. EPA has 
followed that process in this case.
    In any event, EPA notes that it did engage in dialogue with 
stakeholders, including the commenter, on the merits of this petition 
prior to publishing the proposed rule, and the description in the 
docket explains EPA's contacts with the commenter in this regard. 
Further, as described above in discussing its response to the comments 
on the substance of the proposed changes, EPA believes there is 
sufficient technical justification for these changes, and that the 
justification was discussed with affected parties and adequately 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule. Both commenters who 
provided written comments on EPA's proposed language, including this 
commenter, stated they supported EPA's purpose in clarifying the 
language.
b. HFC-236fa
    (1) Use Conditions and Limits
    EPA proposed various use conditions and use limits for HFC-236fa as 
a streaming agent and as a total flooding agent. Many comments objected 
to the lack of proposed ``last resort'' use limits to the streaming 
agent end-use of HFC-236fa. One commenter also specifically objected to 
the lack of proposed ``last resort'' use limits to explosion protection 
applications within the total flooding end-use of HFC-236fa. These 
comments were based on concerns that since this substitute's global 
warming potential (GWP) is high and its atmospheric lifetime is long, 
it should be subject to the same ``last resort'' use restrictions in 
all end-use categories and applications.
    One commenter stated that the GWP of HFC-236fa is between 6,300 and 
8,000 and that its atmospheric lifetime is 250 years; others stated 
that the GWP of HFC-236fa is more than three times that of HFC-227ea. 
For HFC-236fa, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report lists a GWP of 
6,300 (on a 100-year basis) not a range from 6,300 to 8,000, and an 
atmospheric lifetime of 209 years not 250 years. (Based on information 
available at the time, EPA listed the atmospheric lifetime of HFC-236fa 
as 250 years in the preamble to the May 21, 1997 proposed rule.) By 
comparison, the GWP (on a 100-year basis) for HFC-227ea is listed in 
the 1995 IPCC Report as 2,900, which is roughly one-half the listed 
value for HFC-236fa.
    Several commenters stated that the GWP of HFC-236fa is higher than 
those of the PFCs. In fact, the GWP of HFC-236fa for the 100-year time 
horizon is comparable to the GWP of many PFCs. This is not the case, 
however, when comparisons are made in terms of GWPs integrated over a 
longer time horizon that reflects the significantly longer atmospheric 
lifetimes of PFCs. Because PFCs have atmospheric lifetimes at least an 
order of magnitude longer than HFC-236fa (2,600 to 50,000 years for 
PFCs versus 209 years for HFC-236fa), a more relevant comparison is in 
terms of

[[Page 22990]]

GWPs integrated over 500 years. As such, the GWP of HFC-236fa for the 
500-year time horizon (4700 according to the 1995 IPCC report) is 
significantly lower than the 500-year GWP for any of the listed PFCs 
(which range between 10,000 and 14,000).
    These commenters supported their concerns with both general 
statements regarding the need to limit use of greenhouse gases, and 
specific statements designed to show that the streaming agent end-use 
would be highly emissive, and/or that the streaming agent end-use would 
be at least as, if not more, emissive than the total flooding end-use. 
The general statements include the following: (a) HFC-236fa is 6,300 
times more effective than carbon dioxide in its global warming 
potential; (b) HFC-236fa is not a byproduct or feedstock of another 
chemical's production, which was the justification for SNAP listing of 
HFC-23, another potent greenhouse gas, as a total flooding agent; (c) 
the unrestricted use of HFC-236fa as a streaming agent is tantamount to 
a decision to do nothing about global warming; and (d) the unrestricted 
use of HFC-236fa contradicts President Clinton's 1993 Climate Change 
Action Plan (CCAP), which directs EPA (in Action 40) to reduce the use 
of greenhouse gases as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.
    EPA appreciates the concerns for both global warming potential and 
atmospheric lifetime. EPA does not disagree with the first two general 
statements regarding the potency of HFC-236fa as a greenhouse gas and 
this agent's lack of status as a byproduct or feedstock in another 
chemical process.
    With respect to the final two general statements, EPA disagrees 
that the lack of ``last resort'' restrictions on HFC-236fa in its use 
as a streaming agent is tantamount to a decision to do nothing about 
global warming, and that it contradicts Action 40 of the CCAP. In 
discussing HFCs generally as a halon substitute in the preamble to the 
original SNAP rule (59 FR 13100), EPA noted that, because HFCs can 
contribute to global warming, they are included in the CCAP, and EPA is 
directed to limit uses of gases with high global warming potentials as 
substitutes for ozone-depleting substances where better substitutes 
exist. EPA noted further that, because EPA is simultaneously also 
interested in promoting the broader shift away from ozone-depleting 
substances, any limits on use will be imposed in ways that preserve as 
much flexibility as possible for those trying to move to alternatives.
    EPA evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework in 
order to fulfill both the mandate under Clean Air Act section 612 to 
identify alternatives to ozone-depleting substances which reduce 
overall risk to human health and the environment, and the President's 
direction under the CCAP. In evaluating a potential substitute by 
comparing risks, EPA compares the substitute to the original ODS it 
would replace and to other substitutes by use. Although it may be 
desirable to compare restrictions between end-uses such as streaming 
agents and total flooding agents, EPA's SNAP determinations require a 
relative comparison among all substitutes available for a particular 
end-use, as well as to the original ODS, at the time the comparison is 
made. See discussion in the preamble to the original SNAP rule, 59 FR 
13044 (March 18, 1994), at pages 13046 and 13067-13069.
    Thus, in evaluating the use of HFC-236fa as a streaming agent, EPA 
compared its use to that of other SNAP-listed and proposed streaming 
agent substitutes currently available. Of clean agent substitutes for 
Halon 1211, there are no commercially available alternatives for 
general fire protection use with both zero ozone depletion potential 
and low toxicity. HFC-236fa meets these criteria and thus can serve a 
unique role as a streaming agent, aiding in the transition from halons. 
Although some of the commercially available streaming agent substitutes 
which are not clean agents have no ozone depletion potential and are 
low in toxicity, they are not as widely applicable as halocarbon clean 
agent alternatives and thus are not suitable for general fire 
protection use.
    EPA made a similar comparison of SNAP-listed and proposed halon 
substitutes which are commercially available in the total flooding 
agent end-use. By contrast to the streaming agent end-use, there are 
commercially available clean agent alternatives in the flooding agent 
end-use for general fire suppression which have both zero ozone 
depletion potential and low toxicity, such as HFC-227ea and the inert 
gases. In the explosion protection application, however, which is a 
type of total flooding use, the required design concentration is much 
higher than for general fire suppression. As a practical matter, this 
eliminates most of the SNAP-listed total flooding clean agent 
substitutes for use in explosion protection except for HFC-23 and the 
PFCs, some of which have even higher GWPs, and all of which have longer 
atmospheric lifetimes, than that of HFC-236fa. By comparison to the 
commercially available clean agent substitutes, HFC-236fa can serve a 
unique role in the explosion protection application of the total 
flooding agent end-use, but not in the general fire suppression 
applications of this end-use.
    Responses are given below to each of the specific comments that 
emissions from streaming end-uses are high and are at least as great, 
if not greater, compared to total flooding end-uses. EPA notes that 
most of these statements were made without any specific supporting 
data.
    (a) Expected discharge in a streaming application would be greater 
than if used in a flooding system.
    As noted previously, EPA's SNAP determinations require a relative 
comparison among all substitutes available for a particular end-use, as 
well as to the original ODS, at the time the comparison is made. 
Nevertheless, streaming agent uses in fire extinguishers, whether 
handheld, wheeled, or vehicular, typically use many fewer pounds of 
agent than total flooding systems, which are piped into an enclosed 
space to flood the enclosure upon discharge. One would expect, 
therefore, that discharges from streaming applications would be less 
per discharge than those from a flooding system. It is not clear 
whether the commenters who claimed that ``expected discharge in a 
streaming application would be greater than if used in a flooding 
system'' (without any supporting data) meant discharges per unit or 
total discharges, which would require data on the total number of units 
in each end-use and/or the rates of discharge for each end-use.
    (b) Both streaming and flooding systems are intended to be 
discharged, and are not closed systems.
    EPA notes that all fire extinguishing uses are emissive by their 
nature, even though the cylinder or container which holds the agent is 
a ``closed system'' in the sense that the chemical is contained in 
equipment that precludes full emission unless emission is triggered. In 
order to extinguish a fire, however, the agent must be emitted from its 
container.
    The emission of fire extinguishing agents is usually only done in 
case of fire, a life-threatening emergency. Other possible sources of 
emissions are leakage, accidental discharge, maintenance losses during 
servicing, and discharge during testing and training. EPA estimates the 
total amount of losses for leakage and discharges other than for fire 
protection is less than 5% per year. Of this amount, virtually none is 
due to testing and training. In response to the phaseout of halon and

[[Page 22991]]

concerns over atmospheric impacts of both halon and halocarbon 
substitutes, the fire protection community has greatly decreased the 
use of fire extinguishing agents in testing and training (formerly the 
single largest use of halon fire extinguishers). There is also a 
financial incentive to conserve halocarbon fire extinguishing agents 
which serve as clean agent substitutes for halon because they are more 
expensive than traditional fire extinguishing agents such as dry 
chemical and foam.
    (c) Portable fire extinguishers are more numerous than flooding 
systems, and are discharged more often.
    EPA has no data on the number of portable fire extinguishers versus 
flooding systems, nor on relative discharge rates of portables versus 
flooding systems. No data were offered by the commenters who claimed 
portables are more numerous, and are discharged more often. EPA 
believes that this type of comparison is not relevant to the risk 
comparison of particular substitutes within a particular end-use, but 
EPA refers to its earlier estimate of 5% total losses (not related to 
fire suppression) from all fire extinguishers as support for the 
statement that non-emergency emissions of halocarbon fire extinguishing 
agents in both streaming agent and total flooding agent end-uses is 
relatively small.
    (d) This agent should be restricted to the ``original design 
concept'' of a closed system such as refrigeration substitutes for CFC-
114 in heat pumps, which are subject to venting prohibitions.
    This comment reflects concern about possible emissions from any 
fire extinguishing system, whether streaming or flooding. As noted 
above, fire extinguishing systems are by nature emissive but serve a 
valuable purpose in preventing or mitigating danger to human health and 
property. Fire extinguisher emission rates are relatively low and, when 
balanced against the risks of fire emergencies, are extremely valuable. 
Comparing refrigeration uses to fire suppression uses is not relevant 
to the risk comparison of particular fire suppression substitutes 
within a particular end-use. Previous decisions in another SNAP 
industrial sector are not relevant to decisions in a different SNAP 
industrial sector, just as decisions for a particular end-use within a 
single sector are not relevant to a different end-use in the same 
sector.
    (e) This agent has a lower weight equivalence to Halon 1301 than to 
Halon 1211, is more effective as a Halon 1301 substitute than as a 
Halon 1211 substitute, and is probably more efficient as a flooding 
agent than as a streaming agent.
    Weight equivalence relates the number of pounds of substitute 
required to replace each pound of halon to achieve the same fire 
extinguishing capability. A substitute's weight equivalence to halon is 
not the only measure of a substitute's efficiency or effectiveness in 
extinguishing fires. A substitute's extinguishing (or design) 
concentration is important as well as its storage volume equivalence to 
halon. Additional factors, which would be tested in full-scale 
performance fire testing by independent testing laboratories in order 
to rate particular products, include the extinguisher configurations, 
pressurization, nozzle and valve assembly as well as other 
characteristics. EPA notes that several portable fire extinguishing 
products using this agent have received performance ratings from an 
independent testing laboratory which could not have happened without 
satisfactory performance test results. These commenters provided no 
further information to support their statements that this agent may be 
more efficient and more effective as a replacement for halon 1301 in 
flooding systems than as a replacement for halon 1211 as a streaming 
agent. EPA is not aware of any evidence to support these statements.
    Nevertheless, EPA notes that the reported weight equivalencies in 
the preamble to the proposed rule were based on information in the SNAP 
submission, which has become outdated due to further commercial 
development of portable fire extinguishing equipment using this agent 
as a replacement for halon 1211. EPA requested and obtained current 
information from the system designer regarding this agent's weight 
equivalence to halon 1211, and has placed in the public docket for this 
rulemaking the memo from the system designer providing this 
information, as well as information from Underwriters Laboratories, 
Inc., showing its current listing information for portable fire 
extinguishing products containing this agent.
    The commenters are correct in identifying the weight equivalence of 
this agent to halon 1211 as 2.4 in the portable fire extinguishing 
product containing 6.0 pounds of this agent, since it apparently 
replaced a product with equivalent fire extinguishment ratings 
containing 2.5 pounds of halon 1211. However, there are three other 
sizes of portable extinguishers containing this agent which have weight 
equivalencies to halon 1211 ranging from 1.08 to 2.15. The product with 
6.0 pounds of this agent, although it is still listed by UL, has been 
replaced by the system designer with a product containing 4.75 pounds 
of this agent, with the same UL rating, resulting in a weight 
equivalence to halon 1211 of 2.15. Thus, this agent's weight 
equivalence to halon 1211 currently ranges from 1.08 to 2.15, rather 
than a range of 1.1 to 1.5 as indicated in the preamble to the proposed 
rule.
    Even if this agent's efficiency and effectiveness as a halon 
replacement were in doubt, these characteristics are not the only 
factors involved in making a SNAP determination on the substitute's 
acceptability. As stated in the preamble to the original SNAP rule, at 
59 FR 13101 (March 18, 1994), EPA believes that efficacy of a 
substitute is a consideration in decision making in the fire 
suppression sector in order to help assess the risks of using a 
substitute, its health effects, and its potential to fill various niche 
markets. However, this is only one of many characteristics of a 
substitute that are evaluated in making a SNAP determination which 
fulfills the section 612 mandate to ``reduce overall risk to human 
health and the environment.'' See discussion in preamble to the 
original SNAP rule, 59 FR 13044 (March 18, 1994) at pages 13054-13056, 
and at pages 13068-13069, for more information on the characteristics 
to be evaluated.
    (f) Since there are fewer limits on testing and training for 
streaming agents, and more testing and training is done with portable 
fire extinguishers than with flooding systems, the discussion in the 
preamble regarding the need to minimize emissions during such 
activities should be equally as strict for streaming agent uses as for 
total flooding agent uses.
    EPA agrees that the discussion in the preamble regarding the need 
to minimize emissions during testing and training should be equally as 
strict for streaming agents as for total flooding agents; these two 
discussions in the preamble to the final rule are now the same. EPA 
notes that it has no information to support or oppose the statements 
made by these commenters that there are fewer limits on testing and 
training for streaming agents, and that more testing and training is 
done with portable fire extinguishers than with flooding systems.
    (2) Use in Local Application Systems
    Under the SNAP program, halon substitutes have been categorized as 
either those used in streaming applications (manually dispensed from

[[Page 22992]]

a hand-held or portable fire extinguisher), or in total flooding and 
explosion protection applications (a predetermined quantity of the gas 
is dispensed into an enclosed space and maintained at a certain 
concentration for a period of time throughout the entire protected 
space). Another well-recognized type of fire protection product, 
referred to as ``local application'' or ``pre-engineered'' local 
application extinguishing systems, is not clearly considered either a 
streaming agent system or a total flooding agent system. Local 
application extinguishers are designed to release a set amount of an 
extinguishing agent from a fixed nozzle or nozzles directly onto 
burning material. They have been used to provide fire protection for 
specialized industrial uses such as textile processing machinery.
    The Agency received several comments, discussed below, that HFC-
236fa be listed acceptable for use in a newly created category of local 
application or pre-engineered systems. Elsewhere in today's action, 
HFC-236fa is being listed as acceptable for use as a substitute for 
halon 1211 and halon 1301 in fire suppression and explosion protection; 
the Agency does not believe it is necessary or appropriate at this 
time, however, to designate under SNAP a new category of fire 
protection specifically for local application systems.
    Although the vast majority of fire protection systems using halon 
and halon substitutes can be classified as streaming agents or total 
flooding agent systems, the local application systems defy easy 
classification in either category. Unlike total flooding systems, they 
are not designed to distribute the extinguishing agent evenly at a 
specific design concentration maintained throughout the entire volume 
of the protected space and, unlike streaming agents, they are not 
designed to allow a person to manipulate the discharge direction or 
quantity of the extinguishing agent. Local application or pre-
engineered systems are mentioned in and may be subject to parts of 
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards which apply to 
total flooding systems (NFPA 12, 12A, and 2001, for example). However, 
as mentioned by two commenters referred to below, local application 
systems primarily use halon 1211 (which is more commonly associated 
with streaming agents), rather than halon 1301 (which is more commonly 
associated with total flooding agents), as the fire extinguishant.
    Five commenters urged EPA to list HFC-236fa acceptable for use in a 
third, distinct category--``local application'' systems. Three of the 
five commenters specifically urged acceptability of this agent as a 
replacement for halon 1211 in local application systems; two of these 
three commenters specifically urged acceptability of this agent as a 
replacement for halon 1211 in textile process machinery, and indicated 
that this type of use could be considered a streaming agent 
application.
    The remaining two commenters urged EPA to list HFC-236fa acceptable 
for use in local application systems as a replacement for either halon 
1211 or halon 1301. One of these commenters urged EPA to create an 
additional category for ``pre-engineered systems'' or ``local 
application systems'' or ``pre-engineered local application systems,'' 
which would be distinct from engineered total flooding systems.
    The other commenter urged that EPA list HFC-236fa acceptable for 
use in local application systems as a type of streaming agent 
application, presumably as a replacement for halon 1211, and acceptable 
for use in local application systems as a type of total flooding agent 
application, presumably as a replacement for halon 1301. This commenter 
specifically urged EPA to consider such local application uses in the 
total flooding agent category as ``without prejudice'' (similar to the 
proposal for use in explosion suppression and explosion inertion 
applications in the total flooding agent category) and therefore not 
subject to the ``last resort'' restrictions which EPA proposed for 
general fire suppression applications in the total flooding agent 
category.
    Based on the description from the commenters of local application 
systems generally, and local application systems for textile process 
machinery specifically, neither of EPA's existing risk assessment 
methodologies for halon substitutes are relevant to local application 
systems. The existing methodology for evaluating end-use exposure to 
streaming agent substitutes assumes the discharged extinguishing agent 
will be completely released into the protected space immediately 
following its discharge, resulting in a high concentration of 
extinguishing agent which eventually disperses throughout the space at 
lower concentrations. Local application systems for textile process 
machinery, by contrast, discharge the extinguishing agent at a very 
high concentration into the localized protected space, inside the 
machinery. The extinguishing agent is eventually released outside the 
machinery by dissipating into the rest of the space where the machinery 
is located. In neither case is there an alarm before discharge or is 
the extinguishing concentration maintained at a constant level in an 
enclosed space as for total flooding systems.
    EPA's evaluation of the characteristics of local application 
systems, particularly in the case of textile process machinery (which 
is the only case presented to EPA with actual design specifications for 
use of this agent in a local application system) shows that exposure 
patterns for this type of use are more similar to streaming agents than 
total flooding agent systems. Evaluating the exposure risk of persons 
who are near the textile process machinery when a local application 
system is discharged requires modifying the streaming agent methodology 
to account for the different rate of release of the extinguishing 
agent. Based on relevant system and exposure specifications provided by 
one of the commenters, EPA has made these modifications. The Agency's 
analyses project that local application extinguishing systems using 
HFC-236fa located inside textile process machinery would maintain 
worker exposures below the cardiotoxicity NOAEL and LOAEL 
concentrations.
    In summary, EPA agrees with the suggestion of some of the 
commenters that the use of HFC-236fa in local application systems 
inside textile process machinery as a replacement for halon 1211 is 
covered by the acceptability listing of this agent in the streaming 
agent end-use. Local application systems other than those used inside 
textile process machinery are not included in the streaming agent end-
use since EPA's review is based solely on the specifications for such 
systems in textile process machinery. Thus, EPA rejects suggestions by 
some of the commenters that this agent be listed acceptable as a 
replacement for halon 1211 in local application systems generally.
    Since EPA has no specific information on the potential use of this 
agent in local application systems as a replacement for halon 1301, and 
since the methodology for evaluating exposure to total flooding agents 
is not appropriate for the textile processing machinery system, EPA 
does not agree that local application systems using this agent as a 
replacement for halon 1301 are covered by the total flooding agent end-
use. Thus, EPA is rejecting suggestions by some of the commenters that 
this agent be listed acceptable as a replacement for halon 1301 in 
local application systems, either as a separate end-use or as part of 
the total flooding

[[Page 22993]]

end-use. EPA welcomes information about potential uses of this agent 
and other halon substitutes in local application systems as a 
replacement for either halon 1211 or halon 1301, and may consider 
creating a separate end-use for local application extinguishing systems 
in the future. EPA notes the potential for environmental benefit if 
more use is made of these systems since they may require relatively 
small amounts of extinguishing agent and pose less risk of occupational 
exposure than other types of fire extinguishing systems, such as total 
flooding systems.
    (3) ``Grandfathering'' Existing Uses of HFC-236fa
    One commenter took issue with the following paragraph, which 
appeared in Section III.D.3 of the preamble to the proposed rule and 
was incorporated by reference in the proposed listing of HFC-236fa 
acceptable subject to use conditions in the total flooding agent end-
use:

    ``In the event of the development of acceptable alternatives 
which EPA finds should not only replace halon 1301 and HFC-236fa 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).''

    The commenter requested that this paragraph be modified and 
relocated. The commenter believes that such discussion is inappropriate 
when specifically isolated to comments about one particular substitute; 
to the extent this may be consistent with EPA's mandate under the Act, 
the commenter states it should be clear to potential end-users that the 
comments apply to all alternatives or to all members of a defined class 
of alternatives.
    EPA has included similar language in the preamble discussion of 
specific listings of substitutes in previous rulemakings. (See 
discussion of PFCs as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in the 
Solvents sector in the original SNAP rule (March 18, 1994) at 59 FR 
13095-13096). This commenter suggests this statement by EPA is 
consistent with the scope of EPA's authority to permit the continuation 
of activities otherwise restricted where the balance of equities 
supports such grandfathering. See discussion in the preamble of the 
original SNAP rule (59 FR 13057).
    EPA believes, since this language is merely a statement of the 
Agency's authority and not a stated intention to take such action, it 
is appropriate to include this statement in discussion of listings of 
any substitute, even if this statement is not included in its 
discussion of listings of all substitutes in a particular rulemaking. 
EPA can use its grandfathering authority, within the limits described 
above, any time it changes a listing of a substitute. EPA did not 
intend, however, to create confusion by including this language in the 
listing of this particular substitute alone; thus, EPA is deleting any 
reference in this final rule to potential grandfathering in this sector 
and refers end-users to the discussion of grandfathering in the 
original SNAP rule as described above.
c. Unrelated Issues
    EPA received one letter with comments purportedly relating to this 
proposal but which actually are unrelated. This commenter asked that 
EPA modify the use conditions and/or change to unacceptable several 
halon substitutes currently listed as acceptable by SNAP. Since none of 
these listings was proposed to be changed in this rulemaking, the 
comments are not relevant to this final rule. In any event, the 
commenter did not provide adequate information to justify re-opening 
the listings which were made through notice-and-comment rulemakings in 
the past. A more complete discussion of this comment and EPA's response 
is contained in the Supplemental Response to Comments which is 
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
d. Chlorobromomethane
    As described in the response to comments received under the 
Solvents; Aerosols; and Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks sectors, EPA 
received several comments on its proposal listing of chlorobromomethane 
as unacceptable in those sectors. The same comments apply to the 
proposed listing of CBM as unacceptable in the total flooding end-use 
in the Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection sector with respect to 
its ozone depletion potential. See the discussion of the ODP of CBM 
under the solvents section, II.C.3. Specific information related to 
flooding systems is discussed under the unacceptable determination for 
CBM, II.D.3.

E. Aerosols

1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Solvents
    (1) HFC-4310mee
    HFC-4310mee is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl 
chloroform (MCF) in aerosols. For further information, see the 
discussion of HFC-4310mee in section II.C.1 above in the metals 
cleaning end-use within the solvents cleaning sector.
    (2) HCFC-225 ca/cb
    HCFC-225 ca/cb is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl 
chloroform (MCF) in aerosols. HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered as a 45%-
ca/55%-cb blend. The company-set exposure limit for the -ca isomer is 
25 ppm. The company-set exposure limit for 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.
2. Unacceptable
a. Chlorobromomethane
    Chlorobromomethane is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, 
methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in aerosols. See the discussion of CBM 
in section II.C.2 above in the metals cleaning end-use within the 
solvents cleaning sector.
3. Response to Comments
    EPA incorporates by reference the response to comments on 
chlorobromomethane in the solvents cleaning sector, II.C.3.

F. Adhesives, coatings, and inks

1. Unacceptable
a. Chlorobromomethane
    Chlorobromomethane is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, 
methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in adhesives, coatings and inks. See 
the discussion of CBM in section II.C.2 above in the metals cleaning 
end-use within the solvents cleaning sector.
2. Response to Comments
    EPA incorporates by reference the response to comments on 
chlorobromomethane in the solvents cleaning sector, II.C.3.

III. 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

[[Page 22994]]

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 (``Unfunded 
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the 
Agency 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, 
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely affected by the rule. Section 204 requires the Agency to 
develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal government 
officials to provide input in the development of any action containing 
a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate. Under section 205 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule 
for which a budgetary impact statement is prepared. The Agency must 
select from those alternatives the least costly, most cost-effective, 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule, unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected 
or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
    Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure 
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less 
than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a 
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. 
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely 
affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan 
with regard to small governments. Finally, because this FRM does not 
contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not 
required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state, 
local, and tribal officials.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    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 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 rule 
offers regulatory relief to small businesses by providing alternatives 
to phased-out ozone-depleting substances. EPA has determined that it is 
not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in 
connection with this final rule. The actions 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 final 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 (ICRs) 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). These ICRs included five 
types of respondent reporting and record-keeping activities pursuant to 
SNAP regulations: submission of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA 
Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, record-keeping for 
substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, and record-
keeping for small volume uses. The OMB Control Numbers are 2060-0226 
and 2060-0350.

E. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

F. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks''

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the 
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or 
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 
to children, as the exposure limits and acceptability listings in this 
final rule primarily apply to the workplace.

G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance

[[Page 22995]]

costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, because this regulation 
applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to 
governmental entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), section 12(d), Public Law 104-113, requires federal agencies 
and departments to use technical standards that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical 
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities 
determined by the agencies and departments. If use of such technical 
standards is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, 
a federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards 
that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies if the head of the agency or department transmits to the Office 
of Management and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such 
standards. This rule does not mandate the use of any technical 
standards; accordingly, the NTTAA does not apply to this rule.

IV. 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). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as 
well as EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are 
available from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/'' and from the Stratospheric Protection 
Hotline number as listed above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: April 21, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    Note: The following Table 1 will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Table 1: Summary of Acceptable Decisions

                                    Solvents Cleaning--Acceptable Subsitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                 Substitute          Decision                       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC-113.....  HFC-4310mee......  Acceptable.......  Company-set time-weighted average
                                                                       workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,
                                                                       and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
                                                                       ppm.
Metals cleaning w/MCF.........  HFC-4310mee......  Acceptable.......  Company-set time-weighted average
                                                                       workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm
                                                                       and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
                                                                       ppm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Aerosols--Acceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                 Substitute          Decision                       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols w/CFC-113.  HFC-4310mee......  Acceptable.......  Company-set time-weighted average
                                                                       workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,
                                                                       and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
                                                                       ppm.
Solvent in aerosols w/MCF.....  HFC-4310mee......  Acceptable.......  Company-set time-weighted average
                                                                       workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,
                                                                       and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
                                                                       ppm.
Solvent in aerosols w/CFC-113.  HCFC-225ca/cb....  Acceptable.......  Company-set time weighted average exposure
                                                                       limit of 25 ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
                                                                       isomer.
Solvent in aerosols w/MCF.....  HCFC-225ca/cb....  Acceptable.......  Company-set time weighted average exposure
                                                                       limit of 25 ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
                                                                       isomer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22996]]

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

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

    2. Subpart G is amended by adding the following Appendix H to read 
as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix H to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 
and Unacceptable Substitutes, Effective May 28, 1999.

CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, 
Retrofit and New

Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings
    (a) All fittings for alternative motor vehicle refrigerants must 
meet the following requirements:
    (1) high-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must differ 
from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, including 
CFC-12, and from low-side screw-on fittings for CFC-12;
    (2) low-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must differ 
from low-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, including 
CFC-12;
    (3) 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;
    (4) high-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other 
refrigerants, including CFC-12 (if they exist);
    (5) low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must 
differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants, 
including CFC-12 (if they exist);
    (6) 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;
    (7) 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.
    (b) For screw-on fittings, ``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. For quick-connect fittings, 
``differ'' means that a person using normal force and normal tools 
(including wrenches) must not be able to cross-connect fittings.
    (c) The sole exception to the \1/16\ inch difference requirement is 
the difference between the small can fittings for GHG-X4 and R-406A. 
The GHG-X4 small can fitting uses a metric measurement, and is slightly 
less than \1/16\ inch larger than the small can fitting for R-406A. EPA 
has concluded that these fittings will not cross-connect, and therefore 
they may be used.

                          Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                 Substitute          Decision                       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All HCFC-22 end-uses, retrofit  NARM-22..........  Unacceptable.....  This blend contains HCFC-22, and it is
 and new.                                                              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 either HCFC-22 or HFC-23.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Solvents Cleaning--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                 Substitute          Decision                       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals, Electronic, and         Chlorobromo-       Unacceptable.....  Other alternatives exist with zero or much
 Precision cleaning with CFC-    methane.                              lower ODP.
 113, methyl chloroform, and
 HCFC-141b.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22997]]


                                             Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                         Substitute                             Decision                                       Conditions                               Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 replacement.............  C3F8                         Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other  For occupied areas from which personnel cannot  The comparative design
                                                                   alternatives are not technically feasible due   be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted    concentration based on cup
                                                                   to performance or safety requirements:          only up to concentrations not exceeding the     burner values is
                                                                  (a) because of their physical or chemical        cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30%; Although no        approximately 8.8%. Users
                                                                   properties, or                                  LOAEL has been established for this product,    should observe the
                                                                  (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing    standard OSHA requirements apply, i.e., for     limitations on PFC
                                                                   agents may result in failure to meet            occupied areas from which personnel can be      acceptability by taking the
                                                                   applicable use conditions                       evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and    following measures:
                                                                                                                   60 seconds, use is permitted up to a           (i) conduct an evaluation of
                                                                                                                   concentration not exceeding the LOAEL.          foreseeable conditions of end-
                                                                                                                  All personnel must be evacuated before           use;
                                                                                                                   concentration of C3F8 exceeds 30%.             (ii) determine that the
                                                                                                                  Design concentration must result in oxygen       physical or chemical
                                                                                                                   levels of at least 16%.                         properties or other technical
                                                                                                                  See additional comment 5                         constraints of the other
                                                                                                                                                                   available agents preclude
                                                                                                                                                                   their use; and
                                                                                                                                                                  (iii) determine that human
                                                                                                                                                                   exposure to the other
                                                                                                                                                                   alternative extinguishing
                                                                                                                                                                   agents may result in failure
                                                                                                                                                                   to meet applicable use
                                                                                                                                                                   conditions.
                                                                                                                                                                  Documentation of such measures
                                                                                                                                                                   should 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 rule (59 FR
                                                                                                                                                                   13044.)
                                                                                                                                                                  See additional comments 1, 2,
                                                                                                                                                                   3, 4.

[[Page 22998]]

 
Halon 1301 replacement.............  C4F10                        Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other  For occupied areas from which personnel cannot  The comparative design
                                                                   alternatives are not technically feasible due   be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted    concentration based on cup
                                                                   to performance or safety requirements:          only up to concentrations not exceeding the     burner values is
                                                                  (a) because of their physical or chemical        cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40%;                    approximately 6.6%. Users
                                                                   properties, or                                 Although no LOAEL has been established for       should observe the
                                                                  (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing    this product, standard OSHA requirements        limitations on PFC
                                                                   agents may result in failure to meet            apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which      acceptability by taking the
                                                                   applicable use conditions                       personnel can be evacuated or egress can        following measures:
                                                                                                                   occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is        (i) conduct an evaluation of
                                                                                                                   permitted up to a concentration not exceeding   foreseeable conditions of end-
                                                                                                                   the LOAEL.                                      use;
                                                                                                                  All personnel must be evacuated before          (ii) determine that the
                                                                                                                   concentration of C4F10 exceeds 40%.             physical or chemical
                                                                                                                  Design concentration must result in oxygen       properties or other technical
                                                                                                                   levels of at least 16%.                         constraints of the other
                                                                                                                  See additional comment 5                         available agents preclude
                                                                                                                                                                   their use; and
                                                                                                                                                                  (iii) determine that human
                                                                                                                                                                   exposure to the other
                                                                                                                                                                   alternative extinguishing
                                                                                                                                                                   agents may result in failure
                                                                                                                                                                   to meet applicable use
                                                                                                                                                                   conditions.
                                                                                                                                                                  Documentation of such measures
                                                                                                                                                                   should 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 rule (59 FR
                                                                                                                                                                   13044.)
                                                                                                                                                                  See additional comments 1, 2,
                                                                                                                                                                   3, 4.
Halon 1301 replacement.............  HFC-236fa                    Acceptable when manufactured using any process  For occupied areas from which personnel cannot  The comparative design
                                                                   that does not convert perfluoroiso-butylene     be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted    concentration based on cup
                                                                   (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single        only up to concentrations not exceeding the     burner values is
                                                                   step:                                           cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 10%;                    approximately 6.4%. Users
                                                                  --for use in explosion suppression and          For occupied areas from which personnel can be   should observe the
                                                                   explosion inertion applications, and            evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and    limitations on HFC-236fa
                                                                  --for use in fire suppression applications       60 seconds, use is permitted up to a            acceptability by taking the
                                                                   where other non-PFC agents or alternatives      concentration not exceeding the LOAEL of 15%;   following measures:
                                                                   are not technically feasible due to            All personnel must be evacuated before          (i) conduct an evaluation of
                                                                   performance or safety requirements:             concentration of HFC-236fa exceeds 15%.         foreseeable conditions of end-
                                                                  (a) because of their physical or chemical       Design concentration must result in oxygen       use;
                                                                   properties, or                                  levels of at least 16%.                        (ii) determine that the
                                                                  (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing   See additional comment 5                         physical or chemical
                                                                   agents may result in failure to meet                                                            properties or other technical
                                                                   applicable use conditions                                                                       constraints of the other
                                                                                                                                                                   available agents preclude
                                                                                                                                                                   their use; and
                                                                                                                                                                  (iii) determine that human
                                                                                                                                                                   exposure to the other
                                                                                                                                                                   alternative extinguishing
                                                                                                                                                                   agents may result in failure
                                                                                                                                                                   to meet applicable use
                                                                                                                                                                   conditions.
                                                                                                                                                                  Documentation of such measures
                                                                                                                                                                   should be available for
                                                                                                                                                                   review upon request.
                                                                                                                                                                  Feasible for use in a normally
                                                                                                                                                                   occupied area.
                                                                                                                                                                  See additional comments 1, 2,
                                                                                                                                                                   3, 4.
        Additional comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Should conform with OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited 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 22999]]

 
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication,
  worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon substitutes.


                      Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             End-use                  Substitute             Decision                           Conditions                             Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 replacement..........  C3F8               Acceptable for            For occupied areas from which personnel       The comparative design
                                                      nonresidential uses       cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is     concentration based on cup
                                                      where other               permitted only up to concentrations not       burner values is
                                                      alternatives are not      exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30%;    approximately 8.8%. Users
                                                      technically feasible      Although no LOAEL has been established for    should observe the
                                                      due to performance or     this product, standard OSHA requirements      limitations on PFC
                                                      safety requirements:      apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which    acceptability by taking
                                                      (a) because of their      personnel can be evacuated or egress can      the following measures:
                                                      physical or chemical      occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is       (i) conduct an evaluation
                                                      properties, or (b)        permitted up to a concentration not           of foreseeable conditions
                                                      where human exposure to   exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be    of end-use; (ii) determine
                                                      the extinguishing         evacuated before concentration of C3F8        that the physical or
                                                      agents may result in      exceeds 30%. Design concentration must        chemical properties or
                                                      failure to meet           result in oxygen levels of at least 16%.      other technical
                                                      applicable use            See additional comment 5                      constraints of the other
                                                      conditions                                                              available agents preclude
                                                                                                                              their use; and (iii)
                                                                                                                              determine that human
                                                                                                                              exposure to the other
                                                                                                                              alternative extinguishing
                                                                                                                              agents may result in
                                                                                                                              failure to meet applicable
                                                                                                                              use conditions.
                                                                                                                              Documentation of such
                                                                                                                              measures should 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
                                                                                                                              rule (59 FR 13044.) See
                                                                                                                              additional comments 1, 2,
                                                                                                                              3, 4.
Halon 1301 replacement..........  C4F10              Acceptable for            For occupied areas from which personnel       The comparative design
                                                      nonresidential uses       cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is     concentration based on cup
                                                      where other               permitted only up to concentrations not       burner values is
                                                      alternatives are not      exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40%;    approximately 6.6%. Users
                                                      technically feasible      Although no LOAEL has been established for    should observe the
                                                      due to performance or     this product, standard OSHA requirements      limitations on PFC
                                                      safety requirements:      apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which    acceptability by taking
                                                      (a) because of their      personnel can be evacuated or egress can      the following measures:
                                                      physical or chemical      occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is       (i) conduct an evaluation
                                                      properties, or (b)        permitted up to a concentration not           of foreseeable conditions
                                                      where human exposure to   exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be    of end-use; (ii) determine
                                                      the extinguishing         evacuated before concentration of C4F10       that the physical or
                                                      agents may result in      exceeds 40%. Design concentration must        chemical properties or
                                                      failure to meet           result in oxygen levels of at least 16%.      other technical
                                                      applicable use            See additional comment 5                      constraints of the other
                                                      conditions                                                              available agents preclude
                                                                                                                              their use; and (iii)
                                                                                                                              determine that human
                                                                                                                              exposure to the other
                                                                                                                              alternative extinguishing
                                                                                                                              agents may result in
                                                                                                                              failure to meet applicable
                                                                                                                              use conditions.
                                                                                                                              Documentation of such
                                                                                                                              measures should 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
                                                                                                                              Rule (59 FR 13044.) See
                                                                                                                              additional comments 1, 2,
                                                                                                                              3, 4.

[[Page 23000]]

 
Halon 1301 replacement..........  HFC-236fa          Acceptable when           For occupied areas from which personnel       The comparative design
                                                      manufactured using any    cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is     concentration based on cup
                                                      process that does not     permitted only up to concentrations not       burner values is
                                                      convert perfluoroiso-     exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 10%;    approximately 6.4%. Users
                                                      butylene (PFIB)           For occupied areas from which personnel can   should observe the
                                                      directly to HFC-236fa     be evacuated or egress can occur between 30   limitations on HFC-236fa
                                                      in a single step: -for    and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a      acceptability by taking
                                                      use in explosion          concentration not exceeding the LOAEL of      the following measures:
                                                      suppression and           15%; All personnel must be evacuated before   (i) conduct an evaluation
                                                      explosion inertion        concentration of HFC-236fa exceeds 15%.       of foreseeable conditions
                                                      applications, and -for    Design concentration must result in oxygen    of end-use; (ii) determine
                                                      use in fire suppression   levels of at least 16%. See additional        that the physical or
                                                      applications where        comment 5                                     chemical properties or
                                                      other non-PFC agents or                                                 other technical
                                                      alternatives are not                                                    constraints of the other
                                                      technically feasible                                                    available agents preclude
                                                      due to performance or                                                   their use; and (iii)
                                                      safety requirements:                                                    determine that human
                                                      (a) because of their                                                    exposure to the other
                                                      physical or chemical                                                    alternative extinguishing
                                                      properties, or (b)                                                      agents may result in
                                                      where human exposure to                                                 failure to meet applicable
                                                      the extinguishing                                                       use conditions.
                                                      agents may result in                                                    Documentation of such
                                                      failure to meet                                                         measures should be
                                                      applicable use                                                          available for review upon
                                                      conditions                                                              request. Feasible for use
                                                                                                                              in a normally occupied
                                                                                                                              area. See additional
                                                                                                                              comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
\1\ Should conform with OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.
\2\ Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
\3\ Discharge testing should be strictly limited 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.
\5\ EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),
  fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon
  substitutes.


[[Page 23001]]


                                             Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Streaming Agents--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                         Substitute                             Decision                                       Conditions                               Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211.........................  C6F14                        Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other  ..............................................  Users should observe the
replacement........................                                alternatives are not technically feasible due                                                   limitations on PFC
                                                                   to performance or safety requirements: (a)                                                      acceptability by taking the
                                                                   because of their physical or chemical                                                           following measures: (i)
                                                                   properties, or (b) where human exposure to                                                      conduct an evaluation of
                                                                   the extinguishing agents may result in                                                          foreseeable conditions of end-
                                                                   failure to meet applicable use conditions.                                                      use; (ii) determine that the
                                                                                                                                                                   physical or chemical
                                                                                                                                                                   properties or other technical
                                                                                                                                                                   constraints of the other
                                                                                                                                                                   available agents preclude
                                                                                                                                                                   their use; and (iii)
                                                                                                                                                                   determine that human exposure
                                                                                                                                                                   to the other alternative
                                                                                                                                                                   extinguishing agents may
                                                                                                                                                                   result in failure to meet
                                                                                                                                                                   applicable use conditions
                                                                                                                                                                   Documentation of such
                                                                                                                                                                   measures should 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 Rule (59 FR
                                                                                                                                                                   13044.) See comments 1, 2.
Halon 1211 replacement.............  HFC-236fa                    Acceptable in nonresidential uses when          ..............................................  See comments 1, 2, 3.
                                                                   manufactured using any process that does not
                                                                   convert perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly
                                                                   to HFC-236fa in a single step
Halon 1211 replacement.............  HFC-227ea                    Acceptable in nonresidential uses only          ..............................................  See 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.
3--Acceptable for local application systems inside textile process machinery.


           Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                 Substitute          Decision                       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 replacement........  Chlorobromo-       Unacceptable.....  Other alternatives exist with zero or
                                 methane.                              lower ODP; OSHA regulations prohibit its
                                                                       use as extinguishing agent in fixed
                                                                       extinguishing systems where employees may
                                                                       be exposed. See 29 CFR 1910.160(b)(11).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       Aerosols--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                 Substitute          Decision                       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols with CFC-   Chlorobromo-       Unacceptable.....  Other alternatives exist with zero or much
 113, MCF, or HCFC-141b.         methane.                              lower ODP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 23002]]


                             Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                 Substitute          Decision                       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in adhesives,           Chlorobromo-       Unacceptable.....  Other alternatives exist with zero or much
 coatings, and inks with CFC-    methane.                              lower ODP.
 113.
Solvent in adhesives,           Chlorobromo-       Unacceptable.....  Other alternatives exist with zero or much
 coatings, and inks with MCF.    methane.                              lower ODP.
Solvent in adhesives, coatings  Chlorobromo-       Unacceptable.....  Other alternatives exist with zero or much
 and inks with HCFC-141b.        methane.                              lower ODP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-10630 Filed 4-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P