Jump to main content.


 
Vol. 59 No.  53 Friday, March 18, 1994  p 13044 (Rule)             
13854/13854 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9 and 82 

[FRL-4839-7] 

RIN 2060-AD48 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
SUMMARY: This final rule promulgates the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) program for evaluating and regulating 
substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals being phased out under 
the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). In section 612 of the CAA, the Agency is authorized 
to identify and restrict the use of substitutes for class I 
and II ozone-depleting substances where the Administrator has 
determined that other alternatives exist that reduce overall 
risk to human health and the environment. EPA is referring to 
the program that provides these determinations as the Significant 
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The intended effect 
of this final rule is to expedite movement away from
ozone-depleting 
compounds by identifying substitutes that offer lower overall 
risks to human health and the environment. 

   In this final rule, EPA is both issuing decisions on the 
acceptability and unacceptability of substitutes and promulgating 
its plan for administering the SNAP program. To arrive at
determinations 
on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a 
crossmedia analysis of risks to human health and the environment 
from the use of various substitutes in different industrial 
end-uses. Results of this analysis are summarized in this final 
rule, which covers substitutes in the following sectors:
Refrigeration 
and air conditioning, foam blowing, solvents cleaning, fire 
suppression and explosion protection, tobacco expansion, adhesives,

coatings and inks, aerosols, and sterilants. Analysis of
substitutes 
in a ninth sector, pesticides, will be completed, and the resulting

decisions will be added to future SNAP determinations published 
in the Federal Register. These sectors comprise the principal 
United States industrial sectors that historically consumed 
large volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on April 18, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained 
in Air Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference 
room 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 
a.m. and 12 noon, and from 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. 
As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged 
for photocopying. 

   Notifications, petitions or other materials required by this 
final rule should be sent to: SNAP Coordinator, U.S Environmental 
Protection Agency, (6205-J), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 
20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone
Information 
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can be contacted for information on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time or contact Sally 
Rand at (202) 233-9739, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, 
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 
Office of Air and Radiation (6205-J), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this preamble, EPA describes the 
final SNAP program in sections III through VIII. Although EPA 
may include responses to certain comments throughout the
description 
of the program, readers should see section III.D. for a discussion 
of EPA's responses to public comment on major issues. See also 
the Response to Comment document found in Docket A-91-42 for 
a detailed response to comments on all issues. 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

    This final rule is divided into eleven sections, including 
this overview: 

I. Overview of Final Rule. 
II. Background. 

  A. Regulatory History. 

  B. Subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee. 
III. Section 612 Program. 

  A. Statutory Requirements. 

  B. Guiding Principles.

  C. Implementation Strategy. 

  D. Response to Public Comment. 
IV. Scope of Coverage.

  A. Definition of Substitute. 

  B. Who Must Report. 
V. Information Submission. 

  A. Overview. 

  B. Information Required. 

  C. Submission of Confidential Business Information. 

  D. Display of OMB Control Numbers. 
VI. Effective Date of Coverage. 

  A. General Provisions. 

  B. Grandfathered Use of Unacceptable Substitutes. 
VII. Notice, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures. 

  A. Substitutes Reviewed under SNAP Only. 

  B. Joint Review of New Substitutes under SNAP and the Toxic 
    Substances Control Act Premanufacture Notice (TSCA PMN) 
    Program.

  C. Joint Review of Substitutes under SNAP and the Federal 
    Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

  D. Shared Statutory Authority with the Food and Drug
Administration 
    (FDA). 
VIII. Petitions. 

  A. Background. 

  B. Content of the Petition. 

  C. Sufficiency of Data. 

  D. Criteria for Evaluating Petitions. 

  E. Petition Review Process. 
IX. Listing of Substitutes. 

  A. Overview. 

  B. Format for SNAP Determinations. 

  C. Decisions Universally Applicable. 

  D. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. 

  E. Foam Blowing. 

  F. Solvents Cleaning. 

  G. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection. 

  H. Sterilants. 

  I. Aerosols. 

  J. Tobacco Expansion. 

  K. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks. 
X. Additional Information. 
XI. References. 
Appendix A: Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances. 
Appendix B: Summary of Listing Decisions. 
Appendix C: Data Confidentiality Claims. 

II. Background 


A. Regulatory History 

   The stratospheric ozone layer protects the earth from dangerous 
ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone 
allows more UV-B radiation to penetrate to the earth's surface. 
Increased radiation, in turn, has been linked to higher incidence 
of certain skin cancers and cataracts, suppression of the human 
immune system, damage to crops and aquatic organisms, and increased

formation of ground-level ozone. Further, increased radiation 
can cause economic losses from materials damage such as more 
rapid weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566 (August 
12, 1988) for more information on the effects of ozone depletion.) 
   In response to scientific concerns and findings on ozone 
depletion, the United States and twenty-three other nations 
signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 
Ozone Layer on September 16, 1987. The original agreement set 
forth a timetable for reducing the production and consumption 
of specific ozone-depleting substances, including CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 
2402. EPA implemented the original Protocol through regulations 
allocating production and consumption allowances equal to the 
total amount of production and consumption granted to the United 
States under the Protocol. (See 53 FR 30566.) 
   The Parties to the Montreal Protocol met in London June 27-
29, 1990 to consider amendments to the Protocol. In response 
to scientific evidence indicating greater than expected
stratospheric 
ozone depletion, the Parties agreed to accelerate the phaseout 
schedules for the substances already controlled by the Protocol. 
They also added phaseout requirements for other ozone-depleting 
chemicals, including methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, 
and other fully-halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). 
   On November 15, 1990, then-President Bush signed the Clean 
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Title VI, section 604 of 
the amended CAA requires a phaseout of CFCs, halons, and carbon 
tetrachloride by 2000, which is identical to the London Amendments 
to the Montreal Protocol, but with more stringent interim
reductions. 
Title VI also differs from the London Amendments by mandating 
a faster phaseout of methyl chloroform (2002 instead of 2005), 
a restriction on the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 
after 2015, and a ban on the production of HCFCs after 2030. 
In Title VI, section 602, the CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 
and methyl chloroform are defined as class I substances; HCFCs 
are referred to as class II substances. Appendix A of this final 
rule lists the class I and class II substances identified in 
the CAA. 
   In addition to the phaseout requirements, Title VI includes 
provisions to reduce emissions of class I and II substances 
to the ``lowest achievable level'' in the refrigeration sector 
and to maximize the use of recycling and recovery upon disposal 
(section 608). It also requires EPA to ban certain nonessential 
products containing ozone-depleting substances (section 610); 
establish standards and requirements for the servicing of motor 
vehicle air conditioners (section 609); mandate warning labels 
on products made with or containing class I or containing class 
II substances (section 611); and establish a safe alternatives 
program (section 612). The development and implementation of 
the safe alternatives program under section 612 is the subject 
of this final rule. 
   In October 1991, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration 
(NASA) announced new findings documenting ozone depletion over 
the last decade that was more severe than had previously been 
predicted by atmospheric modeling or measurements. In particular, 
NASA found 2.9 percent ozone depletion over the northern mid-
latitudes over the past decade in summertime-the first time 
a trend showing ozone depletion had been detected in the U.S. 
during that time of year, when risks from depletion are greatest. 
   Partly in response to these findings, on February 11, 1992, 
then-President Bush announced an accelerated phaseout schedule 
for class I substances as identified in the CAA, as amended, 
section 606. This final schedule, published in the Federal Register

(58 FR 65018; December 10, 1993), implements a January 1, 1996 
phaseout of class I chemicals. The President also ordered an 
accelerated review of substitutes that reduce damage to the 
ozone layer. The expedited phaseout schedule and the President's 
directive regarding alternatives added urgency to EPA's effort 
to review and list substitutes for class I and II substances 
under section 612. 

B. Subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee 

   In 1989, EPA organized the Stratospheric Ozone Protection 
Advisory Committee (STOPAC) in accordance with the requirements 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. section 
9(c). The STOPAC consisted of members selected on the basis 
of their professional qualifications and diversity of perspectives 
and provided representation from industry, academia, federal, 
state, and local government agencies, non-governmental and
environmental 
groups, as well as international organizations. The purpose 
of STOPAC was to provide advice to the Agency on policy and 
technical issues related to the protection of stratospheric 
ozone. 
   In 1991, the Agency asked STOPAC members to participate in 
subgroups to assist in developing regulations under title VI 
of the CAA. EPA established a subgroup of the standing STOPAC 
to guide the Agency specifically on development of the safe 
alternatives program. The subgroup on safe alternatives met 
twice. At the first meeting in May 1991, subgroup members reviewed 
a detailed description of EPA's plans for implementing section 
612. At this meeting, there was general agreement on the need 
to issue a request for data to provide the general public with 
an opportunity to furnish the Agency with information on
substitutes. 
The group also agreed on the need to review substitutes as quickly 
as possible to avoid any delay in industry's efforts to phase 
out ozone-depleting substances. 
   At the second meeting of the subgroup, in July 1991, subgroup 
members provided EPA with comments on a draft of the Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which was prepared in 
response to the conclusions of the first meeting. The comments 
focused primarily on the draft discussion of EPA's plans for 
implementing section 612 and refinements to a list of preliminary 
substitutes that the Agency intended to review. Based on comments 
received from the subgroup and other offices within EPA, a final 
ANPRM was prepared and published in the Federal Register on 
January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1984). Because the bulk of regulatory 
development required under title VI has been completed, the 
STOPAC has since been disbanded. 

III. Section 612 Program 


A. Statutory Requirements 

   Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop 
a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting
substances. 
EPA is referring to this new 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 or class II 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 substance to or delete a substance 
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 6 months. 
    90-day Notification-Section 612(e) requires EPA to require 
any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I 
substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before 
new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce 
for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. 
The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's 
unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes. 
    Outreach-Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator 
shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities 
and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in 
identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such
substances 
in key commercial applications. 
    Clearinghouse-Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to 
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product 
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are 
available for products and manufacturing processes which use 
class I and II substances. 

B. Guiding Principles 

   EPA has followed several guiding principles in developing 
the SNAP program: 

1. Evaluate Substitutes Within a Comparative Risk Framework 

   The Agency's risk evaluation compares risks of substitutes 
to risks from continued use of ozone-depleting compounds as 
well as to risks associated with other substitutes. This evaluation

considers effects due to ozone depletion as well as effects 
due to direct toxicity of substitutes. Other risk factors
considered 
include effects on water and air quality, the potential for 
direct and indirect contributions to global warming, and
occupational 
health and safety. Any effects found to pose a concern will 
be evaluated further to determine if controls are required. 
EPA does not believe that a numerical scheme producing a single 
index to rank all substitutes based on risks is appropriate. 
A strict quantitative index would not allow for sufficient
flexibility 
in making appropriate risk management decisions that consider 
issues such as the quality of information supporting the decision, 
the degree of uncertainty in the data, the availability of other 
substitutes, and economic feasibility. 

2. Do Not Require That Substitutes Be Risk-Free To Be Found 
Acceptable 

   Section 612(c) requires the Agency to publish a list of
acceptable 
and unacceptable substitutes. The Agency interprets this as 
a mandate to identify substitutes that reduce risks compared 
to use of class I or II compounds or to other substitutes for 
class I or II substances, rather than a mandate to list as
acceptable 
only those substitutes with zero risks. In keeping with this 
interpretation, the Agency believes that a key goal of the SNAP 
program is to promote the use of substitutes for class I and 
II chemicals that minimize risks to human health and the
environment 
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach 
may involve designating a substitute acceptable even though 
the compound may be toxic, or pose other environmental risk 
of some type, provided its use reduces overall risk to human 
health and the environment as compared to use of class I or 
class II substances or other potential substitutes. 

3. Restrict Only Those Substitutes That are Significantly Worse

   As a corollary to the above point, EPA does not intend to 
restrict a substitute if it poses only marginally greater risk 
than another substitute. Drawing fine distinctions concerning 
the acceptability of substitutes would be extremely difficult 
given the variability in how each substitute can be used within 
a specific application and the resulting uncertainties surrounding 
potential health and environmental effects. The Agency also 
does not want to intercede in the market's choice of available 
substitutes, unless a substitute has been proposed or is being 
used that is clearly more harmful to human health and the
environment 
than other alternatives. 

4. Evaluate Risks by Use

   Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use. 
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly 
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, 
the risk characterizations must be designed to represent
differences 
in the environmental and human health effects associated with 
diverse uses. This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental 
tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk to either 
the environment or to human health. For example, in the Agency's 
consideration of global warming as a criterion under SNAP, EPA 
has principally compared different global warming gases among 
themselves, as opposed to attempting to establish some methodology 
for comparing directly the effects of global warming and ozone 
depletion. 

5. Provide the Regulated Community With Information as Soon 
as Possible

   The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated
community 
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes 
as soon as possible. Given this need, EPA has decided to expedite 
the review process by conducting initial risk screens for the 
major substitutes now known to the Agency and to include them 
in this final rulemaking. Future determinations on the
acceptability 
of new substitutes will be published in quarterly updates to 
the SNAP lists. 

6. Do Not Endorse Products Manufactured by Specific Companies 

   While the goal of the SNAP program is to identify acceptable 
substitutes, the Agency will not issue company-specific product 
endorsements. In many cases, the Agency may base its analysis 
on data received on individual products, but the addition of 
a substitute to the acceptable list based on that analysis does 
not represent endorsement of that company's products. Generally, 
placement on the list merely constitutes an acknowledgement 
that a particular product made by a company has been found to 
be acceptable under SNAP. 

7. Defer to Other Environmental Regulations When Warranted

   In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed 
extensive regulations under other statutes or other parts of 
the CAA that address any potential cross- or inter-media transfers 
that may result from the use of alternatives to class I and 
II substances. For example, ceasing to use an ozone-depleting 
compound may in some cases entail increased use of chemicals 
that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. These chemicals, 
such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or hazardous air
pollutants 
(HAPs), are already regulated under other sections of the CAA, 
and determinations under the SNAP program will take these existing 
regulations into account. Where necessary, the Office of Air 
and Radiation will confer with other EPA program offices or 
federal agencies to ensure that any regulatory overlap is handled 
efficiently. 

C. Implementation Strategy 

   Implementation of the SNAP program is directed towards
fulfilling 
the general policy contained in section 612 of identifying
substitutes 
that can serve as replacements for ozone depleting substances, 
evaluating their effects on human health and the environment, 
and encouraging the use of those substitutes believed to present 
lower overall risks relative both to the ozone depleting compounds 
being replaced and to other substitutes available for the same 
end-use. Implementation of this policy involves four key
activities. 
The first is to develop, promulgate, and administer a regulatory 
program for identifying and evaluating substitutes. The second 
activity is to undertake a review of the existing substitutes 
based on criteria established for the program and then to publish 
a list of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes by application. 
The third activity is to review additional substitutes as they 
are developed to allow their timely introduction into the
marketplace. 
The fourth is to aggressively disseminate information about 
those substitutes found to pose lower overall risk through a 
clearinghouse and outreach program. 
   To expedite implementation of the SNAP program, EPA has not 
only developed a screening process for examining the alternatives, 
as discussed in this final rule, but has also completed an analysis

of many key substitutes based on the criteria presented here. 
Section IX summarizes the results of this assessment. More detail 
on the steps leading up to this final rule and the implementation 
of the SNAP program is given below. 

1. ANPRM and Request for Data 

   On January 16, 1992, EPA published in the Federal Register 
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and Request 
for Data (57 FR 1984). The ANPRM described in general terms 
EPA's plans for developing the SNAP program and solicited public 
comment on the Agency's planned approach. The ANPRM also included 
an appendix listing substitutes that the Agency planned to include 
in its initial substitute determinations. The ANPRM invited 
industry to submit information on these substitutes and to identify

additional alternatives to be considered in the SNAP program. 
The Agency received approximately one hundred comments from 
industry, trade groups, and other federal agencies. These comments 
contained information on potential substitutes for ozone-depleting 
chemicals, as well as comments on the SNAP program as described 
in the ANPRM. 

2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on SNAP Process and Proposed 
Determinations 

   On May 12, 1993 EPA published in the Federal Register a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for SNAP (58 FR 28094). The NPRM 
described the proposed structure and process for administering 
the SNAP program and proposed determinations on the acceptability 
of key substitutes. The Notice also contained the proposed
regulatory 
language that would serve as the legal basis for administering 
and enforcing the SNAP program. 
   In the NPRM, EPA recognized that notice-and-comment rulemaking 
procedures were necessary to establish regulations governing 
SNAP. EPA further concluded that rulemaking was required to 
place any substance on the list of unacceptable substances, 
to list a substance as acceptable only with certain use
restrictions, 
or to remove a substance from either the list of unacceptable 
or acceptable substitutes. EPA did not believe, however, that 
rulemaking procedures were required to list alternatives as 
acceptable with no restrictions. Such listings would not impose 
any sanction, nor remove any prior license to use a substance. 

3. Final Rulemaking 

   This final rule promulgates the SNAP process and the first 
set of determinations on SNAP substitutes. The Agency may revise 
these decisions in the future as it reviews additional substitutes 
and receives more data on substitutes already covered by the 
program. However, EPA expects future changes to the SNAP lists 
to be minor, and thus not to represent an undue burden on the 
regulated community. The principal changes the Agency expects 
to make in the future are to add new substitutes or sectors 
to the lists, rather than to change a substitute's acceptability. 
Further, once a substitute has been placed on either the acceptable

or the unacceptable list, EPA will conduct notice-and-comment 
rulemaking to subsequently remove a substitute from either list, 
as described below in section VII. This final rule also addresses 
comments that the Agency received on the NPRM, and incorporates 
further data on substitutes received during the comment period. 

4. Updates of SNAP Determinations 

   Three mechanisms exist for revising or expanding the list 
of SNAP determinations published in this final regulation. First, 
under section 612(d), the Agency will review and either grant 
or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the SNAP 
list of acceptable or unacceptable alternatives. Section VIII 
of this final rule presents EPA's method for handling petitions. 
   The second means of revising or expanding the list of SNAP 
determinations is through the notifications, described below, 
which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of 
a substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use 
as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 
90-day notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA 
for producers of alternatives to class I substances for new 
uses and by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 
of the Act to implement section 612(c) in all other cases. Section 
VII of this final rule discusses the Agency's approach for
processing 
these notifications, including a strategy for integrating SNAP 
notifications with other chemical review programs already being 
implemented by EPA under authorities provided in the Toxic
Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Other parts of this final rule also 
explain how the Agency addresses the overlap between SNAP
regulations 
and regulations issued under other titles of the CAA. 
   Finally, the Agency believes that section 612 authorizes 
it to initiate changes to the SNAP determinations independent 
of any petitions or notifications received. These amendments 
can be based on new data on either additional substitutes or 
on characteristics of substitutes previously reviewed. 

5. Outreach and Substitute Clearinghouse 

   Public outreach and the substitute information clearinghouse 
comprise the technical assistance component of the SNAP program. 
The purpose of this effort is to provide information for the 
public to use in selecting acceptable substitutes. Sections 
VII.A.3.f. and VII.A.3.g describe the Agency's approach for 
establishing the clearinghouse and performing outreach. 

D. Response to Public Comment 

   A document summarizing public comment on the NPRM in greater 
detail is available in the public docket supporting this final 
rule. The major programmatic issues raised by the commenters 
and the Agency's response to them are described below. Major 
comments specific to the eight SNAP industry sectors are addressed 
in sections IX.D. through IX.K. of this final rule. 

1. Scope of the SNAP Rule 

   a. Class II substances. One commenter supported EPA's position 
that the Agency has the authority to review class II substances 
under SNAP, particularly EPA's view that where little reduction 
in ozone depletion potential (ODP) can be gained in going from 
a class I substance to a class II substance, such as from methyl 
chloroform to HCFC-141b, the substitution should be disallowed 
under SNAP. Other commenters criticized this position, arguing 
that the omission of any reference to class II substitutes in 
section 612(e) clearly indicated Congressional intent that class 
II substitutes not be subject to the SNAP program. 
   For this final rule, the Agency is including class II substances

under the scope of SNAP. The Agency disagrees with one commenter's 
interpretation of the limitation in section 612(e). Section 
612(c) specifically mandates that the Agency list unacceptable 
and acceptable alternatives for class I or II substances. In 
addition, the Agency believes that Congressional intent under 
section 612 is to reduce the overall risk from the continued 
use of ozone depleting substances (ODSs). The class II substances 
range in ozone depletion potential (ODP) from 0.11 for HCFC-
141b to 0.02 for HCFC-123. In the evaluation of substitutes 
completed for the NPRM, use of some class II substitutes up 
to the time of their phaseout was identified as representing 
significantly greater overall risk than use of other alternatives 
available for a number of end-uses. Consequently, the Agency 
believes lower overall risk to human health and the environment 
can be achieved by including class II substitutes in SNAP. Despite 
the limitation in section 612(e) to producers of class I
substances, 
EPA believes it has authority under section 114 and section 
301(a) to require submission of SNAP notifications with respect 
to class II substances as necessary to enable EPA to carry out 
its obligation under section 612 to evaluate both class I and 
class II substances, as explained in the NPRM. 
   b. Review of existing versus new substitutes. A number of 
commenters believed that EPA's SNAP program has no authority 
to restrict existing substitutes, which companies may have switched

to in an effort to eliminate the use of CFCs prior to the
publication 
of this final rule. Arguments in support of this position include 
the prospective language of the statute, which says EPA must 
make it ``unlawful to replace'' an ODS with a substitute deemed 
unacceptable. Many of these commenters recommended grandfathering 
of these existing uses, so as not to disrupt industry's transition 
away from ODSs. An extension of this concern appears in several 
comments, in which commenters expressed the fear that SNAP will 
revisit prior decisions, removing substitutes previously deemed 
acceptable as newer and more environmentally benign substitutes 
are developed. 
   Under the Agency's interpretation of section 612, in order 
to fulfill the Congressional mandate to review ``any'' substitute 
substance that may present adverse effects to human health and 
the environment, both new and existing substitutes must be included

under SNAP. In addition, section 612(e) specifically requires 
notifying the Agency before new or existing chemicals are
introduced 
into interstate commerce. EPA believes that class I and II
substances 
are ``replaced'' within the meaning of section 612(c) each time 
a substitute is used, so that once EPA identifies an unacceptable 
substitute, any future use of such substitute is prohibited. 
Under any other interpretation, EPA could never effectively 
prohibit the use of any substitute, as some user could always 
start to use it prior to EPA's completion of the rulemaking 
required to list it as unacceptable. EPA believes Congress could 
not have intended such a result, and must therefore have intended 
to cover future use of existing substitutes. 
   c. Grandfathering in SNAP. Many commenters supported the 
idea of grandfathering uses of existing substitutes, but felt 
that the grandfathering should be broadened to include existing 
uses of all substitutes which companies have invested in prior 
to the promulgation of the SNAP final rule, and not just HCFC-
141b as proposed in the NPRM. Commenters argued that not doing 
so would delay transition by creating uncertainty about the 
useful life of alternatives. 
   One commenter argued that the grandfathering scheme EPA has 
proposed with respect to HCFC-141b should be extended to existing 
uses of perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The commenter notes that title 
VI calls for regulation and elimination of ozone-depleting
substances 
while in the commenter's opinion precluding regulation based 
on global warming potential. Since PFCs have no ozone depletion 
potential, the commenter argued that they are a better candidate 
than HCFC-141b for grandfathering. One commenter proposed two 
years past the date of an unacceptability determination as the 
general grandfathering period. 
   In this final rule, the Agency will not grandfather existing 
uses except in specifically identified cases. The grandfathering 
provisions under SNAP do give the Agency flexibility to address 
unacceptable listings that might disrupt industry's transition 
away from ODSs. For this final rule, the Agency was not presented 
with significant evidence from the public comments to believe 
universal grandfathering of existing substitutes is warranted. 
The Agency believes that given the diversity of the industries 
covered under the SNAP program, a case-by-case review of
applications 
using the banned substitute would be necessary to protect human 
health and the environment. Moreover, EPA must be able to justify 
any grandfathering on a case-by-case basis under the grandfathering

criteria established in the Sierra Club case, as described below 
in section VI.B. 
   In the case of HCFC-141b, the Agency has elected to maintain 
the proposed grandfathering period for existing uses, since 
many users switched to HCFC-141b when it was believed to offer 
sufficient risk reduction. In comparison, for perfluorocarbons, 
the Agency has made clear from the beginning of their suggested 
use as substitutes that the Agency has concerns about the global 
warming potential of these chemicals. EPA believes, therefore, 
that an extended grandfathering period in this case is not
warranted. 
   However, the Agency agrees to grandfather for use, existing 
supplies of a substitute in the possession of an end-user as 
of March 18, 1994. Therefore, persons who transitioned to a 
substitute for an end-use prior to this final rule may continue 
use of all existing supplies of the substitute purchased prior 
to March 18, 1994 until that supply is exhausted. As of the 
effective date of this final rule, only substitutes purchased 
prior to March 18, 1994 can be used. Under the four-part test 
to judge the appropriateness of grandfathering (see section 
VI.B of this final rule), the Agency determined that, on balance, 
the results of this test favors this action. 
   Existing inventory of final products manufactured with or 
containing a substitute designated unacceptable as a result 
of final EPA rule-making within an end-use covered under SNAP 
could theoretically be legally sold after listing. Producers 
should be aware, however, that they will be effectively barred 
from selling a substitute for use once it has been deemed
unacceptable 
under SNAP, because potential purchasers will not be able to 
use it. After the effective date of this final rule, users will 
not be able to use any additional supply of a banned substitute 
purchased after the publication date of the unacceptable listing. 
   d. Exemption for small sectors and small volume uses. In 
the NPRM, EPA proposed to exempt small volume use applications 
requiring less than 10,000 pounds per year of an ODS substitute 
from SNAP review. This proposal generated substantial confusion. 
Many commenters pointed out that the 10,000 pounds exemption 
from reporting and review under SNAP was vague, and asked for 
additional clarification. Specifically, commenters asked whether 
EPA intended the 10,000 pound limit to apply at the process, 
plant, company, or sector level. If applied at the sector level, 
some commenters noted that an individual end-user might have 
enormous difficulty compiling volume information related to 
the behavior of an entire industry sector. 
   In response to these comments, EPA has decided to maintain 
the small use exemption but provide the needed additional
clarification 
of the Agency's intent. The Agency will exempt from the section 
612(e) notification requirements substitutes used in quantities 
of 10,000 pounds or less per year within a major industrial 
sector covered under SNAP. The responsibility for reporting 
under the notification requirement for SNAP falls on those
introducing 
substitutes into interstate commerce, not on the individual 
end-user. Similarly, relief from reporting, if within the bounds 
of the small use and sector exemption as defined, rests with 
the same person. 
   The Agency believes the burden of responsibility for determining

whether use of a substitute will be small should reside at the 
same level as the notification requirement. That is, it should 
be the responsibility of the introducing agent to determine 
whether use of a particular substitute in a given sector is 
likely to remain below 10,000 pounds per year. The Agency continues

to believe that focusing the listing decisions on the substitutes 
sold in the largest volumes will allow the Agency to target 
its regulatory efforts to those applications that offer the 
maximum risk reduction potential. 
   Many commenters generally supported EPA's exemption for small 
industrial sectors, arguing that the administrative burden imposed 
by a SNAP review of all possible substitutions is unjustified 
by the likely risks posed by these uses. For this final rule, 
the Agency will continue to exempt small sectors and small volume 
uses within major industrial sectors from reporting
responsibilities 
under SNAP. 
   e. Designation of submitters/reporting responsibilities. 
Many of the public comments on the NPRM expressed general support 
for the flexibility of the reporting requirements, noting it 
is sensible to require notification from the person most suited 
to have the relevant information. However, some confusion has 
arisen as to the implementation and enforcement of these
requirements. 
   The Agency agrees with public comment that the designation 
of submitters or reporting responsibility needed clarification 
in this final rule. For this final rule then, reporting
responsibility 
rests with the person who introduced the substitute into interstate

commerce in its final form. As such, the producer could potentially

be a manufacturer, formulator, or an end-user. Identification 
of designated submitters is further detailed in section IV.B. 
   f. Exemption for second-generation substitutes. Many commenters 
supported EPA's exemption for second-generation substitutes. 
However, several asked for clarification of regulatory language 
setting out this exemption. They note that the definition left 
plenty of room for advances in the science to calculate
increasingly 
small contributions to ozone depletion added by hitherto
unsuspected 
compounds, thereby constantly broadening the scope of SNAP as 
new concerns develop. They ask that EPA clarify that SNAP should 
only apply to substitutes for class I or class II compounds. 
   EPA agrees with these comments and has clarified in section 
IV.A.2.f. that the definition of second-generation applies only 
to substitutes for class I or class II compounds in this final 
rule. 

2. SNAP Determination and Listing Process 

   a. Allowing for assured minimum periods of use. Numerous 
commenters expressed a need for a minimum assured time period 
of use for acceptable substitutes in order to facilitate the 
fastest possible transition away from class I substances. Some 
commenters suggested that this assured minimum period should 
be established based on some economic measure, such as the lifetime

of equipment in which the compound is to be used, or the overall 
payback period for investment in modifications to allow the 
use of a transitional compound. One commenter suggested the 
use of risk analysis to define the assured minimum period. Other 
commenters suggested 10 years as the appropriate period. 
   The Agency believes Congress enacted provisions under section 
612 which make a minimum assured time period for use of a
substitute 
neither authorized nor necessary under SNAP. As described in 
section VIII of this final rule, a petition under section 612(d) 
to change a listing from acceptable to unacceptable or vice 
versa must include adequate data. In addition, any change will 
be formally promulgated as a rulemaking, which requires EPA 
to propose, take public comment, and complete final action for 
any decision. If the decision is made to change a listing for 
a substitute from acceptable to unacceptable, the grandfathering 
provisions of this final rule provide the Agency with the
flexibility 
in appropriate cases to provide time after a substitute is removed 
from the list of acceptable substitutes to allow persons who 
are then using the substance, or who have expended considerable 
efforts in good faith toward its use, to find a different
substitute 
and recover their investment in prior substitutes. 

3. SNAP Information Form 

   a. Use of global warming potential. Some commenters argue 
that EPA has no legal authority under section 612 to regulate 
substitutes based on global warming. One commenter noted that 
during the development of title VI, Congress deliberately excised 
global warming from the statute, and that legislative history 
of title VI thus argues against reliance on global warming as 
a regulatory criterion under SNAP. Finally, a commenter asserted 
that not only the Congress, but the President also believes 
that ozone depletion and global warming should be treated
separately. 
   The Agency believes that the Congressional mandate to evaluate 
substitutes based on reducing overall risk to human health and 
the environment authorizes use of global warming as one of the 
SNAP evaluation criteria. Public comment failed to identify 
any definition of overall risk that warranted excluding global 
warming. Further, in October 1993, the President directed EPA 
through the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) to use its authority 
under section 612 of the Clean Air Act to narrow the uses allowed 
for hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons with high global 
warming potential. 
   EPA disagrees with the statutory and legislative history 
arguments raised by the commenter. The commenter points to language

that relates only to the listing of ozone depleting and global 
warming substances, which is not relevant to EPA's authority 
under section 612(c) to regulate substitutes based on an assessment

of overall risk. The fact that Congress may have deleted authority 
for EPA to phase out use of substances based solely on their 
global warming potential without regard to available substitutes 
certainly imposes no limitation on consideration of global warming 
potential as a factor in assessing the overall risk of using 
any class I or II substitute. Especially in light of President 
Clinton's recent commitment to use section 612 authority
specifically 
to narrow uses of high global warming potential CFC substitutes 
based on an overall risk assessment, EPA has concluded that 
it is appropriate to consider global warming potential as one 
factor in the SNAP analysis. Therefore, in this final rule, 
the Agency will continue to exercise its statutory authority 
to review substitutes for listing as unacceptable or acceptable 
alternatives, using the criteria for evaluation set out in the 
NPRM, including global warming. 

4. Definitions 

   a. Definition of potentially available. Several commenters 
supported EPA's definition of potentially available because 
it would speed the review process and encourage innovation in 
development of new substitutes. Other commenters expressed the 
concern that EPA's definition of ``potentially available'' could 
allow EPA to review and accept a substitute which may be several 
years from general commercial availability, and on that basis 
to ban some other commonly used chemical with relatively higher 
risk. These commenters argued that EPA should at least wait 
until test marketing has begun to consider an alternative
``potentially 
available'' for the purpose of SNAP review. Another commenter 
argued that a knowledge of the economic viability of a substitute 
is crucial in assessing its potential availability as a substitute 
under SNAP. 
   Under section 612(c) of the CAA, the Agency is specifically 
required to identify alternatives that are either ``currently 
or potentially available.'' For this final rule, the Agency 
is defining as potentially available any alternative for which 
adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required 
for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination 
of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to 
be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been 
completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold. EPA 
would not prohibit use of a substitute where no substitute that 
reduces overall risk is currently available, to avoid situations 
where the only available substitute to allow transition away 
from ozone-depleting compounds is unacceptable under SNAP. 
   b. Definition of a substitute. Several commenters expressed 
support for EPA's definition of a substitute as used in the 
NPRM. One commenter proposed the use of the word ``alternative'' 
instead of ``substitute,'' while supporting the Agency's general 
construction of the statute to allow SNAP's purview to extend 
beyond chemical substitutes to a broader range of alternative 
technologies, including process changes. Another commenter, 
while also generally supporting EPA's definition of a substitute, 
pointed out that the language ``could replace'' is overly broad. 
This commenter noted that this language suggests that someone 
who is not using a compound as an ODS replacement, but is aware 
that it could be used in this way, should report to EPA under 
SNAP. 
   For the purpose of this final rule the Agency is using the 
word ``substitute'' as a synonym for alternative. As discussed 
in section IV.A, this definition includes chemical substitutes, 
alternative manufacturing processes, and alternative technologies. 
In response to the public comment described above, the Agency 
has also clarified in this final rule that SNAP addresses only 
those substitutes or alternatives actually replacing the class 
I and II compounds listed under section 602 of the CAA within 
the eight industrial sectors identified in sections IX.D. through 
K. 

5. General Comments on Substitutes 

   a. Perfluorocarbons. Under the NPRM for SNAP, EPA proposed 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as acceptable for limited use as
replacements 
for ozone depleting chemicals in the solvent cleaning, and fire 
suppression and explosion protection sectors. Several commenters 
supported the Agency's cautious approach toward PFCs, given 
the high global warming potential of these compounds as well 
as their extreme atmospheric persistence. Other commenters sought 
clarification with respect to the scope of the Agency's proposed 
restrictions on PFCs. 
   PFCs are fully fluorinated compounds, unlike CFCs, HCFCs, 
or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These chemicals are nonflammable, 
have low toxicity, are exempt from federal VOC regulations, 
and do not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. The 
environmental characteristics of concern for these compounds 
are high global warming potential (5,000-10,000 times greater 
than CO2) and long atmospheric lifetimes (3,000-5,000 years). 
Although the actual contributions to global warming depend upon 
the quantities emitted, because of their long atmospheric
lifetimes, 
the warming effects of PFCs are essentially irreversible. 
   In the proposed rule, EPA identified specific solvent cleaning 
applications for which PFCs were acceptable. In response to 
public comment seeking clarification of these limitations, EPA 
is finding PFC use acceptable in electronics and precision cleaning

for only high-performance, precision-engineered applications 
where no other substitute for CFC-113 or MCF would meet performance

or safety requirements. Additional detail on PFC use in the 
solvent cleaning sector can be found in section IX.F. 
   In this final rule, EPA has also clarified the limitations 
placed in its proposed rule on the use of PFCs to replace halons. 
PFC-410 (C4F10) and PFC-614 (C6F14) will be limited to fire 
suppression and explosion protection applications where other 
alternatives are not technically feasible to meet safety or 
performance requirements due to the physical or chemical properties

of the agent, or where human exposure to the extinguishing agent 
may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other
unacceptable 
health effects under normal operating conditions. Additional 
detail on PFC use in the fire suppression and explosion protection 
sector can be found in section IX.G. 
   Before replacing ozone-depleting compounds with PFCs, users 
must first investigate whether other alternatives would meet 
performance or safety standards. This may include contacting 
vendors or testing using other substitutes and equipment. Although 
special forms or reporting to EPA is not required, companies 
must maintain documentation of the review of alternatives on 
file. Where users must rely on PFCs for lack of other options, 
they should make every effort to adopt closed systems and recover, 
recycle and destroy the chemicals where possible. EPA also
encourages 
PFC users to reduce emissions to a minimum through conservation 
practices that address idling losses and operator variables. 
Above all, PFC users should continue the search for long-term 
alternatives. 

IV. Scope of Coverage 


A. Definition of Substitute 


1. Statutory Language 

   Based on the language of section 612(a) of the CAA, the Agency 
defines within the SNAP program a ``substitute'' as any chemical, 
product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, existing 
or new, that could replace a class I or II substance. While 
subsequent subsections of section 612 refer only to ``substitute 
substances'' or ``substitute chemicals,'' EPA interprets these 
provisions for purposes of the SNAP program as incorporating 
the general definition of substitute presented in section 612(a). 
The Agency believes that this definition is consistent with 
the overall intent of section 612 and is necessary to enable 
EPA to identify and analyze the universe of substitutes for 
class I and II substances. 
   Section 612(c) prohibits users from replacing class I or 
II substances with any substitute substance which the Administrator

determines may present adverse effects to human health and the 
environment, where the Administrator has identified an alternative 
to such replacement that: (1) Reduces overall risk to human 
health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially 
available. EPA believes that in addition to authorizing the 
Agency to ban the use of a given substitute substance where 
other alternatives exist, section 612 confers the legal authority 
to allow the use of a substance only with certain restrictions-
conditions of use or narrowed use limits-while banning its use 
otherwise. This authority is inherent in the Administrator's 
authority to totally ban use of the substitute where other
acceptable 
alternatives exist that reduce overall risk. EPA only intends 
to use this authority where a viable substitute exists that 
would otherwise have to be disallowed because of risk associated 
with its uncontrolled use. 
   a. Use conditions. In imposing conditions on use, EPA does 
not intend to preempt other regulatory authorities, such as 
those exercised by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration 
(OSHA) or other government or industrial standard-setting bodies. 
Rather, EPA hopes to fill existing regulatory gaps during the 
interim period of substitution away from ozone-depleting compounds 
and provide the needed margin of protection to human health 
and the environment until other regulatory controls or standards 
are developed under appropriate authorities. 
   EPA anticipates applying use conditions only in the rare 
instances where clear regulatory gaps exist, and where an
unreasonable 
risk would exist in the absence of any condition. These
restrictions 
will remain in place only until the appropriate standard-setting 
agency acts. Where appropriate, EPA's use conditions will terminate

by their own terms once the appropriate standard-setting Agency 
takes action. The mechanism for informing the public of this 
change will be the quarterly Federal Register notices updating 
the status of the SNAP lists. These are discussed further in 
Section VII.A below. 
   b. Narrowed use limits. In imposing narrowed use limits, 
the Agency has sought to expand the list of alternatives available 
to all applications within a sector end-use category. EPA
recognizes 
that certain sector end-uses encompass a broad range of
applications, 
manufacturing processes, and products. Where EPA narrows uses, 
a substitute will be acceptable for use only in certain
applications, 
as where other alternatives are not technically feasible due 
to performance or safety requirements. Conditions on use discussed 
in section IV.A.1.a. above refer to how (under what operating 
conditions) an otherwise unacceptable substitute may be used; 
narrowed use limits define where (in which end-uses and
applications) 
an otherwise unacceptable substitute may be used. 
   c. Potentially available. Section 612(e) makes clear that 
a chemical can be a substitute whether it is existing or new. 
Also, the language in section 612(c) clearly states that a new 
substitute may be currently or potentially available. In this 
final rule, the Agency is defining as potentially available 
any alternative for which adequate information exists to make 
a determination of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably 
believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing 
has yet been completed and the substitute is not yet produced 
and sold. 

2. Additional Clarification 

   EPA believes that the statutory language included in section 
612 is written broadly to allow for a reasonably comprehensive 
evaluation of substitutes that will be introduced as replacements 
for ozone-depleting chemicals. However, additional clarification 
is presented below to further explain the Agency's definition 
of a ``substitute'' in specific circumstances based on section 
612. 
   a. Chemicals already listed under TSCA. Section 612(e)
explicitly 
requires producers of chemicals, both new and existing, to notify 
the Agency before introducing such chemicals into interstate 
commerce for significant new uses as class I alternatives. In 
addition, section 612(c) requires the Agency to produce lists 
of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes, without regard to 
the status of each chemical alternative, whether new or existing. 
   These interrelated provisions of section 612 serve as the 
basis for the Agency's belief that all substitutes, whether 
``new or existing'' chemicals, should be subject to SNAP review. 
This regulatory purview would thus necessarily extend to those 
chemicals already listed on the TSCA inventory of existing
chemicals. 
EPA believes SNAP review is critical for such chemicals given 
the differing statutory objectives of TSCA and the CAA, and 
the new and expanded applications of many existing chemicals 
as class I and II replacements, which could alter existing release 
and exposure profiles. 
   b. Significant new use of existing alternatives. There has 
also been some question regarding whether an existing alternative 
already being sold commercially within a SNAP sector (e.g., 
use of semi-aqueous cleaners in the electronics industry) would 
be subject to review under section 612. The Agency believes 
that it should be subject to review under SNAP. Because of the 
phaseout, uses of existing substitutes can reasonably be expected 
to increase significantly beyond current consumption, which 
could translate into greater releases and risks from use of 
a substitute. Existing substitutes are therefore subject to 
SNAP review because EPA believes that their use can be expected 
to significantly expand to new users or product lines. Users 
should note that the SNAP determinations discussed in section 
IX of this final rule demonstrate that with few exceptions, 
all substitutes already on the market meet the conditions for 
acceptability under the SNAP program. 
   c. Authority to review substitutes for class II compounds. 
Section 612(c) authorizes the Administrator to prohibit the 
use of substitutes for class II, as well as class I substances, 
and requires the Agency to compile lists of substitutes for 
class II as well as class I compounds upon making the requisite 
findings. EPA believes that this is in part because of the
considerable 
overlap in sectors that use class I and II substances. More 
importantly, this mirrors the statute's general emphasis on 
moving away from class I compounds in a way that does not create 
new and unintended environmental problems. Clearly, for the 
same reasons class I substitutes require review under the SNAP 
program, class II substitutes should also be reviewed. 
   To obtain the data necessary to analyze class II substitutes, 
the Agency is using statutory authority provided in sections 
114 and 301 of the CAA in conjunction with 612(c). As explained 
in the NPRM, these sections, when read together, authorize the 
Administrator to promulgate such regulations as needed to require 
companies to provide information EPA may reasonably need to 
identify acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for class II 
substances. EPA is exercising this authority to subject class 
I and II substitutes to the same information reporting requirements

and listing process. 
   d. Designation of class I and II chemicals as substitutes. 
EPA believes that review authority under section 612 extends 
also to use of class I and II chemicals as substitutes, even 
though these chemicals are subject to the phaseout provisions 
of the CAA. While one comment received by the Agency in response 
to the NPRM questions EPA's authority under section 612 to review 
class I and II chemicals as substitutes (e.g., methyl chloroform 
used to replace CFC-113), it is clear that these compounds can 
be used as substitutes for other class I and II substances in 
certain applications. Since section 612 authority extends to 
``any'' substitutes, both class I and II substances are subject 
to review under the SNAP program just as any other substitute. 
Given the potential for the class I and II chemicals used as 
substitutes for other ozone-depleting chemicals to continue 
depleting stratospheric ozone and thus affect human health and 
the environment, a close examination of these alternatives in 
the context of both their effect on the environment and the 
availability of other substitutes for particular uses is especially

warranted under section 612. 
   e. Alternative products and manufacturing processes. EPA 
believes that section 612(c) broadly charges EPA to identify 
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. For example, EPA 
believes that alternative products can include no-clean fluxes 
in electronics manufacturing processes that currently use class 
I or II compounds as cleaning solvents. EPA believes it appropriate

to consider substitute processes and products for review under 
the SNAP program, since many of these alternatives are viable 
substitutes and could reduce overall risks to human health and 
the environment. EPA believes that such alternative products 
and processes, therefore, fall within the definition of substitutes

under section 612. 
   Similarly, new production techniques and/or processing equipment

are important developments that can minimize environmental
releases. 
Accordingly, alternative manufacturing processes will also be 
examined under section 612 in the context of use and emissions 
of substitutes. EPA believes that section 612's reference to 
``alternative,'' instead of ``alternative substance,'' or
``alternative 
chemical,'' implies a statutory intent that ``alternative'' 
be read broadly. This furthers the statutory desire to shift 
use to alternatives that reduce overall risk. 
   EPA will encourage, where appropriate, alternative processes 
and technologies that reduce environmental and human health 
effects. In many applications, reliance on alternative processes 
and/or equipment may be associated with the use of particular 
substitute chemicals. In these instances, EPA encourages the 
filing of joint submissions where information is provided by 
both the chemical manufacturer and, for example, an equipment 
manufacturer whose equipment makes use of such a substitute. 
Such joint filings will provide the most comprehensive data 
on an alternative and its effect on human health and the
environment.
   f. Second-generation substitutes. A key issue is whether 
there exists a point at which an alternative should no longer 
be considered a class I or II substitute as defined by section 
612. The Agency believes that as long as class I or II chemicals 
are being used, any substitute designed to replace these chemicals 
is subject to review under section 612. In this final rule, 
the Agency has determined that second-generation replacements, 
if they are non-ozone depleting and are replacing non-ozone 
depleting first-generation alternatives, are exempt from reporting 
requirements under section 612. Other regulatory programs (e.g., 
other sections of the CAA, or section 6 of TSCA) exist to ensure 
protection of human health and the environment in these situations.
   Where second-generation substitutes replace first-generation 
substitutes that are themselves ozone-depleters (e.g., HCFCs), 
these second-generation substitutes are bound by the same
notification 
and review requirements under section 612 as first-generation 
substitutes to ozone-depleting chemicals. For example, if a 
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is introduced as a first-generation 
refrigerant substitute for either a class I (e.g., CFC-12) or 
class II chemical (e.g., HCFC-22), it is subject to review and 
listing under section 612. Future substitutions to replace the 
HFC would then be exempt from reporting under section 612 because 
the first-generation alternative did not deplete stratospheric 
ozone. If, however, a class I or class II chemical is used as 
a first-generation substitute (e.g., use of HCFC-141b as a
transitional 
replacement in foam blowing), the second-generation substitute 
is still subject to review under section 612 because it is
replacing 
a class I or class II chemical.
   The key to determining whether a substitute is exempt or 
not as a second-generation substitute is, as discussed above, 
what it is designed to replace. For example, SNAP reviews are 
not meant to cover cases in which a technology is designed for 
use primarily in replacing existing non-ozone depleting evaporative

cooling systems. In general, if most intended uses for a possible 
substitute are to replace a non-OD substitute for a class I 
or class II substance, then this substance would therefore be 
a second-generation substitute, and SNAP review is unlikely 
to be required. In those situations where class I or class II 
substitutes have already been replaced in most applications, 
the small use exemption could also eliminate the need for review 
of next generation substitutes.
   g. Applicability to existing uses. The prohibition on use 
of an alternative applies only to substitutions to unacceptable 
substitutes made after the effective date of any final rulemaking 
for unacceptability. However, for this final rule, any person 
who has transitioned to a substitute for an end-use prior to 
any SNAP final rulemaking designating it as unacceptable may 
continue to use the substitute until their existing supply of 
the chemical, as of March 18, 1994, is depleted.
   Existing inventory of final products manufactured with or 
containing a substitute designated unacceptable as a result 
of final EPA rule-making within an end-use covered under SNAP 
could theoretically be legally sold after listing. Producers 
should be aware, however, that they will be effectively barred 
from selling a substitute for use once it has been deemed
unacceptable 
under SNAP, because potential purchasers will not be able to 
use it. After the effective date of this final rule, users will 
not be able to use any additional supply of a banned substitute 
purchased after the publication date of the unacceptable listing.
   h. Substitutes produced outside of the United States. Companies 
manufacturing substitutes outside the U.S. who are producing 
solely for use by entities outside the U.S. are not subject 
to the requirements of these section 612 rules. EPA believes 
that its authority under section 612 extends only to use of 
substitutes in areas under the jurisdiction of the United States 
government. This principle does not apply to substitutes introduced

as replacements for class I and II chemicals at offshore U.S. 
installations (e.g., U.S. military bases located in foreign 
countries) that are subject to the legal provisions of section 
612.
   Substitutes manufactured within the U.S. exclusively for 
export are subject to SNAP since the definition of use in the 
rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs 
within the United States.

B. Who Must Report


1. General Provisions

   As required by section 612(e), anyone who produces a substitute 
for a class I substance must provide the Agency with that person's 
unpublished health and safety studies on the substitute, as 
well as notify the Agency at least 90 days before introducing 
the substitute into interstate commerce for significant new 
use as an alternative. Also, as discussed in section IV.A.2.c. 
of this final rule, pursuant to sections 114, 301 and 612(c) 
of the CAA, producers of class II substitutes must abide by 
the same reporting requirements. Under the authority of sections 
114, 301(a) and 612(c), EPA has determined that in certain cases, 
formulators or end-users of substitutes could be considered 
to be producers and would therefore be subject to reporting 
requirements. This approach is discussed below, in section IV.B.2. 
To analyze substitutes under section 612(c), the Agency finds 
it necessary under section 301(a) to require that any person 
who introduces a substitute in its final form into interstate 
commerce be considered to be a producer of the substitute and 
required to submit information describing the substitute under 
section 114. With respect to substitutes for both class I and 
II substances, EPA needs all of the types of information described 
below, not just health and safety studies. Such data are needed 
to allow EPA to fully analyze the overall risks to human health 
and the environment presented by alternative substitutes, as 
required by section 612(c).

2. Designated Submitters

   Several commenters requested clarification on who has primary 
responsibility to notify EPA under SNAP. EPA recognizes that 
a potential substitute can be developed for introduction into 
one of the SNAP sectors at several points in the manufacture-
to-use chain. EPA considers responsibility for notification 
under SNAP to reside with the person who first introduces a 
substitute not otherwise exempted from reporting requirements 
into interstate commerce. Therefore, for example, if a chemical 
manufacturer introduces a substitute into interstate commerce 
for sale as a fire extinguishing agent to replace an ODS-based 
extinguishing method, the manufacturer is a designated submitter 
under SNAP. If a system manufacturer or a chemical formulator 
buys an agent from a chemical manufacturer and subsequently 
formulates or engineers it for introduction into interstate 
commerce as a substitute for an ozone-depleting means of fire 
suppression, then in this case, the system manufacturer or
formulator 
is the designated submitter. If an end-user develops a proprietary 
blend or means of fire suppression using chemical or physical 
inputs purchased from manufacturers or formulators and then 
enters that product into interstate commerce as a replacement 
for ozone-depleting means of fire suppression, then the end-
user is in this case the designated submitter.
   a. Chemical manufacturers. Chemical manufacturers producing 
a substitute in its final form are required to notify the Agency 
of the existence of that substitute. For instance, if a chemical 
manufacturer intends to market a new chemical as a substitute 
foam blowing agent to companies that manufacture insulation 
products, the chemical manufacturer would be required to notify 
the Agency about the existence of the substitute.
   b. Formulators. A formulator is engaged in the preparation 
or formulation of a substitute, after chemical manufacture of 
the substitute or its components, for distribution or use in 
commerce. Formulators usually only sell substitutes based on 
existing chemicals, since they do not ordinarily possess chemical 
manufacturing capabilities. Chemicals used in such substitutes 
are frequently in common use and have already been accepted 
for general use through other chemical review programs such 
as under TSCA or FIFRA.
   However, to the extent that these formulators can be considered 
to be directly responsible for production of the substitute 
for an end-use, for example by offering a tailored formulation 
for an industrial cleaning process, these formulators would 
be subject to reporting requirements as outlined in this final 
rule. In such cases, the formulator is best suited in the
manufacture-
to-use chain to present information on how substitutes based 
on existing chemicals are or could be used. In cases where the 
manufacturer of a chemical is also the formulator of a blend, 
the manufacturer would be responsible for meeting reporting 
requirements on the substitute.
   The Agency does not foresee a situation where any person 
who simply re-packages a substitute, i.e. does not in any way 
alter the chemical or physical characteristics of the substitute, 
would be the designated submitter. However, if the act of re-
packaging a product is intended solely to allow for the
introduction 
of a substitute into interstate commerce, that person would 
be the designated submitter under SNAP.
   c. End-users. In general, end-users of substitutes will not 
be obligated to meet the reporting requirements discussed in 
this final rule, except in rare cases where the end-user and 
the producer of the substitute for commercial introduction in 
final form are the same person. While the Agency expects that 
this situation will occur infrequently, several large companies 
have developed substitutes for their own use and subsequently 
have notified EPA of their intent to offer those substitutes 
for commercial sale. Because EPA intends to require end-users 
to report only on those substitutes they plan to introduce into 
interstate commerce, evaluating and listing such substitutes 
will not stifle research and development innovations by end-
users.

3. Exemptions From Reporting

   The Agency has identified several situations in which
notification 
under the provisions of section 612 will not be required. These 
exemptions from reporting are discussed below.
   a. Substitutes already listed by EPA. As part of this final 
rule, the Agency has already completed the review of numerous 
class I and II alternatives and has determined that these
substitutes 
are either acceptable or unacceptable. In preparing these
determinations, 
the Agency evaluated information either on file or supplied 
in response to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on 
May 12, 1993. The substitutes list and supporting risk screens 
are described in more detail in section IX. No further submission 
is needed for any of those substitutes already listed as acceptable

or unacceptable in this final rule. However, further information 
may be required for those substitutes listed as pending review 
in appendix B.
   b. Small sectors. Most ozone-depleting substances have been 
or are currently used in large industrial sectors such as
refrigeration 
and air conditioning or foam blowing. However, there are also 
numerous small uses of class I or II substances that fall outside 
of these major use sectors. While small use applications for 
class I and II compounds are varied and numerous, in the aggregate 
these small uses do not contribute substantially to ozone
depletion. 
The Agency estimates that across all sectors these varied but 
small sector uses comprise in aggregate at most seven percent 
of total U.S. consumption of ozone-depleting substances. For 
more detail on the Agency's analysis and rationale for exempting 
small sectors, readers should refer to the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking for SNAP (58 FR 28094) published May 12, 1993.
   Accordingly, eight major industrial use sectors are covered 
in this final rule. They are refrigeration and air conditioning, 
foam blowing, fire suppression and explosion protection, solvents 
cleaning, adhesives, coatings, and inks, aerosols, sterilization 
and tobacco expansion. Analysis of substitutes in a ninth sector, 
pesticides, will be completed, and the resulting decisions will 
be added to future SNAP determinations published in the Federal 
Register as part of EPA's quarterly updates to the lists of 
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes. EPA does not plan to 
add sectors other than the nine principal sectors listed above 
to the formal analyses performed under SNAP, unless the Agency 
receives additional data indicating that inclusion of additional 
sectors is warranted based on the potential for high risks to 
human health and the environment due to class I and II
alternatives.
   c. Small volume use within SNAP sectors. As noted above, 
most ozone-depleting substances have been or are currently used 
in large industrial sectors such as refrigeration or fire
extinguishing. 
However, even within these sectors, the potential for adverse 
effects on human health and the environment is related to the 
aggregate amount of ozone-depleting material consumed in an 
end-use. Thus, the Agency is focusing the SNAP determinations 
on large-volume uses in the major industrial sectors. Given 
the breadth of EPA's required overall risk assessment, the
imposition 
on small volume uses within any sector of a requirement for 
a full SNAP submission seems unjustified by the potential for 
risk posed by these small uses.
   Moreover, a key policy interest in the SNAP program is promoting

the quickest possible shift from the ODSs into alternatives 
posing lower overall risk. The speed and orderliness of this 
shift depends in part on clear early determinations from EPA 
on the acceptability of key substitutes. Focusing the SNAP program 
on all possible substitutes in every conceivable use could diminish

EPA's ability to provide an early and clear message on those 
substitutes which can contribute most to solving the problem 
of general reliance on ozone-depleting chemicals.
   Further, the small volume use exemption is an exemption from 
the notification requirement only. It does not, for example, 
authorize the use in any quantity of a substitute otherwise 
deemed unacceptable under SNAP. Since the responsibility for 
meeting the notification requirement resides with the person 
introducing the substitute into interstate commerce, whether 
manufacturer, formulator, or end-user, this person is also
responsible 
for ascertaining whether annual use of the substitute in its 
intended sector will exceed 10,000 pounds per year.
   Thus, those introducing substitutes for ozone-depleting
compounds 
in annual quantities of 10,000 pounds per year or less for any 
given major industrial sector identified in this rule need not 
notify EPA of their activities under SNAP. The exemption applies 
regardless of whether the Agency is notified for the same
substitute 
for any conceivable application in the other major sectors covered 
under SNAP, or whether the introducer's total sales are 10,000 
pounds or less for any or all of the other major SNAP sectors.
   Those taking advantage of the exemption for small uses must 
maintain documentation describing the basis for their view that 
any substitute being used meets this small use definition. This 
documentation must include annual production and sales information 
by sector, and could be necessary in the event the Agency receives 
a petition to add such substitutes to its evaluations under 
SNAP, or to assure adequate enforcement of the notification 
requirement.
   d. Research and development. Substitutes manufactured or 
imported solely for research and development are exempt from 
reporting requirements under section 612. Several commenters, 
including Federal agencies involved in research on CFC-related 
substitutes, support this exemption. Amounts used in research 
are assumed to be the minimum necessary for reasonable scientific 
experimentation. For new chemicals, the provisions of 720.36 
of the PMN rule (40 CFR part 720) are in effect. 
   e. Test marketing. Use of alternatives for the sole purpose 
of test marketing is exempt from any reporting requirements 
under section 612. Persons taking advantage of this exemption, 
are, however, required to notify the Agency in writing that 
they are conducting test marketing prior to the commencement 
of sale into interstate commerce. Notification must be sent 
30 days prior to the test marketing period, and must include 
the name of the substitute used, the volume used in the test 
marketing, and the expected duration of the test marketing. 
Once a company decides to sell an alternative as a class I or 
II substitute, it must provide the Agency with formal notification 
at least 90 days prior to the introduction of the substitute 
into interstate commerce for significant new use as a substitute 
for a class I or II chemical.
   For new substitute chemicals that are being test marketed, 
the producer must abide by the provisions of section 5(h)(1) 
of TSCA, which authorizes the EPA, upon application, to grant 
exemptions from TSCA-reporting requirements, provided that test 
marketing will not present an unreasonable risk to human health 
or the environment.
   f. Formulation changes. In general, the Agency believes that 
changes in formulation needed to accommodate replacement of 
class I and II compounds should not be subject to the provisions 
of section 612. Such changes may be necessary, for example, 
when a new blowing agent in foam manufacture necessitates the 
replacement of the catalyst formerly used with the class I blowing 
agent. The Agency believes that other regulatory mechanisms 
(e.g., TSCA) are available for examining and controlling, as 
needed, any adverse environmental and human health effects
associated 
with subsequent formulation modifications. However, the
manufacturer 
overseeing the formulation change is required to notify the 
Agency if these modifications may significantly influence the 
environmental and human health risk characteristics associated 
with the class I or II substitute. Also, the Agency reserves 
the right to exercise its discretion to examine formulation 
changes if a problem appears to exist.
   g. Substitutes used as feedstock. Commenters to the NPRM 
supported the Agency's proposal to exempt substitutes that could 
replace class I chemicals used solely as intermediates in the 
production of other chemicals. To the extent that any feedstock 
substitutions occur, the Agency believes that they will not 
contribute substantially to any incremental risk to human health 
and the environment. This is because intermediates are used 
as inputs in production of other compounds, and as a result 
are largely consumed in the chemical manufacturing process.

V. Information Submission


A. Overview

   To develop the list of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes 
for various end-uses as required by section 612(c), the Agency 
must assess and compare the ``overall risks to human health 
and the environment'' posed by use of substitutes, and this 
assessment must be performed in the context of particular
applications. 
To conduct this overall examination, the Agency must consider 
a wide range of health and environmental factors. In order to 
reduce the burden on the regulated community, the Agency will 
defer to data collection requirements under other regulatory 
authorities to the maximum extent practicable. In the section 
that follows, the Agency presents information required by the 
SNAP program to evaluate class I and II substitutes. A copy 
of the SNAP Information Notice can be obtained from the SNAP 
program at the address listed in the beginning of this final 
rule.

B. Information Required


1. Name and Description of the Substitute

   A chemical substitute should be identified by its chemical 
name, trade name(s), identification numbers (e.g. Chemical Abstract

Service (CAS) registry), chemical formula and chemical structure. 
If a substitute is a blend, the percentage of each component 
must also be provided. Alternative technologies or manufacturing 
processes should be described in sufficient detail as to uniquely 
identify its use as a class I and II substitute.

2. Physical and Chemical Information

   Key properties needed to characterize chemical substitutes 
include: molecular weight; physical state; melting point; boiling 
point; density; odor threshold; solubility; partition coefficients 
(Log KOW, Log KOC); and vapor pressure. For alternative
technologies 
or manufacturing processes, technical details on health,
environmental 
or safety issues associated with use should be provided.

3. Substitute Applications

   Identification of the end-use in which the substitute is 
likely to be used is required. It is essential to provide a 
complete list of potential end-uses and of applications within 
those end-uses because section 612(c) requires the Agency to 
list substitutes by specific uses.

4. Process Description

   For each identified end-use application, the Agency requires 
descriptive data on processing, including in-place pollution 
controls. Such information will be used to characterize workplace 
and environmental releases and exposures. 

5. Ozone Depletion Potential

   The predicted 100-year ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 
substitute chemicals relative to CFC-11 is required. The submitter 
should also provide sufficient supporting documentation-either 
a citation or the background information used to develop the 
ODP. For purposes of calculating ODP, the Agency recommends 
the methodology used in the most recent Scientific Assessment 
of Ozone Depletion: 1991, which was prepared for the United 
Nations Environment Programme. (1) 

6. Global Warming Potential

   The Agency requires data on the potential total global warming 
of the substitute in its particular end-use (e.g., as a
refrigerant, 
foam blowing agent, etc.). The total global warming considers 
both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts refer to the 
direct contribution to global warming of using a substitute. 
Calculation of the global warming potential (GWP) index for 
a 100, 500, and 1000 year time horizon, as well as the atmospheric 
lifetime and infrared adsorption spectrum of the substitute 
used to calculate the GWP is required. The Agency is requesting 
that all GWPs be referenced to CO2 using the methodology
recommended 
by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).(2) 
Indirect impacts explicitly consider the effect on global warming 
arising from changes in energy consumption associated with the 
use of a substitute (e.g., an alternative refrigerant). This 
latter measure can be identified as changes in energy efficiency 
resulting from use of the substitute relative to that of the 
substance being replaced. 

7. Toxicity Data

   To assess the overall risks to human health and the environment,

information is required on the acute and chronic toxicity of 
a substitute chemical, its impurities, and its degradation products

on any organism (e.g., humans and other mammals, fish, wildlife, 
and plants). To characterize the risk to humans, the Agency 
is requesting a minimum submission of the following mammalian 
tests: A rangefinding study that considers the appropriate exposure

pathway for the specific use (e.g. inhalation, oral, etc), and 
a 90-day subchronic repeated dose study in an appropriate rodent 
species (e.g. rats or mice). For some substitutes, a cardiotoxicity

study, usually measuring cardiotoxic effects in the dog, is 
also required. Additional mammalian toxicity tests will be
identified 
by EPA on a case-by-case basis depending on the particular
substitute 
and application being evaluated. To characterize aquatic toxicity, 
both acute and chronic toxicity data for a variety of species 
are required. The Agency requires a minimum aquatic data set 
to be submitted as described in ``Guidelines for Deriving Numerical

National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic 
Organisms and Their Uses,'' which is available through the National

Technical Information Service (#PB 85-227049). All toxicity 
data in the submitter's possession and any other available hazard 
information, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), must 
also be submitted. Submission of the actual toxicity studies 
is recommended; however, it is not necessary to submit these 
reports if they have been supplied to the Agency as part of 
other regulatory submissions. If studies are not submitted, 
however, the submitter must provide sufficiently clear references 
that the Agency can locate the studies without delay. As discussed 
below in section V.C.3., data concerning the objectives,
methodology, 
results or significance of any toxicity, metabolism, translocation,

or persistence test for a substitute and its degradation products 
cannot be held as CBI where such data are also submitted under 
TSCA and FIFRA to the extent that confidential treatment is 
prohibited under those statutes. Submitters providing information 
on new chemicals for joint review under the TSCA and SNAP programs 
may be required to supply additional toxicity data under TSCA 
section 5. 

8. Environmental Fate and Transport 

   Where available, EPA requests information on the environmental 
fate and transport of substitutes. Such data shall include
information 
on bioaccumulation, biodegradation, adsorption, volatility, 
transformation, and other data necessary to characterize a
substitute's 
movement and reaction in the environment. 

9. Flammability

   Data on the flammability of a substitute chemical or mixture 
is required. Specifically, the flash point and flammability 
limits are needed, as well as information on the procedures 
used for determining the flammability limits. Testing of blends 
should identify the compositions at which the blend itself is 
flammable, and the changes in the composition of the blend during 
various leak scenarios. For substitutes that will be used in 
consumer applications, documentation of testing results conducted 
by independent laboratories (e.g., Underwriters Laboratories) 
should be submitted, where available. If a substitute is flammable,

the submitter must analyze the risk of fire resulting from the 
use of such a substitute and suggest measures to minimize these 
risks. 

10. Exposure Data

   The submitter must provide available modeling or monitoring 
data on exposures associated with the manufacture, formulation, 
transport, and use of a substitute. Descriptive process information

for each substitute application, as required above, will be 
used to develop exposure estimates where exposure data are not 
readily available. Depending on the end-use, exposure profiles 
will be needed for workers, consumers, and the general population. 

11. Environmental Release Data

   Data on emissions from the substitute application and equipment,

as well as pollutant releases or discharge to all environmental 
media (ambient air, surface and groundwater, hazardous/solid 
waste) are needed to complete the risk characterization. Submitters

should provide information on release locations, if known.
Available 
information on pollution controls that are used or could be 
used in association with the substitute (e.g., emissions reduction 
technologies, wastewater treatment, treatment of hazardous waste) 
and the costs of such technology is also requested. 

12. Replacement Ratio for a Chemical Substitute

   The Agency requires information on the replacement ratio 
for a chemical substitute versus the class I or II substances 
being replaced. The term ``replacement ratio'' refers to how 
much more or less of the substitute chemical is needed to
substitute 
for the original ozone-depleting compound being replaced. This 
ratio will affect the estimated incremental cost and environmental 
effects associated with use of the substitute. 

13. Required Changes in Technology

   Data on any changes in technology needed to use the alternative 
are required. Such information should include a description 
of whether the substitute can be used in existing equipment-
with or without some retrofit-or only in new equipment. 

14. Cost of Substitute

   The Agency requires data on the expected average cost of 
the alternative. The cost of the substitute can be expressed, 
for example, in terms of $/pound (for a chemical substitute) 
or as incremental capital and operating costs associated with 
a retrofit or new equipment. In addition, information is needed 
on the expected equipment life for an alternative technology. 
Other critical cost considerations should be identified, as 
appropriate. For example, it is important to understand the 
incremental costs associated with losses or gains in energy 
efficiency associated with use of a substitute relative to current 
experience with existing substances. 

15. Availability of Substitute

   The Agency needs to understand the extent to which a substitute 
is already commercially available or the date on which it is 
expected to become available. The timing of availability is 
an important factor in assessing the overall health and
environmental 
effects of the substitute. 

16. Anticipated Market Share

   Data on the anticipated near-term and long-term (over the 
next ten years) nationwide substitute sales are also required. 
This information can be presented in several ways, for example: 
a percentage of existing nationwide use of class I or II chemicals 
that would be replaced in a particular end-use; number of
units/products 
to be produced; or pounds of substitute to be sold. This
information 
is required to assess the potential effects of a substitute 
related to total consumption and environmental releases. 

17. Applicable Regulations Under Other Environmental Statutes

   The submitter is required to provide information on whether 
the substitute is regulated under other statutory authorities, 
in particular the Clean Water Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Federal
Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Toxic Substances Control 
Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 
and Liability Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act, and other titles of the CAA. The Agency will evaluate 
substitutes under the SNAP program subject to existing regulatory 
constraints. 

18. Information Already Submitted to the Agency

   Individuals may have already submitted information required 
in the SNAP Information Notice to the Agency as part of past 
regulatory and information-gathering activities. In this case, 
to minimize reporting burden, the submitter need not resubmit 
the data but instead should provide the following information 
to help EPA locate the data already maintained at EPA: Type 
of information submitted; the date of submission; the EPA office 
to which the data were sent; description of the regulatory program 
under which the data were submitted; and a document-control 
number, if assigned (e.g., a PMN number). If the submitter cannot 
provide adequate references for data sent previously to the 
Agency as described above, all required information should be 
included in the SNAP notice. To facilitate review under SNAP, 
reports already submitted to the Agency as part of other regulatory

submissions should be resubmitted if the original information 
was claimed as Confidential Business Information when previously 
submitted. 

19. Information Already Available in the Literature 

   If any of the data needed to complete the SNAP program notice 
are available in the literature, the submitter should provide 
the Agency with references for such information. Failure to 
provide the Agency with an accurate and complete citation may 
delay review of the notice. Additionally, submitters are encouraged

to provide copies of any literature to expedite review,
particularly 
if the citation is from a source not readily available. Any 
references from sources in foreign languages should be translated 
into English prior to submission. 
   Submissions should be sent to the SNAP Coordinator at the 
address referenced at the beginning of this final rule. All 
submissions must be provided in three complete copies. If
information 
is claimed as confidential, all confidential information must 
be excised from one of the three copies. This copy will be placed 
in the public docket. The other two copies should include the 
confidential material. If no claims of confidentiality are made 
for the submission, all three copies should be identical. (See 
below, as well as appendix C, for further guidance on handling 
of confidential information under SNAP.) 

C. Submission of Confidential Business Information 


1. Clean Air Act Provisions 

   Anyone submitting information for which Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) status is requested must assert a claim of 
confidentiality at the time of submission. Failure to assert 
a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission may result 
in disclosure of the information by the Agency without further 
notice to the submitter. Further, it should be noted that
information 
which is publicly available (e.g., in journals, trade magazines, 
product literature, etc.) cannot be claimed as CBI. Requesting 
CBI status for such information could delay review under section 
612. All claims of confidentiality will be treated in a manner 
consistent with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 
   The submitter should be advised that under CAA section 114(c), 
emissions data may not be claimed as confidential. Moreover, 
there are further instances in which confidentiality assertions 
may later be reconsidered by the Agency even when confidentiality 
claims are originally received. These circumstances are provided 
in the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The submitter 
will be contacted as part of this evaluation process when such 
a circumstance occurs. 

2. Substantiation of Confidentiality Claims 

   In the NPRM, EPA proposed to require substantiation of any 
confidentiality claims at the time of submission. In making 
these claims, the following provisions apply:
-The specific information to which the claim applies must be 
  clearly marked in the body of the study as subject to a claim 
  of confidentiality; 
-A Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims must 
  be submitted, identifying each section claimed confidential 
  and describing in detail the basis for the claim. (A list 
  of points to address in such a statement is included in appendix 
  C); 
-The Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims must 
  be signed and dated and must include the typed name and title 
  of the official who signed it.
   EPA also stated that if required substantiation is not provided 
when submitting information claimed as confidential, the complete 
submitted information may be made available to the public without 
further notice to the submitter. 
   Several commenters indicated that EPA should contact the 
submitter before releasing information marked as confidential 
to the public even if it does not contain adequate substantiation. 
One commenter also indicated that complete substantiation should 
not be required until the end of the 90 day review period and 
that any issue regarding the adequacy of CBI substantiation 
should not delay the review process. 
   EPA agrees with the comment that submitters should be notified 
prior to disclosure to the public of information marked as
confidential 
where substantiation, although it may be inadequate, has been 
provided. This will give the submitter opportunity to provide 
the necessary additional substantiation or withdraw the submission.

However, an acceptability determination on a substitute will 
not be published until all claims of CBI have been fully
substantiated 
under the provisions described above. Additionally, should no 
substantiation of CBI claims be provided, EPA may make the complete

submittal available to the public without further notice to 
the submitter. 

3. Confidentiality Provisions for Toxicity Data 

   In the event that toxicity or health and safety studies are 
listed as confidential, the submitter should be advised that 
this information cannot be maintained as confidential where 
such data are also submitted under TSCA or FIFRA to the extent 
that confidential treatment is prohibited under those statutes. 
However, any information other than emissions data contained 
in the toxicity study that is not health and safety data and 
is not relevant to the effects of a substance on human health 
and the environment (e.g., discussion of process information, 
proprietary blends) can be maintained as confidential subject 
to the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The Agency is 
therefore requesting that submitters not identify the following 
information as confidential when submitting information under 
TSCA or FIFRA: All information concerning the objectives,
methodology, 
results, or significance of any toxicity test or experiment 
performed on or with a substitute or its degradation products; 
any information concerning the effects of the substitute on 
any organism (e.g., fish, wildlife, humans and other mammals) 
or the environment (e.g., studies related to persistence,
translocation, 
and fate); and pharmacokinetics/metabolism studies. 

4. Federal Register Requirements 

   As discussed below in Section VII.A.3.g., the Agency will 
publish quarterly notices in the Federal Register updating the 
list of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives. If the name 
of a specific substitute contained in any studies supporting 
such notices must be maintained as confidential, the submitter 
and the Agency will together develop a generic name that will 
protect the proprietary nature of the substitute, but will provide 
sufficient detail for the public to evaluate the health and 
safety studies. If appropriate, the submitter may reference 
any generic names identified for use in the PMN program. 

D. Display of OMB Control Numbers 

   EPA is also amending the table of currently approved information

collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various 
regulations. This amendment updates the table to accurately 
display those information requirements contained in this final 
rule. This display of the OMB control number and its subsequent 
codification in the Code of Federal Regulations satisfies the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. 
   The ICR was subject to public notice and comment prior to 
OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' 
under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice 
and comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further 
notice and comment would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, 
EPA also finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

VI. Effective Date of Coverage 


A. General Provisions 

   This final rule includes a list of acceptable substitutes 
and a list of unacceptable substitutes. Unacceptable substitutes 
cannot be used in manufacturing or in final applications as 
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds. The list of unacceptable

substitutes and acceptable substitutes subject to use restrictions 
becomes binding 30 days after March 18, 1994. In contrast, the 
list of fully acceptable substitutes is furnished for the purpose 
of assisting users in understanding the full range of available, 
acceptable substitutes in each application. Many of the substitutes

listed as pending or proposed in the NPRM have since been added 
to the final acceptable or unacceptable lists. 
   As noted above, the Agency does not believe that determinations 
on substitutes that are acceptable with no use restrictions 
need be made through rulemaking. Consequently, EPA believes 
that it is within its discretion to supplement the list of
acceptable 
substitutes at any time upon making determinations consistent 
with the criteria established in this rulemaking. Until the 
Agency reaches a final decision restricting the use of a
substitute, 
vendors are not barred from selling such substitutes once
notification 
is given and the 90 day prior-to-sale notification period expires. 

B. Grandfathering of Unacceptable Substitutes 

   EPA is authorized to permit the continuation of activities 
otherwise restricted where the balance of equities supports 
such grandfathering. Consequently, where appropriate, EPA may 
grandfather the production and use of particular substitutes 
by setting the effective date of unacceptability listings in 
the future. 
   The United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
Circuit has established a four-part test to judge the
appropriateness 
of Agency grandfathering (see Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 
(DC Cir. 1983)). This test involves balancing the results of 
four analyses, including whether the new rule represents an 
abrupt departure from previously established practice, the extent 
to which a party relied on the previous rule, the degree of 
burden which application of the new rule would impose on the 
party, and the statutory interest in applying the new rule
immediately. 
In each rulemaking listing a substitute as unacceptable where 
grandfathering seems appropriate, EPA will conduct these four 
analyses and weigh their results. Where the balance of equities 
favors grandfathering, EPA will set a delayed effective date 
for such listings. 
   Setting future effective dates to ban the sale and distribution 
of specific substitutes will allow the Agency to avoid penalizing 
those who in specific applications may have already invested 
in good faith in alternatives the SNAP program determines to 
be unacceptable. For example, the Agency in this final rule 
finds unacceptable the use of HCFC-141b in solvent applications. 
New information on stratospheric ozone depletion has increased 
concern over possible adverse human health and environmental 
effects, and the Agency's unacceptable determination in the 
case of HCFC-141b reflects these concerns. 
   However, the Agency recognizes that some solvent users may 
have switched to HCFC-141b in good faith, expecting that this 
substitute would sufficiently lower the risk of ozone depletion 
relative to earlier materials. To provide for these users, the 
Agency has extended the effective date for certain end users 
of HCFC-141b. See the listing determination narrative discussion 
in section IX.F., as well as the listing tables in appendix 
B, for a full discussion of HCFC-141b and associated effective 
dates. Finally, to balance the desire not to penalize those 
who switched early in good faith with the need to avoid creating 
an incentive for continued investment in alternatives the Agency 
wishes to discourage, the longer-term effective dates discussed 
above will affect only existing uses. 

VII. Notice, Review, and Decision-making Procedures 

   The purpose of this section is to summarize the procedures 
for submitting the required information to the Agency, the steps 
EPA will take in reviewing SNAP submissions, and the process 
of making determinations based on these reviews. This section 
focuses on three procedures, summarized in Exhibit 1, depending 
on the nature of the submission received by the Agency. Some 
substitutes may already be approved or may not need approval 
under other environmental statutes, especially TSCA and FIFRA. 
These substitutes, in consequence, would only require review 
under the SNAP program. Section VII.A. discusses in greater 
detail the submission and review process for alternatives that 
fall into this category. In other cases, a substitute will require 
review under section 612 as well as relevant provisions of TSCA 
and FIFRA. With respect to any substitute that is a new chemical 
(i.e., not currently listed on the TSCA inventory), information 
must be submitted to the Agency for review both under the SNAP 
program and the PMN program. Section VII.B. describes steps 
for this review in more detail. For alternatives to class I 
and II chemicals that will be used in pesticide products, the 
substitute manufacturer will need to file notification jointly 
with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and EPA's SNAP 
program. Section VII.C. discusses the latter procedure. The 
SNAP program has coordinated closely with each of these regulatory 
programs to establish a joint review process that will ensure 
consistency in the final decisions, while minimizing the time 
for review, the reporting burden, and the costs for both the 
submitter and the Agency.


 See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non-machine-readable
      data that appears at this point.



A. Substitutes Reviewed under SNAP Only 


1. Applicability 

   Sections IV. and V. describe the conditions dictating review 
under the SNAP program only and the general reporting requirements 
under section 612. If any of these conditions are met and the 
substitutes are not exempt as described in section IV.B.3., 
Exemptions from Reporting, a SNAP notice must be submitted. 

2. Pre-Notice Communication 

   Prior to submitting the SNAP notice, each submitter is
encouraged 
to contact EPA's SNAP Coordinator to discuss the notification 
process. Among other things, the SNAP Coordinator will: (1) 
Assist the potential submitter in determining whether a SNAP 
notice is needed; (2) answer questions regarding how to complete 
a submission; (3) provide all necessary forms and the guidance 
manual; (4) serve as the initial point of contact when the notice 
is submitted; and (5) oversee the assignment of a SNAP program 
tracking number to the notice once it is received by the Agency. 
A copy of the SNAP Information Notice and Guidance Manual may 
be obtained from the SNAP Coordinator at the address listed 
at the beginning of this final rule. Specific data requested 
are described in section V. 

3. Processing of Completed SNAP Submission 

   a. 90-Day review process. As required under section 612(e), 
a manufacturer of a substitute for a class I chemical must provide 
the Agency with notification at least 90 days prior to introducing 
into interstate commerce any new or existing chemicals for
significant 
new uses as class I alternatives. The same requirements apply 
to manufacturers of substitutes for class II substances, although 
in this case the Agency is drawing on general authorities contained

in sections 114 and 301 of the CAA in order to fulfill the purpose 
of section 612(c). EPA intends to review these substitutes within 
a 90-day period to ensure prompt response for manufacturers 
initiating production of substitutes. EPA's 90-day review period 
for SNAP submissions begins once EPA receives a submission, 
as described in section V.B. above. If a submission does not 
include adequate data, EPA may return the submission to request 
specific additional information. Section 114 and, in the case 
of petitions, section 612(d) authorizes EPA to require
manufacturers 
to support their SNAP submissions with data adequate to facilitate 
EPA's review. 
   b. Initial receipt of the SNAP submission. (1) Initial review 
of submission. EPA will conclude a completeness review of each 
submission within fifteen days of receipt of the submission. 
Within the 15-day period, EPA will inform the submitter of any 
additional information needed. If EPA makes no such request, 
then after the 15-day period is concluded, the 90-day review 
period will automatically commence. If EPA does request any 
additional data, the 90-day period shall not commence until 
the additional data are received and themselves reviewed for 
completeness. 
   During the 15-day completeness review, the SNAP Coordinator 
will first review the SNAP Information Notice to ensure that 
basic information necessary to process the submission is present 
(i.e., name of company, identification of substitute, etc.). 
A more detailed review of supporting technical data will then 
ensue, as well as an examination of substantiation provided 
for any claim for confidentiality of information. Should additional

information be required, EPA will contact the submitter within 
15 days of receipt of the original submission. 
   During the 90-day review period, EPA may ask for additional 
information from submitters as necessary, although manufacturers 
of a new substitute may introduce the substitute into interstate 
commerce 90 days after EPA receives a submission for the product 
if the Agency has not already rendered an unacceptability
determination. 
In the case of a substitute which already exists in the marketplace

prior to the issuance of this final rule, manufacturers must 
submit a completed SNAP Information Notice as soon as possible, 
and not later than 90 days after the effective date of this 
rule. During EPA's review, use of an existing substitute may 
continue, and need not cease unless and until EPA adds the
substitute 
to the list of unacceptable substitutes as a result of notice-
and-comment rulemaking. 
   (2) Letter of receipt. The SNAP Coordinator will send a letter 
of confirmation to the submitter once the Agency has received 
the SNAP Information Notice and reviewed it for completeness. 
This letter will include the date of advance notification to 
the Agency, the starting date of EPA's 90-day review period, 
and the SNAP program tracking number assigned to the submission. 
   c. Determination of data adequacy. As part of the review 
for a SNAP submission, the Agency will complete a preliminary 
determination of the adequacy of data supporting the application. 
The Agency will issue this determination within 15 days after 
receipt of the application. At any time during the review period, 
if information is not adequate to allow the Agency to reach 
a SNAP determination, EPA will contact the submitter and request 
the missing data. EPA believes it appropriate and authorized 
under section 114 to require the submitter to provide all data 
needed to complete the review of the SNAP notice. Depending 
on the type of information needed and the time necessary to 
compile and submit the requested data to the Agency, EPA may 
suspend or extend the review period. This will not affect the 
ability of a manufacturer to begin marketing a new substitute 
90 days after advance notification to the Agency, or in the 
case of a pre-existing substitute, to continue marketing. 
   In a few cases, the Agency and the submitter may disagree 
on a schedule for furnishing additional data EPA deems necessary 
to determine the acceptability of the substitute. If in these 
cases EPA has reason to believe that such a substitute may be 
unacceptable, the Agency may exercise the option of proposing 
to list the substitute as unacceptable based on existing data 
until the necessary data are provided, due to the uncertainty 
of the risks associated with use of the substitute. 
   d. Availability of new information during review period. 
If critical new information becomes available during the review 
period that may influence the Agency's evaluation of a substitute, 
the submitter must notify the Agency about the existence of 
such information within ten days of receiving such data. The 
submitter must also inform the Agency of new studies under way, 
even if the results will not be available within the 90-day 
review period. The Agency may extend or suspend the review period 
depending on the type of information at issue and the stage 
of review. Again, this will not affect a manufacturer's ability 
to market a substitute 90 days after initial notification to 
the Agency. 
   e. Completion of detailed review. Once the submission is 
found to be supported by adequate data, the Agency will commence 
a detailed evaluation of the notice. As this review proceeds, 
EPA may contact the submitter for additional scientific and 
technical information to assist in the evaluation. This will 
ensure that the review is completed quickly and that it reflects 
the best available information. Final decisions will be based 
on detailed analysis completed during this stage of review. 
   f. Vendor lists. As part of EPA's outreach and clearinghouse 
under SNAP, the Agency will use the SNAP determinations to compile 
a list of vendors for the convenience of potential users. Companies

could then ask EPA to review their specific substitute, to ensure 
that it is covered by the listing decisions on acceptable
substitutes, 
and to add the company to the vendor list. The Agency believes 
that specific information on vendors of acceptable substitutes 
would be useful to companies switching out of class I and II 
compounds. 
   g. Communication of SNAP determination. (1) SNAP determinations 
on 90-Day notifications. EPA's determinations on SNAP submissions 
that come as a result of the 90-day advance notification
requirement 
will take the form of either adding substances to the list of 
acceptable substitutes or by proposing to add them to one of 
the following lists: acceptable subject to use conditions,
acceptable 
subject to narrowed use limits, or unacceptable substitutes. 
   (2) Communication of SNAP determination to the submitter. 
Once Agency review has been completed, the submitter will be 
notified in writing of the determination under SNAP. At this 
time, the submitter will also be informed if any restrictions 
are attached to the acceptability of a substitute. Following 
the expiration of 90 days after submitting advance notification 
to EPA, companies may begin sale or manufacture of a new
substitute. 
They may continue to sell or manufacture an existing substitute 
through the review period, unless and until the Agency places 
such substitute on the list of unacceptable substitutes as a 
result of rulemaking. Sale or manufacture may begin and continue 
even if the Agency fails to reach a decision or notify the
submitter 
of that decision within 90 days of advance notification of EPA. 
   (3) Communication of SNAP determination to the public. (a) 
Federal Register notice. To provide the public with updated 
information on SNAP determinations, the Agency will publish 
in the Federal Register a complete list of the acceptable and 
unacceptable alternatives reviewed to date. This list will be 
published four times each year and will include recent decisions 
made under the SNAP program. In addition to the quarterly
publications, 
the Agency will communicate decisions through a clearinghouse 
and outreach program, as discussed in the next section, as well 
as through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection hotline. 
   (b) Outreach and clearinghouse. Section 612(b)(4) requires 
the Agency to maintain a public clearinghouse of alternative 
chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing 
processes that are available as replacements for class I and 
II chemicals. The clearinghouse will distribute information 
on substitutes that are acceptable under the SNAP program. For 
the convenience of companies wishing to identify substitutes, 
the Agency will maintain a list of vendors selling substitutes 
as discussed in section VII.A.3.f. 
   In addition, the Agency will enter data on substitutes into 
the Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System (PPIES) 
database, which is maintained by EPA's Office of Research and 
Development. This database contains information on numerous 
pollution prevention options for a wide variety of industrial 
sectors and chemicals. PPIES can also be accessed from a variety 
of other pollution prevention databases maintained by other 
federal agencies and industry. 

4. Decision-Making Framework 

   a. Decisions by substitute and use. As required by section 
612(c), the Agency must publish a list of substitutes unacceptable 
under the SNAP program and a list of acceptable alternatives 
for specific uses. Given that environmental exposure and risk 
profiles can change significantly from one end-use to the next, 
it is essential to evaluate and list substitutes in the context 
of their intended use. The Agency identified a number of end-
uses in each sector by which to list substitutes, and section 
IX provides risk management decisions for many existing substitutes

in each of the principal sectors. 
   The Agency will be as specific as possible in listing
substitutes 
by providing exact chemical names of substitutes. For most
substitutes, 
a broad chemical classification (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons, 
or HCFCs) is not specific enough because of differences among 
chemicals belonging to each of these groups. Thus, where
appropriate, 
EPA will provide a more specific description of the substitute 
by application. 
   The Agency anticipates two possible exceptions to this practice.

The first is where release of the chemical identity of a substitute

constitutes release of proprietary information. In that event, 
the Agency will report generic chemical names based on chemical 
classes as described in section V.C. The other exception would 
be in cases where the Agency believes that a more general
categorization 
is needed to account for the diversity of possible chemicals 
used in a particular set of substitutes. For example, in the 
solvents cleaning sector, many substitutes are formulations 
composed of compounds drawn from several categories of chemicals. 
In this case, the toxicity profile of each chemical is similar 
to those of other chemicals in that class. 
   b. Decision categories. Under section 612, the Agency has 
considerable discretion in the risk management decisions it 
can make in SNAP. In this final rule, the Agency has identified 
five possible decision categories, as described below. Commenters 
suggested that there was confusion with the Agency's intent 
to designate some substitutes as acceptable subject to narrowed 
use limits versus unacceptable except for critical use exemptions. 
In response to these comments, the Agency has determined that 
the goal of both categories was to limit the use of a substitute 
that had generally unacceptable characteristics yet provide 
relief for specialized applications within an end-use where 
no other alternatives exist. Given the similarity in goals, 
the decision categories have been streamlined by eliminating 
the category listed in the NPRM as ``unacceptable except for 
critical use exemptions.'' Those substitutes that were listed 
in the NPRM as proposed unacceptable except for critical use 
exemptions are listed as unacceptable in this final rule, and 
the concerns which the critical use exemption petition process 
was created to address will now be addressed as part of EPA's 
responsibilities under the section 612(d) petition process. 
   (1) Acceptable. Where the Agency has reviewed a substitute 
and found no reason to prohibit its use, it will list the
alternative 
as acceptable in the end-uses for which the submitter provided 
information. Where appropriate, the Agency may provide some 
additional comment (e.g., general recommendations encouraging 
recapture and recycling). However, these comments are not
conditions 
for use of the substitute. 
   (2) Acceptable subject to use conditions. As proposed in 
the NPRM, after reviewing a submission, the Agency may determine 
that a substitute is acceptable if certain conditions on use 
are adopted. The Agency cannot predict at this time all necessary 
restrictions, but has imposed some conditions based on substitute 
reviews already completed for this final rule. Several commenters 
supported the application of use conditions as necessary in 
providing important guidance to companies in reviewing alternative 
replacements for ODSs. While also supporting use conditions 
generally, other commenters noted that they should be used
sparingly, 
so as to create the minimum uncertainty in the regulated community 
and encourage swift transition. 
   The Agency agrees with these comments. In this final rule, 
any conditions imposed will depend on the risks involved and 
the substitute and application in question. For example, the 
Agency may impose conditions on the use of a substitute and 
require recycling equipment to limit workplace and ambient releases

or require use of other control practices within a certain
application. 
Where a substitute is found acceptable subject to conditions 
on uses, use without adherence to the conditions in the relevant 
end-use is prohibited in this final rule. Determinations of 
acceptability subject to use conditions will only be made pursuant 
to notice-and-comment rulemaking. 
   In implementing conditions on use, the Agency has sought 
to avoid overlap with existing regulatory authorities. EPA has 
taken a number of steps to mitigate this potential for duplication.

First, EPA intends to restrict the use of conditions to cases 
in which clear regulatory gaps exist. Second, these existing 
regulatory gaps must render the use of a substitute an unreasonable

risk in the absence of any additional controls. Third, in the 
limited cases in which conditions may be necessary, the Agency 
will impose them only as a result of formal notice-and-comment 
rulemaking. Finally, use conditions will be effective only until 
other appropriate regulatory controls are imposed under other 
authorities and will be withdrawn by the Agency when they are 
superseded by such controls. 
   (3) Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. The Agency 
cannot restrict use of a substitute under SNAP if there are 
no technically feasible alternatives to the use of an ozone-
depleting compound. Thus, EPA may approve a compound not for 
general use within a sector, but for use only within certain 
specialized applications within a sector end-use. EPA refers 
to these restrictions as narrowed use limits. For example, the 
Agency could list a substitute with a generally unfavorable 
environmental or human health effect as acceptable in certain 
specific metals cleaning applications in the solvents cleaning 
sector. This would allow transition away from the damaging ozone-
depleting compounds to proceed, by allowing industry the
flexibility 
to use in narrow niche applications a substitute which provides 
the only means of transition. At the same time, the narrowed 
use determination prevents a widespread shift of an entire sector 
to substitutes which overall do not offer the risk reduction 
available through the use of other alternatives. 
   Clearly, any limits imposed will depend on the risks involved 
and the substitute and application in question. To provide adequate

opportunity for comment by the regulated community, EPA will 
complete notice-and-comment rulemaking before promulgating any 
finding that a substitute is acceptable only subject to a narrowed 
use limit. 
   In implementing narrowed use limitations, the Agency has 
sought to allow agents for specific uses that would otherwise 
be deemed unacceptable. This policy serves the larger goal of 
facilitating the fastest possible transition from ozone-depleting 
compounds by expanding the list of alternatives available to 
all applications within a sector end-use category. EPA recognizes 
that certain sector end-uses encompass a broad range of
applications, 
manufacturing processes and products. Under the acceptable for 
narrow use category, EPA will accept a substitute for use only 
in certain specialized uses within the broader end-use. The 
intent of the narrowed use limitation is to restrict the use 
of a substitute that the Agency deems unacceptable for the full 
range of applications or products within a sector end-use category.

Where a substitute is found acceptable subject to narrowed use 
limits, general use within the relevant end-use is prohibited. 
   Before users adopt a restricted agent within the narrowed 
use limits category, they must make a reasonable effort to
ascertain 
that other substitutes or alternatives are not technically
feasible. 
Users are expected to undertake a thorough technical investigation 
of alternatives before implementing the otherwise restricted 
substitute. The Agency expects users to contact vendors of
alternatives 
to explore with experts whether or not other acceptable substitutes

are technically feasible for the process, product or system 
in question. To further assist users in their evaluation, EPA 
has prepared a list of vendors manufacturing other substitutes. 
Although users are not required to report the results of their 
investigation to EPA, companies must document these results, 
and retain them in company files for the purpose of demonstrating 
compliance. Both the Vendor List and the Guidance Manual are 
available from the SNAP program, or through EPA's Stratospheric 
Ozone Protection Hotline. 
   In October 1993, the President directed EPA through the Climate 
Change Action Plan (CCAP) to use its authority under section 
612 of the Clean Air Act to narrow the uses of CFC substitutes 
with high global warming potential. Because EPA is simultaneously 
also interested in promoting the broader shift away from ozone-
depleting compounds, EPA will make every effort to assure that 
these limits on use will be imposed in ways that preserve as 
much flexibility as possible for those trying to move to
alternatives. 
   In this final rule, EPA has imposed narrowed use limitations 
on the acceptability of perfluorocarbon (PFC) substitutes when 
used in solvent cleaning, and fire suppression. EPA has imposed 
these limitations because of the high global warming potential 
and long atmospheric lifetimes of the PFC compounds as compared 
with other alternatives available for the same end-uses. Comparable

limitations on the use of refrigerants and aerosols containing 
PFCs are also likely to be proposed shortly. In the case of 
fire suppression and explosion protection, EPA has taken the 
approach of narrowing uses to prevent or delay emissions of 
global warming gases. This is preferable to the outright
prohibitions 
EPA would otherwise be authorized to impose where other
alternatives 
are available, because in these limited cases users may have 
no other feasible alternatives to continued reliance on ozone-
depleters. 
   Through the notice and comment rulemaking process, other 
companies or vendors will be able to scrutinize the proposed 
narrowed use limits. This may bring to light new alternatives 
or processes of which the user and EPA are unaware, and these 
new alternatives may pose lower overall risks than the substances 
which have been the subject of the narrowed use designation. 
If an acceptable listing is revoked based on the availability 
of a new, lower-risk alternative, companies that have made
investments 
in technology which was earlier deemed as having no alternatives 
available may be granted permission to extend their use for 
a limited period of time, consistent with EPA's grandfathering 
approach described above in section VI.B. 
   The Agency has prepared guidance describing additional
documentation 
users should include for narrowed use applications. This
information 
includes descriptions of: 
    Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 
    Substitutes examined and rejected; 
    Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, 
technical or safety standards; and/or 
    Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and 
projected time for switching. 
   In addition to this basic information, the guidance includes 
specific data for end-uses in each sector. The guidance is
available 
from the SNAP program. 
   (4) Unacceptable. The Agency has the authority under section 
612(c) to prohibit the use of a substitute believed to present 
adverse effects to human health and the environment where
alternatives 
that reduce overall risk are available. The Agency will only 
use this provision where it has identified other substitutes 
that are currently or potentially available and that pose lower 
overall risks. Substitutes will be listed as unacceptable through 
the rulemaking process. 
   (5) Pending. The Agency will describe submissions for which 
the 90-day review period is underway and for which EPA has not 
yet reached a final decision as pending. For all substitutes 
in the pending category, the Agency will contact the submitter 
to determine a schedule for providing the missing information 
if the Agency needs to extend the 90-day review period. EPA 
will use the authority under section 114 to gather this
information, 
if necessary. Again, a delay of the review period will not affect 
a manufacturer's ability to sell a product 90 days after
notification 
of the Agency as described above. 
   c. Implications of other regulatory requirements. In evaluating 
substitutes, the SNAP program takes into consideration the
regulatory 
requirements of other environmental and health protection statutes 
(e.g., the Clean Water Act or the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act). In considering the framework of existing regulatory
constraints, 
the Agency's evaluation of alternatives will assume compliance 
with their provisions. 
   However, it will not be possible to factor in regulatory 
requirements that are still under development (e.g., more stringent

requirements to control volatile organic compounds and hazardous 
air pollutants under title I and title III of the CAA). In these 
instances, a substitute may be deemed acceptable under SNAP, 
but is not thereby excused from compliance with any future
regulations. 
The Agency does not believe that it was the intent of Congress 
to use the authority under section 612 to compromise other
regulatory 
requirements. Should future regulations severely limit the
availability 
of the only acceptable substitute for a specific end-use, EPA 
would reconsider the advisability of keeping any other alternatives

which could be used in that application on the list of unacceptable

substitutes. 

5. EPA-Generated Review of Substitutes 

   In addition to SNAP notifications received under section 
612 for substitute review, the Agency is authorized by section 
612(c) to add or delete alternatives to the list of reviewed 
substitutes on its own initiative. EPA has many efforts under 
way to identify and communicate the availability of promising 
new alternatives. These include support for research efforts 
to study and focus attention on future substitutes, involvement 
in the United Nations Environment Programme's biannual assessment 
of technologies for key sectors currently using ozone-depleting 
chemicals, and technology transfer projects with industry, other 
federal agencies, and developing nations. Based on information 
available through these activities, EPA may initiate review 
of new substitutes under section 612. In each case, the next 
planned quarterly Federal Register notice updating the status 
of SNAP determinations will inform the public that EPA is
initiating 
a review, subject to the provisions discussed in this final 
rule. Similarly, determinations ultimately reached as a result 
of these internally-generated reviews will be included in these 
quarterly updates. 

B. Joint Review of New Substitutes under SNAP and TSCA PMN 


1. Applicability 

   Any potential SNAP submitter who intends to introduce a new 
chemical (i.e., a chemical not currently included in the TSCA 
inventory) as an alternative for a class I or class II chemical 
must undergo review not only under section 612, but under section 
5 of TSCA (the Premanufacture Notice program) as well. Because 
of the overlap in statutory authority, the Agency has established 
a joint review process between the SNAP and TSCA Premanufacture 
Notice (PMN) programs. This process has been structured to minimize

reporting burden and to ensure consistency in decisions between 
the two programs. The following sections describe the joint 
review and decision-making process in more detail. 

2. Data Submission Requirements and Process 

   a. SNAP and PMN forms. The Agency has reviewed the data
submission 
needs for the SNAP and PMN programs and found significant overlap. 
In general, the Agency has identified only a few additional 
data elements beyond those already required by the PMN program 
that should be included for review under the SNAP program. These 
elements are: 
    Ozone depletion potential.
    Global warming potential.
    Cost of using the substitute, including:
-Chemical replacement data.
-Chemical cost data.
-Incremental equipment expenditures (either new or retrofit) 
  needed to use substitute.
-Information on the cost implications of changes in energy
consumption 
  (e.g., from the use of a less or more energy-efficient
refrigerant).
    Documentation of testing results regarding the flammability 
of substitutes, especially when proposed for consumer applications.

   Given this overlap, a submitter requesting a review under 
both the SNAP and PMN programs should provide the above information

by following these steps: 
    Complete the PMN form (EPA Form 7710-25) following the 
Instructions Manual currently available through the TSCA Assistance

Information Service. 
    Indicate on page 11 of the PMN form, ``Optional Pollution 
Prevention Information,'' that the chemical to be reviewed is 
also to be considered under the SNAP program. 
    Complete a SNAP addendum that requests information only 
on those items listed above. (The addendum can be obtained from 
the SNAP program, or EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline.)

   The completed PMN form (EPA Form 7710-25) will remain the 
basis for all information needed to complete review of the new 
chemical under section 5 of TSCA. The completed PMN form and 
the SNAP addendum together will comprise the data submission 
for section 612 review and listing decisions for new chemicals. 
This approach is intended to minimize the reporting burden on 
submitters. 
   The Agency will modify the PMN Instructions Manual to provide 
more explicit direction on how to complete the SNAP addendum. 
A SNAP submitter may also consult the SNAP Guidance Manual, 
which is available from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline.

Any questions regarding the completion of these forms can be 
directed to either the PMN Pre-notice Coordinator or the SNAP 
program. 
   b. Submission of completed forms. Both the PMN and SNAP programs

have a review period of 90 days, subject to suspensions and 
extensions described in section VII.A. for the SNAP program 
and in the PMN final rule (40 CFR 720.75). To ensure that new 
chemical submissions are reviewed and decided on jointly, the 
Agency encourages submitters to provide both the PMN form and 
SNAP addendum to the PMN and SNAP coordinators. Failure to provide 
both programs with the requested information at the same time 
could result in delays in the review of a submitter's notice 
seeking acceptance of a new chemical as a class I or II substitute 
concurrent with review under the PMN program. 
   c. Procedures for handling confidential business information. 
The Agency recognizes that, where appropriate, information
submitted 
to the PMN and SNAP programs may need to be held confidential. 
EPA has determined that all CBI submitted as part of the joint 
PMN/SNAP review should be maintained and treated in a manner 
consistent with TSCA security procedures. Confidentiality claims 
will be processed and reviewed in a manner consistent with 40 
CFR part 2, subpart B. This approach was selected because the 
majority of data provided to SNAP under the joint review process 
will come from the PMN form. Submitters should note that while 
TSCA and CAA may have different language describing CBI handling 
procedures, there is no substantive difference in how CBI is 
maintained under the two statutes. 

3. Agency Review of New Substitutes under PMN and SNAP 

   a. Preparation of public docket and Federal Register notices. 
Once the letter of receipt has been issued, the PMN program 
will prepare a public docket and Federal Register notice, as 
described in the final rule for the PMN program (40 CFR 720.75). 
The PMN program manager will consult with the SNAP program in 
preparing the notice. 
   b. Joint review process. EPA will complete joint evaluations 
of new chemicals serving as class I or II substitutes under 
section 5 of TSCA and section 612 of the CAA. This joint review 
process will be coordinated to ensure that there is consistency 
in the final decisions made under the PMN and SNAP programs. 
To ensure agreement in the decisions, EPA offices will work 
in concert to develop toxicity, exposure, and risk profiles 
for those substitutes and applications that come under joint 
TSCA and CAA review authority. The Agency will also coordinate 
its review of the completeness of the information supplied and 
any subsequent data requests to minimize the reporting burden 
on the submitter. Submitters should note that Agency decisions 
to restrict production of particular chemicals under TSCA will, 
in the case of joint PMN/SNAP applications, also have the effect 
of restricting production of substitutes undergoing review under 
the SNAP program. However, companies that produce substitutes 
only being reviewed under the SNAP program are not required 
to cease production during the SNAP review period in the case 
of existing substitutes, and in the case of new substitutes, 
manufacturers may introduce the substitute into interstate commerce

90 days after submitting their complete notification to EPA. 
   As part of the review, the PMN and SNAP programs will work 
to arrive at a consistent decision regarding the new chemical 
under review. Consequently, listing decisions under SNAP will 
reference any conditions also incorporated into the PMN review 
(e.g., submission of additional toxicity information, restrictions 
on use, etc.). 
   If a substitute meets the conditions for general PMN approval 
but not for SNAP acceptability, the company may produce and 
market the substance in question once the 90-day period has 
elapsed. However, EPA will commence a rulemaking to prohibit 
the use of the substitute as a class I or II substitute. If 
the chemical fails to meet the conditions for PMN approval, 
the submitter is barred from producing the chemical and
consequently 
is effectively barred from marketing the product as a substitute 
for a class I or II compound. Submitters should note, however, 
that CAA section 612 places considerable emphasis on identifying 
and promoting the use of substitutes which, relative to others, 
reduce overall risks to human health and the environment. To 
the extent a substitute offers such risk reduction, EPA will 
make every effort to facilitate production and use of that
alternative. 
   c. Communication of decision. The PMN program will use the 
existing TSCA regulatory framework for communicating decisions 
on the new substitute to the submitter. The SNAP program will 
provide public notice of decisions regarding the acceptability 
or unacceptability of a substitute following the process described 
in section VII.A.3.g. EPA will contact the submitter to determine 
how best to list the substitute under the SNAP program if necessary

to protect the confidentiality of the alternative. 

C. Joint Review of Substitutes under SNAP and FIFRA 


1. Background on Use of Ozone-Depleting Chemicals in Pesticides 

   Certain pesticides are formulated with class I and II chemicals.

Examples include the use of methyl chloroform
(1,1,1-trichloroethane) 
as an inert ingredient, or the use of methyl bromide as an active 
agent. Pesticide products that contain class I and II compounds 
must be reformulated as these chemicals are phased out of
production 
pursuant to Clean Air Act section 604. This section describes 
how the Agency will handle reviews of these changes. 

2. Applicability 

   Any new pesticide or amendment of an existing formulation 
is already subject to Agency approval under current provisions 
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 
Public Law 100-460, 100-464 to 100-526, and 100-532. However, 
as of the effective date of the SNAP program, new pesticides 
or formulation changes based on class I or class II substitutes 
will also be subject to review under section 612 of the CAA. 
These authorities apply in all cases where a manufacturer amends 
a pesticide product to replace chemicals being phased out under 
CAA section 602 or 604. Similarly, registrations of new pesticide 
products will also be subject to SNAP review if the new formula 
contains chemicals functionally replacing class I or class II 
compounds which would otherwise have been used in the new pesticide

formulation. 

3. Review Responsibilities Under FIFRA and CAA/SNAP 

   In general, review responsibilities for pesticide products 
under the CAA SNAP program will focus on a substance's ozone 
depletion and global warming potential. The FIFRA reviews will 
address factors commonly examined during pesticide amendments 
and registrations. The two program offices responsible for these 
reviews will coordinate their efforts at critical junctures 
and share pertinent data to ensure appropriate technical
consideration 
of the substitute. 

4. Data Submission Requirements and Process 

   a. Preparation of applications. The Agency has reviewed the 
data submission needs for the SNAP and FIFRA pesticide
amendment/registration 
process and found no significant overlap. Because there is so 
little overlap, the Agency requires that a submitter requesting 
review under both SNAP and the Office of Pesticide Programs' 
(OPP) pesticide amendment/registration process submit all
information 
ordinarily required for the OPP process as well as a fully
completed 
SNAP information form. A copy of the FIFRA form should be submitted

to OPP, and a copy of the SNAP form should be submitted to the 
SNAP Coordinator. The SNAP form can be obtained from the SNAP 
program. For further guidance, SNAP submitters may also consult 
the SNAP Guidance Manual, which is available from the Stratospheric

Ozone Protection Hotline. 
   If a registrant is submitting an amendment to a product
registration 
under FIFRA that currently contains a class I or II substance, 
he or she should note in section II (``Amendment Information'') 
of the FIFRA form that the amendment was filed in response to 
the CAA production phase-out. Similarly, if a registrant is 
submitting an application for a new pesticide registration that 
would otherwise have been based on a class I or II compound, 
he or she should note in Section II of the FIFRA form that the 
registration includes a class I or II substitute. 
   The submitter should also identify in Section II both the 
substitute chemical and the class I or II compound it is replacing.

Further, if a registrant is aware that a particular chemical 
intended for use as a class I or II substitute in a pesticide 
formulation has already been accepted through earlier SNAP/FIFRA 
determinations, the registrant should also reference the relevant 
part of the prior review. 
   b. Review of applications. When the Agency receives the FIFRA 
application and SNAP submission, it will log each into the relevant

tracking systems: the OPP's tracking system for the FIFRA
application 
and the SNAP tracking system for SNAP submissions. If the FIFRA 
application is identified in section II as a Clean Air Act
substitution, 
the FIFRA program coordinator will contact EPA's SNAP program 
to ask if the substitute has been the subject of any prior SNAP 
reviews. If the registrant's substitute is already on the list 
of unacceptable substitutes, EPA will notify the registrant 
that the amendment request cannot be granted. If the registrant's 
substitute is already on the list of acceptable substitutes, 
EPA will proceed with the standard FIFRA application review. 
If a chemical substitute is not listed under existing SNAP
determinations 
but is a substitute for an ozone-depleting compound, EPA will 
inform the registrant that a SNAP review must commence. 

5. Communication of Decision 

   Once EPA review is complete, the Agency will notify the
registrant 
whether the new formulation or proposed formulation change is 
acceptable. At the same time, the Agency will amend the SNAP 
determinations to reflect these findings and will publish the 
revised determinations in the next quarterly Federal Register 
notice. Submitters should note that, because of the shared
authority 
to review substitutes under both SNAP and FIFRA, formulators 
may not sell amended or new formulations subject to FIFRA until 
they have received FIFRA approval. 

D. Shared Statutory Authority with the Food and Drug Administration


   The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 
321, provides for the safety and effectiveness of drugs and 
therapeutic devices, the purity and wholesomeness of foods, 
and the harmlessness of cosmetics. Under this statute, the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the packaging of food 
products and incidental additives and requires predistribution 
clearance of medical devices. 
   As defined in the FDCA, medical devices can include any devices,

diagnostic products, drugs, and drug delivery systems. Devices 
covered under this jurisdiction are subject to review under 
the FDCA. Some medical devices and food packaging currently 
contain class I or II compounds. The Agency has determined that 
such products are exempt from further review for human health 
effects under the SNAP program where FDA approval of such effects 
is required before a product can be introduced into commerce. 
EPA will rely in its SNAP determination on FDA's conclusions 
regarding health effects. The Agency believes this exemption 
is justified because of the higher burden of proof placed on 
submitters under the FDCA. However, the Agency will continue 
to evaluate all other environmental effects of the proposed 
substitute, and will consult with the FDA to determine the
appropriate 
course of action. 

VIII. Petitions


A. Background 


1. Role of Petitions 

   Section 612(d) of the CAA explicitly states that ``any person 
may petition the Administrator to add a substance * * * or to 
remove a substance from either of such (prohibited or safe use) 
lists.'' The petition provision serves two principal needs. 
The first is to permit the appeal of existing Agency determinations

under the SNAP program. The second is to provide a mechanism 
for individuals and organizations to bring to the Agency's
attention 
new information on substitutes that could affect existing listing 
determinations or result in new ones. 
   The opportunity for outside parties to comment on existing 
listing decisions is an important aspect of the petition process. 
As discussed in the section on notifications, companies that 
produce substitutes must submit specific data on the substitutes 
to the Agency for review. However, organizations and private 
citizens other than those required to submit SNAP notices may 
have additional information about existing substitutes or
information 
on new substitutes not yet reviewed by the Agency. To ensure 
that the SNAP determinations are based on the best information 
on substitutes, it is essential that the Agency offer a means 
for such information to be incorporated into the SNAP analyses 
on a continuing basis. 
   Before individuals, organizations, or companies may initiate 
legal action against EPA for the purpose of changing the lists 
of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes, they must first exhaust 
all administrative remedies for receiving such relief, including 
remedies like the petition process described in this section. 

2. Types of Petitions 

   Five types of petitions exist: 
   (1) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed 
under the SNAP program to the acceptable list; 
   (2) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed 
under the SNAP program to the unacceptable list; 
   (3) Petitions to delete a substitute from the acceptable 
list and add it to the unacceptable list or to delete a substitute 
from the unacceptable list and add it to the acceptable list; 
   (4) Petitions to add or delete use restrictions on an
acceptability 
listing, and 
   (5) Petitions to grandfather general use of an unacceptable 
or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in specified
applications 
substitute. 
   Petitioners should note that the first type of petition is 
comparable to completing a SNAP submission, except that the 
latter is submitted by substitute producers prior to the
introduction 
into interstate commerce of the substitute for a significant 
new use as a class I or II substitute. The first type of petition, 
by contrast, would generally be initiated by entities other 
than the company responsible for producing the substitute.
Companies 
that manufacture, formulate, or use a substitute themselves 
and want to have their substitutes added to the acceptable list 
should submit information on the substitute under the 90-day 
advance notification review program. 

3. Basis for Petition 

   A petitioner may submit a petition for several reasons,
including: 
    Availability of new information on substitutes or applications 
not covered in the existing SNAP determinations; 
    Requests to extend effective date for existing prohibitions 
on uses of an unacceptable substitute; 
    New technologies or practices that reduce exposures to 
a substitute previously unacceptable under SNAP due to toxicity 
concerns; or 
    Requests for acceptability subject to narrowed use limits 
listing for specialized applications within a sector end-use 
for an unacceptable substitute where no other technologically 
viable substitute can be found. 
   All of the above are examples of valid justifications for 
submitting a petition. Other bases for petitioning the Agency 
may exist as well, and all petitions with adequate supporting 
data will receive consideration under the SNAP program. 

4. Nature of Response 

   The Agency will only review and grant or deny petitions based 
on the sector and end-use application identified in the petition. 
For example, simply because the Agency ultimately deletes a 
substitute from the list of acceptable substitutes for a particular

end-use in the solvents cleaning sector does not mean the
substitute 
is unacceptable for any specific end-use as a refrigerant. A 
similar caveat applies for petitions on applications within 
a sector. If a substitute, for instance, is found acceptable 
for a specific end-use within an application, it will not
automatically 
be deemed acceptable for any other end-use in that sector. 

B. Content of the Petition 

   The Agency requires the following information: A brief statement

describing the type of petition, substitute, sector and end-
uses to which it applies; and a brief summary of the basis for 
the petition and the data that support the petition. As with 
SNAP submissions, the Agency will issue a determination letter 
on the completeness of the petition to the petitioner within 
15 calendar days of its receipt. 
   Petition types (1) and (2) must contain the information
described 
in section V.B. of this notice, which lists the items to be 
submitted in a 90-day notification. Information requirements 
for such petitions and 90-day notifications are the same, since 
the Agency will be applying the same level of analysis to petitions

submitted by outside parties as to notifications received from 
the producing companies themselves. For petition types (3) and 
(4), which request a reexamination of a substitute previously 
reviewed under the SNAP program, the submitter may reference 
the prior submission rather than submit duplicate information. 
In this case, the petitioner should provide and submit as
appropriate 
any new or additional data. Petitions to grandfather use of 
an unacceptable substitute must describe the applicability of 
the four-part test to judge the appropriateness of Agency
grandfathering 
as described in section VI.B. of this final rule. 

C. Sufficiency of Data 

   Petitioners should be aware that insufficient data may prevent 
the Agency from reaching a timely decision on whether to grant 
or deny a petition. EPA will conclude a completeness review 
of each petition received within fifteen days of receipt of 
the petition. Within the 15-day period, EPA will inform the 
petitioner of any additional information needed. If EPA makes 
no such request, then after the 15-day period is completed, 
the 90-day review period will automatically commence. If EPA 
does request any additional data, the 90-day period shall not 
commence until the additional data are received and themselves 
reviewed for completeness. 
   As provided in section 612(d), any petition must ``include 
a showing by the petitioner that there are data on the substance 
adequate to support the petition.'' Petitioners may provide 
citations to scientific literature, where appropriate. However, 
submitters are advised that furnishing copies of supporting 
articles, reports, or letters will expedite the review process. 
   If the Agency receives a petition with insufficient data, 
EPA will not commence review until the petitioner submits the 
missing information to the best of the petitioner's ability. 
EPA will inform the petitioner when the petition is complete 
for purposes of initiating the 90-day review period. To the 
extent the petitioner does not have the required information, 
EPA may also seek data from sources other than the petitioner, 
including manufacturers or users of products that contain the 
substitute. In such cases, section 612(d) explicitly provides 
that ``the Administrator shall use any authority available to 
the Administrator, under any law administered by the Administrator,

to acquire such information.'' These authorities include section 
114 of the CAA as well as information collection provisions 
of other environmental statutes. Where EPA cannot obtain sufficient

data within the statutory 90-day review period, the Agency may 
deny the petition for lack of adequate technical support. 

D. Criteria for Evaluating Petitions 

   In evaluating petitions, the Agency will follow the same 
criteria as for review of the SNAP Information Notice which 
notifies EPA of the intent to introduce a substitute into
interstate 
commerce. This will ensure that both petitions and notifications 
are judged by the same standards. 

E. Petition Review Process 


1. Petition Submittal 

   This final rule describes a generic petition process. Petitions 
should be sent to the docket number listed in the beginning 
of this final rule as well as to the SNAP Coordinator. 

2. Petition Reviews 

   When the Agency receives a petition, it will log the petition 
into the SNAP tracking system. If the petition concerns a
substitute 
previously either found acceptable or unacceptable under the 
SNAP program, the Agency will as a courtesy contact the initial 
submitter of that substitute. 
   The Agency will grant or deny the petition within 90 days 
of receiving a complete application. If the Agency grants a 
petition to add a substitute to the list of unacceptable
substitutes 
or to remove a substitute from either list, the decision will 
be made through notice and comment rulemaking. In such cases, 
the statute requires EPA to propose, take comment on, complete 
final action, and publish the revised lists within six months 
of the grant of the petition. Otherwise, responses to petitions, 
including explanations of petition denials, will be included 
in the next 3-month Federal Register notice updating the SNAP 
determinations. Regardless of the final determination, the Agency 
will inform petitioners within 90 days whether their request 
has been granted or denied. 

IX. Listing of Substitutes


A. Overview 

   This section presents EPA's listing decisions for class I 
substitutes in the following industrial sectors: Refrigeration 
and air conditioning, foam blowing, solvents cleaning, fire 
suppression and explosion protection, sterilants, aerosols, 
tobacco expansion and adhesives, coatings and inks. Parts D 
through K below present a detailed discussion of the substitute 
listing determinations for each of the major use sectors. Tables 
that summarize listing decisions in this section are included 
in appendix B. Listings of substitutes within the pesticides 
sector will be added in future notices, as information on these 
substitutes becomes available to the Agency. This final rule 
focuses on substitutes for class I substances, given the
accelerated 
production phaseout schedule for class I substances. One of 
the goals of SNAP is to encourage transition away from class 
I substances as rapidly as possible. SNAP will begin analyzing 
alternatives to class II substances in the near future. Results 
of these analyses will appear in quarterly updates to the SNAP 
lists, which will be published in the Federal Register as described

in Sections III.C.4. and VII.A.3.g. of this final rule. 
   To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,

EPA conducted screens of health and environmental risks posed 
by various substitutes for class I compounds in each use sector. 
These screens are presented in individual background documents 
entitled ``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I 
Ozone-Depleting Substances'' for each use sector. These background 
documents are available for review in the public docket supporting 
this rulemaking. Whenever the initial risk screen indicated 
a potential risk, the substitute was evaluated further to ascertain

whether the potential risk was accurately estimated and if
management 
controls could reduce any risk to acceptable levels. 
   Based on these analyses, EPA classified as unacceptable only 
uses of substitutes that pose significantly higher human health 
and environmental risks than those risks that would accrue through 
either continued use of the class I substances themselves or 
through use of other available substitutes. 
   The assessments presented in the background documents are 
screens of the comparative risks posed by use of substitutes, 
not assessments or rankings of the absolute risks associated 
with use of each substitute. Designating a substitute as acceptable

does not imply the absence of risks for that substitute, but 
rather that the substitute in question is believed to present 
lower overall risks than both the class I compound it is replacing 
and other substitutes available for the same end-use. For instance,

in some cases, ozone-depleting substances can be replaced by 
chemicals with known toxicity or ability to contribute to ground-
level ozone formation. The Agency's risk screen analyzes these 
effects, and the SNAP determinations generally describe as
acceptable 
those substitutes for which risks from replacements would be 
lower on an overall basis compared to risks from other existing 
alternatives, or for which such risks could be managed by
developing 
and implementing appropriate regulatory controls. Additionally, 
in cases where the Agency has listed a substitute as unacceptable, 
it has assessed-as required in section 612-the availability 
of other substitutes and concluded that alternatives with reduced 
overall risk are currently or potentially available. 
   As a rule, the Agency did not evaluate the technical performance

of a substitute, since the purpose of the SNAP program is to 
examine environmental effects of substitutes identified as being 
of commercial interest regardless of technical acceptability. 
However, in certain sectors, performance of the substitute does 
pertain directly to environmental or health effects. For example, 
in refrigeration, the ability of a refrigerant replacement to 
serve as a coolant will directly influence the substitute's 
energy efficiency, which in turn will affect the substitute's 
environmental effects. Similarly, in fire suppression, the ability 
of a substitute to put out fires and thereby save human lives 
will directly affect a substitute's health effects. Further, 
in the case of narrowed use listings, the Agency's decision 
to grant or deny a narrowed use petition may hinge on the ability 
of potential substitutes to meet technical performance criteria. 
For example, in the case of certain specialized solvents, some 
substitutes otherwise considered unacceptable may require special 
consideration because they are the only available substitute 
offering performance characteristics deemed essential in a certain 
application. In cases such as these, the SNAP analyses do consider 
the performance of a substitute as necessary. 
   EPA's evaluation of each substitute in an end use is based 
on the following types of information and analyses: 
    Atmospheric effects are assessed by predicting ozone depletion 
and analyzing total global warming potential, including chemical 
properties relevant to global warming. Ozone depletion is based 
on market penetration of a substitute and is measured in terms 
of cumulative ClX loadings and its effect in terms of increased 
incidence of skin cancer cases and skin cancer mortalities. 
Analysis of total global warming potential includes changes 
consideration of inherent properties such as atmospheric lifetime 
and absorption spectra, as measured by the GWP index, and from 
changes in fossil fuel use due to increases or decreases in 
energy efficiency resulting from production or use of the
substitutes. 
Atmospheric lifetime is considered as an indicator of the likely 
persistence of an environmental effect or of the time lag to 
reverse any known or unknown effect associated with an emission. 
The model used by the Agency to determine atmospheric effects-
the Atmospheric Stabilization Framework model-has been used 
by the Agency in calculating the benefits from the phase-out 
of class I substances. The model was peer-reviewed in connection 
with this earlier analysis. 
   Although scientific studies have pointed to the possibility 
of ecological effects due to ozone depletion, such as crop damage, 
the scope of existing studies is limited and therefore these 
effects were not part of this analysis. 
    Exposure assessments are used to estimate concentration 
levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general 
population, and environmental receptors may be exposed, and 
over what period of time. These assessments are based on personal 
monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Otherwise, 
exposures are assessed using measured or estimated releases 
as inputs to mathematical models. Exposure assessments may be 
conducted for many types of releases, including releases in 
the workplace and in homes, releases to ambient air and surface 
water, and releases from the management of solid wastes. 
    Toxicity data are used to assess the possible health and 
environmental effects from exposure to the substitutes. If
Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved or EPA-wide 
health-based criteria such as Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs, 
for occupational exposure), inhalation reference concentrations 
(RfCs, for noncarcinogenic effects), or cancer slope factors 
(for carcinogenic risk) are available for a substitute, exposure 
information is combined with this toxicity information to explore 
any basis for concern. Otherwise, toxicity data are used with 
existing EPA guidelines to develop health-based criteria for 
interim use in these risk characterizations. 
    Flammability is examined as a possible safety concern for 
workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using 
data on flash point and flammability limits (e.g., OSHA
flammability/combustibility 
classifications), data on testing of blends with flammable
components, 
test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted 
by independent laboratories, and information on flammability 
risk minimization techniques. 
    Some of the substitutes are volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs), chemicals that increase tropospheric air pollution by 
contributing to ground-level ozone formation. Local and nationwide 
increases in VOC loadings from the use of substitutes is also 
evaluated. 

In conducting these assessments, EPA made full use of previous 
analyses performed by the Agency, including EPA's 1990 interim 
hazard assessments and supporting documentation. These analyses 
were modified in some cases to incorporate more recent data, 
such as data received in public comment on the May 12, 1993 
NPRM, or to accommodate different analytical approaches as needed. 
Finally, these analyses assume that the regulated community 
complies with applicable requirements of other statutes and 
regulations administered by EPA (e.g., recycling requirements 
promulgated under the CAA) and other Federal agencies (e.g., 
any occupational exposure limits set by OSHA). 

   Acceptable substitutes within specific use sectors may be 
listed as hazardous wastes or, because of flammability,
corrosivity, 
reactivity or toxicity characteristics, must be managed as
hazardous 
wastes. The regulatory status of three chlorinated hydrocarbons 
(trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene) which 
could serve as substitutes for ODCs are highlighted in section 
IX. of this final rule. However, other chemicals listed as
acceptable 
substitutes are also RCRA-regulated, and the RCRA regulations 
should be consulted when application of a specific substitute 
for an ozone-depleting substance is being considered. 
   Should additional data become available that would help
characterize 
the risks of substitutes, the Agency will incorporate this data 
into its risk screens. For example, the risk screen does not 
at present include assessment of the environmental transformation 
products of substitutes. Research efforts of the Agency in
cooperation 
with the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability 
Study (AFEAS) are in progress and are intended to define the 
chemical, biological and photochemical sinks for these substances 
in the biosphere. Ultimately, these research activities will 
contribute to the development of more complete ecological risk 
assessments for substitutes. However, the Agency generally does 
not believe that a more detailed characterization of risks would 
lead to a different listing decision for individual substitutes 
unless effects are characterized as highly severe, since the 
critical comparison for policy purposes remains the adverse 
effects posed by continued use of a class I compound. 
   The listing of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes under 
SNAP will continue. Thus, if a company is not yet able to provide 
the Agency with the information needed to complete a review 
of a substitute, a review can be completed in the future, when 
data become available. Once the data are complete, Agency review 
will begin, as discussed in sections IV. through IX. of this 
final rule. 

B. Format for SNAP Determinations 

   Sections IX.D. through IX.K. below present the decisions 
on acceptability of substitutes that EPA has made based on
available 
information and the evaluation criteria (see Section V of this 
final rule). These sections describe the sector end-uses (e.g., 
industrial process refrigeration), the substitutes evaluated, 
the decision (i.e., acceptable or unacceptable) and associated 
rationale, any conditions for or limitations on the use of a 
substitute, and any general comments. 
   In most cases, the end-use descriptions have been written 
broadly to encompass numerous industrial applications or uses. 
Based on discussions with industry, the Agency felt that this 
approach was preferable to listing substitutes by narrowly-defined 
applications, which would increase needlessly the number of 
SNAP notices that would be received by the Agency. The objective 
of section 612 is to ensure that replacement of class I and 
II substances with available substitutes will reduce adverse 
effects on human health and the environment. In general, the 
Agency can look at exposures from very broad classifications 
of use (e.g., metals cleaning) and perform the screening analysis 
to ensure that this statutory objective is being met. It is 
not necessary or helpful, for example, to list acceptable
substitutes 
by each specific type of metal being cleaned in the solvents 
cleaning sector. This is especially true when conservative
assumptions 
used in the screening analysis demonstrate the acceptability 
of an alternative in a wide range of end-uses. Where possible, 
the substitutes presented in sections D. through K. have been 
identified by their chemical name. Generally speaking, EPA has 
not listed substitutes by product or company name in order to 
avoid implied endorsement of one substitute over another. However, 
there are two circumstances in which specific chemical names 
have not been included. First, where proprietary blends have 
been identified as substitutes, the Agency has worked with the 
manufacturers to identify generic ways in which the substitute 
could be listed. Before a user invests in a substitute in these 
categories, they may wish to contact the SNAP program to confirm 
that the specific substitute they intend to use has been reviewed 
and found acceptable by EPA. EPA believes that if a potential 
user identifies the substitute by a product name that EPA has 
on record, but was not included on the list for the reasons 
stated above, EPA can confirm the listing of the substitute 
without violating safeguards important to protect any proprietary 
business information provided in confidence to the Agency. 
   The second situation in which EPA does not anticipate listing 
specific chemicals arises in the solvents cleaning sector,
primarily 
for aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners. In this area, numerous 
cleaning formulations exist and are comprised of a wide variety 
of chemicals. As discussed in the section below on solvents 
cleaning alternatives (see section IX.F.), the Agency performed 
its screening assessment by identifying representative chemicals. 
These were then used to screen a wide variety of chemicals grouped 
into categories of solvent-cleaning constituents (e.g.,
saponifiers, 
surfactants, etc.). Information on these chemicals presented 
in the risk screen was used as a basis for determining that 
aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners present lower risk than the 
chemicals they are replacing. 
   EPA has selected this strategy for listing as acceptable 
aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners for several reasons. First, 
it should minimize the need to submit SNAP notices for blends 
of compounds that are combinations of the chemicals which have 
already been approved. Second, it will allow EPA to avoid listing 
proprietary formulations. 
   Any conditions for use included in listing decisions are 
part of the decision to identify a substitute as acceptable. 
Thus, users would be considered out of compliance if using a 
substitute listed as acceptable without adhering to the conditions 
EPA has stipulated for acceptable use of the alternative.
Alternatively, 
where restrictions are set which narrow the acceptable applications

within an end-use, a user would be considered out of compliance 
if using the compound in an end-use application where such use 
is unacceptable. Conditions, if any, are listed when it is clear 
that a substitute can only be used safely if certain precautions 
are maintained. As noted previously, any conditions will be 
imposed in the listing of substitutes as acceptable through 
rulemaking. 
   The comments contained in the table of listing decisions 
found in summary form in Appendix B provide additional information 
on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the regulatory 
decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. Nor 
should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect 
to other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.

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

C. Decisions Universally Applicable 

   Recently, the Agency has become aware of substitute mixtures 
that are being marketed as replacements for both class I and 
II chemicals. In situations where these mixtures are a combination 
of class I and II chemicals, they may serve as transitional 
chemicals because they offer environmental advantages in that 
they have a lower combined ODP than use of a class I compound 
by itself. However, where EPA has identified a non-ozone depleting 
alternative that reduces overall risk to human health and the 
environment, mixtures of class I and II substances shall be 
unacceptable or subject to use limits. 
   There have been a few instances in which mixtures of class 
I and II chemicals have been marketed as replacements for class 
II chemicals. Because the ODP of such alternatives is clearly 
higher than the class II substances, the Agency is prohibiting 
the use of any class I and class II mixture as a replacement 
for a class II chemical. Where the Agency is aware of specific 
mixtures falling into this category, they are listed by individual 
use sector below. The remainder of this section presents the 
initial listing decisions for each of the following end use 
sectors:

D. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 
E. Foam Blowing 
F. Solvents Cleaning 
G. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection 
H. Sterilants 
I. Aerosols 
J. Tobacco Expansion 
K. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks 

D. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 


1. Overview 

   The refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all 
uses of Class I and Class II substances to transfer heat. Most 
end-uses in this sector involve mechanically moving heat from 
a cool region to a warmer one. For example, a car's air conditioner

moves heat from the cooled interior to the hot ambient air. 
   This sector also includes heat transfer end-uses, i.e. those 
uses of Class I and Class II substances to move heat from a 
warm region to a cool one. For example, CFC-114 is currently 
used to remove excess heat from a very hot uranium enrichment 
process to cooler ambient air. Hence, the process requires no 
additional energy, and does not create refrigeration by mechanical 
means. 
   Mechanical systems generally use a vapor compression cycle. 
However, several alternative cycles have been used for decades; 
these and other alternatives are being re-examined in light 
of the phaseout of commonly used CFC-based refrigerants in 1996. 
Substitutes reviewed under SNAP may use alternative cycles; 
review is not restricted solely to applications based on replacing 
the working fluid in vapor compression equipment. Similarly, 
simple heat transfer end-uses will also be included. 
   The refrigeration and air conditioning sector is divided 
into the following end-uses: 
    Commercial comfort air conditioning; 
    Industrial process refrigeration systems; 
    Industrial process air conditioning;
    Ice skating rinks; 
    Uranium isotope separation processing; 
    Cold storage warehouses; 
    Refrigerated transport; 
    Retail food refrigeration; 
    Vending machines; 
    Water coolers; 
    Commercial ice machines; 
    Household refrigerators; 
    Household freezers; 
    Residential dehumidifiers; 
    Motor vehicle air conditioning; 
    Residential air conditioning and heat pumps; and 
    Heat transfer. 
   EPA has not necessarily reviewed substitutes in every end-
use. 
   The following discussion provides some distinctions among 
the various end-uses in the refrigeration and air conditioning 
sector. 
   a. Chillers. CFCs are used in several different types of 
mechanical commercial comfort air conditioning systems, known 
as chillers. These chillers cool water, which is then circulated 
through a building. They can be classified by compressor type, 
including centrifugal, reciprocating, scroll, screw, and rotary. 
The selection of a particular compressor type generally depends 
on the cooling capacity required. Reciprocating and scroll
compressors 
are used in small capacity applications (less than 200 tons), 
screw compressors are used in medium capacity applications (50 
to 400 tons), and centrifugal compressors are used in large 
capacity applications (greater than 300 tons). The majority 
of the chillers used in the United States are centrifugal chillers.

Chillers have a lifetime of 23 to 40 years. EPA anticipates 
that over time, existing cooling capacity will be either
retrofitted 
or replaced by systems using non-CFC refrigerants in a vapor 
compression cycle or by alternative technologies. 
   b. Industrial process refrigeration systems. Many industrial 
applications require cooling of process streams. These applications

include systems designed to operate in a wide temperature range. 
Included within this category are industrial ice machines and 
ice rinks. The choice of substitute for specific applications 
depends on ambient and required operating temperatures and
pressures. 
   c. Ice skating rinks. Skating rinks frequently use secondary 
refrigeration loops. They are used by the general public for 
recreational purposes. 
   d. Industrial process air conditioning. Ambient temperatures 
near 200 degrees Fahrenheit and corrosive conditions make this 
application distinct from commercial and residential air
conditioning. 
Units in this end-use provide comfort cooling for operators 
and protect process equipment. 
   e. Uranium isotope separation processing. This end-use includes 
operation of a heat transfer cycle to cool uranium isotope
separation 
processing. Substitutes must meet an extremely rigorous set 
of criteria to be applicable in this end-use. 
   f. Cold storage warehouses. Cold storage warehouses are used 
to store meat, produce, dairy products and other perishable 
goods. The majority of cold storage warehouses in the United 
States use ammonia as the refrigerant in a vapor compression 
cycle.
   g. Refrigerated transport. Refrigerated transport moves products

from one place and climatic condition to another, and include 
refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway freight cars, 
and other shipping containers. Refrigerated transport systems 
are affected by a number of inherent complications not found 
with other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses. In route, 
the refrigerated units may be subject to a broad range of ambient 
temperatures. Engine-driven transport units suffer power
interruptions 
when either the unit or the vehicle is out of use for brief 
periods of time (e.g., loading and unloading and fuel stops). 
Refrigerated units are designed to provide the maximum amount 
of space available for containment of the product to be
transported. 
Refrigerated transport equipment must be versatile to allow 
for the different temperature requirements for the different 
products (e.g., ice cream versus fresh produce) which may be 
transported.
   h. Retail Food Refrigeration. This end-use includes all cold 
storage cases designed to chill food for commercial sale. Equipment

in this end-use is generally designed for two temperature regimes: 
Low temperature cases operating below freezing and medium
temperature 
units merely chilling food. In addition to grocery cases, the 
end-use includes convenience store reach-in cases and restaurant 
walk-in refrigerators. Icemakers in these locations are discussed 
under commercial ice machines.
   i. Vending machines. Vending machines are self-contained 
units which dispense goods that must be kept cold or frozen. 
Like equipment in other end-uses, the choice of substitute will 
strongly depend on ambient conditions and the required operating 
temperature.
   j. Water coolers. Water coolers are also self-contained and 
provide chilled water for drinking. They may or may not feature 
detachable containers of water.
   k. Commercial ice machines. These units are used in commercial 
establishments to produce ice for consumer use, e.g., in hotels, 
restaurants, and convenience stores. Thus, the cleanliness of 
the ice is important. In addition, the machines are typically 
smaller in size than industrial equipment. Commercial ice machines 
are typically connected to a building's water supply.
   l. Household refrigerators. Household refrigerators are intended

primarily for residential use, although they may be used outside 
the home. Approximately 159 million units exist in the U.S., 
where the average residential refrigerator is an 18.4 ft3 automatic

defrost unit with a top mounted freezer. Cooling is provided 
by a conventional single evaporator unit in a vapor compression 
cycle. The evaporator is located in the freezer compartment, 
and cooling to both compartments is typically achieved by
mechanically 
driven air exchange between the compartments.
   m. Household freezers. Household freezers only offer storage 
space at freezing temperatures, unlike household refrigerators. 
Two model types, upright and chest, provide a wide range of 
sizes.
   n. Residential dehumidifiers. Residential dehumidifiers are 
primarily used to remove water vapor from ambient air for comfort 
purposes. While air conditioning systems often combine cooling 
and dehumidification, this application serves only the latter 
purpose. Since air is cooled as it flows over the evaporator, 
it loses moisture through condensation. It is then warmed as 
it passes over the condenser coil. Dehumidifiers actually slightly 
warm the surrounding air, since the compressor adds heat to 
the cycle.
   o. Motor vehicle air conditioning. Motor vehicle air
conditioning 
systems (MVACS) provide comfort cooling for passengers in cars, 
buses, planes, trains, and other forms of transportation. MVACS 
pose risks related to widely varying ambient conditions, accidents,

do-it-yourself maintenance, and the location of the evaporator 
inside the passenger compartment. Given the large number of 
cars in the nation's fleet, and the variety of designs, new 
substitutes must be used in accordance with established retrofit 
procedures.
   Flammability is a concern in all applications, but the
conditions 
of use and the potential for accidents in this end-use increase 
the likelihood of a fire. In addition, the number of car owners 
who perform their own routine maintenance means that more people 
will be exposed to potential hazards. Current systems are not 
designed to use flammable refrigerants. 
   p. Residential air conditioning and heat pumps. HCFC-22, 
a class II substance, is the dominant working fluid in residential 
air conditioning and heat pumps. This end-use includes both 
central units and window air conditioners. SNAP will begin
analyzing 
class II substance substitutes in the near future. Results of 
these analyses will appear in quarterly updates in the Federal 
Register.
   q. Heat transfer. This end-use includes all cooling systems 
that rely on convection to remove heat from an area, rather 
than relying on mechanical refrigeration. There are, generally 
speaking, two types of systems: Systems with fluid pumps, referred 
to as recirculating coolers, and those that rely on natural 
convection currents, referred to as thermosiphons.

2. Substitutes for Refrigerants

   Substitutes fall into eight broad categories. Seven of these 
categories are chemical substitutes generally used in the same 
cycle as the ozone-depleting substances they replace. They include 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 
hydrocarbons, blends of refrigerants, ammonia, perfluorocarbons 
(PFCs), and chlorine systems. The eighth category includes
alternative 
technologies that generally do not rely on vapor compression 
cycles.
   a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). EPA believes that
hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
have an important role to play as transitional refrigerants. 
HCFCs are chemically similar to CFCs except that they contain 
hydrogen in addition to chlorine and fluorine. Because their 
thermophysical properties are, in many cases, similar to CFCs, 
equipment designed to use CFCs can often be retrofitted to operate 
with HCFCs. In addition, new equipment can be designed specifically

for these compounds.
   HCFCs contribute to the destruction of stratospheric ozone, 
but to a much lesser extent than CFCs. Use of HCFCs as transitional

refrigerants will allow industry to move away from CFCs more 
rapidly and, therefore, will offer significant environmental 
and health benefits over the continued use of CFCs. Because 
they contain hydrogen, the HCFCs break down more easily in the 
atmosphere than do CFCs, and therefore have lower ODPs. Their 
global warming potentials are also lower than those for the 
CFCs. Production of HCFCs is controlled under the international 
agreement set forth in the Montreal Protocol, which is being 
implemented in the U.S. through the Clean Air Act. HCFCs were 
initially scheduled to be phased out by 2030. As a result of 
growing evidence indicating greater risks of ozone depletion, 
however, the international community agreed in Copenhagen in 
November 1992 to accelerate the phaseout of the ozone-depleting 
compounds, including HCFCs. As a result, EPA published an
accelerated 
phaseout of HCFCs on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018). The proposed 
accelerated schedule places production and consumption limits 
on the most potent ozone-depleting HCFCs first, with the production

of HCFCs with lower ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) permitted 
over a longer period of time. There are clear environmental 
and health benefits to be gained by allowing near-term use of 
HCFCs until substitutes with zero ODP are developed.
   b. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Hydrofluorocarbons do not contain 
chlorine and do not contribute to destruction of stratospheric 
ozone. However, some HFCs do have significant global warming 
potentials (GWPs). Although a few HFCs have been in use for 
some time, the potential for HFCs as a replacement for CFCs 
has grown rapidly over the last several years. EPA is concerned 
that rapid expansion of the use of some HFCs could contribute 
to global warming. Nonetheless, HFCs as a class offer lower 
overall risk than continued use of CFCs, as well as a near-term 
option for moving away from CFCs.
   c. Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons do not contain chlorine or 
bromine; they therefore also have zero ODP. Hydrocarbons degrade 
in the lower atmosphere, contributing to ground-level pollution 
such as smog, but they do not contribute directly to global 
warming. Propane, ethane, propylene, and to some extent butane 
are used as refrigerants in specialized industrial applications, 
primarily in oil refineries and chemical plants, where they 
are frequently available as part of the process stream and where 
their use contributes only a slight increment to the overall 
risk of fire or explosion. Because of the overall risks, these 
systems are designed to meet rigid requirements for reliability, 
durability, and safety.
   Hydrocarbon refrigerants are also used in some home appliances. 
In general, they are effective refrigerants and may provide 
some gains in efficiency over CFCs. EPA believes refrigeration 
end-uses may exist for this class of compounds, but such
determinations 
will require analysis of appropriate controls to address the 
risk of fire.
   d. Blends. Blends of refrigerants offer significant
opportunities 
for alternatives to class I substances. The number of single-
substance substitutes is limited; combinations greatly expand 
the number of possible refrigerants. By varying the concentrations 
of the constituents, manufacturers may design blends for specific 
end-uses.
   Blends generally fall into two categories: azeotropes and 
zeotropes. Azeotropes behave like single refrigerants under 
normal conditions. They boil and condense at constant temperature 
and do not change composition across a phase change. Zeotropes, 
however, exhibit temperature glide, meaning that as the refrigerant

flows across a heat exchanger, the temperature changes in response 
to differential boiling or condensing of different constituents 
in the blend. Known as fractionation, this process may pose 
additional risks if any of the blend's components are flammable, 
even if the blend as formulated is not. On the other hand,
equipment 
designed to take advantage of zeotropic blends may reap energy 
efficiency gains. EPA expects blends to play an important role 
in the transition away from ODSs. 
   In some cases, the specific components of blends, as well 
as their proportions, are confidential business information; 
in others, only the proportions are confidential. With respect 
to both types of blends, however, listings in this final rule 
and in future updates will refer to only those blends which 
have been submitted for review. Although several companies may 
submit blends with the same components, only those compositions 
specifically reviewed under SNAP will be listed as acceptable. 
ASHRAE has issued numerical designations for many blends. All 
blends will be assigned a generic name for use in public notices. 
Substitutes that were included in the proposed rule will retain 
the same generic names, but the listing will include any available 
ASHRAE designations. Blends submitted since the proposed rule 
will be listed using the ASHRAE designation when available. 
If ASHRAE has not issued its designation, they will be assigned 
new names. In most cases, the discussion in the listings will 
include the blends' components. Blends that contain HCFCs will 
be labeled ``HCFC Blend Alpha'', ``HCFC Blend Beta'', etc. This 
designation is intended to ease identification of blends which 
must be handled in accordance with other regulations described 
below. Blends that have zero ODP will be given similar names 
that describe their major components. An information sheet listing 
the trade names and manufacturers of the blends, along with 
a vendor list, may be obtained by contacting the SNAP refrigerants 
sector expert.
   e. Ammonia. Ammonia has been used as a medium to low temperature

refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years. 
Ammonia has excellent refrigerant properties, a characteristic 
pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low cost. 
It is, however, moderately flammable and toxic, although it 
is not a cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute 
short-term exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia.
   Ammonia is used as the refrigerant in meat packing, chicken 
processing, dairy, frozen juice, brewery, cold storage, and 
other food processing and industrial applications. It is also 
widely used to refrigerate holds in fishing vessels. Some
absorption 
refrigeration and air conditioning systems use ammonia as well.
   f. Perfluorocarbons. Unlike CFCs, HCFCs or HFCs,
perfluorocarbons 
(PFCs) are fully fluorinated compounds. The principal environmental

characteristic of concern for these compounds is that they have 
extremely long atmospheric lifetimes, often orders of magnitude 
longer than those of the CFCs. These long lifetimes cause the 
PFCs to have very high global warming potentials. Technology 
for containment and recycling of PFCs is commercially available 
and is recommended by manufacturers to offset any possible adverse 
environmental effects.
   One advantage of the PFCs is that, like HFCs, they do not 
contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, these chemicals 
are nonflammable and exhibit low toxicity, and they are not 
subject to federal regulations concerning volatile organic
compounds 
(VOCs), since they do not contribute to ground-level ozone
formation.
   The Agency anticipates that in widespread use, these compounds 
pose higher overall risk compared to other available alternatives 
because of their relatively long lifetimes and associated high 
GWPs. Because of these concerns, the Agency has found acceptable 
only certain narrowly defined uses of perfluorinated compounds, 
prohibiting their use where other alternatives with lower overall 
risk are available. EPA has described these limited acceptable 
uses as specifically as possible. Further, users should be aware 
that, because of the environmental concerns detailed above, 
any proposed uses of PFCs outside those described in this final 
rule should be submitted for future review under SNAP.
   g. Chlorine. Chlorine was listed in the proposed regulation 
as an alternative refrigerant in chlorine liquefaction, a
processing 
step in the manufacture of the chemical. When chilled below 
its boiling point, chlorine can be stored as a liquid at
atmospheric 
pressure, a method that for safety reasons is preferable to 
storing the chemical as a pressured gas at ambient temperatures. 
Although the refrigeration system will generally be physically 
separate from the actual chlorine process stream, compatibility 
of the refrigerant with liquid chlorine is critical because 
of chlorine's high reactivity. CFC-12 has been widely used because 
it does not react with chlorine.
   Systems using chlorine as a refrigerant require specialized 
compressors designed to resist chemical attack by liquid and 
gaseous chlorine. EPA has determined that chlorine can be safely 
used in refrigeration systems associated with chlorine-containing 
industrial process streams. Such systems must be designed and 
operated with the same safety considerations that apply to the 
process stream. In particular, OSHA regulates this use under 
its standard for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous 
Chemicals (29 CFR 1910.119).
   h. Alternative technologies. Several technologies already 
exist as alternatives to equipment using class I substances. 
As a result of the CFC phaseout, they are gaining prominence 
in the transition away from CFCs. Examples of these technologies 
include evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling, and absorption 
refrigeration and air conditioning. In addition, several
technologies 
are currently under development. Significant progress has expanded 
the applicability of these alternatives, and their environmental 
benefits generally include zero ODP and low direct GWP. In
addition, 
evaporative cooling offers significant energy savings, which 
results in reduced indirect GWP.

3. Comment Response

   a. Comments on acceptable substitutes. A commenter opposed 
listing the use of HCFC-123 as acceptable because of toxicity 
concerns. EPA has conducted worker exposure studies which indicate 
that exposure can be limited to 1 ppm, substantially below the 
industry-established acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 30 ppm. 
Based on these studies, EPA remains confident that HCFC-123 
can be used safely when standard industrial hygiene practices 
are followed. It is important to note, too, that the AEL is 
a long-term exposure limit. Safety measures to limit short-term 
exposures are important for all refrigerants.
   Another commenter informed EPA that chlorine-based refrigeration

systems are generally physically separated from chlorine-containing

process streams. This separation invalidates the analogy to 
hydrocarbon-based systems for industrial process refrigeration. 
Hence, EPA's final determination that chlorine is acceptable 
for this end-use includes the acknowledgement of OSHA standards 
dictating safety considerations in the design and operation 
of such systems.
   b. Other comments. Several commenters requested additional 
end-use categories, while others requested greater aggregation. 
Some aggregation is necessary to minimize confusion and the 
analysis of small differences among similar applications. Yet 
EPA also recognizes that certain end-uses are fundamentally 
different from others. In the NPRM, EPA identified major end-
uses within the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. For 
purposes of the final rule, EPA is reluctant to change the end-
use categories from those listed in the proposed rule. Retaining 
the original end-uses serves the goal of creating the certainty 
needed to encourage transition away from ozone-depleting
substances.
   However, this final rule does combine substitute listings 
for various refrigerants within each end-use. For example,
industrial 
process refrigeration now includes substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-
12, and R-502. The risk screens conducted by EPA analyzed the 
use of substitutes within an end-use; the chemical being replaced 
was usually not relevant to the analysis. Because it may be 
important to distinguish among substitutes for certain substances 
if they exhibit significantly different operational
characteristics, 
such as condensing pressure or typical ambient conditions, the 
listings do not combine centrifugal chillers into one end-use. 
Rather, retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and CFC-114 chillers 
remain separate.
   A commenter proposed that all blends consisting of individually 
acceptable components be deemed acceptable. EPA believes that 
blends pose analytical difficulties not encountered with single 
refrigerants. Blends, unlike single compounds, have the potential 
to separate into components during normal use and during leaks. 
This process is called fractionation, and it is caused by
differences 
in vapor pressure among the constituents.
   For example, as a zeotropic blend enters the evaporator, 
it is a liquid until it absorbs enough heat to reach the boiling 
point of the component with the highest vapor pressure. As this 
portion boils away, the remaining components will have a higher 
overall boiling point, and the temperature will rise until the 
second component begins to vaporize. This process may continue 
until all the refrigerant is in vapor phase, or some may remain 
a liquid even at the exit from the evaporator. Azeotropes and 
near-azeotropes, however, exhibit small changes in temperature 
in these two-phase parts of the system, and do not undergo
significant 
composition changes during normal use.
   During normal operation, pressure across the condenser and 
evaporator remains relatively constant. During a leak, however, 
system pressure decreases. In addition, the refrigerant is exposed 
to ambient temperatures. As a result, fractionation is possible 
during a leak when both vapor and liquid are present, even for 
azeotropes.
   As with all substitutes, flammability and materials
compatibility 
testing are necessary for blends. For azeotropes, these data 
are necessary for the single composition during normal operation. 
For zeotropes, such testing is necessary at all compositions 
occurring during normal operation. In addition, such tests should 
be conducted during multi-phase leaks for all blends to determine 
the extent and effects of fractionation. Even if the blend is 
nonflammable as formulated, enrichment of a flammable component 
through fractionation could result in a flammable mixture. In 
addition, materials compatible with the blend as formulated 
may not retain that compatibility if fractionation results in 
a substantially different composition. Therefore, EPA believes 
it is not appropriate to automatically find all blends of
acceptable 
components also acceptable. Only specific compositions will 
be designated acceptable, as described earlier.
   Several commenters believed EPA was unclear in its distinctions 
between new and retrofit substitutes. In response, EPA has
clarified 
this difference in this final rule. A tension exists between 
deeming substitutes acceptable for as wide a range of end-uses 
as possible and providing some guidance to users on effective 
substitutes. 
   Several commenters suggested duplicating listings for retrofits 
and new equipment, but that duplication does not always serve 
the goal of disseminating information about viable substitutes. 
Certain substances may not be attractive for long-term use because 
they contain HCFCs, and thus may only be listed for retrofits. 
Alternatively, substitutes may not be easily implemented as 
a retrofit. It should be noted, however, that an acceptability 
determination for use in new equipment or as a retrofit option 
does not imply that the alternative is unacceptable for use 
in the other category. 
   The retrofit category within each end-use refers to the use 
of substitutes with some modification to existing equipment 
but without changing every component. Generally speaking, retrofit 
refrigerants will not require completely new systems or redesign. 
Drop-in replacements require minimal retrofitting, as in cases 
where only the refrigerant needs to be replaced. 
   The new equipment category within each end-use refers to 
the use of substitutes in entirely new systems. No existing 
components will be used. This designation may be used for
refrigerants 
which may require significant design changes. For example, use 
of a flammable substitute may require some design changes to 
mitigate potential risk. Submitters must demonstrate how those 
risks can be addressed in new designs. In addition, alternative 
technologies often require entirely different systems. For example,

evaporative cooling does not use a vapor compression cycle, 
and therefore cannot be used as a retrofit option. 
   For purposes of submissions, the retrofit and new use categories

should be considered separate end-uses and listed separately 
on the submission form. 

4. Listing Decisions 

   a. Acceptable substitutes. These determinations are based 
on data submitted to EPA and on the risk screen described in 
the draft background document entitled ``Risk Screen on the 
Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances:
Refrigerants''. 
In accordance with the guiding principles for SNAP, substitutes 
were compared both to the substance they replace and to each 
other. 
   EPA believes the use of all acceptable substitutes presents 
lower overall risk than the continued use of an ozone-depleting 
substance. Not all substitutes will necessarily be appropriate 
choices for all systems within an end-use. Engineering decisions 
must take into account factors such as operating temperatures 
and pressures, ambient conditions, and age of equipment, especially

during retrofits. For example, under industrial process
refrigeration, 
both HFC-134a and HCFC-22 are listed as acceptable for retrofits. 
However, these substances exhibit significantly different
thermodynamic 
characteristics, and both may not be appropriate for use within 
a given system. EPA believes such decisions are most appropriately 
made by the equipment owner, manager, or contractor. 
   Users of HCFCs should be aware that an acceptability
determination 
shall not be construed to release any user from compliance with 
all other regulations pertaining to class II substances. These 
include: (a) The prohibition against venting during servicing 
under section 608, which was effective July 1, 1992; (b) recycling 
requirements under section 608, which were effective July 13, 
1993; (c) section 609 regulations regarding MVACS which were 
effective August 13, 1992; and (d) the revised production phaseout 
of class II substances under section 606, which was published 
on December 10, 1993. In addition, users of non-chlorine
refrigerants 
should be aware that an acceptability determination shall not 
be construed to release any user from conformance with the venting 
prohibition under section 608(c)(2), which takes effect November 
15, 1995, at the latest. 
   Substitutes are listed as acceptable by end-use. These
substitutes 
have only been found acceptable for use in the specific end-
uses for which they have been reviewed, as described in this 
section. Users of blends should be aware that EPA has evaluated 
and found acceptable in each case only the specific percentage 
composition submitted for review; no others have been evaluated. 
EPA strongly recommends that users of alternative refrigerants 
adhere to the provisions of ASHRAE Standard 15-Safety Code for 
Mechanical Refrigeration. ASHRAE Standard 34-Number Designation 
and Safety Classification of Refrigerants is a useful reference 
on refrigerant numerical designations. Users are also strongly 
encouraged to contain, recycle, or reclaim all refrigerants. 
   (1) CFC-11 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-123. 
HCFC-123 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in retrofitted 
centrifugal chillers. Because HCFC-123 contributes to ozone 
depletion, it is considered a transitional alternative. Since 
it poses much lower ozone-depleting risk than continued use 
of CFCs, EPA has determined that its use is acceptable for these 
end-uses. In addition, HCFC-123's GWP and atmospheric lifetime 
are significantly lower than almost any other alternatives. 
HCFC-123 is not flammable. Since HCFC-123 is classified as a 
B1 refrigerant pursuant to ASHRAE standard 34, ASHRAE requires 
that a refrigerant vapor detector be placed in the machinery 
room. EPA strongly recommends that users of HCFC-123 adhere 
to this requirement and any other requirements provided in ASHRAE 
Standards 15 and 34. Worker-monitoring studies conducted by 
EPA demonstrate that HCFC-123's 8-hour time-weighted average 
concentration can be maintained at or under 1 ppm (less than 
the industry-established AEL of 30 ppm), provided that such 
standards are followed. 
   (2) CFC-12 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a. 
HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted 
centrifugal chillers. HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone 
depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric lifetime are close 
to those of other alternatives which are acceptable in this 
end-use. While HFC-134a is compatible with most existing
refrigeration 
and air conditioning equipment parts, it is not compatible with 
the mineral oils currently used in such systems. An ester-based 
lubricant should be used rather than mineral oils. 
   (3) CFC-113 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. No substitutes 
have been identified for CFC-113 in retrofitted centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (4) CFC-114 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-124. 
HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in retrofitted 
centrifugal chillers. Because HCFC-124 contributes to ozone 
depletion, it is considered a transitional alternative. However, 
it represents a much lower ozone-depleting risk than the continued 
use of CFCs. In addition, HCFC-124's GWP and atmospheric lifetime 
are significantly lower than other alternatives. HCFC-124 is 
not flammable. 
   (5) R-500 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a. HFC-
134a is acceptable as a substitute for R-500 in retrofitted 
centrifugal chillers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under
retrofitted 
CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (6) CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 Centrifugal 
Chillers, New. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123 is acceptable as a substitute

for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal 
chillers. See the discussion on HCFC-123 under retrofitted CFC-
11 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-114 in new centrifugal chillers. See the discussion on HCFC-
124 under retrofitted CFC-114 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal
chillers. 
HCFC-22 has been used in a variety of air conditioning and
refrigeration 
applications for many years. Like HCFC-123, HCFC-22 contributes 
to ozone depletion and is considered a transitional alternative. 
HCFC-22 exhibits a higher ODP than HCFC-123, and production 
of it will be phased out according to the accelerated phase 
out schedule. HCFC-22's GWP and atmospheric lifetime are higher 
than other HCFCs. HCFC-22 is not flammable and is it compatible 
with existing oils used in most refrigeration and air conditioning 
equipment. 
   (d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal 
chillers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-
12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (e) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal 
chillers. HFC-227ea is a new chemical that has not seen widespread 
use. It contains no chlorine, so it does not contribute to ozone 
depletion. HFC-227ea's GWP and atmospheric lifetime are higher 
than those of other alternatives which are acceptable in this 
end-use. HFC-227ea is also being investigated as a component 
of several blends. 
   (f) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal
chillers. 
Ammonia does not deplete the ozone or contribute to global warming.

Ammonia is flammable and toxic, but it may be used safely if 
existing OSHA and ASHRAE standards are followed. Users should 
check local building codes related to the use of ammonia. 
   (g) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative Cooling is acceptable 
as an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers using CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Evaporative cooling 
does not contribute to ozone depletion or global warming and 
has the potential to be more energy efficient than current
refrigeration 
and air conditioning systems. Evaporative cooling uses no
chemicals, 
but relies instead on water evaporation as a means of cooling. 
It is in widespread use in office buildings in the western U.S. 
Recent design improvements have greatly expanded its applicability 
to other regions. 
   (h) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as 
an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers using CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Desiccant cooling systems 
do not contribute to ozone depletion or global warming. They 
offer potential energy savings over the use of CFC-11. Desiccant 
cooling is an alternate technology to the vapor compression 
cycle. 
   (i) Ammonia/water absorption. Ammonia/water absorption is 
acceptable as an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers 
using CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Ammonia/water 
absorption is an alternative technology to vapor compression 
cycles. Ammonia is the refrigerant, and water is the absorber. 
This alternative has zero ODP and GWP. For information on toxicity,

see the discussion of ammonia above. Users should check local 
building codes related to the use of ammonia. 
   (j) Water/lithium bromide absorption. Water/lithium bromide 
absorption is acceptable as an alternative technology to
centrifugal 
chillers using CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Some 
absorption systems use water as the refrigerant and lithium 
bromide as the absorber. Lithium bromide has zero ODP and GWP. 
It is low in toxicity and is nonflammable. 
   (k) Stirling cycle. Stirling Cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers using CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. These systems use a 
different thermodynamic cycle from vapor compression equipment. 
Helium is frequently used as the refrigerant. The Stirling cycle 
does not include a phase change. Heat transfer is accomplished 
through compression and expansion. These systems have been used 
for several decades, primarily in refrigerated transport and 
cryogenics. 
   (7) CFC-12 Reciprocating Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a. 
HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted 
reciprocating chillers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under 
retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (8) CFC-12 Reciprocating Chillers, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-
22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new reciprocating 
chillers. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new reciprocating chillers. See the discussion on 
HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new reciprocating chillers. See the discussion on 
HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (d) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative Cooling is acceptable 
as an alternative technology to reciprocating chillers using 
CFC-12. See the discussion on evaporative cooling under new 
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (e) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as 
an alternative technology to reciprocating chillers using CFC-
12. See the discussion on desiccant cooling under new CFC-11, 
CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (f) Stirling cycle. Stirling Cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to reciprocating chillers using 
CFC-12. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (9) CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 Industrial Process Refrigeration, 
Retrofit. Please note that different temperature regimes may 
affect the applicability of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration. 
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process 
refrigeration. See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted 
CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process 
refrigeration. Two of the constituents in these blends are HCFCs 
and contribute to ozone depletion, and production of these
compounds 
will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule. While 
the GWP of HCFC-22 is somewhat high, refrigerant leak regulations 
should reduce its contribution to global warming. The GWPs of 
the other components are low. Although these blends do contain 
one flammable constituent, HFC-152a, the blends themselves are 
not flammable. In addition, each blend is a near azeotrope, 
and it does not fractionate in normal operation. Finally, leak 
testing of each blend demonstrated that while the vapor and 
liquid compositions changed, neither phase became flammable. 
Testing of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,

and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer. 
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. 
   (d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process 
refrigeration. HCFC-22 contributes to ozone depletion, and will 
be phased out according to the accelerated schedule. Although 
these blends contain one flammable constituent, propane, the 
blends themselves are not flammable. In addition, the blends 
are near azeotropes, meaning they do not change composition 
between the vapor and the liquid phase. Therefore, it is unlikely 
that the blends would fractionate during normal operation,
resulting 
in an enrichment of the flammable component. Finally, while 
testing demonstrated that the vapor and liquid compositions 
changed during leaks, neither phase became flammable. Testing 
of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate, 
and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer. 
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. 
   (e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 
in retrofitted industrial process refrigeration. None of this 
blend's constituents contains chlorine, and thus this blend 
poses no threat to stratospheric ozone. However, HFC-125 and 
HFC-143a have very high GWPs. EPA strongly encourages recycling 
and reclamation of this blend in order to reduce its direct 
global warming impact. Although HFC-143a is flammable, the blend 
is not. It is an azeotrope, so it will not fractionate during 
operation. Leak testing has demonstrated that its composition 
never becomes flammable. 
   (f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, 
and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process refrigeration. None 
of this blend's constituents contains chlorine, and thus this 
blend poses no threat to stratospheric ozone. However, HFC-125 
and HFC-143a have very high GWPs, and the GWP of HFC-134a is 
somewhat high. EPA strongly encourages recycling and reclamation 
of this blend in order to reduce its direct global warming impact. 
Although HFC-143a is flammable, the blend is not. It is a near 
azeotrope, so it will not fractionate during operation. Leak 
testing has demonstrated that its composition never becomes 
flammable. 
   (g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration. 
See the discussion on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (h) Propane. Propane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration 
equipment. Propane does not contribute to ozone depletion and 
it exhibits a negligible GWP. Propane is flammable, and as such 
EPA recommends but does not require that it only be used at 
industrial facilities which manufacture or use hydrocarbons 
in the process stream. Such facilities are designed to comply 
with the safety standards required for managing flammable
chemicals. 
   (i) Propylene. Propylene is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process 
refrigeration. Propylene does not contribute to ozone depletion, 
nor does it contribute significantly to global warming. Propylene 
is a flammable refrigerant and as such, EPA recommends but does 
not require that it only be used at industrial facilities which 
already manufacture or use hydrocarbons in the process stream. 
Such facilities are designed to comply with the safety standards 
required for managing flammable chemicals. 
   (j) Butane. Butane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration. 
Butane does not contribute to ozone depletion, nor does it
contribute 
significantly to global warming. Butane is a flammable refrigerant 
and as such, EPA recommends but does not require that it only 
be used at industrial facilities which already manufacture or 
use hydrocarbons in the process stream. Such facilities are 
designed to comply with the safety standards required for managing 
flammable chemicals. 
   (k) Hydrocarbon Blend A. Hydrocarbon Blend A is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted 
industrial process refrigeration equipment. This blend does 
not contribute to ozone depletion, nor does it contribute
significantly 
to global warming. This blend contains flammable refrigerants 
and as such, EPA recommends but does not require that it only 
be used at industrial facilities which already manufacture or 
use hydrocarbons in the process stream. Such facilities are 
designed to comply with the safety standards required for managing 
flammable chemicals. 
   (l) Chlorine. Chlorine is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process 
refrigeration equipment. Chlorine is a highly reactive chemical 
and as such, EPA recommends but does not require that chlorine 
only be used at industrial facilities which manufacture or use 
chlorine in the process stream. Note, however, that OSHA's Process 
Safety Management Standards apply to the use of chlorine. 
   (10) CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 Industrial Process Refrigeration,

New. Please note that different temperature regimes may affect 
the applicability of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration. 
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration. 
See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal

chillers. 
   (c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new industrial process refrigeration. See the discussion 
on HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and 
R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process
refrigeration. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 
in new industrial process refrigeration. See the discussion 
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, 
and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration. See the
discussion 
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration. 
See the discussion on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (h) Propane. Propane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration 
equipment. See the discussion on propane under retrofitted CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (i) Propylene. Propylene is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration. 
See the discussion on propylene under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-
12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (j) Butane. Butane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration. 
See the discussion on butane under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, 
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
   (k) Hydrocarbon Blend A. Hydrocarbon Blend A is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial 
process refrigeration equipment. See the discussion on this 
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (l) Chlorine. Chlorine is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration 
equipment. See the discussion on chlorine under retrofitted 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (m) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling is acceptable 
as an alternative technology to industrial process refrigeration 
using CFC-11, CFC-12, or R-502. See the discussion on evaporative 
cooling under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 
centrifugal chillers. 
   (n) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as 
an alternative technology to industrial process refrigeration 
using CFC-11, CFC-12, or R-502. See the discussion on desiccant 
cooling under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 
centrifugal chillers. 
   (o) Nitrogen direct gas expansion. Nitrogen direct gas expansion

is acceptable as an alternative technology to industrial process 
refrigeration using CFC-12, R-500, or R-502. Nitrogen is expanded 
within an enclosed area to absorb heat. The cycle is open; the 
nitrogen is released to the atmosphere after absorbing heat 
from the container. Nitrogen is a common gas that is nontoxic 
and nonflammable. 
   (p) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to industrial process refrigeration 
using CFC-11, CFC-12, or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling 
cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 
centrifugal chillers. 
   (11) R-400(60/40) and CFC-114 Industrial Process Air
Conditioning, 
Retrofit. (a) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute 
for R-400 (60/40) and CFC-114 in industrial process air
conditioning. 
HCFC-124 has a very low ODP and GWP. HCFC-124 is the only
refrigerant 
that has been submitted for this end-use, and EPA invites more 
submissions and information related to substitutes. 
   (12) R-400(60/40) and CFC-114 Industrial Process Air
Conditioning, 
New. (a) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute for 
R-400 (60/40) and CFC-114 in industrial process air conditioning. 
HCFC-124 has a very low ODP and GWP. It is nonflammable. HCFC-
124 is the only refrigerant that has been submitted for this 
end-use, and EPA invites more submissions and information related 
to substitutes. 
   (13) CFC-12 and R-502 Ice Skating Rinks, Retrofit. Please 
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability 
of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See the discussion 
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See the
discussion 
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See the 
discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, 
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (d) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See 
the discussion on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, 
CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (14) CFC-12 and R-502 Ice Skating Rinks, New. Please note 
that different temperature regimes may affect the applicability 
of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new ice skating rinks. See the discussion on 
HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 
centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in new ice skating rinks. See the discussion 
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new ice skating rinks. See the discussion 
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (15) CFC-114 Uranium Isotope Separation Processing, Retrofit. 
(a) Cycloperfluorobutane (C4F8). Cycloperfluorobutane (C4F8) 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope 
separation processing. C4F8 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime 
and a very high GWP. The Department of Energy (DOE) has examined 
several other substitutes and none meets the requirements for 
this application. DOE is pursuing a leak reduction program which 
should further restrict emissions of this refrigerant. 
   (b) Perfluoro-n-butane (C4F10). Perfluoro-n-butane (C4F10) 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope 
separation processing. C4F10 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime 
and a very high GWP. The Department of Energy (DOE) has examined 
several other substitutes and none meets the requirements for 
this application. DOE is pursuing a leak reduction program which 
should further restrict emissions of this refrigerant. 
   (c) Perfluoropentane (C5F12). Perfluoropentane (C5F12) is 
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope
separation 
processing. C5F12 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime and 
a very high GWP. EPA strongly encourages users to pursue leak 
reduction strategies and to recover the fluid when the unit 
is retired. 
   (d) Perfluorohexane (C6F14). Perfluorohexane (C6F14) is
acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope separation
processing. 
C6F14 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime and a very high 
GWP. EPA strongly encourages users to pursue leak reduction 
strategies and to recover the fluid when the unit is retired. 
   (e) Perfluoro-n-methyl morpholine (C5F11NO). Perfluoro-n-
methly morpholine (C5F11NO) is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-114 in uranium isotope separation processing. C5F11NO is 
a PFC. It has a very long lifetime and a very high GWP. EPA 
strongly encourages users to pursue leak reduction strategies 
and to recover the fluid when the unit is retired. 
   (16) CFC-12 and R-502 Cold Storage Warehouses, Retrofit. 
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the 
applicability of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. See the 
discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-
114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. See 
the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. 
Testing of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,

and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer. 
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. For further
information, 
see the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. 
Testing of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,

and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer. 
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. For further
information, 
see the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted 
cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on this blend under 
retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process
refrigeration. 
   (f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 
in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on 
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (17) CFC-12 and R-502 Cold Storage Warehouses, New. Please 
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability 
of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion 
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion

on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on 
HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. Testing 
of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate, 
and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer. 
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. For further
information, 
see the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in new cold 
storage warehouses. See the discussion on this blend under
retrofitted 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 
in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on this blend 
under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process 
refrigeration. 
   (g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion 
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (h) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling is acceptable 
as an alternative technology to cold storage warehouses using 
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on evaporative cooling under 
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (i) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as 
an alternative technology to cold storage warehouses using CFC-
12 or R-502. See the discussion on desiccant cooling under new 
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (j) High to low pressure stepdown. High to low pressure stepdown

process is acceptable as an alternative technology to cold storage 
warehouses using CFC-12 or R-502. This process takes advantage 
of the work potential of pressurized natural gas. As its pressure 
is reduced from transmission pipes to the distribution system, 
the gas cools. This refrigeration is then used to cool a transfer 
medium such as water, which then cools the refrigerated space. 
It uses very little energy and produces no global warming
emissions, 
since the gas is not burned. 
   (k) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to cold storage warehouses using 
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under 
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (18) CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 Refrigerated Transport, Retrofit. 
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the 
applicability of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport. 
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport. 
See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal

chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport.

See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport.

See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in 
retrofitted refrigerated transport. See the discussion on this 
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and 
R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport. See the discussion 
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (19) CFC-12 and R-502 Refrigerated Transport, New. Please 
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability 
of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12, R-500, and R-502 in new refrigerated transport. See the 
discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-
114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in new refrigerated transport. See 
the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (c) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in new refrigerated transport. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (d) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in 
retrofitted new refrigerated transport. See the discussion on 
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (e) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and 
R-502 in new refrigerated transport. See the discussion on this 
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (f) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to refrigerated transport using 
CFC-12, R-500, or R-502. Stirling cycle systems have been in 
use for many years in this end-use. For further information, 
see the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (g) Nitrogen direct gas expansion. Nitrogen direct gas expansion

is acceptable as an alternative technology to refrigerated
transport 
using CFC-12, R-500, or R-502. Nitrogen is expanded within a 
refrigerated transport unit to absorb heat. The cycle is open; 
the nitrogen is released to the atmosphere after absorbing heat 
from the container. Nitrogen is a common gas that is nontoxic 
and nonflammable. It has been used successfully for many years 
in this end-use. 
   (20) CFC-12 and R-502 Retail Food Refrigeration, Retrofit. 
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the 
applicability of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See the 
discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-
114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See 
the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted retail food
refrigeration. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted retail food
refrigeration. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in 
retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See the discussion on 
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and 
R-502 in retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See the discussion 
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (21) CFC-12 and R-502 Retail Food Refrigeration, New. Please 
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability 
of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion 
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the
discussion 
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion 
on HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and 
R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in 
new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion on this blend 
under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process 
refrigeration. 
   (f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and 
R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion on 
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion 
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (h) Stirling Cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to retail food refrigeration using 
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under 
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (22) CFC-12 and R-502 Commercial Ice Machines, Retrofit. 
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the 
applicability of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted commercial ice machines. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (b) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted commercial ice machines. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (c) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in 
retrofitted commercial ice machines. See the discussion on this 
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (d) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and 
R-502 in retrofitted commercial ice machines. See the discussion 
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (23) CFC-12 and R-502 Commercial Ice Machines, New. Please 
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability 
of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion 
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion

on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the 
discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, 
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (d) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a, 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in 
new commercial ice machines. See the discussion on this blend 
under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process 
refrigeration. 
   (e) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and 
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and 
R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion on 
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (f) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion 
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (g) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to commercial ice machines using 
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under 
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (24) CFC-12 Vending Machines, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-
22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted vending 
machines. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in retrofitted vending machines. See the discussion on 
HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted vending machines. See the 
discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12 
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (25) CFC-12 Vending Machines, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is 
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new vending machines. 
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new vending machines. See the discussion on HFC-134a 
under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to vending machines using CFC-12. 
See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (26) CFC-12 Water Coolers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted water 
coolers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-
12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted water coolers. See the
discussion 
on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12 and R-502
industrial 
process refrigeration. 
   (27) CFC-12 Water Coolers, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is
acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-12 in new water coolers. See the discussion

on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new water coolers. See the discussion on HFC-134a 
under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to water coolers using CFC-12. 
See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (28) CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-22. 
HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in 
retrofitted household refrigerators. See the discussion on HCFC-
22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in retrofitted household refrigerators. See the discussion 
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted household refrigerators. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (d) HCFC Blend Alpha. HCFC Blend Alpha, which consists of 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in retrofitted household refrigerators. This blend's components 
contribute significantly less to ozone depletion than CFC-12. 
However, the two components have the highest ODPs of all
refrigerant 
alternatives, and will be phased out under the accelerated phaseout

schedule. In addition, the GWPs of the components are high compared

to most of the other alternatives in this end-use. Although 
this blend does contain a flammable constituent, testing has 
shown that the blend itself is not flammable and that it must 
experience significant fractionation before flammability becomes 
a risk. Given the small refrigerant charge size and the hermetic 
nature of refrigerators, it is unlikely for a leak resulting 
in such fractionation to occur. 
   (29) CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-
22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in new 
household refrigerators. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under 
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new household refrigerators. See the discussion on 
HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new household refrigerators. HFC-152a does not contribute

to ozone depletion. In addition, HFC-152a's GWP and atmospheric 
lifetime are significantly lower than those of most alternatives. 
Although HFC-152a is flammable, a risk assessment demonstrated 
it could be used safely in this end-use. 
   (d) HCFC Blend Alpha. HCFC Blend Alpha, which consists of 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in new household refrigerators. See the discussion on this 
blend under retrofitted CFC-12 household refrigerators. 
   (e) R200b blend. R200b blend is acceptable as a substitute 
for CFC-12 in new household refrigerators. R200b does not
contribute 
to ozone depletion. In addition, the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes

of the blend's constituents are less than those of CFC-12. However,

the GWP of one component is high compared to those of other 
alternatives for this end-use. One component of R200b is flammable,

but a risk assessment has shown that use of R200b in household 
refrigerators poses negligible additional risk of fire, given 
the hermetic nature of the equipment, the small charge, and 
the low probability of ignition. 
   (f) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to household refrigerators using 
CFC-12. Research and development efforts are underway to produce 
household refrigerators using this cycle. Further information 
is discussed under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and 
R-500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (30) CFC-12 and R-502 Household Freezers, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-
22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 
in retrofitted household freezers. See the discussion on HCFC-
22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted household freezers. See the 
discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted household freezers. See 
the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-
12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (31) CFC-12 and R-502 Household Freezers, New. (a) HCFC-22. 
HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in 
new household freezers. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under 
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in new household freezers. See the discussion 
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 and R-502 in new household refrigerators. HFC-152a does 
not contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, HFC-152a's GWP 
and atmospheric lifetime are significantly lower than those 
of most alternatives. Although HFC-152a is flammable, a risk 
assessment demonstrated it could be used safely in this end-
use. 
   (d) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to household freezers using CFC-
12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under 
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (32) CFC-12 and R-500 Residential Dehumidifiers, Retrofit. 
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the 
applicability of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in retrofitted residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion 
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in retrofitted residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion

on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of 
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted residential dehumidifiers. 
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, 
CFC-12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration. 
   (33) CFC-12 and R-500 Residential Dehumidifiers, New. Please 
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability 
of substitutes within this end-use. 
   (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in new residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion on HCFC-
22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal 
chillers. 
   (b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in new residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion 
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers. 
   (34) CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit. (a) 
HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 
in retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioners. HFC-134a does 
not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric 
lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which have 
been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However, 
HFC-134a's contribution to global warming could be significant 
in leaky end-uses such as MVACS. EPA has determined that the 
use of HFC-134a in these applications is acceptable because 
industry continues to develop technology to limit emissions. 
In addition, the number of available substitutes for use in 
MVACS is currently limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its 
toxicity is low. While HFC-134a is compatible with most existing 
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment parts, it is not 
compatible with the mineral oils currently used in such systems. 
An ester-based lubricant should be used rather than mineral 
oils. 
   (b) R-401C. R-401C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, 
and HCFC-124, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in
retrofitted 
motor vehicle air conditioners. HCFC-22 and HCFC-124 contribute 
to ozone depletion. The production of HCFC-22 will be phased 
out according to the accelerated phaseout schedule. The GWP 
of HCFC-22 is somewhat higher than other alternatives for this 
end-use. Experimental data indicate that HCFC-22 may leak through 
flexible hosing in mobile air conditioners at a high rate. In 
order to preserve the blend's composition and to reduce its 
contribution to global warming, EPA strongly recommends using 
barrier hoses when hose assemblies need to be replaced during 
a retrofit procedure. The GWPs of the other components are low. 
Although this blend does contain one flammable constituent, 
the blend itself is not flammable. In addition, this blend is 
a near azeotrope, meaning it does not change composition during 
evaporation and compression. Finally, although testing demonstrated

that the vapor and liquid compositions changed during leaks, 
neither phase became flammable.
   (35) CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, New. (a) HFC-
134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new 
motor vehicle air conditioners. HFC-134a does not contribute 
to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric lifetime 
are close to those of other alternatives which have been determined

to be acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC-134a's contribution

to global warming could be significant in leaky end-uses such 
as MVACS. EPA has determined that the use of HFC-134a in these 
applications is acceptable because industry continues to develop 
technology to limit emissions. In addition, the number of available

substitutes for use in MVACS is currently limited. HFC-134a 
is not flammable and its toxicity is low. While HFC-134a is 
compatible with most existing refrigeration and air conditioning 
equipment parts, it is not compatible with the mineral oils 
currently used in such systems. An ester-based lubricant should 
be used rather than mineral oils.
   (b) R-401C. R-401C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, 
and HCFC-124, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new 
motor vehicle air conditioners. HCFC-22 and HCFC-124 contribute 
to ozone depletion. The production of HCFC-22 will be phased 
out according to the accelerated phaseout schedule. The GWP 
of HCFC-22 is somewhat higher than other alternatives for this 
end-use. Experimental data indicate that HCFC-22 may leak through 
flexible hosing in mobile air conditioners at a high rate. In 
order to preserve the blend's composition and to reduce its 
contribution to global warming, EPA strongly recommends using 
barrier hoses when hose assemblies need to be replaced during 
a retrofit procedure. The GWPs of the other components are low. 
Although this blend does contain one flammable constituent, 
the blend itself is not flammable. In addition, this blend is 
a near azeotrope, meaning it does not change composition during 
evaporation and compression. Finally, although testing demonstrated

that the vapor and liquid compositions changed during leaks, 
neither phase became flammable.
   (c) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling is acceptable 
as an alternative technology to motor vehicle air conditioners 
using CFC-12. Evaporative cooling does not contribute to ozone 
depletion or global warming and has the potential to be more 
energy efficient than current refrigeration and air conditioning 
systems. Evaporative cooling uses no chemicals, but relies instead 
on water evaporation as a means of cooling. It is in widespread 
use in transit buses in the western U.S. Recent design improvements

have greatly expanded its applicability to other regions.
   (d) CO2 cooling. CO2 cooling systems are acceptable as an 
alternative technology to motor vehicle air conditioners using 
CFC-12. CO2 systems for motor vehicle air conditioning are
currently 
under development. EPA believes that with continued development, 
such systems could be available within 5 years, and thus they 
are potentially available substitutes. CO2 was historically 
used in refrigeration systems. It is a well-known, nontoxic, 
nonflammable gas. Its GWP is defined as 1, and all other GWPs 
are indexed to it. Since it is readily available as a waste 
gas, no additional chemical will need to be produced. Thus, 
the use of CO2 as a refrigerant will not contribute to global 
warming.
   (e) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable 
as an alternative technology to motor vehicle air conditioners 
using CFC-12. A full scale Stirling cycle motor vehicle air 
conditioning system has been built. Further development is
necessary 
to facilitate practical implementation. For further information 
see the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
   (36) Heat transfer. Although EPA did not originally intend 
to review this end-use, the Agency reconsidered after reexamining 
the potential size of annual sales of substitutes. Thus, EPA 
is currently reviewing submissions for the use of PFCs in heat 
transfer systems. EPA anticipates including its final determination

in the first SNAP update.
   b. Unacceptable substitutes. (1) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12 
blend. A HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12 blend is unacceptable as a 
substitute for CFC-12 in:
    Commercial comfort air conditioning;
    Industrial process refrigeration systems;
    Ice skating rinks;
    Cold storage warehouses;
    Refrigerated transport;
    Retail food refrigeration;
    Vending machines;
    Water coolers;
    Commercial ice machines; 
    Household refrigerators;
    Household freezers;
    Residential dehumidifiers; and
    Motor vehicle air conditioning.

It is also unacceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 in residential 
and packaged HCFC-22 air conditioning. Other substitutes for 
CFC-12 exist which contain no class I substances. In addition, 
because this blend contains CFC-12 (which has an ODP 20 times 
that of HCFC-22), it poses a greater risk to stratospheric ozone 
than the use of HCFC-22 alone.

   (2) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute 
for CFC-11 in new centrifugal chillers. This substance has a 
high ozone depletion potential. At least one other substitute 
exists that presents lower overall risk.
   (3) Hydrocarbon Blend A. Hydrocarbon Blend A is unacceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-12 in:
    Commercial comfort air conditioning;
    Ice skating rinks;
    Cold storage warehouses;
    Refrigerated transport;
    Retail food refrigeration;
    Vending machines;
    Water coolers;
    Commercial ice machines;
    Household refrigerators;
    Household freezers;
    Residential dehumidifiers; and
    Motor vehicle air conditioning.

Flammability is the primary concern. EPA believes the use of 
this substitute in very leaky uses like motor vehicle air
conditioning 
may pose a high risk of fire. EPA requires a risk assessment 
be conducted to demonstrate this blend may be safely used in 
any CFC-12 end-uses.

E. Foams


1. Overview

   Foam plastics accounted for approximately 18 percent of all 
U.S. consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals on an ODP-weighted 
basis in 1990. Five class I chemicals-CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, 
CFC-114, and methyl chloroform-are used as blowing agents in 
foam production. These five compounds are used in a wide variety 
of applications.
   Foam plastics manufactured with CFCs fall into four major 
categories: polyurethane, phenolic, extruded polystyrene, and 
polyolefin. Historically, CFC-11 and CFC-113, which remain in 
a liquid state at room temperature, have been used as blowing 
agents in polyurethane and phenolic foams. CFC-12 and CFC-114, 
which have lower boiling points than CFC-11 and CFC-113 and 
are gases at room temperature, are used in polyolefin and
polystyrene 
foams. In addition to CFCs, methyl chloroform is used as a blowing 
agent in some flexible polyurethane foams.
   Due to the wide variety of applications that foams represent, 
the Agency has divided its analysis of foam plastics into the 
following ten distinct end-use sectors:
    Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
    Rigid polyurethane appliance;
    Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, 
and sandwich panels;
    Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams;
    Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet;
    Phenolic insulation board;
    Flexible polyurethane;
    Polyurethane integral skin;
    Polystyrene extruded sheet; and
    Polyolefin.

The SNAP determinations in this final rule distinguish between 
these ten end-use sectors because the mix of potential alternatives

to Class I blowing agents, and potential emission and exposure 
profiles, differ for each. Appendix B at the end of this preamble 
lists in tabular form the Agency's determinations on substitutes 
in the foam sector. These determinations are based on the risk 
screens described in the background document entitled, ``Risk 
Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting 
Substances: Foam-Blowing Agents'' and discussed in supporting 
memoranda. The table also includes as ``pending'' substitutes 
for which the Agency has not yet issued determinations. Vendors 
or users of substitutes not described in Appendix B should submit 
information on these uses, so that the Agency can review them 
and issue a SNAP determination.

2. Alternative Blowing Agents

   Under the SNAP program, the evaluation of alternatives for 
CFCs depends on a number of factors. These include toxicity, 
flammability, environmental concerns, and, in the case of
insulating 
foams, the insulating efficiency of alternatives.
   Toxicity concerns associated with the use of alternative 
chemicals relate to the exposure of workers and consumers to 
the chemicals or to the decomposition products these chemicals 
may form slowly over time in foam products. The likely degree 
of human health risk associated with an alternative depends 
not only on the nature of a substitute chemical but also on 
the chemical composition, manufacturing process, and product 
applications that characterize the foam end-use sector into 
which that substitute will be introduced.
   Flammability concerns, like toxicity concerns, have to do 
with possible danger to workers and consumers. Such danger includes

possible ignition of materials during manufacturing, storage, 
or transportation, and the fire hazard posed by the final product. 
Alternatives to CFCs have varying degrees of flammability. As 
in the case of toxicity, however, the composition, production 
processes, and end-use applications that characterize each foam 
type dictate the potential risks associated with flammability.
   In addition to posing toxicity and flammability risks,
alternatives 
may have deleterious effects on the environment. Such effects 
may include stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming, and 
contribution to smog or tropospheric ozone formation. HCFCs 
have, in varying degrees, the potential to deplete ozone; both 
HCFCs and HFCs have global warming potential; and various potential

alternatives, especially hydrocarbons, are volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the formation of ozone, 
or smog, in the lower atmosphere.
   The use of alternative blowing agents can have an adverse 
affect on the insulating capacity of foam products due to higher 
thermal conductivity of the substitute. The overall risk screen 
for substitutes under SNAP takes into account indirect
contributions 
to global warming.
   a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Because of their relatively 
low thermal conductivity, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are 
considered necessary transitional alternatives to CFC blowing 
agents in thermal insulating foams. Two HCFCs, HCFC-123 and 
HCFC-141b, can serve as replacements for CFC-11 in many end-
use applications. Because of limited availability of HCFC-123, 
HCFC141b represents the more likely short-term possibility for 
replacing CFC-11 in several of the insulating foam sectors. 
As a result, the Agency has determined that HCFC-141b, despite 
its relatively high ODP of 0.11, is an acceptable transitional 
alternative to CFC-11 for several foam end-uses. Other HCFC 
alternatives are HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Although these compounds 
are commercially available and have lower ODPs than HCFC-141b, 
each has a boiling point significantly lower than CFC-11. As 
a result, conversion to HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b from CFC-11 generally 
entails significant investment in technical and process
modification. 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b do, however, present viable, near-term 
alternatives to CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and 
billet foams. 
   Production of HCFCs is controlled by the Clean Air Act and 
under section 605 is scheduled for phase-out by 2030. However, 
due to new data concerning greater risks of ozone depletion, 
EPA promulgated an accelerated phase-out schedule (58 FR 65018, 
12/10/93). Given the technical and safety concerns associated 
with many non-HCFC alternatives, however, disallowing the interim 
use of HCFCs in insulating foam end-uses, including the use 
of HCFC-141b and HCFC-22, would have adverse effects on human 
health and the environment. 
   Effective January 1, 1994, plastic foam products which contain 
or are manufactured with HCFCs are banned from sale or distribution

into interstate commerce under section 610 of the CAA. Under 
section 610, thermal insulation foam products are, however, 
exempted from this ban. Foam insulation product means a product 
containing or consisting of the following types of foam: (1) 
Closed cell rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate foam; (2) 
closed cell rigid polystyrene boardstock foam; (3) closed cell 
rigid phenolic foam; and (4) closed cell rigid polyethylene 
foam when such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design 
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around 
pipes used in heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial 
process systems. Any use of acceptable HCFC substitutes listed 
under SNAP must comply with restrictions under the section 610 
Non-Essential Ban. 
   b. Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) represent 
a zero-ODP alternative to CFC blowing agents in many sectors. 
From the standpoint of stratospheric ozone depletion alone, 
HFCs are preferable to HCFCs as alternative blowing agents. 
The relatively higher thermal conductivity of HFCs, however, 
is likely to hamper the insulating capabilities of HFC-blown 
foams unless significant changes in the foam formulation or 
process modifications are adopted. 
   The HFCs hold more promise as near- or intermediate-term 
alternatives for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene foams, particularly

in extruded polystyrene sheet foams. However, issues such as 
flammability, global warming potential, cost, and the solubility 
of HFCs in polystyrene polymer remain of concern for the industry. 
   Conversion to HFC-152a may entail significant capital investment

in order to ensure worker safety against fire hazards. Moreover, 
in the case of insulating foams, manufacturers will need to 
guarantee that foams blown with HFC-152a meet the building code 
requirements that apply to the flammability of building materials. 
   c. Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6, most of which are readily available as bulk chemicals, 
have the advantage of being low cost. These chemicals are also 
halogen free, thus they are both zero-ODP and zero-GWP. Saturated 
light hydrocarbons C3-C6 are currently being used in extruded 
polystyrene, polyurethane, and polyolefin non-insulating foam 
end-uses. 
   Hydrocarbons have significantly higher thermal conductivities 
than do any of the CFCs. Conversion to hydrocarbons could thus 
lead to the production of foams with lower insulating efficiency 
and, possibly, to a reduction in the energy efficiency of insulated

items. Formulation changes and process modifications have been 
introduced to increase the thermal insulating efficiency of 
hydrocarbon-blown foams. Cyclopentane is a leading alternative 
blowing-agent candidate for insulating foams because of its 
high boiling point and other physical properties similar to 
CFC-11. 
   Conversion to hydrocarbons may entail significant capital 
investment in order to ensure worker safety against fire hazards. 
Moreover, in the case of insulating foams, manufacturers will 
need to guarantee that foams blown with hydrocarbons meet the 
building code requirements that apply to the flammability of 
building materials. 
   Hydrocarbons are VOCs and may contribute to the formation 
of ground-level ozone, or smog, in the lower atmosphere. Any 
use of hydrocarbon blowing agents is subject to the federal, 
state and local restrictions that apply to VOCs, and conversion 
to hydrocarbons could therefore involve further capital investment 
to comply with these restrictions. 
   d. Other blowing agents. Two other blowing agents, methylene 
chloride and acetone, have been identified as substitutes for 
CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foams. Methylene chloride, which 
already serves as an auxiliary blowing agent for most grades 
of flexible polyurethane foam, is commercially available, and 
is relatively low cost. Because of its toxicity, it poses a 
potential risk to workers and residents in nearby communities. 
However, the Agency's analysis of use of this chemical as a 
blowing agent indicates risks can be controlled by adhering 
to existing regulatory standards. Methylene chloride use is 
further restricted in several states and localities, and is 
listed as a hazardous waste under RCRA and, thus, users must 
comply with applicable RCRA waste disposal requirements. The 
Agency is also in the process of addressing residual risks to 
the general population through emissions to air under title 
III section 112 of the CAA. The Agency expects to issue maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) rules governing methylene 
chloride use in the foams sector by 1997. Methylene chloride 
is not a VOC, and thus, does not contribute to the formation 
of tropospheric ozone. 
   When used as a blowing agent, acetone is capable of yielding 
all grades of flexible polyurethane foam. It can serve as an 
alternative blowing agent where methylene chloride use is
infeasible. 
Acetone is a VOC, and must be controlled as such. In addition, 
plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate acetone's 
flammability. 
   Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an acceptable substitute for all 
foam end-uses. Any CO2 blend is acceptable as long as the other 
constituents of the blend are acceptable under SNAP. CO2 does 
contribute to global warming. In addition, CO2 has the highest 
thermal conductivity of the SNAP-listed chemical alternatives, 
and will lower the thermal capacity of insulating foams unless 
significant foam formulation or process modifications are adopted. 
   e. Alternative manufacturing processes. The AB Technology 
is a commercially available and technically feasible process 
for replacing CFCs or other auxiliary blowing agents for most 
conventional flexible foam grades. AB Technology employs formic 
acid in conjunction with water as the blowing agent for producing 
flexible polyurethane foam. The process is based on using the 
reaction of formic acid with an isocyanate to produce carbon 
monoxide in addition to the water/isocyanate reaction normally 
used to generate carbon dioxide gas for the expansion of foam. 
OSHA has set a permissible exposure level (PEL) for carbon monoxide

of 35 ppm of a time weighted average with a ceiling not to exceed 
200 ppm. 

3. Comment Response 

   The majority of public comments received on the foams sector 
in the proposed rule focused on three issues: The viability 
or availability of substitutes; the need for listing of alternative

technologies or manufacturing processes, and the need for
notification 
under SNAP for use of blends or mixture of blowing agents. 
   a. Viability or availability of listed substitutes. Several 
commenters suggested that the NPRM did not sufficiently address 
the performance and practicality of use of acceptable substitutes. 
Commenters were especially concerned about alternative blowing 
agents used in thermal insulation applications, and whether 
acceptable substitutes represented existing or experimental 
use. For example, several commenters stated that if the alternative

blowing agent will affect the insulating capacity of a foam 
it should be part of the SNAP analysis, and the outcome should 
be discussed as part of the listing decision. Another commenter 
contended that for many of the end-uses, not all of the listed 
HCFC substitutes are technically viable, but each should be 
listed anyway to maximize the breadth of options. This commenter 
also reported that uses of some of the HFCs and hydrocarbons 
are still in development and, therefore do not represent actual 
alternatives. 
   EPA recognizes that the use of alternative blowing agents 
in insulation products can affect the energy efficiency of the 
final product. In this final rule, the overall risk
characterization 
for substitutes under SNAP specifically takes into account indirect

contributions to global warming. However, EPA also recognizes 
that the changes in foam formulation or product thickness can 
result in products with insulation efficiency equivalent to 
CFC-blown foam. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to 
consider and comment on the difference in thermal conductivity 
of alternative blowing agents as compared to the CFC being
replaced, 
and compared to other acceptable substitutes. However, it would 
be inappropriate to comment on the expected performance of a 
foam product using one blowing agent versus another, given that 
formulations are highly proprietary and can vary significantly 
from manufacturer-to-manufacturer. Further, EPA believes it 
is preferable to identify a broad range of alternatives, and 
let the market determine which alternative produce the best 
performing insulation products. 
   Several commenters requested clarification on the definition 
of hydrocarbons. One commenter suggested a more specific definition

for hydrocarbons of ``saturated light hydrocarbons, C3-C6.'' 
   The Agency agrees with these commenters. Since the broad 
use of hydrocarbon in the NPRM may be viewed as potentially 
precluding other viable substitutes, and because the alternate 
definition suggested by the commenter encompasses those
specifically 
listed hydrocarbons as well as more recently identified materials 
being tested in foams such as cyclopentane, this definition 
has been adopted by EPA in the final rule. 
   b. Alternative technologies or manufacturing processes. Several 
commenters argued that EPA should not issue its seal of approval 
for substitutes that are alternative products, unless and until 
the Agency evaluates them with the same degree of detail that 
HCFCs were evaluated, particularly with regard to toxicity, 
technical feasibility, flammability, and energy impacts. 
   The Agency believes that alternative products and alternative 
manufacturing processes will play an important role in the
transition 
from ODSs in many sectors. In light of public comment, the Agency 
recognized that the SNAP data requirements and the SNAP evaluation 
process proposed in the NPRM were biased toward chemical
substitutes. 
The Agency also agrees with public comment that review of non-
chemical alternatives must be supported by appropriate analysis. 
In this final rule, the Agency has made revisions to the SNAP 
Information Notice to better account for the different information 
requirements associated with non-chemical alternatives and
increased 
the discussion of the Agency's analysis of non-chemical
alternatives 
in the background documents. 
   c. Use of blends. Several commenters argued that EPA's proposed 
requirement for notification and review of chemical alternative 
blends was unnecessary and burdensome for the foams sector. 
The comments proposed that any combination or blend of individually

acceptable blowing agents should be permitted without additional 
notification to SNAP. One commenter suggested EPA clarify that 
the term ``blend'' when used in the SNAP rule does not refer 
to individual, separately-``acceptable'' substitutes, two or 
more of which may be used in the same manufacturing process. 
   In light of these public comments, the Agency re-examined 
the analytical basis for reviewing blends, to determine whether 
the potential human health and environmental risks would be 
different for blends or mixtures of chemicals than those of 
individual chemicals that were determined to be acceptable for 
use in the foams manufacturing process under SNAP. In particular, 
the Agency was concerned with potential synergistic effects 
of the chemical blends, and that the decomposition product profile 
would differ from that of a single chemical. 
   The Agency has determined that because of the potential for 
formation and emission of decomposition products in rigid closed 
cell foams, notification and review under SNAP is required for 
blends of chemical alternatives in foam end-uses that encompass 
residential products where chronic consumer exposure could occur. 
These end-uses are: Polyurethane rigid laminated boardstock, 
polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet foams, phenolic foams, 
and polyolefin foams. This analysis is detailed in the SNAP 
technical background document, ``Risk Screen on the Use of
Substitutes 
for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Foam Blowing Agents.'' 
In contrast, for open-celled foams where the blowing agent is 
fully emitted from the foams within hours or days of manufacture, 
the formation of decomposition products is not a factor in
decisionmaking. 
For this final rule, use of blends or mixtures of substitutes 
listed as acceptable under the SNAP program in open-celled or 
closed-cell or semi-rigid end-uses not designated above does 
not require notification. 

4. Listing Decisions 

   a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) Rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate 
laminated boardstock. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123 is acceptable as 
an alternative blowing agent to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane 
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock foam. From the standpoint

of technical feasibility, HCFC-123 represents a viable alternative 
to CFC-11 as a potential blowing agent. More specifically, the 
physical properties, thermal conductivity, and aging of foams 
blown with HCFC-123 are similar to those blown with CFC-11. 
As a result, HCFC-123, which has an ozone depleting potential 
significantly lower than that of CFC-11, has the potential to 
replace CFC-11 in many applications. Nonetheless, availability 
of HCFC-123 is limited at present. The acceptable exposure limit 
(AEL) for HCFC-123 is 30 ppm. 
   (b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is acceptable as an alternative 
to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock foam. Although its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high, 
HCFC-141b offers almost immediate transition out of CFC uses 
in this sector. Not only does HCFC-141b offer a technically 
feasible alternative to CFC-11, but it is currently available 
in quantities sufficient to meet industrial demand. HCFC-141b 
is scheduled for phase-out from production on January 1, 2003 
under the accelerated phase out rule (58 FR 65018) under section 
606 of the CAA. 
   (c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 
foam. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less 
potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11. Plant or process
modifications 
may be required to allow use of blowing agents like HCFC-142b 
that have significantly lower boiling points than CFC-11. HCFC-
22 is subject to the accelerated phase out rule (58 FR 65018) 
under section 606 of the CAA. 
   (d) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock foam. HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly

lower potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11. Plant or process 
modifications may be required to allow use of blowing agents 
like HCFC-142b that have significantly lower boiling points 
than CFC-11. HCFC-142b is subject to the accelerated phase out 
rule (58 FR 65018).
   (e) HCFC-22/HCFC-141b. The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable

as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate 
laminated boardstock foam. HCFC-22 has an occupational exposure 
limit (OEL) of 250 ppm, whereas HCFC-141b has an OEL of 1000 
ppm. 
   (f) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blends are acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate 
laminated boardstock foam. This blend offers an alternative 
with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-
11. Plant or process modifications may be required to allow 
use of blowing agents like HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b that have low 
boiling points than CFC-11. 
   (g) HCFC-141b/HCFC-123. The HCFC-141b/HCFC-123 blend is
acceptable 
as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate 
laminated boardstock foam. As noted above, HCFC-141b, because 
of its commercial availability offers an immediate opportunity 
to replace CFC-11. HCFC-123 has limited availability. However, 
because the ODP of HCFC-123 is lower than that of HCFC-141b, 
the blend has a lower ODP than HCFC-141b alone. 
   (h) HCFC-22/HCFC-141b. The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable

as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate 
laminated boardstock foam. Because both components of the blend 
are commercially available in large enough quantities to meet 
industry demand, it offers a near-term vehicle for replacing 
CFC-11 in laminated boardstock foams. HCFC-22 has an occupational 
exposure limit (OEL) of 250 ppm, whereas HCFC-141b has an OEL 
of 1000 ppm. 
   (i) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock foam. HFC-134a offers the potential for a
non-ozonedepleting 
alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid polyurethane and 
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock foams. Plant modifications 
may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-134a because 
its boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11. In addition, 
the cost of HFC-134a is relatively high, and the use of HFC-
134a may cause significant increases in thermal conductivity, 
with a concomitant loss in the insulating capacity of foams 
blown with HFC-134a. HFC-134a also has a relatively high global 
warming potential compared with other available alternatives. 
   (j) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock foam. HFC-152a offers the potential for a
non-ozonedepleting 
alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid polyurethane and 
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. Use of HFC-152a as a 
blowing agent in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock foam has raised concern over the potential for
significant 
increases in thermal conductivity. Process changes may be necessary

to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant modifications 
may be necessary to manage its flammability. Also, foams blown 
with HFC-152a will need to conform with building code requirements 
that relate to flammable materials. 
   (k) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated Light
Hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11 in rigid
polyurethane 
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock foam. These hydrocarbons 
have zero-ODP and zero-GWP. Plant or process modifications may 
be necessary to accommodate the use of saturated light hydrocarbons

C3-C6. These materials also pose flammability concerns which 
may require capital investment to manage. Foams blown with
hydrocarbons 
will need to conform with building code requirements that relate 
to flammable materials. Finally, the thermal conductivity is 
greater than CFC-11 blowing agents which may effect the thermal 
capacity of final products. Saturated light hydrocarbons are 
VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA. 
   (l) 2-Chloropropane. 2-Chloropropane is acceptable as a
substitute 
for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock foam. At present, because 2-chloropropane is a
proprietary 
process, its commercial availability may be limited. Moreover, 
2-chloropropane is flammable and its use may require extensive 
modification of existing equipment. 
   (m) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute

for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock foam. 
   (2) Polyurethane, rigid appliance foam. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-
123 (or blends thereof), for the reasons described in the section 
on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, 
is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane 
appliance foam. 
   (b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. The Appliance Research 
Consortium (ARC), a subsidiary of the Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (AHAM), convened an independent panel of
toxicologists 
to evaluate the risk of potential exposure from foods stored 
in refrigerators manufactured with HCFC-141b as the blowing 
agent in the insulating foam. The panel evaluated the same
toxicological 
data available to EPA, and concluded that the use of HCFC-141b 
in this intended application is generally recognized as safe 
(GRAS) per section 201(s) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 
21 USC section 321(s).{1} 
        {1}  Peter de la Cruz, Evaluation of HCFC-141b
Potential 
      쿏ietary Exposure, Keller and Heckman, January, 1994.
   (c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof), for reasons described 
in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated

boardstock, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid 
polyurethane appliance foam. 
   (d) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b (or blends thereof) is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. 
HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly less potential 
to deplete stratospheric ozone than CFC-11. Nevertheless, certain 
technical problems persist. Namely, plant modifications may 
be required to allow the use of blowing agents like HCFC-142b 
that have low boiling points. 
   (e) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. 
   (f) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. 
   (g) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 (or blends thereof) are acceptable as substitutes for 
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. Saturated light 
hydrocarbons C3-C6 offer the potential of a non-ozone-depleting 
alternative to the use of CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid
polyurethane 
appliance foam. Plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate

the flammability of Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6. In
addition, 
the potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity 
may reduce insulating capacity. Foams blown with saturated light 
hydrocarbons C3-C6 must conform with building code requirements 
that relate to flammable materials. Saturated light hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 are VOCs and will be subject to control as such under 
Title I of the CAA. 
   (h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is 
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane 
appliance foam. 
   (3) Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray 
foam, and sandwich panels. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123, for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration 
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. 
   (b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration 
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. 
   (c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as 
a substitute for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial

refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. HCFC-22 
offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete 
ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12. However, significant process 
changes could be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point 
of HCFC-22. 
   (d) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration 
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. 
   (e) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration 
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. 
   (f) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration 
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. 
   (g) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 (or blends thereof), for the reasons described in the 
section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock, are acceptable alternative blowing agents for CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration 
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. 
   (h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is 
an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-11 in rigid 
polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and 
sandwich panels. 
   (4) Polyurethane slabstock and other foams. (a) HCFC-123. 
HCFC-123 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as an alternative 
to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. From 
the standpoint of technical feasibility, HCFC-123 represents 
a viable alternative to CFC-11 as a potential blowing agent. 
More specifically, the physical properties, thermal conductivity, 
and aging of foams blown with HCFC-123 are similar to those 
blown with CFC-11. As a result, HCFC-123, which has an ozone 
depleting potential significantly lower than that of CFC-11, 
has the potential to replace CFC-11 in many applications.
Nonetheless, 
commercial availability of HCFC-123 is limited at present. 
   (b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is acceptable 
as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock 
and other foams. Although its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high, 
HCFC-141b offers almost immediate transition out of CFCs in 
this sector. Not only does HCFC-141b offer a technically feasible 
alternative to CFC-11, it is currently available in sufficient 
quantities to meet industry demand. The use of HCFCs in
polyurethane 
slabstock and other foams is subject to further restriction 
under section 610 of the CAA, which banned the use of class 
II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994. 
   (c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as 
a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and 
other foams. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly 
less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12. 
However, significant process changes may be necessary to
accommodate 
the low boiling point of HCFC-22. 
   (d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 
   (e) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof), for the reasons 
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate

laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 
   (f) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 (or blends thereof), for the reasons described in the 
section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock, are acceptable alternative blowing agents for CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 
   (g) Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is 
an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-11 and CFC-12 
in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. 
   (5) Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet. (a) HCFC-
22. HCFC-22 is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-
12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam. HCFC-
22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to 
deplete ozone than CFC-12. HCFC-22, however, has a relatively 
high permeation rate out of polystyrene, thus affecting insulation 
performance. Users must be in compliance with the section 610 
Nonessential Products Containing Class II Substances Ban. 
   (b) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b is an acceptable alternative blowing 
agent for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock foam. HCFC-
142b offers an alternative with significantly less potential 
to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12. Users must be 
in compliance with the section 610 Non-essential Products
Containing 
Class II Substances Ban. 
   (c) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable

as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock 
and billet foam. The blend offers an alternative with significantly

less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-12. Users must be in 
compliance with section 610 Nonessential Products Containing 
Class II Substances. 
   (d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam. HFC-
134a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative 
to CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock 
and billet foam. HFC-134a, because of its low flammability and 
encouraging performance in toxicological testing, exhibits definite

advantages from the standpoints of environmental risk and worker 
and consumer safety. However, HFC-134a has relatively high thermal 
conductivity, is costly, and has the potential to contribute 
to global warming. In addition, the compound has poor solubility 
in polystyrene polymer, which could limit its usefulness as 
an alternative blowing agent from a technical standpoint. HFC-
134a also has a relatively high global warming potential compared 
to other available alternatives. 
   (e) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam. HFC-
152a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative 
to CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock. 
However, the high flammability of HFC-152a when combined with 
its properties of high thermal conductivity, low solubility 
in polystyrene polymer, and high permeability through polystyrene 
limit the extent to which HFC-152a is likely to replace CFC-
12. Plant modifications may be needed to accommodate the
flammability 
of HFC-152a, and foams blown with HFC-152a will need to conform 
with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials.

   (f) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in polystyrene 
boardstock and billet foam. Of the Saturated Light Hydrocarbons 
C3-C6, pentane, isopentane, butane, and isobutane have been 
demonstrated as feasible blowing agents in polystyrene. In fact, 
saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 have been used for years 
in the manufacture of extruded polystyrene sheet products. However,

saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 have several disadvantages 
as blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet 
foam. Replacement of CFC-12 blowing agents with Saturated Light 
Hydrocarbons C3-C6 may reduce the insulating efficiency in this 
end-use. Controlling the flammability of saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 may entail significant investment in plant conversion 
to accommodate them as alternatives to CFC-12. Foams blown with 
saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 will need to conform with 
building code requirements that relate to flammable materials. 
Finally, saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 are VOCs and must 
be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA. 
   (g) HCFC-22/Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6. Blends of 
HCFC-22/saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6, for the reasons 
described and with the caveats outlined above for HCFC-22 and 
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6, are acceptable substitutes 
for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam. 
   (h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative 
blowing agent for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock 
and billet foam. 
   (6) Phenolic insulation board. (a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b, 
for the reasons described in the section on rigid polyurethane 
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, is acceptable as 
an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation 
board. 
   (b) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b, for the reasons described in the 
section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-
113 in phenolic insulation board. 
   (c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22, for the reasons described in the section 
on rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foams, spray 
foams, and sandwich panels, is acceptable as an alternative 
to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. 
   (d) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. Blends of HCFC-22/HCFC-142b, for reasons 
described above and with the caveats outlined above for HCFC-
22 and HCFC-142b, are acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 
and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. 
   (e) Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6, for the reasons described in the section on rigid
polyurethane 
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, are acceptable
alternatives 
to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. 
   (f) HCFC-22/Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6.
HCFC-22/Saturated 
light hydrocarbon C3-C6 blends are acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board.
HCFC-22/saturated 
light hydrocarbon C3-C6 blends offer an alternative with
significantly 
less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-113. 
However, extensive plant modifications may be necessary to
accommodate 
use of these blends. In addition, there are concerns about the 
potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity 
resulting from the replacement of CFC-11 and CFC-113 with a 
blend. Also, foams blown with saturated light hydrocarbons C3-
C6 will need to conform with building code requirements that 
relate to flammable materials. Saturated light hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 are VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I 
of the CAA, and HCFC-22 is subject to the phase-out of Class 
II compounds under sections 605 and 606 of the CAA. 
   (g) HFC-143a. HFC-143a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board. HFC-143a has 
a higher global warming potential than other substitutes available.

   (h) 2-Chloropropane 2-Chloropropane is acceptable as a
substitute 
for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board. At present, 
because 2-chloropropane is a proprietary technology. Moreover, 
2-chloropropane is flammable and its use may require extensive 
modification of existing equipment. 
   (i) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative 
blowing agent for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board. 
   (7) Flexible polyurethane foam. (a) Methylene chloride.
Methylene 
chloride (or blends thereof) is acceptable as a blowing agent 
in flexible polyurethane foams. Methylene chloride is already 
used as an auxiliary blowing agent in the manufacture of most 
flexible polyurethane slabstock foams and has proven adequate 
in yielding foams of many densities and degrees of softness. 
Replacement of CFC-11 or methyl chloroform blowing agents with 
methylene chloride can reduce the potential for stratospheric 
ozone depletion resulting from the production of flexible
polyurethane 
foams. 
   Nevertheless, there is concern over the potential health 
and safety issues posed by methylene chloride. In fact, due 
to these concerns, some local and regional restrictions apply 
to the use of methylene chloride. To assess these risks in the 
application under discussion, EPA used data collected by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the 
proposed revision of the permissible exposure level (PEL) for 
methylene chloride. The Agency's estimate for total population 
risk for methylene chloride was based on average plant emissions 
derived from OSHA's analysis, and while not negligible, was 
within the range of existing Agency decisions on acceptable 
risk. For further detail, refer to the background document entitled

``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting

Substances: Foams''. 
   In light of the results of Agency analysis, EPA decided to 
find acceptable the use of methylene chloride subject to existing 
or future restrictions because it will allow immediate transition 
from class I substances in this end-use. Potential users should 
note that methylene chloride use will be subject to future controls

for hazardous air pollutants under Title III section 112 of 
the CAA. In addition, use of the compound must conform to all 
relevant workplace safety standards; OSHA has proposed permissible 
exposure levels (PELs) for methylene chloride of 25 ppm on a 
time-weighted average (TWA). Once such additional controls have 
been adopted, use of this substitute must comply with any other 
applicable requirements, such as state restrictions. Use is 
also subject to waste disposal requirements under RCRA. 
   (b) Acetone. Acetone (or blends thereof) is acceptable as 
a blowing agent for flexible polyurethane foams. In those areas 
where methylene chloride use is deemed unacceptable, acetone 
may provide another non-ODP alternative to CFC-11 and methyl 
chloroform. All grades of flexible polyurethane foam produced 
with CFCs can be produced using acetone as an auxiliary blowing 
agent. Acetone does not have an ozone depletion potential, and 
its global warming potential is negligible. Nevertheless, acetone 
is highly flammable and its use requires precautions to ensure 
safety to workers as prescribed by OSHA. In addition, use of 
this compound is subject to various federal, state, or local 
controls as a VOC under Title I of the CAA. 
   (c) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof) is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foam. HFC-
134a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing 
agents in flexible polyurethane foam. Plant modifications may 
be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-134a because its 
boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11. 
   (d) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or use thereof) is acceptable as 
a substitute for CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foam. HFC-152a 
is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents 
in flexible polyurethane foam. Process changes may be necessary 
to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant modifications 
may be necessary to manage its flammability. 
   (e) AB Technology. AB Technology is acceptable as an alternative

process in flexible polyurethane foams. The AB Technology generates

carbon monoxide as the chemical blowing agent. Precautions should 
be taken to insure the safety of workers from exposure to elevated 
levels of carbon monoxide, particularly at the latter phases 
of production where ventilation is generally not as efficient 
as on the foam line. OSHA has set a permissible exposure level 
(PEL) for carbon monoxide of 35 ppm on a time-weighted average 
(TWA) with a ceiling of 200 ppm. 
   (f) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is 
an acceptable alternative process in flexible polyurethane foams. 
   (8) Polyurethane integral skin foams. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-
123 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in integral skin foams. The physical and chemical properties 
of HCFC-123 are similar to CFC-11. As a result, HCFC-123, which 
has an ozone depleting potential significantly lower than that 
of CFC-11, has the potential to replace CFC-11 in many integral 
skin applications. Nonetheless, commercial availability of HCFC-
123 is limited at present. The use of HCFC-123 in integral skin 
foams is subject to significant restriction under section 610 
of the CAA, which bans the use of class II substances in
noninsulating 
foams after January 1, 1994. The ban exempts only certain integral 
skin foams used to provide for motor vehicle safety. 
   (b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is acceptable 
as an alternative to CFC-11 in integral skin foams. Although 
its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high, HCFC-141b offers an acceptable 
transition substitute out of CFC-11 in integral skin foams. 
The use of HCFC-141b in integral skin foams, however, is subject 
to significant restriction under section 610 of the CAA, which 
banned the use of class II substances in noninsulating foams 
after January 1, 1994. The ban exempts only certain integral 
skin foams used to provide for motor vehicle safety. 
   (c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as 
a substitute for CFC-11 in integral skin foam. HCFC-22 offers 
an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete 
ozone than CFC-11. However, process changes may be necessary 
to accommodate the low boiling point of HCFC-22. The use of 
HCFC-22 in integral skin foams is subject to significant
restrictions 
under section 610 of the CAA, which banned the use of class 
II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994. 
The ban exempts only certain integral skin foams used to provide 
for motor vehicle safety. 
   (d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof) is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11 in polyurethane integral skin foam. 
HFC-134a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing 
agents in polyurethane integral skin foam. Plant or process 
modifications may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-
134a because its boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11. 
   (e) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof) is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11 in polyurethane integral skin foam. 
HFC-152a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing 
agents in polyurethane integral skin. Plant or process changes 
may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant 
modifications may be necessary to manage its flammability. Also, 
foams blown with HFC-152a will need to conform with any product 
safety requirements that relate to flammable materials. 
   (f) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 (or blends thereof) are acceptable as substitutes for 
CFC-11 in integral skin foams. Saturated light hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 offer the possibility of a non-ODP replacement for CFC-
11 in integral skin foams. Plant or process modifications may 
be necessary to accommodate the flammability of saturated light 
hydrocarbons C3-C6 and to make the necessary technical and process 
modifications. 
   (g) Methylene chloride. Methylene chloride (or blends thereof) 
is acceptable as a blowing agent in integral skin foam. See 
methylene chloride discussion under Polyurethane Flexible Foams 
for additional details on toxicity issues. Use is subject to 
waste disposal requirements under RCRA. 
   (h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is 
acceptable as a blowing agent in integral skin foams. 
   (9) Extruded polystyrene sheet foam. (a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a 
(or blends thereof) is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 
in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. HFC-134a is a non-ozone-
depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing agents in polystyrene 
sheet foam. 
   (b) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof) is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. 
HFC-152a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing 
agents in extruded polystyrene sheet foams. The compound is 
commercially available and its low molecular weight suggests 
that its blowing efficiency will be double that of CFC-12. Plant 
or process modifications may be needed to accommodate the
flammability 
of HFC-152a. 
   (c) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 (or blends thereof) are acceptable as substitutes for 
CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 offer the potential of a non-ozone-depleting alternative 
to the use of CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene 
sheet. At present, pentane and butane are used extensively as 
blowing agents in extruded polystyrene sheet. These compounds 
are widely available at low cost and offer excellent solubility 
with the polystyrene polymer. 
   (d) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is 
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene 
sheet foam. 
   (10) Polyolefin foams. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin 
foams. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less 
potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11, CFC-12, or CFC-114. 
Under the section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin

foams is restricted to thermal insulating applications of
polyethylene 
foams where such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design 
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around 
pipes used for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial 
process systems. 
   (b) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HCFC-142b offers 
an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete 
ozone than CFC-11, CFC-12, or CFC-114. Under the section 610 
Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin foams is restricted 
to thermal insulating applications of polyethylene foams where 
such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design to be used 
as a product that provides thermal insulation around pipes used 
for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial process 
systems. 
   (c) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blends are acceptable, 
for reasons described and the caveats outlined above, as a
substitute 
for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 in polyolefin foam. Under the 
section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin foams 
is restricted to thermal insulating applications of polyethylene 
foams where such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design 
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around 
pipes used for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial 
process systems. 
   (d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-134a offers 
the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11, 
CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-134a, because of 
its low flammability and encouraging performance in toxicological 
testing, exhibits definite advantages from the standpoints of 
worker and consumer safety. HFC-134a does, however, contribute 
to global warming. 
   (e) HFC-143a. HFC-143a is acceptable as a substitute for 
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-143a has 
a higher global warming potential than other acceptable substitutes

in this end-use. 
   (f) HFC-152a. HFC-152a, for the reasons described in the 
section on extruded polystyrene sheet foam, is acceptable as 
an alternative to CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin 
foams. Plant or process modifications may be needed to accommodate 
the flammability of HFC-152a. 
   (g) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons 
C3-C6 are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, and 
CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. 
   (h) HCFC-22/Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6.
HCFC-22/Saturated 
light hydrocarbons C3-C6 blends, for the reasons described and 
with the caveats outlined above, are acceptable substitutes 
for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. Under the 
section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin foams 
is restricted to thermal insulating applications of polyethylene 
foams where such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design 
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around 
pipes used for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial 
process systems. 
   (i) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute

for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. 
   b. Unacceptable substitutes. The final rule listing a foam 
blowing agent as unacceptable in a specific foam use sector 
constitutes a ban on the use of that alternative to Class I 
compounds. This decision will be effective 30 days after
publication 
of this final rule. 
   (1) Polyolefin foams. The use of HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) 
is unacceptable as an alternative blowing agent in polyolefin 
foams. HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that 
of methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes 
that non-ozone depleting alternatives are sufficiently available 
to render the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary in this application. 

F. Solvent Cleaning 


1. Overview 

   On an ozone-depletion weighted basis, solvents constitute 
approximately 15 percent of the chemicals targeted for phase-
out under the Montreal Protocol. In the U.S., the two class 
I chemicals used as industrial solvents are CFC-113 (C2F3C13-
trifluorotrichloroethane) and methyl chloroform (C2H3C13-1,1,1-
trichloroethane). The SNAP determinations issued in the solvent 
cleaning sector focus on substitutes for CFC-113 and methyl 
chloroform (MCF) when used in industrial cleaning equipment, 
since this application comprises the largest use of ozone-depleting

solvents. 
   Other cleaning applications for ozone-depleting solvents 
exist as well, such as in dry cleaning of textiles or in hand 
cleaning or maintenance cleaning as a spray. In addition, these 
solvents are used as bearer media (such as lubricant carriers), 
mold release agents, component testing agents, or in other non-
cleaning applications. CFC-11 is also occasionally used as a 
cleaning solvent in specialized applications. For the reasons 
described earlier in this Preamble, the Agency intends to exclude 
cleaning substitutes for CFC-113, MCF and CFC-11 in these
applications-
with the exception of aerosol substitutes-from the SNAP
determinations 
at this time. As a result, the Agency is not at this time issuing 
any determinations on acceptability of such substitutes, and 
will neither approve nor restrict their uses. Aerosol substitutes 
are covered in a separate section of this Preamble. 
   Appendix B at the end of this Preamble lists in tabular form 
the Agency's determinations on substitutes in the cleaning sector. 
These listings are based on the risk screens described in the 
background document entitled ``Risk Screen on the Use of
Substitutes 
for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Solvent Cleaning'' and 
discussed in associated supporting memoranda. The table includes 
as ``pending'' a few substitutes for which the Agency has not 
yet issued determinations. Vendors or users of cleaning substitutes

not described in appendix B should submit information on these 
uses, so that the Agency can review them and issue a SNAP
determination. 
   The three major end uses that in the past employed CFC-113 
and MCF are metals cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision 
cleaning. Metals cleaning applications usually involve removing 
cutting oils and residual metal filings. This sector relies 
principally on MCF as a cleaning solvent. In contrast, the
electronics 
industry uses principally CFC-113, for instance, to remove flux 
residues left after mounting parts on printed circuit boards. 
Precision cleaning also uses mostly CFC-113. This last application 
comprises a broad category of industrial cleaning operations 
and can cover uses ranging from preparation of pacemakers to 
manufacture of direct access storage devices (DASDs) for computers.

The following sections present substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF 
in these three end uses and discuss the acceptability listings 
presented in appendix B. 

2. Substitutes in Solvents Cleaning 

   a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFC-141b or HCFC-141b 
blends with alcohols are the principal HCFC alternative solvents 
to CFC-113/MCF cleaning. These alternatives can be used in vapor 
degreasing equipment, principally for electronics or precision 
cleaning, and in some cases existing CFC-113 or MCF equipment 
can be retrofitted for use with HCFC-141b alternatives. From 
an environmental standpoint, the critical characteristic of 
HCFC-141b is that it has a relatively high ODP-0.11-the highest 
of all the HCFCs. 
   Another HCFC, HCFC-123, is generally not considered to have 
widespread application as a cleaner. Although this HCFC has 
the capacity to remove many soils, it is such an aggressive 
cleaner that it frequently degrades the surface of the part 
being cleaned. The company-set AEL for HCFC-123 was recently 
raised from 10ppm to 30ppm based on new toxicity findings. These 
new data mean that the exposure limit could be met with existing 
equipment, and the Agency intends to list HCFC-123 under separate 
rule-making as acceptable subject to adherence to the exposure 
limit. 
   HCFC-225, a third HCFC, is widely viewed as having potential 
as a cleaning agent, especially for manufacture and maintenance 
of precision parts and equipment. However, this chemical is 
not yet in widespread production or use and is only now starting 
to be commercially available. Preliminary toxicity findings 
suggest that of the two HCFC-225 isomers, HCFC-225ca and HCFC-
225cb, toxicity concerns associated with the ca-isomer may warrant 
a comparatively low company-set occupational exposure limit. 
As a result, EPA intends under separate rule-making to propose 
HCFC-225 as acceptable subject to adherence to this limit. The 
Agency anticipates that companies will readily be able to meet 
this requirement since the ca-isomer is sold commercially in 
a blend with the less toxic cb-isomer. In addition, equipment 
using HCFC-225 is usually designed for precision operations 
and has inherently low emissions. 
   b. Semi-aqueous cleaners. Semi-aqueous cleaners are alternatives

for cleaning in all three sectors. These cleaners employ
hydrocarbons/surfactants 
either emulsified in water solutions or applied in concentrated 
form and then rinsed with water. Since both approaches involve 
water as part of the formulation, the system is commonly referred 
to as ``semi-aqueous.'' The principal categories of chemicals 
used in these formulations are terpenes, C6-C20 petroleum
hydrocarbons 
(both naturally or synthetically derived), or oxygenated organic 
solvents (such as alcohols). An extensive discussion of various 
semi-aqueous cleaning alternatives may be found in the Industry 
Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection (ICOLP) documents on 
the subject. Users can obtain these documents from the EPA. 
   c. Aqueous cleaners. Aqueous cleaners, unlike semi-aqueous, 
uses water as the primary solvent. These formulations are used 
mostly for metals cleaning, but companies are beginning to explore 
options using these substitutes in other cleaning applications. 
In aqueous formulations, detergents and surfactants are combined 
in water with a variety of additives such as organic solvents 
(e.g., high-boiling point alcohols), builders, saponifiers, 
inhibitors, emulsifiers, pH buffers and antifoaming agents. 
The cleaning process is comparable to that used in semiaqueous 
applications and consists of combinations of a wash phase, a 
rinse phase, and a drying phase. An important difference is 
that the wash tank is frequently heated to improve soil removal. 
The final step, drying, is separate from the cleaning step and 
can be accomplished by use of heat or a drying agent. These 
alternatives are discussed extensively in the ICOLP documents. 
   d. Straight organic solvent cleaning. Organic solvents can 
be used to replace CFC-113 and MCF in certain cleaning operations. 
This classification is defined to include terpenes, C6-C20
petroleum 
hydrocarbons (both naturally and synthetically derived), and 
oxygenated organic solvents such as alcohols, ethers (including 
propylene glycol ethers), esters and ketones. These compounds 
are commonly used in solvent tanks at room temperature, although 
the solvents can also be used in-line cleaning systems or be 
heated to increase solvency power. If heated, the solvents must 
be used in equipment designed to control vapor losses. 
   These solvents, unlike class I and II compounds, do not
contribute 
to stratospheric ozone depletion, and generally have short
atmospheric 
lifetimes. Yet many of the organic solvents are regulated as 
VOCs because they can contribute to ground-level ozone formation. 
In addition, certain of the organic solvents are toxic to human 
health and are subject to waste handling standards under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and to workplace 
standards set by Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA). For example, xylene and toluene may be used as substitutes 
but are, once they become wastes, regulated under RCRA as listed 
or characteristic wastes. 
   e. Other chlorinated solvents. In addition to MCF and CFC-
113, the three other commonly used chlorinated solvents are 
trichloroethylene (``TCE''), methylene chloride (``meth''), 
and perchloroethylene (``perc''). Unlike MCF and CFC-113, these 
chlorinated solvents have very short atmospheric lifetimes and 
are not considered to contribute to ozone depletion. However, 
all three have known toxicity problems and are regulated as 
Hazardous Air Pollutants under section 112 of title III of the 
Clean Air Act. They are also subject to waste handling standards 
under RCRA and to workplace standards set by OSHA. Additionally, 
TCE and perc exhibit photochemical reactivity, and are regulated 
as smog precursors. 
   The phaseout of CFC-113 and MCF has prompted a renewed interest 
in meth, TCE, and perc, despite these toxicity concerns. The 
three solvents are mostly viewed as potential metal cleaning 
substitutes, especially since they can be used in conventional 
vapor degreasing equipment. In fact, these three solvents were 
the preferred industrial solvents until concerns about their 
toxicity and anticipated lowering of the OSHA Permissible Exposure 
Limits (PELs) resulted in a switch by some users to MCF. 
   In response to such concerns, equipment vendors have now 
developed equipment for using these solvents that significantly 
limit their emissions. The availability of such equipment has 
prompted environmental agencies in other western countries, 
such as Germany, to relax restrictions on the use of these
chemicals. 
Such equipment, although expensive, can now be purchased in 
the United States. 
   f. No-clean alternatives. No-clean alternatives involve the 
use of fluxes or cutting oils that need not be removed after 
the manufactured part is fully formed. It offers an efficient 
solution to the cleaning problem, since it sidesteps the need 
for cleaning altogether. This type of substitute represents 
one of the few process changes possible in the solvents cleaning 
sector. Water-removable products are products where the soils 
or fluxes can be removed using water as opposed to other types 
of chemical solvents. In electronics cleaning, where these two 
approaches are in more widespread use, no-clean or water-removable 
alternatives rely either on special fluxes or on a soldering 
process that eliminates or reduces the residues otherwise removed 
through the cleaning step. 
   In metal preparations, an increasing common process change 
is to use vanishing oils. These oils are refined mineral spirits, 
usually odorless, that flash off after the metal forming step 
is completed thus eliminating the need for cleaning. Technically, 
this process can be referred to as a ``no-clean'' process, although

that term is usually reserved for electronics manufacture. 
   g. Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are fully
fluorinated 
compounds, unlike either CFCs, HCFCs or HFCs. Perfluorocarbons 
presently employed or being investigated for commercial
applications 
for cleaning are C5F12, C6F12, C6F14, C7F16, C8F18, C5F11NO, 
C6F13NO, C7F15NO, and C8F16. 
   These compounds are being discussed as part of innovative 
cleaning and drying systems to replace ozone-depleting solvents 
used in cleaning. These systems would use an aqueous or solvent 
cleaner bath with PFCs for rinsing and/or drying. Although the 
PFCs technically are being used as drying agents in this system, 
it is due to the replacement of CFC-113 as a cleaner that the 
PFCs are being used, which is why PFCs are addressed in the 
solvent cleaning sector. PFCs also have solvent displacement 
properties (including for displacement of water), that may make 
their use necessary. Although these systems have the technical 
potential to meet a number of cleaning needs, the expense of 
the PFCs may limit widespread commercial interest in systems 
that use these compounds. 
   The environmental characteristics of concern for these compounds

are high global warming potential (5,000-10,000 times greater 
than CO2) and long atmospheric lifetimes (3,000-5,000 years). 
Although the actual contributions to global warming depend upon 
the quantities of PFCs emitted, the warming effects of PFCs 
are essentially irreversible. In other respects, PFCs are benign 
and are generally nontoxic, nonflammable, and do not contribute 
to ground-level ozone formation. Environmental concerns associated 
with use of PFCs are discussed in the comment response section 
of this preamble, section III.D. Technology for containment 
and recycling of PFCs is commercially available and is recommended 
by manufacturers to offset any possible adverse environmental 
effects. 
   h. Monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluorides. Monochlorotoluene 
and benzotrifluorides are of commercial interest as solvent 
substitutes in a variety of cleaning applications. These compounds 
can be used either in isolation or in various mixtures, depending 
on desired chemical properties. The Agency is still receiving 
toxicity and exposure information on these formulations and 
will issue a SNAP determination for these substitutes when SNAP 
review is complete. 
   i. Volatile methyl siloxanes. Cyclic and linear volatile 
methyl siloxanes (VMSs) are currently undergoing investigation 
for use as substitutes for class I compounds in metals, electronics

and precision cleaning. Because of their chemical properties, 
these compounds show promise as substitutes for cleaning precision 
guidance equipment in the defense and aerospace industries. 
In addition, the volatile methyl siloxanes have high purity 
and are therefore relatively easy to recover and recycle. In 
the cleaning system using VMSs, the fluids are used to clean 
parts in a closed header system using a totally enclosed process. 
The parts are drained and then dried using vacuum baking.
   j. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-ozone 
cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning and 
UV-ozone cleaning are all three high-technology methods of cleaning

parts. These substitutes are mostly of interest for cleaning 
electronic parts or for precision cleaning, although supercritical 
carbon dioxide is being investigated for metal cleaning
applications 
as well.
   k. Dibromomethane. The Agency has received notification that 
dibromomethane (also referred to as methylene bromide) can be 
used as a substitute cleaning agent. This chemical has an ozone 
depletion potential of .17, although it is not yet listed under 
the Clean Air Act. In addition, dibromomethane is believed to 
be more toxic than methylene chloride, although toxicity studies 
are scarce since industrial applications in the past have been 
limited. As a result, the Agency intends to propose this substitute

as unacceptable in a separate rule-making.
   l. HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee will soon be commercially available 
as a solvent cleaning agent. The Agency has received preliminary 
data on this chemical, and anticipates that its use will be 
limited due to global warming concerns to applications where 
it can replace longer-lived PFCs or where its special chemical 
properties make it the only viable substitute for a class I 
or II compound. This chemical will be undergoing review under 
the Premanufacture Notice program of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act.
   Other HFCs are also being developed for solvent usage, although 
their composition is still proprietary.

3. Comment Response

   The majority of public comments received on the proposed 
solvents cleaning SNAP decisions focused on the determinations 
for perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and for chlorinated solvents. Most 
commenters on PFCs requested that the Agency expand the
acceptability 
determination for PFCs to parts other than computer components, 
as stated in the SNAP Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM). 
Although many commenters agreed that a measure of control due 
to global warming effects was necessary, several companies
described 
in detail situations where PFCs are believed to be the only 
viable alternative to CFC-113 and methyl chloroform. The Agency 
agrees with these commenters, and the final SNAP determination 
lists the PFCs as acceptable in all cases where no other
alternative 
meets performance or safety standards. This approach does not 
diverge significantly from that described in the NPRM, in which 
EPA noted its intention to examine the possibility that PFCs 
may be necessary for cleaning other parts in addition to computer 
components.
   Opinions on the chlorinated solvents diverged widely. A number 
of commenters disagreed with the Agency's decision to list these 
chemicals as acceptable substitutes for solvents cleaning. This 
viewpoint was countered by other commenters who strongly agreed 
with the continuing need to use chlorinated solvents. The Agency 
has not altered its decision on these chemicals, and remains 
convinced that with responsible control measures and housekeeping 
practices, potential risks from these solvents can be significantly

reduced and that overall risks to human health and the environment 
will not increase significantly as a result of substitution.

4. Listing Decisions

   a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) Metals cleaning. (a) Semi-
aqueous/aqueous cleaners. Semi-aqueous and aqueous cleaners 
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. 
The determinations in this action cover semi-aqueous cleaners 
using terpenes, petroleum hydrocarbons, and alcohols. To complete 
its modeling of the ability of aqueous and semi-aqueous substitutes

to replace CFC-113 and MCF in existing applications, the Agency 
examined their ability to meet cleaning requirements in the 
metals cleaning sector. Each of these alternatives has the
potential 
to service as much as 70 percent of the metals cleaning market. 
To date, companies have shown the greatest interest in aqueous 
formulations for metals cleaning, which is why the Agency has 
reviewed this option in its first round of SNAP determinations.
   Concern over the water-based cleaners has historically focussed 
on the potential for adverse effects on aquatic life following 
discharge of wastewaters to surface water bodies. Examples of 
these effects include death to aquatic microorganisms, fish 
teratogenicity, or ecosystem effects such as inhibition of algal 
growth or bioconcentration. In this case, the Agency wanted 
to ensure that, in restricting the use of CFC-113 and methyl 
chloroform, it would not simply be replacing risks from air 
emissions with equal risks from contaminated water effluent.
   To complete its risk analysis for the aqueous and semi-aqueous 
formulations, the Agency developed a screening methodology designed

to characterize risks presented by typical manufacturing setups 
using these formulations. The diversity of chemicals used in 
aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaning complicated this undertaking. 
To complete its screen, the Agency projected concentrations 
in water for the most toxic chemical that could be used in the 
water-based formulations. These concentrations were based on 
the maximum possible concentration in the formulation and case 
studies documenting actual release profiles for several sample 
processes. The predicted concentrations obtained using this 
approach were then compared with toxicity values for this ``worst''

chemical.
   This analysis suggests that most risks presented by use of 
water-based cleaners can be controlled by standard process
management 
practices (e.g., planned discard schedules for wash and rinse 
solutions in cleaner tanks) and by adhering to existing
requirements 
for wastewater treatment imposed by municipal or state authorities.

This screening approach, although it does not examine the toxicity 
of each chemical and mixture or project exposures for each possible

formulation, does provide adequate perspective on the risks 
of these compounds compared with risks from continued use of 
CFCs.
   Although the Agency is listing water-based substitutes as 
acceptable, it urges companies to install systems that permit 
re-use and recycling of the formulation wherever possible to 
limit discharge of these chemicals. This step can offer both 
important benefits to aquatic systems as well as reduce operating 
costs of cleaning systems.
   Users should also note that EPA is preparing new effluent 
limitations and standards that will affect metals cleaning under 
the Clean Water Act for the Metal Products and Machinery sector. 
These standards, the first portion of which is expected to be 
issued in November 1994, will address any remaining uncontrolled 
risks deriving from the use of water-based cleaners in this 
industry. Phase I covers sectors such as stationary industrial 
equipment, hardware, and aircraft. Phase II, to be issued later, 
covers among other sectors manufacture, rebuild, or maintenance 
of buses, trucks, railroads, and shipbuilding.
   (b) Straight organic solvent cleaning. Straight organic solvent 
cleaning is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in 
the metals cleaning sector. This acceptability determination 
extends to organic solvents used as individual chemicals as 
well as in combinations. Although these compounds can be toxic 
to human health and are considered VOCs, the Agency's risk screen 
shows that these risks can be addressed through existing regulatory

controls. In occupational settings where toxicity is a concern, 
such as for acetone or for certain ketones, OSHA has set PELs 
designed to control risks. One class of organic solvents about 
which there has recently been increased concern for possible 
health effects is glycol ethers. However, the glycol ethers 
identified in this case are ethylene glycol ethers, whereas 
for solvent cleaning purposes companies customarily use propylene 
glycol ethers. Propylene glycol ethers are generally not believed 
to exhibit the same degree of toxicity as the ethylene glycol 
ethers. Controls also exist for sources of VOC emissions and 
for handling of the organic solvents as hazardous wastes under 
RCRA.
   Regulatory standards are not the only method of mitigating 
the environmental effects of these chemicals. Many manufacturers 
and distributors of these solvents have instituted programs 
or can refer companies to programs that will reclaim and process 
spent solvent-either on or off-site-for further use. The Agency 
encourages companies using organic solvents to seek out such 
programs. In addition, companies should consider the principles 
of pollution prevention when instituting cleaning with organic 
solvents and adopt emissions control measures such as appropriate 
freeboard and automated hoists that will reduce pollution at 
its source.
   (c) Other chlorinated solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE), 
perchloroethylene (perc) and methylene chloride (meth) are all 
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals cleaning 
sector. These alternatives have the chemical properties to meet 
the cleaning needs of up to 80 percent of the metals cleaning 
sector, although the Agency anticipates that the actual market 
share for the non-ozone-depleting chlorinated solvents will 
not expand to the maximum extent feasible. Because of the high 
toxicity of these compounds, they have the potential to pose 
risks to workers and residents in nearby communities. However, 
the Agency's analysis of use of these compounds as cleaning 
agents indicates that these risks can be controlled by adhering 
to existing regulatory standards. OSHA has determined, for
instance, 
that it is possible to use these solvents in a manner that
minimizes 
risks to workers. To reach this conclusion, OSHA conducted
extensive 
analyses of the toxicity and technical feasibility of using 
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or methylene chloride 
(54 FR 2329-2984, January 19, 1989, and 56 FR 57036-57141, November

7, 1991). OSHA found that the new PEL of 50 ppm for
trichloroethylene 
was feasible in metal cleaning operations (54 FR 2433) and after 
conducting an extensive study of metal degreasing control
technologies, 
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health concluded 
that an exposure limit of 25 ppm for TCE could also be achieved. 
More recently, in its proposed standard for methylene chloride, 
OSHA found that a PEL of 25 ppm is technically feasible during 
metal cleaning operations with the use of appropriate local 
exhaust ventilation and work practices.
   In addition, these solvents are all listed as hazardous wastes 
under RCRA (F001, U080, U210, U228) and thus must comply with 
applicable RCRA waste disposal requirements. The SNAP risk screen 
did note the potential for adverse effects without additional 
controls. However, the Agency is in the process of addressing 
residual risks to the general population through releases to 
air under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Section 112 requires 
EPA to establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
standards for use of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). All three 
non-OD chlorinated solvents are listed as HAPs, and the Agency 
issued a proposal describing MACT rules governing their use 
in industrial cleaning in November 1993. The final regulation 
is expected to be issued by the end of 1994. 
   Finally, through the voluntary ``33/50'' pollution prevention 
program, the EPA is encouraging companies to decrease emissions 
of TCE, perc, and meth, in addition to 14 other specific chemicals.

Companies participating in this program voluntarily commit to 
decreasing emissions 33 percent by the end of 1992 and 50 percent 
by the end of 1995, using pollution prevention strategies. The 
Agency is committed in the long term to urge companies to
participate 
in pollution prevention programs such as 33/50, and to continue 
to find new ways to use and emit less polluting and lower toxicity 
compounds. EPA urges even companies not participating in the 
33/50 program to explore and adopt housekeeping practices, chemical

handling procedures, and equipment configurations that lead 
to lower chemical consumption. 
   (d) Supercritical carbon dioxide. Supercritical carbon dioxide 
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals 
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen did not identify any 
environmental effects with significant concerns for this
substitute. 
   (e) Vanishing oils. Vanishing oils are acceptable substitutes 
for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals cleaning sector. Although 
these materials are VOCs, extensive regulations exist at the 
Federal, state, and local level to control any new VOC uses. 
In addition, newer vanishing oils often have higher flashpoints, 
enabling them to be flashed and captured in ovens. 
   (f) Volatile methyl siloxanes (dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, 
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane,
decamethyltetrasiloxane). 
The volatile methyl siloxanes dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, 
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, and
decamethyltetrasiloxane 
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals 
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen for these chemicals 
indicated that exposure to these substitutes are generally below 
levels that would raise concern for health risks. Two of the 
volatile methyl siloxanes, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and 
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, have low company-set exposure 
limits, and these chemicals will be handled under a separate 
rulemaking. 
   (2) Electronics cleaning. a. (Semi-aqueous/aqueous
cleaners).Semi-
aqueous and aqueous cleaners are acceptable substitutes for 
CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. The justification for 
this determination is described in the section on metals cleaning. 
In this case, the Agency estimated that up to 80 percent of 
the cleaning market could be captured by semi-aqueous cleaners 
and that up to 60 percent of the market could be served by aqueous 
cleaners. As in metals cleaning, the Agency urges companies 
to adopt pollution prevention practices and to select formulations 
with low overall toxicity. 
   Effluent limitations and standards that affect use of water-
based formulations in the electronics cleaning sector will be 
proposed under the Clean Water Act for the Phase I Metal Products 
and Machinery sector by November 1994. Phase I includes electronic 
equipment along with other manufacturing areas such as aerospace, 
hardware and mobile industrial equipment. Phase II, to be issued 
later, covers household and office equipment in addition to 
sectors such as motor vehicles and shipbuilding. 
   (b) No-clean substitutes. No-clean processes are acceptable 
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. The 
Agency's analysis estimates that, over time, as much as seventy 
percent of the electronics cleaning market could switch to no-
clean processes-a projection that is borne out by the high degree 
of interest shown by electronics companies in these substitutes. 
   Concerns for risks deriving from use of no-clean processes 
focus primarily on worker safety. To examine these risks, the 
Agency looked at critical factors that distinguish no-clean 
processes from conventional electronics assembly. These differences

center on changes in the proportions of chemicals used in
formulations, 
rather than on differences in the identity of chemicals selected. 
The analysis determined that occupational risks deriving from 
these differences are already well-documented and controlled, 
for example, through requirements specified on key Materials 
Safety Data Sheets and existing workplace regulations implemented 
by OSHA. 
   Additionally, the shifts in proportions of chemicals used 
in the formulation result in less waste than is normally generated 
through the traditional manufacturing process, resulting in 
a lower probability of overall adverse effects to the general 
population. The Agency also investigated the production of waste 
before and after the actual cleaning process and found that 
waste generation at these points in the production process would 
not be greater than what is seen with CFC-113 or MCF use. 
   This acceptability listing also applies to water-removable 
fluxes and inert gas soldering. 
   (c) Straight organic solvent cleaning. Straight organic solvent 
cleaning is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in 
the electronics cleaning sector. This acceptability determination 
extends to organic solvents used as individual chemicals as 
well as in combinations. The Agency's justification for this 
decision is described in the section on acceptable substitutes 
for metals cleaning. 
   (d) Other chlorinated solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE), 
perchloroethylene (perc) and methylene chloride (meth) are all 
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics 
cleaning sector. The reasons for this decision are described 
in the metals cleaning discussion. Although these solvents have 
not received as much commercial interest for electronics cleaning 
as for metals cleaning applications, the Agency did receive 
a request to review these chemicals for electronics cleaning. 
   Although the Agency's risk screen focused on use of these 
chemicals in metals cleaning operations, the screen suggests 
that release profiles for these chemicals in electronics cleaning 
will be either the same or lower. As a result, the Agency has 
reached the same conclusion with respect to electronics cleaning 
as in the metals cleaning analysis, namely that any risks due 
to the inherent toxicity of these chemicals could be controlled 
by existing and future regulatory standards. 
   (e) Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-ozone 
cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-
ozone cleaning are all acceptable as substitutes for CFC-113 
and MCF in electronics cleaning. The Agency did not identify 
any environmental issues associated with use of these substitutes. 
While ozone is hazardous to human health, OSHA has already set 
standards for use of this compound in the workplace. 
   (f) Volatile methyl siloxanes (dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, 
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane,
decamethyltetrasiloxane). 
The volatile methyl siloxanes dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, 
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, and
decamethyltetrasiloxane 
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics 
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen for these chemicals 
indicated that exposure to these substitutes are generally below 
levels that would raise concern for health risks. Two of the 
volatile methyl siloxanes, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and 
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, have low company-set exposure 
limits, and these chemicals will be handled under a separate 
rule-making. 
   (3) Precision cleaning. (a) Semi-aqueous/aqueous cleaners. 
Semi-aqueous and aqueous cleaners are acceptable substitutes 
for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning. The reasons for this 
decision are the same as those described in the metals cleaning 
section. Each of these alternatives has the potential to service 
approximately 65 percent of the precision cleaning market. This 
figure may overestimate the technical potential for water-based 
cleaners in this sector, since this end use sector faces the 
greatest technical constraints in implementing new cleaning 
alternatives. 
   The Agency did not specifically examine risks from water-
based formulations used in precision cleaning since the processes 
are typically either similar to those used in metals cleaning 
or have lower throughputs and therefore fewer discharges.
Therefore, 
the analysis assumed that these risks from precision cleaning 
would be either comparable to or less than risks associated 
with use of water-based formulations for metals cleaning. 
   (b) Other chlorinated solvents. Other chlorinated solvents 
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in precision 
cleaning. The reasons for this decision are described in the 
section on metals cleaning. For the analysis of risks from these 
substitutes in the precision cleaning end use sector, the Agency 
made the same assumptions as in its analysis for electronics 
cleaning applications of water-based formulations, namely that 
exposures would be equal to or less than exposures in the metals 
cleaning sector since the processes for precision cleaning are 
similar or even of lower emissions than those for metals cleaning. 
Consequently, the Agency believes that risks would also be either 
equivalent or lower. 
   (c) Straight organic solvent cleaning. Straight organic solvent 
cleaning is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in 
precision cleaning. This acceptability determination extends 
to organic solvents used as individual chemicals as well as 
in combinations. The Agency's justification for this decision 
is described in the section on acceptable substitutes for metals 
cleaning. 
   (d) Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-ozone 
cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-
ozone cleaning are all acceptable as substitutes for CFC-113 
and MCF in precision cleaning. The Agency did not identify any 
environmental issues associated with use of these substitutes. 
While ozone is hazardous to human health, OSHA has already set 
standards for use of this compound in the workplace. 
   (e) Volatile Methyl Siloxanes (dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, 
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane,
decamethyltetrasiloxane). 
The volatile methyl siloxanes dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, 
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, and
decamethyltetrasiloxane 
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the precision 
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen for these chemicals 
indicated that exposure to these substitutes are generally below 
levels that would raise concern for health risks. Two of the 
volatile methyl siloxanes, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and 
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, have low company-set exposure 
limits, and these chemicals will be handled under a separate 
rule-making. 
   b. Substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions. (None).
   c. Substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. 
(1) Metals Cleaning. (None). (2) Electronics Cleaning. (a)
Perfluorocarbons. 
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 
and MCF in the electronics cleaning sector for high-performance, 
precision-engineering cleaning applications only where reasonable 
efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives 
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements. 
PFCs covered by this determination are C5F12, C6F12, C6F14, 
C7F16, C8F18, C5F11NO, C6F13NO, C7F15NO, and C8F16O. The uses 
of PFCs in solvent cleaning are restricted due to global warming 
concerns. PFCs display intrinsic properties that point to their 
potential to be contributors to global warming. All PFCs, for 
instance, have very long atmospheric lifetimes. As an example, 
C5F12 (perfluoropentane) has a lifetime of approximately 4,100 
years. This means that for practical purposes, any global warming 
effects from PFCs are irreversible. In contrast, the lifetime 
of CFC-113 is, at 110 years, 40 times smaller. Since greenhouse 
gases come from many diverse sources, even small emissions of 
PFCs warrant controls if global warming is to be successfully 
mitigated. The risk screen for the solvent cleaning sector
discusses 
the atmospheric properties of PFCs and provides a more detailed 
discussion of why PFCs merit being listed as acceptable only 
for narrowed uses. 
   Despite concerns about the global warming potential of PFCs, 
the Agency has listed this niche application as an acceptable 
use of perfluorocarbons because, for certain high-performance, 
precision-engineered components and equipment, a PFC-based cleaning

system may be the only viable alternative available to replace 
use of class I or II compounds. 
   The characteristics of components or equipment that may require 
PFC-based cleaning are if the part: 
    Requires extremely low levels of remaining particulate 
and residue for adequate performance (as opposed to cosmetic 
appearance).
    Possesses complex geometric configurations and or capillary 
spaces (as small as 1 micron) which greatly hinder cleaning 
and drying.
    Contains or is made of materials sensitive to corrosion, 
oxidation or other damage from water (such as ceramics, gallium 
arsenide, silicon nitride, or magnesium), where that damage 
would degrade subsequent performance of the product.
    Contains temperature-sensitive materials that cannot maintain 
their integrity at the high drying temperatures of alternative 
systems. 
    Contains materials that are hydrophilic or otherwise impaired 
by contact with water.
    Is extremely fragile, requiring the use of a low viscosity, 
very low surface tension fluid.
    Is contaminated with specialized halogenated lubricants 
or damping fluids such as perfluoropolyethers.
    Is a low-volume prototype under development for research, 
testing and evaluation purposes. 
   Users should note that the presence of one of these parameters 
alone does not necessarily indicate the need to use a PFC. For 
instance, a water-sensitive part could potentially also be cleaned 
using a solvent wash, solvent rinse without PFCs. 
   Examples of components where PFCs may be necessary are: 
    Precision optical and electro-optical systems such as
components 
for highpowered lasers or weapon targeting systems.
    Specialized electrical, semiconductor and electronic
components, 
connectors and assemblies such as precision electronic components 
used for military and avionics applications.
    Sensitive medical devices and medical equipment components 
such as electronic circuitry for pacemakers (does not include 
prosthetic devices). 
    Precision telecommunications and communications components 
such as microwave hybrid components for electronic warfare. 
    High-performance computer components and computer electro-
mechanical assemblies such as direct access storage devices. 
   Other examples are listed in the section on precision cleaning. 
Examples of parts where alternatives other than PFCs exist are 
electronic parts for low-value, mass-produced consumer or standard 
machined metal parts. 
   A specific example under electronics cleaning where PFCs 
may be necessary exists in manufacture of certain direct access 
storage devices (DASDs) for computers. To make the technical 
improvements demanded of the storage devices, such as faster 
access times and higher recording densities, companies have 
been required to use magnetically superior materials. These 
materials are extremely prone to corrosion from water and are 
vulnerable to any contamination introduced in the manufacturing 
process, such as organic or particulate matter. Consequently, 
the storage device itself must be a miniature ``clean room'' 
if it is to perform correctly. Manufacturers of some DASDs can 
use water-based cleaners in much of the production process, 
but may need to rely on the PFCs as water-displacement agents 
to achieve the required high degree of cleanliness while protecting

the water-sensitive materials in the device. 
   As the acceptability determination states, before users adopt 
PFCs as part of a substitute cleaning system, they must ascertain 
that ``other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements.'' This statement implies 
users will undertake a thorough technical investigation of
alternatives 
before implementing the PFCs. A determination, for instance, 
that PFCs are necessary simply ``because my parts cannot tolerate 
water,'' is insufficient. Similarly, companies should avoid 
rejecting an alternative simply because it is flammable or toxic, 
since equipment now exists which may be feasible for some uses 
that makes it possible for a broad spectrum of alternatives 
to meet performance and safety standards. 
   Users may contact vendors of alternatives to explore with 
experts on these alternatives whether or not they would work. 
This effort may involve a detailed discussion of the type of 
parts, e.g., function, substrate, geometry, and cleanliness 
standards. A possible approach is to actually arrange for the 
parts to be tested with other cleaning alternatives. For example, 
a concern regarding the flammability of isopropyl alcohol is 
not sufficient reason to reject this alternative, unless the 
user has contacted vendors and examined the newer styles of 
equipment and found them insufficiently safe. To assist users 
in their evaluation, EPA has prepared a list of vendors selling 
substitutes for cleaning solvents. Although EPA does not require 
users to report their test results in a certification to the 
Agency, companies must keep these results on file for future 
reference. 
   In cases where users must rely on PFCs due to lack of other 
options, they should make every effort to: 
    Adopt closed systems and recover, recycle and destroy where 
possible. 
    Pre-clean where possible with other alternatives so as 
to avoid unnecessary use of PFCs.
    Reduce emissions to a minimum through equipment features 
and conservation practices that address idling losses, liquid 
dragout, and operator variables (adequate freeboard, chillers, 
welded piping, programmable hoists, operator training, etc.).
    Continue to search for long-term alternatives. 
   The Agency believes that it is reasonable to expect users 
to achieve favorable CFC/PFC replacement ratios since PFCs have 
relatively higher boiling points. In addition, the high price 
of PFCs makes additional containment cost-effective. Companies 
forced to use PFCs due to lack of other alternatives may use 
the PFC-based equipment to clean and dry other precision parts, 
but only if the amount of PFCs needed to stock the equipment 
does not increase. 
   Prospective users should also note that companies now
investigating 
PFC use contend that within 2-3 years, it will be possible to 
replace the PFCs in cleaning equipment with HFCs or other options 
that have zero ozone depletion potential and significantly lower 
global warming potential. As a result, they view use of the 
PFCs as an important but transitional solution to their cleaning 
needs. If PFCs are chosen, it is important for users to begin 
working with chemical manufacturers to start testing and qualifying

these new materials to help speed conversion when alternative 
chemicals become commercially available. 
   Users of PFCs should note that if other alternatives such 
as HFCs or other cleaning substitutes are later found to meet 
performance or safety standards, the Agency could be subject 
to a petition requesting it to list PFCs as unacceptable
substitutes 
due to availability of other alternatives. If such claims are 
determined to be accurate and EPA limits the acceptability listing 
even further, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only to 
the extent warranted by cost and timing considerations associated 
with testing and retrofitting. 
   (3) Precision cleaning. (a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons 
(PFCs) are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the 
precision cleaning sector only for high-performance, precision-
engineering cleaning applications where reasonable efforts have 
been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically 
feasible due to performance or safety requirements. PFCs covered 
by this determination are C5F12, C6F12, C6F14, C7F16, C8F18, 
C5F11NO, C6F13NO, C7F15NO, and C8F16O. The electronics cleaning 
section discusses the justification for this narrowed use
acceptability 
listing. 
   Despite concerns about the global warming potential of PFCs, 
the Agency has listed this narrowed application as an acceptable 
use of perfluorocarbons in precision cleaning because, for certain 
high-performance, precision-engineered components and equipment, 
a PFC-based system may be the only viable alternative available 
to replace use of class I or II compounds. 
   Types of precision components that may require PFC-based 
cleaning include: 
    High-performance guidance, navigation and tracking systems 
such as gyroscopes and accelerometers.
    High-performance aerospace and avionics components and 
equipment such as liquid oxygen systems or rotational hand
controllers.
    Critical analytical devices and their components used for 
gas chromatography where low residue levels are essential.
    Optical components made from plastics damaged irreparably 
by water or other solvents or coated or mounted with specialized 
materials. 
   Interested users should review the section on PFCs under 
electronics cleaning for a full discussion of the considerations, 
limitations, and requirements associated with selecting this 
alternative. 
   d. Unacceptable substitutes. (1) Metals cleaning. (a) HCFC-
141b and its blends. HCFC-141b and its blends are unacceptable 
as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning, with 
acceptability subject to narrowed use limitations to be granted 
by EPA, if necessary, as CFC-113 replacements after the effective 
date of this listing. The effective date for this listing is 
30 days after the date of the final rule for uses of HCFC-141b 
and its blends in new equipment (including retrofits made after 
the effective date) and as of January 1, 1996, for uses of HCFC-
141b and its blends in existing equipment. For purposes of this 
SNAP determination, ``existing equipment'' is defined to include 
equipment that companies have shown a clear intention to use 
and have purchased before the effective date of the SNAP
determination, 
even if that equipment has not yet been installed. 
   As discussed earlier in this action in Section VI.B., the 
Agency is authorized to grandfather existing uses from a
prohibition 
where appropriate under the four-part test established in Sierra 
Club v. EPA, supra. The Agency has conducted the four analyses 
required under this test, and has concluded that the balance 
of equities favors a grandfathering period of two years for 
uses of HCFC-141b in existing equipment in this application. 
The prohibition set forth in this action clearly represents 
a departure from previously established practice, as use of 
the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users of HCFC-
141b who switched from class I substances into this solvent 
invested in this substitute on the assumption that it would 
be a sufficient improvement over the class I use. Prohibiting 
their use of the substitute immediately would impose a severe 
economic burden on these users. These factors taken together 
outweigh any statutory interest in applying the new rule
immediately 
to existing users. This is especially true since the restriction 
applies immediately to new equipment using HCFC-141b, which 
creates no incentive for continued investment in equipment using 
HCFC-141b in this application. 
   The Agency's basis for proposing to restrict use of HCFC-
141b is that this compound has a comparatively high ODP-0.11. 
This is the highest ODP of all the HCFCs; in fact, the ODP for 
HCFC-141b is nearly equal to the ODP for MCF (0.12). For this 
reason, the Agency concludes that replacing MCF with HCFC-141b 
is unacceptable, since using HCFC-141b in place of MCF would 
not provide the environmental benefits that the phase-out was 
designed to achieve. 
   To analyze the impacts from use of HCFC-141b as a CFC-113 
replacement, the Agency estimated HCFC-141b use over time in 
each of the cleaning end uses, and projected health effects 
due to ozone depletion with the help of the Atmospheric
Stabilization 
Framework model. The modeling period starts in 1990 and measures 
health effects expected for people born before 2030. 
   The findings of this modeling show adverse health effects 
of the magnitude commonly associated with the use of
ozone-depleting 
compounds. For example, in the case of metals cleaning, the 
Agency projected that use of HCFC-141b to replace MCF where 
technically feasible could yield approximately 40,000 additional 
skin cancer cases and approximately 1,000 additional skin cancer 
fatalities compared to use of non-ozone-depleting substitutes. 
   The Agency believes that these figures and the availability 
of superior substitutes as described in the section on acceptable 
substitutes justify the proposal to list HCFC-141b as an
unacceptable 
substitute. The Agency believes that, in almost all applications, 
other solvent cleaning substitutes are available that meet industry

performance and safety criteria. To reach its decision on HCFC-
141b use, the Agency also took into account the cost of other 
alternatives. The analysis suggested that, although HCFC-141b 
can be used with modification to existing equipment, the capital 
costs for the retrofit and the materials costs in combination 
would be so high as to render other alternatives comparatively 
affordable, even though they require new equipment. 
   HCFC-141b will be restricted as a substitute only where other 
alternatives exist to CFC-113 for the application in question. 
Several companies have already contacted the Agency, indicating 
that they have tested available alternatives to CFC-113, and 
that in some cases only HCFC-141b meets performance or safety 
criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for needing to use 
HCFC-141b are either applications where a non-flammable solvent 
is required or where sensitive parts could be destroyed by use 
of other cleaning systems. 
   For these applications of HCFC-141b, the Agency may find 
that the uses are acceptable subject to limitations if it
determines 
that these critical uses persist beyond the grandfathering period 
provided in the listing. For EPA to issue a narrowed use
acceptability 
listing, companies who believe they may need to use HCFC-141b 
past the effective date must first contact EPA, since the Agency 
has not yet received any indication from users of a technical 
need to use HCFC-141b past the grandfathering period granted 
under the unacceptability listing. Narrowed use acceptability 
listings are described in more detail in section VII. of the 
Preamble. Companies interested in submitting a SNAP application 
for a narrowed use are encouraged to contact the Agency at least 
90 days in advance of the expiration of the grandfathering period. 
Companies that intend to use HCFC-141b within the parameters 
of the final unacceptability listing and who will cease using 
HCFC-141b after the expiration of the grandfathering period 
need not contact the Agency. 
   The Agency believes that the decision to restrict HCFC-141b 
use as a CFC-113/MCF substitute for metals cleaning will have 
little effect on industry since few vendors of HCFC-141b have 
been selling HCFC-141b as a metals cleaning substitute. Companies 
in this end use sector that want to replace CFC-113 with HCFC-
141b and use it beyond the date described in this SNAP
determination 
should review the section referenced above. The Agency expects 
to receive few such requests, however, since most metals cleaning 
is currently performed with MCF. 
   (2) Electronics cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b and its blends. HCFC-
141b and its blends are unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-
113 and MCF in electronics cleaning, with acceptability subject 
to narrowed use limitations to be granted by EPA, if necessary, 
as CFC-113 replacements after the effective date of this listing. 
The effective date for this prohibition is 30 days after the 
date of the final rule for new equipment (including retrofits 
made after the effective date) and January 1, 1996 for existing 
equipment. The structure and reasons for this unacceptability 
listing are the same as those for the decision on HCFC-141b 
as a metals cleaning substitute. As in the metals cleaning sector, 
the Agency will grant narrowed use acceptability listings in 
limited cases for use beyond the grandfathering period of the 
listing, as necessary. As discussed earlier in this action in 
section VI.B., the Agency is authorized to grandfather existing 
uses from a prohibition where appropriate under the four-part 
test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. 
   The Agency has conducted the four analyses required under 
this test, and it has concluded that the balance of equities 
favors a grandfathering period of two years for existing equipment 
in this application. The prohibition set forth in this action 
clearly represents a departure from previously established
practice, 
as use of the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users 
of HCFC-141b who switched from class I substances into this 
solvent invested in this substitute on the assumption that it 
would be considered an acceptable substitute. It would impose 
a severe economic burden on these users to prohibit their use 
of the substitute immediately, with no provision of time to 
allow them to recover their investment in existing equipment 
or acquire new equipment in a timely fashion. These factors 
taken together appear to outweigh any statutory interest in 
applying the new rule immediately to existing users, especially 
since the restriction would apply immediately to new equipment 
using HCFC-141b, which would serve to prevent further ozone 
depletion from use of HCFC-141b in this application. 
   As with metals cleaning applications for HCFC-141b, the Agency 
modeled potential HCFC-141b use in electronics cleaning
applications 
over time, and projected health effects due to ozone depletion 
with the help of the Atmospheric Stabilization Framework model. 
For electronics cleaning, the maximum market penetration for 
HCFC-141b as a replacement for CFC-113 is 90 percent. With this 
penetration, the model predicted approximately 400 additional 
skin cancer fatalities and 30,000 additional skin cancer cases 
compared to uses of non-ozone-depleting substitutes. 
   (3) Precision cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b and its 
blends are unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in 
precision cleaning, with acceptability subject to narrowed use 
limitations to be granted by EPA, if necessary, as CFC-113
replacements 
after the effective date of this listing. The effective date 
for this listing is 30 days after the date of the final rule 
for new equipment and as of January 1, 1996, for existing
equipment. 
The structure and reasons for this decision are described in 
the section on metals cleaning. As discussed earlier in this 
action in section VI.B., the Agency is authorized to grandfather 
existing uses from a prohibition where appropriate under the 
four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. 
   The Agency has conducted the four analyses required under 
this test, and it has concluded that the balance of equities 
favors a grandfathering period of two years for existing equipment 
in this application. The prohibition set forth in this action 
clearly represents a departure from previously established
practice, 
as use of the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users 
of HCFC-141b who switched from class I substances into this 
solvent invested in this substitute on the assumption that it 
would be considered an acceptable substitute. It would impose 
a severe economic burden on these users to prohibit their use 
of the substitute immediately, with no provision of time to 
allow them to recover their investment in existing equipment 
or acquire new equipment in a timely fashion. These factors 
taken together outweigh any statutory interest in applying the 
new rule immediately to existing users, especially since the 
restriction would apply immediately to new equipment using HCFC-
141b, which would serve to prevent further ozone depletion from 
use of HCFC-141b in this application. 
   In the case of precision cleaning uses of HCFC-141b, the 
Agency's modeling of HCFC-141b use as a CFC-113 replacement 
projected approximately 5,000 additional skin cancer cases when 
compared to use of non-ozone-depleting substitutes. 
   As in the case of other cleaning applications, the Agency 
finds unacceptable substitutions of HCFC-141b to replace MCF, 
since these compounds have nearly identical ODPs. Here again, 
the Agency will grant, if necessary, a limited narrowed use 
acceptability listings for CFC-113 past the exemption granted 
in the grandfathering period. However, the Agency expects only 
few requests for permission to use HCFC-141b to come from this 
sector, since most companies who requested exemptions to date 
to have stated that they view their use of HCFC-141b only as 
an interim solution. EPA believes that, absent future indications 
from such companies, all uses of HCFC-141b can be terminated 
by the effective date of the unacceptability listing. 

G. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection 


1. Overview 

   Halons are gaseous or easily vaporizable halocarbons used 
primarily for putting out fires, but also for explosion protection.

The two halons used most widely in the United States are Halon 
1211 (chlorodifluorobromomethane) and Halon 1301
(trifluorobromomethane). 
Halon 1211 is used primarily in streaming applications and Halon 
1301 is typically used in total flooding applications. Some 
limited use of Halon 2402 also exists in the United States, 
but only as an extinguishant in engine nacelles (the streamlined 
enclosure surrounding the engine) on older aircraft and in the 
guidance system of Minuteman missiles. 
   Halons are used in a wide range of fire protection applications 
because they combine five characteristics. First, they are highly 
effective against solid, liquid/gaseous, and electrical fires 
(referred to as Class A, B, and C fires, respectively). Second, 
they are clean agents; that is, they dissipate rapidly, leaving 
no residue and thereby avoiding secondary damage to the property 
they are protecting. Third, halons do not conduct electricity 
and can be used in areas containing live electrical equipment. 
Fourth, halons are gaseous substances that can penetrate in 
and around physical objects to extinguish fires in otherwise 
inaccessible areas. Finally, halons are generally safe for limited 
human exposure when used with proper exposure controls. 
   Despite these advantages, halons are among the most ozone-
depleting chemicals in use today. Halon 1301 has an estimated 
ODP of 10; Halon 1211 has an estimated ODP of 3. Thus, while 
total halon production (measured in metric tons) comprised just 
2 percent of the total production of class I substances in 1986, 
halons represented 23 percent of the total estimated ozone
depletion 
potential of CFCs and halons combined. 
   The greatest releases of halon into the atmosphere occur 
not in extinguishing fires, but during testing and training, 
service and repair, and accidental discharges. Data generated 
as part of the Montreal Protocol's technology assessment indicate 
that only 15 percent of annual Halon 1211 emissions and 18 percent 
of Halon 1301 emissions occur as a result of use to extinguish 
actual fires. These figures indicate that significant gains 
can be made in protecting the ozone layer by revising testing 
and training procedures and by limiting unnecessary discharges 
through better detection and dispensing systems for halon and 
halon alternatives. 
   Additional information on specific halon uses can be found 
in the Montreal Protocol 1991 Assessment or in other background 
material in the public docket. The determinations found in this 
section are based on the risk screen described in the background 
document entitled ``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for 
Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Fire Extinguishing and
Explosion 
Protection (Halon Substitutes)'', and in supplementary assessments 
included in the public docket. 

2. Substitutes for Halons 

   The fire protection community has made considerable progress 
in identifying and developing substitutes for halons in fire 
protection applications. Several manufacturers have submitted 
information regarding substitute streaming and total flooding 
agents, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
has initiated efforts to develop standards for their use in 
total flooding scenarios (NFPA 2001). In addition, manufacturers 
are seeking Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual 
Research Corporation (FMRC) certification for systems employing 
the new agents. The Agency's review of halon substitutes is 
intended not to replace, but to complement the guidance of the 
fire protection community in directing the transition away from 
halons to substitutes posing lower overall risk. 
   Many recent efforts to develop substitutes for halon have 
focused on halocarbon chemicals. These are considered potential 
``replacements'' for halon because they possess halon-like
properties 
(gaseous, non-conducting) and because they can be used on Class 
A, B, and C fires. Some of the replacement chemicals are chemical 
action agents which, like halons, suppress fires by interfering 
with the free radical chain reactions that sustain a fire. Others 
are physical action agents which cool, dilute, or smother the 
fire (separating the air and fuel). In general, chemical action 
agents are much more effective fire suppressants than physical 
action agents. 
   Halocarbons represent only a portion of agents available 
for fire protection, and in fact appear to be a decreasing portion 
as users more and more are choosing to install ``alternative'' 
systems. Water, carbon dioxide, foam, and dry chemical are already 
in widespread use as fire extinguishants and may capture some 
of the former halon market. Water mist, powdered aerosols and 
inert gases are new technologies that are also likely to claim 
part of the former halon market. EPA encourages users to assess 
their risk management schemes and, where possible, to minimize 
reliance on chemical agents. Nonchemical alternatives should 
be seriously evaluated to determine whether they afford the 
necessary level of protection in any given application. 
   In assessing toxicity of a halocarbon, EPA pays special
attention 
to consumer and worker exposure to discharges during fire
emergencies 
and accidental discharges. In these acute, episodic exposures 
to the halon substitutes, cardiac sensitization is of particular 
interest. The term cardiac sensitization refers to an increased 
susceptibility of the heart to adrenaline (or other catecholamines)

which may result in potentially fatal heart arrhythmias. 
   Several studies involving human exposure in a laboratory 
setting establish the potential significance for human health 
of animal data on cardiac sensitization. Evaluating the safety 
of potential halon substitutes requires the measurement of the 
No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and the Lowest Observed 
Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of cardiac sensitization in an 
appropriate species, usually the dog. EPA uses the NOAEL value 
as the basis to ensure protection of the worker population. 
The protocols used to determine the cardiotoxic NOAEL and LOAEL 
concentrations for each agent are conservative. The cardiotoxicity 
effect levels are measured in animals that have been made more 
sensitive to these effects by the administration of epinephrine 
concentrations which are just below the concentrations at which 
epinephrine alone causes cardiotoxicity. The concentration of 
epinephrine required to cause this heightened sensitivity is 
approximately ten times greater than the concentration a human 
being would be likely to secrete under stress. 
   The determination of the safety of either a flooding or
streaming 
agent substitute is also dependent on a number of other related 
factors. For total flood systems, the magnitude of exposure 
will depend on the design concentration of the flooding agent 
(as determined by the substitute's extinguishing concentration 
plus 20 percent, as specified by NFPA guidelines) and the length 
of time it takes a person to evacuate the area in which the 
agent is released. In assessing exposure and consequent use 
conditions, the design concentration of a total flood substitute 
is compared to its cardiotoxic NOAEL and LOAEL levels. Generally, 
if the design concentration is higher than the agent's LOAEL 
level, then the agent is not suitable for use in normally occupied 
areas. EPA is adopting the OSHA standard (29 CFR 1910, subpart 
L) section 1910.162, which limits the exposure to an agent based 
upon the length of time it takes to evacuate an area. In addition, 
EPA makes note that OSHA standard 1910.160 also applies to gaseous 
total flood systems. 
   In addition, EPA recognizes that agents should not be used 
at a concentration that significantly displaces oxygen in the 
lungs. Most of the CFC and halon substitutes are gaseous, heavier-
than-air compounds, which following a leak or catastrophic emission

may tend to pool near the ground, i.e. in the breathing zone. 
Since these agents are, in the main, colorless with minimal 
odor and little toxicity or irritant effect, they can lead to 
asphyxiation by oxygen displacement if the unwary inadvertently 
walk into an area of oxygen depletion. The designer of a total 
flood system should be particularly alert to this possibility 
during discharge and subsequent dispersion of the agent in the 
space. For compounds which do not elicit a cardiotoxic effect 
until very high concentrations have been reached, care should 
be taken that sufficient oxygen remains in the room so that 
asphyxiation will not occur. 
   In contrast to total flooding agents, exposure to substitute 
streaming agents can be expected to vary greatly depending on 
the amount of agent released, the time needed to extinguish 
a fire, the size of the room or enclosure in which a fire occurs, 
the size of the fire, the proximity of the person to the point 
of discharge of the agent, the rate at which fresh air infiltrates 
the space, and the air exchange rate near the fire. Assessment 
of exposure in streaming applications is much more complicated. 
EPA employs the `box model' to assess consumer exposure, which 
has been widely used for many years to estimate probable exposures 
of workers to hazardous airborne materials, and has been described 
in detail by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health (NIOSH) and is discussed in detail in the background 
documents. The box model takes into consideration assumptions 
on volume of the space in which the extinguishant is used, rate 
at which fresh air infiltrates the space, amount and rate of 
agent release, area of the fire, location of the worker, and 
the air exchange rate in the vicinity of the fire. Values obtained 
through the box model, compared to cardiotoxic NOAEL/LOAEL values, 
provide a screen for assessing risk. However, EPA has found 
that the model often overstates the actual exposure to an agent, 
and therefore, EPA requires personal monitoring tests be conducted 
in actual use scenarios in order to complete the assessment. 
   Evaluating halon substitutes also requires assessing the 
efficacy of substitute agents. The efficacy of a fire protection 
agent can be compared using a cup burner or full scale test 
to obtain the extinguishing concentration in a particular fuel. 
NFPA standards require an additional 20 percent be added to 
obtain the design concentration. Most values identified in this 
rule are obtained by cup burner, while some are obtained by 
full scale testing, and most are in heptane. This measure is 
included in the discussion of halon substitutes for information 
and comparative purposes, and EPA does not assert that the efficacy

values listed here are appropriate for all fire or explosion 
hazards. The user community is cautioned to consult the appropriate

NFPA standard, relevant OSHA regulations, and professional fire 
consultants to determine actual requirements. 
   After concluding the analysis of halon alternatives, EPA 
in some cases finds acceptable the use of an agent only under 
certain conditions. In implementing its use of conditions, the 
Agency has sought to avoid overlap with other existing regulatory 
authorities. EPA believes that section 612 clearly authorizes 
imposition of use conditions to ensure safe use of replacement 
agents. EPA's mandate is to list agents that ``reduce the overall 
risk to human health and the environment'' for ``specific uses.'' 
In light of this authorization, EPA is only intending to set 
conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace 
until OSHA incorporates specific language addressing gaseous 
agents into OSHA regulation. Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section 
4(b)(1), OSHA is precluded from regulating an area currently 
being regulated by another federal agency. EPA is specifically 
deferring to OSHA, and has no intention to assume responsibility 
for regulating workplace safety especially with respect to fire 
protection. EPA's workplace use conditions will not bar OSHA 
from regulating under its Public Law 91-596 authority. The
substitutes 
for halons in fire protection applications are discussed in 
the next section by class of chemical. 
   a. Brominated hydrofluorocarbons. Brominated hydrofluorocarbons 
(HBFCs) are effective halon substitutes. Because these substances 
contain bromine, they act as chemical action agents in the same 
manner as the halons. In fact, some HBFCs are more effective 
than Halons 1211 and 1301 in specific applications. For this 
reason, HBFCs can replace Halons 1211 and 1301 on nearly a one-
to-one basis and appear to have significant applicability in 
existing systems. However, the presence of bromine also means 
that these agents have higher ozone-depleting potentials than 
other halon substitutes. 
   At this time, only one HBFC, HBFC-22B1, is expected to be 
commercially available in the near term. HBFC-22B1 can, however, 
serve only as an interim substitute for halons. The substance 
has an ODP of 0.74 and has been listed as a class I substances. 
Under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act, production 
of HBFC-22B1 is required to end January 1, 1996. 
   b. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. A number of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
(HCFCs) have also been suggested as halon replacements. These 
include HCFC-22, HCFC-123, and HCFC-124. These HCFCs will
extinguish 
fires but because they are physical action agents, they are 
considerably less effective than halons or HBFCs. Thus, high 
concentrations must be achieved to extinguish fires. Further, 
although the ozone depletion potential of HCFCs is considerably 
lower than that of either halons or HBFCs, they are listed as 
class II chemicals under the Clean Air Act. The production of 
HCFC-141b will be phased out beginning January 1, 2003; HCFC-
22 and HCFC-142b beginning January 1, 2020; and all other HCFCs 
beginning January 1, 2030 (58 FR 65018, December 10, 1993). 
   In addition, under section 610(d) of the CAA as amended, 
HCFCs in pressurized dispensers are banned from sale or
distribution 
after January 1, 1994. Under the final rulemaking for section 
610 (58 FR 69637, December 30, 1993) EPA interpreted section 
610(d) to exclude HCFCs which are part of an installed `system.' 
The final rule exempts total flooding systems and those streaming 
applications which incorporate fixed, automatic systems. However, 
section 610(d) only allows the sale of an HCFC in a portable 
fire extinguisher where other unregulated agents are not suitable 
for the intended applications. Because alternatives are available 
for residential uses, EPA intends to publish a proposed rulemaking 
under section 612 to update the SNAP list of acceptable substitutes

and to ban the sale and use of HCFCs in portable fire extinguishers

for residential applications. However, in commercial (including 
industrial and military) settings, the variety of hazards are 
too broad to create standards through rulemaking, and therefore 
under section 610(d) EPA has established industry-based mechanisms 
for controlling the sale of HCFCs. 
   Generally, while HCFCs can serve only as interim halon
substitutes 
due to their scheduled phaseout as class II substances, EPA 
believes that they serve an important transitional role in the 
phaseout of class I substances. HCFC-22 has been suggested as 
a total flooding agent, but this compound is unlikely to be 
used as a single agent in normally occupied areas due to its 
cardiotoxic profile. 
   HCFC-123 is being proposed as a streaming agent to replace 
Halon 1211, both in pure form and in blends. HCFC-123 could 
replace Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.8 by weight-a ratio considerably

better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 
has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, 
and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other 
HCFC substitutes. 
   HCFC-124 is being proposed as both a total flooding agent 
and a streaming agent, both alone and in blends. HCFC-124 has 
relatively low ODP and GWP values. Animal testing indicates 
that the substance may be lethal to rats at a level greater 
than 23 percent over a four hour period. Due to its cardiotoxic 
profile, this agent is not suitable for use in total flooding 
applications in normally occupied areas. However, pending personal 
monitoring tests to assess actual exposure, it is possible that 
this agent could be used as a streaming agent. 
   c. Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have also 
been suggested as halon substitutes. HFCs are physical action 
agents and are less effective than halons or HBFCs. Due to their 
reduced efficacy, larger storage volumes are required for use 
in fire protection systems. Their great advantage over halons, 
HBFCs, and HCFCs is that HFCs have an ozone depletion potential 
of zero. However, when exposed to fires, HFCs potentially decompose

into greater amounts of hydrogen fluoride (HF) than do HCFCs, 
depending on the number of fluorines in the molecule. Discharge 
of these chemicals onto a fire must be rapid or early to prevent 
the buildup of large amounts of these decomposition products. 
   In addition, HFCs can potentially contribute to global climate 
change. Because of this potential, HFCs are included in President 
Clinton's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). Under this plan, 
EPA is directed to limit uses of greenhouse gases as substitutes 
for ozone-depleting compounds. Because EPA is simultaneously 
also interested in promoting the broader shift away from ozone-
depleting compounds, any limits on use will be imposed wherever 
possible in ways that preserve as much flexibility for those 
trying to move to alternatives as possible. To minimize unnecessary

emissions of greenhouse gases, EPA is recommending that users 
limit testing only to that which is essential to meet safety 
or performance requirements; recover HFCs from the fire protection 
system in conjunction with testing or servicing; and recycle 
recovered agent for later use or destruction. Manufacturers 
of these agents must recognize their responsibility to prevent 
unnecessary emissions of these gases. Product stewardship programs 
may be a useful mechanism to help users meet these requirements. 
EPA will reexamine how to control unnecessary emissions of
greenhouse 
gases in the future. 
   HFC-23, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-227ea have all 
been proposed as total flooding agents. HFC-134a and HFC-227ea 
have also been proposed as streaming agents. HFCs tend to possess 
less risk of acute cardiotoxicity than do the HCFCs or HBFC-
22B1. 
   HFC-32 has been determined to be flammable, with a large 
flammability range, and is therefore inappropriate as a halon 
substitute. In the next SNAP update, EPA intends to propose 
listing this agent as unacceptable in total flood applications. 
   d. Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are fully
fluorinated 
compounds which do not contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, 
PFCs are nonflammable, essentially non-toxic, and are not VOCs. 
PFCs are effective fire protection agents, having the lowest 
required extinguishing concentration of any of the suggested 
substitutes other than HBFCs. However, these compounds have 
high molecular weights, which create weight and storage replacement

ratios that are somewhat higher than the HCFCs and many of the 
HFC candidates. Two PFCs have been submitted as halon replacements:

Perfluorobutane (C4F10) as a total flood replacement for Halon 
1301, and perfluorohexane (C6F14) as a substitute for Halon 
1211. In the NPRM, these agents were referred to as FC 3-1-10 
and FC 5-1-14, respectively. 
   The principal environmental characteristic of concern for 
PFCs is that they have long atmospheric lifetimes and have the 
potential to contribute to global climate change. PFCs are also 
included in the CCAP which broadly instructs EPA to use section 
612, as well as voluntary programs, to control emissions. 
   While PFCs are extremely persistent, their favorable toxicity 
profile makes these agents attractive for use in occupied areas. 
Thus, EPA believes that there are instances in which PFCs represent

the only viable alternative to transition away from the CFCs 
or halons. 
   The Agency is finding use of PFCs acceptable only for
applications 
where reasonable efforts have been made to determine that no 
other alternatives are technically feasible due to performance 
or safety requirements. However, as with all of the substitutes 
which are greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, EPA 
recommends that users limit testing only to that which is essential

to meet safety or performance requirements; recover agent from 
the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or
servicing; 
and recycle or destroy agent that is recovered from a system. 
In addition, EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive 
product stewardship programs to help users avoid such unnecessary 
emissions. EPA will reexamine how to control unnecessary emissions 
of greenhouse gases in the future. 
   e. Chlorofluorocarbons. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have also 
been proposed as halon alternatives, either individually or 
in blends. These compounds are also class I substances, however, 
and as a matter of policy EPA will not encourage shifting from 
one class I substance to another, despite the fact that the 
ODPs of the CFCs are significantly lower than those of Halons 
1211 and 1301. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to encourage 
shifting to substitutes that are required to be phased out in 
the near term. In addition, the sale and distribution of CFCs 
in pressurized dispensers (in this sector, portable fire
extinguishers) 
are controlled under section 610(b) of the CAA. 
   f. Blends. A number of manufacturers have proposed proprietary 
blends of chemicals for fire protection applications. These 
blends combine a variety of CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs, inert gases, 
and other additives to achieve desired levels of effectiveness, 
toxicity, and decomposition products. Most of these blends contain 
constituents that have non-zero ODPs and GWPs. In assessing 
the ODP and GWP of such blends, the Agency has examined both 
the weighted average of the constituents and the individual 
characteristics of the constituents. Because toxicity varies 
with the exact composition of the blend, EPA requires
cardiotoxicity 
tests to be conducted on the blend itself, rather than being 
inferred from the constituents. 
   g. Non-halocarbon alternative agents. Non-halocarbon alternative

agents such as CO2, dry chemical, foams, and water that are 
currently in widespread use and that are covered in NFPA standards 
and OSHA regulations may also be used as substitutes for halon. 
These agents are not as widely applicable as the halocarbon 
substitutes, and must be used where recommended by the
manufacturers 
and approved by standard-setting entities such as the NFPA. 
   In addition, several manufacturers have developed new
technologies 
to adapt traditional agents to the halon market. Two manufacturers 
have developed inert gas blends as Halon 1301 substitutes in 
total flood systems. One of them, containing CO2 mixed with 
inert gases has already been included in the new NFPA 2001
standard. 
   Water sprinkler systems are capturing part of the halon
substitute 
market, often in conjunction with improved detection systems 
and risk management programs which isolate the degree of liability 
in a given fire event. A promising new water technology
incorporates 
fine water droplets to create a water mist or fog. It has been 
suggested that water mist systems are safe for use on Class 
A and B fires, and even can be used on Class C electrical fires 
without causing secondary damage. Because the environmental, 
health and safety issues of the various types of water mist 
systems have not yet been fully addressed, EPA is listing water 
mist as pending in this rule, and will work with NFPA,
manufacturers, 
and others in order to include it in the next SNAP update. 
   Again, while dry chemicals are in widespread use, another 
new technology for both the total flooding and streaming markets 
involves the use of powdered aerosols, which combine fine powder 
particulates with gas to achieve a total flood effect. 
   While foams are also in widespread use, one manufacturer 
has prepared a blend of etoxylated linear alcohol and sulfonated 
soap for use in streaming applications. This blend is not a 
clean agent, but offers another alternative technology where 
secondary damage can be tolerated. It presents benefits of rapid 
cool-down, prevention of reignition, and decrease in the quantity 
of water required to extinguish fires. 

3. Response to Comments 

   Key issues included in the public comment are addressed in 
this section. For a complete discussion of public comments
received, 
refer to the ``Response to Comments'' document in the public 
docket. The issues addressed in this section include: Alternative 
technologies, efficacy and design, use conditions, narrowed 
use restrictions, and halon categories and subdivisions. 
   a. Alternative technologies. As halon is being phased out, 
there is a growing interest in not only clean chemical substitutes 
but also in reassessing the use of conventional substitutes, 
adopting new risk management strategies and using alternative 
technologies. Several commenters expressed the view that
alternatives 
such as water and CO2 are not clean agent chemical substitutes, 
but rather conventional suppression system substitutes, and 
have been in widespread use for many years. Thus, these commenters 
stated that such alternatives are outside the scope of SNAP 
and that EPA should only list clean agent chemical substitutes. 
They indicated that it would be counterproductive to list all 
acceptable substitutes and alternatives under SNAP, which are 
better addressed by the entire fire protection community, and 
that doing so would restrict trade and development of new
technology. 
One commenter said it was unclear what purpose would be served 
by attempting to list all substitutes and alternatives, including 
a variety of system technologies. 
   Section 612 of the Clean Air Act specifies that class I and 
class II substances shall be replaced by ``chemicals, product 
substitutes, or alternative manufacturing processes that reduce 
overall risks to human health and the environment'' and directs 
EPA to assist in identifying such substitutes and alternatives, 
promote their development, maintain a public clearinghouse, 
and publish lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 
for specific uses. EPA interprets this language as a broad mandate 
to include alternative technologies. For the fire suppression 
and explosion protection sector, EPA is defining alternative 
technology to be any non-halocarbon substance discharged for 
the purpose of fire suppression or explosion protection. Thus, 
water mist, inert gas mixtures, powdered aerosols and any other 
`not in kind' alternative to CFCs and halons are alternative 
technologies. EPA believes that its assessment of potential 
human health and environmental impacts of these new technologies 
does, in fact, speed their acceptance and adoption by removing 
uncertainty about their safe use. In addition, while water
sprinklers, 
carbon dioxide, foam, and dry chemical are currently in use, 
these substances fall within the definition of alternative
technology. 
EPA will simply list these as acceptable and note their applicable 
NFPA standards. 
   EPA will assess each class of alternative technology and 
determine whether a separate review is prudent due to variations 
in formulation and design of similar technologies, or whether 
it is possible to construct a broad listing of acceptability 
that covers several manufacturers. In this final rule, EPA is 
listing each water mist technology as well as inert gas blends 
and powdered aerosols separately due to the unique formulation, 
design and intended use of each. An acceptable or unacceptable 
listing of a particular alternative technology is not generalizable

to similar technologies from other manufacturers. 
   b. Efficacy and design issues. Many commenters state that 
in the NPRM, EPA has assumed that a single design concentration 
(obtained from a cup burner test for heptane) is applicable 
for all fire hazards and requested that EPA remove all reference 
to design concentration. However, several commenters noted that 
listing of the design concentration was useful in comparing 
the relative efficacy of substitute agents, as long as EPA is 
clear about the source of the data. 
   In addition, many commenters feel that while EPA states that 
the SNAP rule ``is intended not to replace, but to complement 
the guidance of the fire protection community,'' EPA has
``dangerously 
oversimplified'' the many factors that must be taken into
consideration 
in designing a system, and a listing of ``acceptability'' implies 
that any alternative will work in a safe and effective manner. 
One commenter specifically requested that EPA remove all references

to design and installation requirements. 
   Many commenters believe that EPA should not comment on the 
efficacy of substitutes, as this is outside the scope of the 
SNAP rule, and that EPA should only comment on environmental 
and toxicological concerns. The commenters believe EPA should 
only list the agent name, EPA's decision, NOAEL, and any specific 
environmental or regulatory concerns (such as ODP, GWP, or future 
phaseout date.) One commenter is concerned that EPA's involvement 
in efficacy issues will cause users to select agents that will 
result in less effective and more expensive protection than 
is needed, and will make American industry less competitive 
in world markets. 
   One commenter summed up the requests of many others, suggesting 
that, at a minimum, EPA should include cautionary wording that 
a listing of `acceptable' does not imply the agent will work 
in any given application. Further, EPA should point out that 
the efficacy of an agent is dependent on the application system 
and should encourage users to consult current consensus fire 
codes and standards such as those developed by NFPA. 
   By contrast, EPA believes that efficacy of a substitute agent 
must be a consideration in decision making, because EPA's charge 
is to ensure that substitutes are not on balance more risky 
than the ozone-depleting compounds being replaced. A substitute 
which is not effective cannot be considered safer than the halon 
being replaced. In addition, design concentration is germane 
to a discussion of potential exposure and its consequent effects 
on human health. 
   In addition, while most agents submitted under SNAP are
relatively 
effective, the analysis of efficacy assists in the assessment 
of the availability of substitutes in various niche markets. 
EPA intends to accept as many viable substitutes as possible. 
If, due to technical concerns such as weight or storage volume 
equivalency, there are few or no substitutes available in a 
given application, EPA must ensure that it does not restrict 
the few available choices based on other issues, such as
environmental 
concerns. EPA's primary task in SNAP is to facilitate the move 
away from ozone-depleting compounds, and this goal cannot be 
served in the fire extinguishing sector without a full
understanding 
of the characteristics of the available substitutes. 
   However, the Agency agrees with the commenters that data 
sources should be clearly identified. EPA does not intend to 
imply that cup burner data for heptane dictates the proper design 
concentration for all applications and for all fire hazards, 
nor does EPA intend to imply that a listing of `acceptable' 
means that an agent may be used in any application without
professional 
consultation. In this final rule, EPA reaffirms the need for 
all potential users to consult NFPA technical standards, OSHA 
regulations, and fire protection professionals for actual design 
considerations. 
   c. Use conditions. In response to EPA's request for comment 
on whether section 612 authorizes the agency to set use conditions,

several commenters argued that setting use conditions is not 
within the purview of section 612. Some commenters stated that 
EPA has exceeded its scope of authority under the Clean Air 
Act, and that EPA should defer regulation of workplace safety 
to OSHA, which is the appropriate entity. Other commenters stated 
that EPA failed to consult with OSHA and thus overstepped its 
authority by setting workplace conditions. 
   Other commenters feel it is proper for EPA to establish exposure

limits on new agents as it will ensure public safety until OSHA 
regulations are complete, especially where there is little
historical 
exposure information to rely on. 
   EPA believes that section 612 clearly authorizes imposition 
of use conditions to ensure safe use of replacement agents. 
EPA's mandate is to list agents that ``reduce the overall risk 
to human health and the environment'' for ``specific uses.'' 
Where use of a substitute without conditions would increase 
overall risk, EPA is authorized to find the use of such substitutes

totally unacceptable. Included in this is the authority to find 
acceptable the use of the substitute only if used in a manner 
that reduces overall risk, and to find unacceptable its use 
in all other cases. 
   Further, EPA's use conditions on workplace safety for halon 
substitutes will exist only in the interim, until OSHA incorporates

specific language addressing gaseous agents in the OSHA law. 
Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section 4(b)(1), OSHA is precluded 
from regulating an area currently being regulated by other federal 
agencies. EPA is specifically deferring to OSHA, and has no 
intention to assume responsibility for regulating workplace 
safety in regard to fire protection. Consequently, EPA's use 
conditions are effective only until OSHA acts and will terminate 
by their own terms once OSHA establishes standards. 
   OSHA  1910.162 governs the use of all gaseous agents in 
fixed extinguishing systems, however EPA finds that the guidance 
is not sufficiently explicit on the allowable concentrations 
of the different agents. While paragraph 1910.162(b)(3) stipulates 
that ``[t]he employer shall assure that employees are not exposed 
to toxic levels of gaseous agent or its decomposition products,'' 
it does not define what a `toxic level' is. In examining paragraph 
1910.162 (b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), EPA concludes that it 
is OSHA's intent to limit exposure to gaseous agents based upon 
cardiotoxicity levels. EPA's conclusion was confirmed in
discussions 
with OSHA. EPA therefore concludes that it is appropriate under 
the SNAP program to stipulate what the cardiotoxic levels for 
each agent are, and, until OSHA incorporates clarifying language, 
to impose use conditions that apply OSHA standard 1910.162 in 
its entirety to these agents. 
   References in  1910.162 to a Halon 1301 concentration of 
7% imply a cardiotoxic NOAEL, and references to a Halon 1301 
concentration of 10% imply a cardiotoxic LOAEL. In this regulation,

EPA is clarifying the intent of  1910.162(b)(3) to allow the 
use of the substitute gaseous agents only according to paragraph 
(b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), using the cardiotoxic NOAEL and 
LOAEL of each agent as the concentration referenced in each 
subparagraph. Thus, until OSHA establishes applicable work-place 
requirements, the use conditions in this final rule on halocarbon 
substitutes, using the OSHA regulation as a standard, will be 
as follows: 
    Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within 
one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations

exceeding its NOAEL. 
    Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than 
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration

greater than its LOAEL. 
    Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only permitted 
in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any 
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer 
shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during 
agent discharge. 
   These conditions will no longer apply once OSHA establishes 
applicable workplace requirements. 
   EPA will adopt the commenters' suggestion that the use
conditions 
be stated once in the beginning of each section and will not 
repeat them for each agent. 
   d. Narrowed use restrictions. Many commenters requested that 
EPA remove the narrowed use restrictions placed upon HFC-23, 
C4F10, and C6F14. These commenters argue that narrowed use
restrictions 
are unnecessary, because the fire protection community (including 
entities such as NFPA, UL, FMRC and others) has successfully 
regulated fire protection historically and remains better able 
to determine which agents should be selected based on design 
and use criteria, including environmental and toxicological 
acceptability, efficacy, cost, engineering practice and specific 
risk. 
   It is not the intent of EPA to interfere with the ability 
of the fire protection community to use its expertise in selecting 
agents and designing appropriate and cost-effective systems 
based upon technical criteria. EPA congratulates the industry 
on its excellent record of self-regulation, and seeks to work 
cooperatively with the regulated community in our efforts to 
address the phaseout of halon. However, use of fire protection 
agents is, in fact, already regulated under federal law, i.e. 
OSHA, to ensure their safe use. 
   Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is mandated to evaluate substitutes

to reduce ``overall risk to human health and the environment'' 
and to publish lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 
``for specific uses.'' EPA interprets section 612 as giving 
the Agency authority to limit use where there are concerns due 
to health or environmental factors. Because a primary goal of 
the SNAP program as a whole is to speed the market's transition 
away from ozone-depleting substances, conditional acceptances 
were accorded to many substitutes which might be unacceptable 
in the absence of any use conditions. EPA believes that, through 
the setting of narrowed use restrictions in the limited cases 
where they are warranted, it has actually expanded the list 
of available options for fire protection experts to choose from. 
   Many commenters stated that the narrowed use restrictions 
as written in the NPRM by EPA are vague and confusing, and overly 
complex, leading to uncertainty. Commenters asked that EPA clarify 
such vague terms as ``high value,'' ``public safety,'' ``national 
security,'' ``life support,'' and ``critical.'' They state that 
ambiguity will cause many users to be reluctant to use the new 
substitute agents. Concern was expressed that the fire protection 
community will have to spend an inordinate amount of time
interpreting 
and deciphering whether a particular system meets EPA's
requirements. 
Some commenters advised that, if EPA retains narrowed use
restrictions, 
these restrictions should be better defined through work with 
the fire protection industry. One commenter suggested that a 
more easily enforced method would be to allow use only in
applications 
where toxicity of other substitutes would not be acceptable. 
Furthermore, some commenters noted that EPA's publicly expressed 
concern about the environmental acceptability, particularly 
the global warming impacts, of certain agents has already slowed 
interest in the development of systems. They state that as a 
result, there is continued dependence on halon for certain critical

applications where no other alternative agent is suitable, such 
as in explosion inerting applications. 
   EPA agrees with the commenters that narrowed use restrictions 
must not contribute to uncertainty and a consequent reluctance 
to move away from ozone-depleting fire fighting agents. To address 
this concern, EPA has worked with agent manufacturers, system 
designers, and members of the regulated community to better 
clarify the intent and the wording of narrowed use restrictions. 
In this final rule, EPA is amending the means of controlling 
unwanted emissions of long-lived agents. In the NPRM, EPA attempted

to narrow the scope of uses for the PFCs (C4F10 and C6F14) and 
for HFC-23 by listing the use categories that were acceptable. 
Because the regulated community found this listing ambiguous, 
and because EPA could not list all possible uses that would 
require this agent, EPA explored the technical criteria that 
would define where this agent was best applied, as one commenter 
suggested. This approach was appealing, but, again, tended to 
place the task of system design upon the Agency. Therefore, 
for the PFCs, the Agency has decided to adopt an approach that 
places the burden of proof upon the end-user for determining 
that no other alternative was technically feasible for that 
application. 
   Users shall self-certify the need to use restricted agents. 
Before users adopt C4F10 or C6F14, both restricted agents, they 
must make reasonable efforts to ascertain that ``other substitutes 
or alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance 
or safety requirements.'' Users are expected to evaluate the 
technical feasibility of other substitutes or alternatives to 
determine their adequacy to control the particular fire or
explosion 
risk. An example of where no other alternative is available 
due to the physical or chemical properties of the agent would 
be where, due to the environmental characteristics of the end-
use, other agents would fail to vaporize or would not achieve 
the dispersion required for effective fire protection. Similarly, 
use of PFCs due to toxicological concerns would be appropriate 
where use of other alternative agents would violate the workplace 
safety use conditions set forth in this final rule. For example, 
use of a certain agent for explosion suppression in an occupied 
area might require high concentrations of an agent that exceed 
its LOAEL, or, in cases where egress is precluded such as in 
military vehicles during wartime, the required concentration 
of the alternatives might exceed their NOAEL. EPA intends that 
PFCs be used only as the agent of last resort. 
   To assist users in their evaluation, EPA has prepared a list 
of vendors manufacturing halon substitutes and alternatives. 
Although users are not required to report the results of their 
investigation to EPA, companies must retain these results in 
company files for future reference. 
   Several commenters requested that narrowed use restrictions 
on HFC-23 be lifted because its cardiotoxicity profile is favorable

compared to its design or inerting concentration and in some 
cases it may be the only acceptable alternative. As mentioned 
above, one commenter suggested that it would be more appropriate 
to qualify acceptability of a particular agent with respect 
to its technical applicability in defined situations. For example, 
this commenter identified several areas where HFC-23 is
particularly 
applicable: (a) Where temperatures are likely to go below 0 degrees

(b) where pre-inerting is required for occupied areas, and (c) 
where occupied areas can suffer considerable variation in fire 
volume. 
   Most HFC-23 is a by-product of the manufacture of HCFC-22. 
While HCFC-22 is scheduled for a production phaseout under the 
Clean Air Act by the year 2020, HCFC-22 is also used as a feedstock

for the manufacture of other products, such as Teflon. Thus, 
it can be expected that HFC-23 will likely be inadvertently 
produced in the future. As discussed above, Action 40 of the 
CCAP instructs EPA to limit emissions of greenhouse gases under 
the SNAP program. However, because this agent is typically a 
byproduct of HCFC-22 production, it is EPA's position that capture 
of HFC-23 and use as a fire suppression agent may delay the 
effects of this agent in the atmosphere while serving a valuable 
purpose. Thus, EPA is lifting the narrowed use restrictions 
imposed in the NPRM, and in this FRM EPA is finding acceptable 
the use of this agent wherever deemed applicable given technical 
or market considerations. However, to control unnecessary emissions

of this agent, EPA recommends that users limit testing only 
to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements; 
recover HFC-23 from the fire protection system in conjunction 
with testing or servicing; and recycle or destroy agent that 
is recovered from a system. EPA is encouraging development of 
product stewardship programs by the manufacturer and by Original 
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) marketing systems containing 
this agent. 
   e. Halon categories and subdivisions. Many commenters requested 
that EPA remove the subdivisions within the use categories. 
In other words, agents should be classified as either ``total 
flooding'' or ``streaming'' with no further distinction as to 
their use. This structure, states one commenter, is consistent 
with the separation addressed by UNEP and NFPA. They state that 
the proposed subdivisions over-complicate the rule. 
   For example, in total flood applications, some commenters 
suggest simply referring to an agent's NOAEL which, along with 
OSHA regulations and NFPA standards, will determine its suitability

for a given application. Thus, there would be no need to
distinguish 
between normally occupied and normally unoccupied spaces. 
   EPA is adopting the recommendation of the commenters. Two 
end-use categories are used in this final rule: Streaming Agents 
and Total Flooding Agents. Explosion inertion is included in 
the Total Flooding Agent category. 

4. Listing Decisions 

   In order to evaluate the acceptability of proposed halon 
substitutes, the Agency divided the fire protection sector into 
two end-uses: (1) Streaming Agents, and (2) Total Flooding Agents. 
The `Total Flooding' category includes all total flooding
applications, 
including normally occupied, normally unoccupied, and explosion 
inertion and suppression applications. 
   For some substitutes, data required by the Agency to complete 
a risk assessment is not yet available or has not been submitted 
to the Agency as requested. As a result, not all candidate
substitutes 
have been fully evaluated by the Agency. Those substitutes which 
the Agency is currently reviewing, but for which a final
determination 
cannot yet be made, are listed as pending review in the table 
in Appendix B. The evaluation of these pending submissions will 
continue, and the results of these continuing evaluations will 
be published in the Federal Register as part of EPA's quarterly 
updates to the SNAP lists. 
   The listing decisions are compiled by type. Thus, for each 
end-use, an agent may be listed in one or more type of decision, 
including `acceptable,' `acceptable subject to use conditions,' 
`acceptable subject to narrowed use limits,' `unacceptable,' 
or `pending completion of review.' 
   The table in appendix B summarizes EPA's decisions by each 
type of decision for each end-use. 
   EPA's finding of acceptability of a halon substitute should 
be viewed only as a listing based on the criteria briefly set 
out in this Preamble as governing the SNAP program and described 
in detail in the background document entitled ``Characterization 
of Risk From the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting 
Substances: Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Protection (Halon 
Substitutes)''. EPA's finding of acceptability should not be 
considered an endorsement of the substitute for the suppression 
or prevention of any given fire or explosion scenario, for which 
the user is referred to a fire protection specialist. 
   a. Acceptable. (1) Streaming agents. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123 
is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute. Because of its relatively

low weight equivalency, HCFC-123 could replace Halon 1211 at 
ratio of 1.8 by weight. However, testing has indicated that 
application of this agent may require special handling or nozzles 
to successfully extinguish a fire. Its extinguishment concentration

based on cup burner tests is 6.3 percent. 
   With an ODP of 0.02, HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the 
HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its 100-year GWP of 
90 is lower than that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. In 
addition, it has a short atmospheric lifetime of 2 years. Since 
HCFC-123 has a cardiotoxic level (LOAEL) of 2.0 percent in the 
dog, with no effect (NOAEL) apparent at 1.0 percent, potential 
users have expressed concern about using HCFC-123 or blends 
containing HCFC-123 as the primary constituent. However, actual 
exposures were assessed using personal monitoring devices, and 
the Agency concludes that likely exposure levels from its use 
as a streaming agent do not exceed safe levels when used with 
good ventilation. Similar exposure concerns exist with the use 
of carbon dioxide or Halon 1211 streaming agents. All must be 
used only in areas with adequate ventilation. The manufacturer 
of portable extinguishers using these agents should include 
cautionary language on the label indicating the need for
ventilation. 
   The manufacturer has raised its allowable exposure limit 
(AEL) for HCFC-123 to 30 parts per million (ppm). The AEL is 
set at a level believed to protect workers who are regularly 
exposed from adverse chronic effects. As a practical matter, 
exposures should not exceed this limit for any working day; 
this practice is consistent with OSHA's enforcement of its own 
PELs. If it is likely that exposures may exceed 30 ppm as an 
8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), proper protective gear should 
be worn. For the purposes of determining the proper respiratory 
protection, the user should consult the manufacturer of the 
product for their specific recommendations for respirator use 
of the particular end use. 
   As discussed in the section on HCFCs generally, this agent 
is subject to regulations under section 610(d) of the CAA. EPA 
intends to publish a proposed rulemaking that will ban the use 
of this agent in residential applications. 
   (b) (HCFC blend) B. (HCFC blend) B is acceptable as a Halon 
1211 substitute. This blend consists largely of HCFC-123,
therefore, 
as with HCFC-123, it has been shown in tests to have a weight 
equivalency ratio to Halon 1211 of 1.8. While HCFC-123 has a 
cardiotoxic level of 2.0 percent in the dog, with no effect 
apparent at 1.0 percent, actual exposures from use of this blend 
as a streaming agent were assessed using personal monitoring 
devices. The Agency concludes that likely exposure levels do 
not exceed safe levels. 
   The manufacturer of HCFC-123 has raised its allowable exposure 
limit (AEL) to 30 parts per million (ppm). The AEL is set at 
a level believed to protect workers who are exposed on a regular 
basis from chronic adverse effects. As a practical matter,
exposures 
should not exceed this limit for any working day; this practice 
is consistent with OSHA's enforcement of its own PELs. 
   If it is likely that exposures may exceed 30 ppm as an 8-
hour time-weighted average (TWA), proper protective gear should 
be worn. To determine proper respiratory protection, the user 
should consult the manufacturer of the product for any specific 
recommendations governing respirator use in the particular end-
use. 
   HCFC-123, which is the major component of this blend has 
an ODP of 0.02, which is the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed 
as halon substitutes, and its 100-year GWP of 90 is lower than 
that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. Although this agent 
contains a very small percentage of PFC, which has a long
atmospheric 
lifetime and which could potentially contribute to global climate 
change, EPA believes that the quantities of PFC likely to be 
emitted are small, and that availability of this blend is an 
important aid in the transition away from ozone-depleting
substances. 
As with any chemical replacement to halon, EPA recommends that 
unnecessary emissions be controlled by minimizing training and 
by the use of recycling during maintenance. 
   As discussed in the section on HCFCs generally, this agent 
is regulated under section 610(d). Consistent with the intent 
of section 610(d), EPA intends to publish a proposed rulemaking 
that will ban the use of this agent in residential applications. 
   (c) (Surfactant blend) A. (Surfactant blend) A is acceptable 
as a Halon 1211 substitute. This product is a mixture of organic 
surfactants and water. In use, this concentrated mixture is 
diluted to strengths of 1-10 percent with available water. The 
surfactants appear to enhance the heat absorbing capacity of 
the water. 
   (Surfactant Blend) A acts on oil, gasoline, and petroleum 
based liquid fires (Class B fires) by encapsulating the fuel, 
thus removing the fuel source from the fire. This encapsulating 
feature prevents flame propagation and reduces the possibility 
of reignition. 
   This blend was designed for use on Class B oil and gasoline 
fires, but can be used on all Class A and Class B fires, as 
well as Class D fires. The agent has passed Underwriters'
Laboratories 
(UL) certification for Class A, B, and D fires, and UL testing 
for Class C fires is underway. 
   This extinguishant is a blend of complex alcohols, lipids, 
and proteins, which are diluted in large volumes of water to 
the final commercial preparation. Each of the substances is 
biodegradable and in its shipping state the product has been 
assigned a hazardous materials identification system (HMIS) 
rating of 0-0-0 for health hazard, reactivity, and flammability, 
respectively. The HMIS rating was developed by the National 
Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) to indicate the hazard 
potential of chemical substances, with zero representing the 
lowest hazard potential. 
   Initial data provided by the manufacturer indicate some ocular 
irritation in rabbits, and thus EPA is recommending that the 
manufacturer label the product with a caution about possible 
eye irritation. 
   (d) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a Halon 
1211 substitute. Carbon dioxide can be used as a direct substitute 
for Halon 1211 in specified applications. Carbon dioxide systems 
are not rated for Class A fires and so must be used in conjunction 
with another type of extinguisher to ensure that all possible 
fires can be extinguished. In addition, discharge of carbon 
dioxide into confined spaces may result in CO2 concentrations 
above the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) level. 
Areas into which carbon dioxide is discharged should be immediately

evacuated and ventilated. Carbon dioxide extinguishers should 
be used only in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and 
applicable NFPA standards. 
   (e) Dry chemical. Dry chemical extinguishers are acceptable 
as Halon 1211 substitutes. Dry chemical extinguishers can be 
used as a substitute for Halon 1211 in most residential
applications. 
While dry chemical extinguishers can be used on Class A, B, 
or C fires depending upon the type of powder used, they do not 
always penetrate well around obstacles, they do not inhibit 
re-ignition of fires, they do not cool surfaces, they can cause 
secondary damage, and discharge in confined spaces can result 
in temporary loss of visibility. Dry chemical extinguishers 
should be used only in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines 
and with relevant NFPA standards. 
   (f) Water. Water is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute. 
Users should be aware, however, that water extinguishers cannot 
act as a substitute for Halon 1211 in all applications. Water 
is primarily a Class A fire extinguishant. It can be used on 
de-energized Class C fires, but should not be used with Class 
B fires. Water may damage objects onto which it is discharged. 
Water extinguishers should be used only in accordance with
manufacturer's 
guidelines and with applicable NFPA standards. 
   (g) Foam. Foam is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute. 
Foam extinguishers cannot be used as a substitute for halon 
in all applications. Portable foam extinguishers are intended 
primarily for use on flammable liquid fires and are somewhat 
effective on Class A fires. Foam can also cause secondary damage 
on objects onto which it is discharged. Foam extinguishers should 
be used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and with 
NFPA standards. 
   (2) Total flooding agents. (a) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide 
is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute. Exposure to carbon 
dioxide poses an imminent threat to life. However, because it 
displaces oxygen, it is an effective fire protection agent. 
As a result, both OSHA and the NFPA address CO2 systems for 
occupied areas. OSHA 1910.162(b)5 requires a pre-discharge alarm 
for systems with a design concentration of 4 percent or greater. 
NFPA has written a standard (NFPA 12) that explicitly controls 
how such CO2 systems may be safely used in occupied areas. To 
protect life, the standard requires a system design such that 
no personnel may be present upon system discharge. The EPA
recognizes 
both the OSHA regulation and the NFPA standard as industry practice

and therefore defer to them in this rule. CO2 systems require 
a storage volume of three times that of Halon 1301. 
   In the review of proposed substitutes, the Agency looks at 
a variety of health and environmental factors, including whether 
the agent contributes to global climate change. While carbon 
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is also a byproduct of many 
industrial processes and is recaptured and reformulated as a 
fire fighting agent and thus does not require new production. 
Therefore, the Agency has determined that its contribution to 
overall greenhouse gas emissions is low. 
   (b) Water. Water sprinkler systems are acceptable as a Halon 
1301 substitute. Such systems are in widespread use and are 
governed by NFPA technical standards. EPA encourages adoption 
of water systems wherever feasible. Care should be taken when 
using water on Class C electrical fires, and it may not be suitable

in instances in which secondary damage is considered unacceptable. 
   (c) (Inert Gas Blend) B is acceptable for use in unoccupied 
areas. The decision for use of this agent in occupied areas 
is pending until the agency completes its review of low oxygen 
atmospheres, and will be included in a future rulemaking. Use 
conditions to limit the risk of inadvertent exposure to personnel 
in normally unoccupied areas may be included in future rulemakings.

   (d) (Powdered Aerosol) A is acceptable for use in unoccupied 
areas. The decision for use of this agent in occupied areas 
is pending until the agency completes its review of the potential 
health effects of this agent. In addition, use conditions to 
limit the risk of inadvertent exposure to personnel in normally 
unoccupied areas may be included in future rulemakings. 
   (e) (Powdered Aerosol) B is acceptable for use in unoccupied 
areas. This SNAP submission included many different formulations. 
While the formulations pose little risk in a normally unoccupied 
area, the decision for use of the various formulations in occupied 
areas is pending further review of their potential health effects. 
In addition, use conditions to limit the risk of inadvertent 
exposure to personnel in normally unoccupied areas may be included 
in future rulemakings. 
   b. Acceptable subject to use conditions. (1) Total flooding 
agents. In analyzing the acceptability of substitutes for total 
flooding applications in occupied spaces, the Agency considered 
cardiotoxicity one of the primary decision variables. Current 
OSHA limitations on use of Halon 1301 in total flooding
applications 
assure that these uses do not pose a cardiotoxic risk to personnel 
at the design concentration. 
   OSHA promulgated a safety and health standard (29 CFR 1910 
subpart L) governing fire protection systems used at all workplaces

which is designed to limit employee exposures to toxic levels 
of gaseous agents used in fixed total flood systems. OSHA section 
1910.162 governs the use of all gaseous agents in fixed
extinguishing 
systems, however the guidance is not explicit on the allowable 
concentrations of the different agents. While paragraph
1910.162(b)3 
stipulates that ``[t]he employer shall assure that employees 
are not exposed to toxic levels of gaseous agent or its
decomposition 
products,'' it does not define what a ``toxic level'' is. In 
examining paragraph 1910.162(b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), EPA 
concludes that it is OSHA's intent to limit exposure to gaseous 
agents based upon cardiotoxicity levels. EPA's conclusion was 
confirmed in discussions with OSHA. EPA's assessment is that 
the use of NOAEL/LOAEL values based on exposure scenarios is 
the proper method to ensure safe use of gaseous agents, and 
agrees with OSHA's approach. It is therefore EPA's intention 
to stipulate the cardiotoxic levels for each agent and, until 
OSHA incorporates clarifying language for the new agents, to 
impose use conditions that apply 1910.162 in its entirety to 
these agents. 
   References in  1910.162 to a Halon 1301 concentration of 
7 percent imply a cardiotoxic NOAEL, and references to a Halon 
1301 concentration of 10 percent imply a cardiotoxic LOAEL. 
In this regulation, EPA is clarifying the intent of  1910.162(b)(3)

to allow the use of the substitute gaseous agents only according 
to paragraph (b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), using the cardiotoxic 
NOAEL and LOAEL of each agent as the concentration referenced 
in each subparagraph. 
   In addition, existing OSHA standard 1910.160 applies certain 
general controls to the use of fixed extinguishing systems in 
occupied workplaces, whether gaseous, dry chemical, water
sprinklers, 
etc., and EPA has not reproduced those. These include, for example,

the requirements for discharge and pre-discharge alarms, and 
availability of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for 
emergency entry into an area where agent has been discharged.{2}
        {2}  29 CFR 459,  1910.160, paragraph (b) includes 
      쿲eneral provisions to ensure the safety of all fixed 
      쿮xtinguishing systems. Paragraph (c) stipulates
requirements 
      쿯or systems with ``potential health and safety hazards 
      퀃o employees'' such as might be posed by gaseous
agents.
   In many occupied areas, total flooding halons can be replaced 
by improved detection equipment and manually operated extinguishing

systems. Improved detection systems, if they detect fires in 
their early stages, can alert occupants to the existence of 
a fire so they may respond appropriately without discharge of 
the total flood system. In those cases in which a total flooding 
system is deemed necessary, improved detection systems can also 
reduce false alarms that result in the unnecessary discharge 
of total flooding systems. 
   In unoccupied areas, human exposure to potentially toxic 
substitutes or decomposition products are of less concern. The 
key criterion in the SNAP decision process therefore becomes 
environmental considerations. At the same time, the Agency must 
ensure that personnel are not exposed to toxic concentrations 
of fire protection agents or their decomposition products when 
the substances are vented or leak out from the extinguishment 
area. Precautions must also be taken to prevent exposures to 
personnel entering a normally unoccupied area after a discharge. 
In addition, if there is a possibility that someone must enter 
a room while an agent is likely to exceed the NOAEL level, SCBA 
must be worn. 
   Design concentrations for explosion inertion must be higher 
than for fire suppression. In addition, design concentrations 
vary depending on the combustible material being considered. 
Thus, the system designer must be careful to ensure that system 
design precludes unacceptable cardiotoxic or oxygen depletion 
levels. 
   Explosion inertion agents are currently regulated by OSHA 
through the general duty clause {3}, but use conditions are 
not explicitly stated as they are for fire suppression systems. 
However, since design concentrations for systems protecting 
against explosion of various gases or flammable liquids may 
expose personnel to cardiotoxic levels of inertion agents, it 
is industry practice to adopt standards provided under OSHA 
1910.162. EPA is not intending to impose new regulations in 
this area, but defers to current OSHA practice in this regard, 
with the stipulation that the NOAEL and LOAEL values identified 
in this Final Rulemaking are the reference values for exposure 
limits. 
        {3}  Public Law 91-596, (29 U.S.C. 654), section 3, 
      쿶s known as the ``general duty clause:''
        (1) shall furnish to each of is employees employment 
      쿪nd a place of employment which are free from
recognized 
      쿴azards that are causing or are likely to cause, death 
      쿽r serious physical harm to his employees;
        (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health 
      퀂tandards promulgated under this Act.
   Until OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements, 
total flooding agents are acceptable by the Agency for use in 
occupied areas only under the following conditions: 
   1. Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within 
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in concentrations 
exceeding its NOAEL. 
   2. Where egress takes greater than 30 seconds but less than 
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration

greater than its LOAEL. 
   3. Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only
permitted 
in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any 
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer 
shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during 
agent discharge. These conditions will no longer apply once 
OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements. 
   (a) HBFC-22B1. HBFC-22B1 is acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute. 
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HBFC-22B1 
can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.4 by weight and 1.3 by 
storage volume, making it technically suitable for use in existing 
total flood systems. Its required extinguishing concentration, 
based on the cup burner test in heptane, is estimated at 4.4 
percent, and its design concentration is 5.3 percent. Its explosion

inertion concentration is 8.0 percent. The LOAEL for cardiotoxicity

is 1 percent while its NOAEL is 0.3 percent. Its atmospheric 
lifetime is 7 to 15 years, but its GWP is uncalculated. This 
compound is unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent 
in occupied areas because its design concentration exceeds its 
cardiotoxic effect level. 
   While HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of 0.74 and will be phased out 
on January 1, 1996, the Agency believes that the substance can 
serve a useful role in helping users transition away from Halon 
1301, which has a much higher ODP, estimated at 10. 
   This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture 
Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained 
in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent 
Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). 
   (b) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute. 
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HCFC-22 
has an extinguishment concentration, as determined by cup burner 
in heptane, of 11.6 percent and a design concentration of 13.9 
percent, the highest of the candidate HCFCs. Its estimated
explosion 
inertion concentration is 18.8 percent. Its weight and volume 
equivalence are 2.4 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively. The 
cardiotoxic NOAEL is 2.5 percent and its LOAEL is 5.0 percent. 
This compound is unlikely to be feasible as a pure agent in 
occupied areas because its design concentration exceeds its 
cardiotoxic effect level. 
   The ODP for HCFC-22 is 0.05, the 100 year-GWP is 1600, and 
the atmospheric lifetime is 16 years. Its ODP and GWP are both 
higher than those for other candidate HCFCs. This agent is schedule

for production phaseout under the CAA for new equipment in the 
year 2010 and for existing equipment in the year 2020 (58 FR 
65018). 
   (c) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.

This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HCFC-124 
has relatively low ODP of .022, and, compared to other candidate 
1301 substitutes for which GWP has been estimated, has a relatively

low 100-year GWP value of 440 with an atmospheric lifetime of 
7 years. Animal testing indicates that the substance may be 
lethal to rats at a level greater than 23 percent over a four 
hour period. The substance has a cardiotoxic LOAEL of 2.5 percent 
and a NOAEL apparent at 1.0 percent. Its weight and volume
equivalence 
is 2.6 and 2.9 respectively. The extinguishing concentration 
based on cup burner tests in heptane of HCFC-124 is 7.0 percent 
and its design concentration is 8.4 percent, while its explosion 
inertion concentration is 12.0 percent. This compound is unlikely 
to be feasible as a total flooding agent in normally occupied 
areas because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic 
level. 
   (d) (HCFC BLEND) A. (HCFC BLEND) A is acceptable as a Halon 
1301 substitute. This agent is subject to the use conditions 
delineated in the discussion of total flooding agents in this 
section. Based on full-scale testing, the extinguishing
concentration 
of this blend has been determined to be approximately 7.2 percent 
and therefore the design concentration is approximately 8.6 
percent. The cardiotoxic NOAEL of this blend is 10.0 percent, 
and the LOAEL is at least 10.0 percent. Until further data is 
supplied, the Agency considers its LOAEL to be 10 percent. The 
major component of this blend has an ODP of 0.05, higher than 
other proposed HCFC substitutes, but the blend appears somewhat 
more effective from a weight and storage volume equivalency 
basis, which is 1.6 and 2.3 respectively. This compound is a 
feasible candidate for use in a normally occupied area. 
   This agent is a blend of different HCFCs. The predominant 
component of this blend is HCFC-22, which has an ODP of 0.05, 
an atmospheric lifetime of 16 years, and a GWP of 1600. HCFC-
22 is scheduled for production phaseout under the CAA by the 
year 2020 and all other HCFCs by the year 2030 (58 FR 65018). 
   (e) HFC-23. HFC-23 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute. 
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. 
   HFC-23 is attractive for use as a total flooding agent in 
occupied areas because the cardiotoxic NOAEL is at least 30 
percent without added oxygen and over 50 percent with added 
oxygen, compared to a design concentration of 14.4 percent, 
based on cup burner tests in heptane. EPA recognizes that no 
cardiotoxic effect was measured in the tests of HFC-23, and 
acknowledges that tests were terminated when oxygen levels
decreased 
to a point posing risk of asphyxiation. However, EPA must examine 
this agent in the light of potential cardiotoxicity because 
this is a halocarbon which does possess cardiotoxic
characteristics. 
It is an artifact of the test protocol that determines that 
the NOAEL and LOAEL must be interpreted from the data, and not 
interpolated. To observe a cardiotoxic effect would require 
quantities in such high concentration as to pose a risk of
asphyxiation 
before risk of cardiotoxicity. Because testing was stopped at 
30 percent without added oxygen and 50 per cent with added oxygen, 
EPA must use these values as the maximum allowable concentrations. 
In the NPRM, EPA did not refer to a specific LOAEL for this 
agent. However, the standard OSHA-derived language was included 
for all agents. In this rulemaking, EPA is using the values 
of 30 percent for the NOAEL and 50% for the LOAEL. 
   Compared to an inerting concentration in methane of 20.5 
percent and an inerting design concentration of 22.6 percent 
in methane, this agent is an excellent candidate for use in 
explosion inertion. 
   As mentioned earlier, the risk of using agents in high
concentrations 
poses a risk of asphyxiation by displacing oxygen. With an ambient 
oxygen level of 21 percent, a design concentration of 22.6 percent 
will reduce oxygen levels to approximately 16 percent, the minimum 
oxygen level considered to be required to prevent impaired
judgement 
or other physiological effects. The weight equivalent of HFC-
23 is 1.6 while its storage volume equivalent is 2.6. This agent 
requires a high pressure system for proper discharge and
dispersion. 
   Because this agent has an atmospheric lifetime of about 280 
years and a 100-year GWP of 9,000, it is considered a potent 
greenhouse gas and should be handled accordingly. Since HFC-
23 is typically a by-product of manufacturing and is not expressly 
produced for use as a fire fighting agent, EPA is allowing the 
use of this agent wherever applicable given technical or market 
considerations. However, in order to minimize unnecessary emissions

of greenhouse gases, EPA recommends that users limit testing 
only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance 
requirements; recover HFC 23 from the fire protection system 
in conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroy or recycle 
HFC-23 for later use. In addition, EPA encourages manufacturers 
to develop aggressive product stewardship programs to help users 
avoid such unnecessary emissions. 
   (f) HFC-125. HFC-125 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute. 
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. The
cardiotoxic 
NOAEL for HFC-125 is 7.5 percent, and its LOAEL is 10.0 percent 
compared to a cup burner extinguishment concentration in heptane 
of 9.4 percent. While this agent would not be appropriate for 
use in normally occupied areas, it is not expected that human 
health would be threatened by use of HFC-125 in normally unoccupied

areas. This agent has a weight and volume equivalence of 2.6 
and 3.2, respectively. 
   HFC-125 does not deplete stratospheric ozone. Despite its 
zero ODP, HFC-125 has an atmospheric lifetime of 41 years, and 
the highest calculated GWP (100-year GWP of 3,400) than any 
other HFC (except HFC-23) or HCFC currently planned for production 
as a halon or CFC substitute. 
   (g) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.

This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HFC-134a 
has a cardiotoxic NOAEL of 4.0 percent, a LOAEL of 8 percent, 
and a design concentration of 12.6 percent. This compound is 
unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent in occupied 
areas because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic 
level. Like the other HFCs, HFC-134a has an ODP of zero. It 
also has among the lowest GWP of the candidate 1301 replacements 
for which GWP has been estimated, with a 100-year GWP of 1,200 
and an atmospheric lifetime of 16. 
   Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that this substance 
is less effective than 1301. Systems that use HFC-134a will 
require approximately 2.5 times more extinguishant by weight 
and 3.1 times more storage volume than 1301 systems. 
   (h) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute. 
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. The final 
report on cardiotoxicity of HFC-227ea indicates that its NOAEL 
is 9.0 percent and that its LOAEL is at least 10.5 percent. 
EPA is accepting 10.5 percent as its LOAEL. Cup burner tests 
with heptane indicate that the extinguishment concentration 
for this agent is 5.8 percent, thus making its calculated design 
concentration 7.0 percent. These concentrations provide a
sufficient 
margin of safety for use in a normally occupied area. HFC-227ea 
does not deplete stratospheric ozone. In addition, HFC-227ea 
is the most effective of the proposed HFC substitutes for Halon 
1301. HFC-227ea can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.7 by 
weight and 1.4 by volume. 
   HFC-227ea has a 100-year GWP of about 2,050, with an atmospheric

lifetime of 31 years. 
   (i) C4F10. C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute 
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements: (a) due to their physical 
or chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents 
may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other
unacceptable 
health effects under normal operating conditions. This agent 
is subject to the use conditions delineated in the preceding 
discussion. In addition, because this agent can be used in high 
concentrations due to its cardiotoxicity profile, the design 
concentration must result in oxygen levels of at least 16%. 
   Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C4F10 can extinguish 
fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 5.5 
percent and therefore has a design concentration of 6.6 percent. 
The cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40 percent for this agent is well 
above its extinguishment concentration and therefore is safe 
for use in occupied areas. This agent has a weight and volume 
equivalence of approximately 3.1 and 3.0 respectively. 
   Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation

by displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 percent, 
a design concentration of 22.6 percent may reduce oxygen levels 
to approximately 16 percent, the minimum level considered to 
be required to prevent impaired judgment or other physiological 
effects. Thus, the oxygen level resulting from discharge of 
this agent must be at least 16 percent. 
   This agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 2,600 years and 
a 100-year GWP of 5,500. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime 
of C4F10, the Agency is finding this chemical acceptable only 
in those limited instances where no other alternative is
technically 
feasible due to performance or safety requirements. In most 
total flooding applications, the Agency believes that alternatives 
to C4F10 exist. EPA intends that users select C4F10 out of need 
and that this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus, 
a user must determine that the requirements of the specific 
end use preclude use of other available alternatives. 
   Users must observe the limitations on C4F10 acceptability 
by undertaking the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation 
of foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human 
exposure to the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach

or result in cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity 
effects under normal operating conditions; and (iii) determine 
that the physical or chemical properties or other technical 
constraints of the other available agents preclude their use. 
   Some examples of potential end-uses where toxicity may possibly 
be of concern are: i. Applications involving confined spaces 
where egress is difficult, such as in civilian and military 
transportation applications including aircraft engines, armored 
vehicles (engine and crew compartments), and ship engines; ii. 
Applications where public safety or national security necessity 
may preclude personnel from evacuating, in event of emergency, 
such as nuclear power plants or guard/security facilities; iii. 
Explosion and fire protection applications where high suppression 
or inerting concentrations are required such as processing and 
pump stations, flammable liquid processing areas, and flammable 
metal processing areas; iv. Health care facility applications 
involving impaired populations, such as hospitals and nursing 
homes where there may be a preference for use of this agent 
due to the unique concerns within the facility; v. Military 
mission critical applications which are vital to national security;

vi. Other applications where, due to physical or chemical
properties, 
there are no other technically feasible alternatives. 
   EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions 
of this agent by limiting testing of C4F10 to that which is 
essential to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering 
C4F10 from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing 
or servicing; and destroying or recycling C4F10 for later use. 
EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product
stewardship 
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions. 
   (j) IG-541. IG-541 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute. 
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the 
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. In the 
NPRM, this agent was referred to as (Inert Gas Blend) but is 
now referred to as IG-541, consistent with NFPA 2001. This agent 
is a non-reactive, non-halocarbon substance, and thus not
carcinogenic, 
mutagenic, or teratogenic; the toxicity and cardiotoxicity tests 
normally applied to halon substitutes do not apply here. Rather, 
this agent is a potential asphyxiant, since it is designed to 
decrease the oxygen to a level at which combustion cannot be 
supported. This blend is designed to increase breathing rates, 
thus making the oxygen deficient atmosphere breathable for short 
periods of time. Data submitted by the manufacturer was peer-
reviewed by pulmonary, cardiac, and stroke specialists. All 
have agreed that the blend does not pose significant risk to 
the working population and may even pose less risk than does 
exposure to halocarbon agents. However, to ensure safety, this 
blend is acceptable under the conditions that the design
concentration 
results in at least 10 percent oxygen and 5 percent carbon dioxide.

In addition, if the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere falls 
below 10 percent, personnel must be evacuated and egress must 
occur within 30 seconds. Since a fire can be expected to consume 
oxygen and form decomposition products, personnel should treat 
any fire situation as an emergency and promptly exit the space. 
   A fire suppression design concentration of 52 percent and 
43 percent would result in oxygen levels of 10 percent and 12 
percent, respectively. The inerting concentration for this blend 
is 44 percent for methane/air mixtures and 50 percent for
propane/air 
mixtures. A 50 percent concentration would result in an atmosphere 
of only 10.5 percent oxygen content, which is at the lower limit 
of acceptability of this agent. 
   Concerns have been raised about the decibel level of this 
system upon discharge. The manufacturer has submitted a report 
indicating the decibel level to be 117 decibels for 3 seconds 
followed by a decay in noise level over 5 minutes, compared 
to 130 decibels for a typical halon system. The Time Weighted 
Average (TWA) of this system is 57 decibels. These levels are 
in compliance with the OSHA workplace maximum allowed peak of 
140 decibels and a maximum Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 90 
decibels. This acceptability listing for use of IG-541 does 
not apply to any other inert gas system. A manufacturer with 
a different formulation must prepare a separate SNAP submission 
to EPA. 
   c. Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. (1) Streaming 
agents. (a) HBFC-22B1. HBFC-22B1 is acceptable as a Halon 1211 
substitute in non- residential applications. HBFC-22B1 is
unacceptable 
for use in residential applications. 
   Extinguishment testing indicates that HBFC-22B1 can replace 
Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.1 by weight, making it a viable
substitute 
for use in hand-held extinguishers. Despite its high ODP of 
0.74, this chemical can facilitate the shift away from Halon 
1211, which has an even higher ODP of 3.0. However, given the 
potential market penetration and the high ODP of HBFC-22B1, 
widespread use of HBFC-22B1 in consumer applications was estimated 
to cause unacceptable damage to the ozone layer and an excessively 
high number of skin cancer cases and deaths. The total estimated 
skin cancer cases and fatalities from the use of HBFC-22B1 as 
a Halon 1211 replacement in all uses including consumer uses 
is approximately 30,000 and 600, respectively. 
   In addition to concern about its ODP, use of HBFC-22B1 in 
residential applications may present risks of cardiosensitization. 
To assess this risk, the Agency modeled the peak concentration 
of HBFC-22B1 that would be expected if such an extinguishant 
were used to suppress a kitchen fire and estimated the decline 
from the peak. Such analysis indicated that peak concentrations 
of HBFC-22B1 would exceed 3300 ppm. This is in excess of NFPA 
ceilings for exposure. In light of the availability of other 
fire protection agents with lower associated risks, the Agency 
determined that the risks posed by HBFC-22B1 were too large 
to justify widespread use in the consumer sector. Thus, EPA 
finds HBFC-22B1 unacceptable for use in residential applications 
since other viable alternatives exist. 
   Worker exposure may be a concern in small enclosed areas, 
but in larger areas and outdoors, modeling efforts indicate 
that HBFC-22B1 can be used safely. In most realistic fire
scenarios, 
proper procedures should be in place regarding the operation 
of the extinguisher and workers will be properly trained in 
fire fighting procedures and ventilation of extinguishment areas 
can be expected after dispensing the extinguishant. 
   Because it represents one of the few available substitutes 
in specific end-uses, EPA is finding use of HBFC-22B1 acceptable 
as a streaming agent except for residential uses. However, it 
can only be considered a transitional agent, because it will 
be phased out as a class I substance beginning January 1, 1996, 
in accordance with the Clean Air Act and with the requirements 
of the Montreal Protocol. 
   This agent was submitted to the Agency in a Premanufacture 
Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained 
in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent 
Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). 
Under the terms of the Consent Order, it may be used only for 
outdoor automotive and marine applications. In addition, to 
ensure safe use, the sale of this product is restricted to a 
size discouraging residential use, with a minimum UL rating 
of 5BC. The unit must be properly labeled. The label must ban 
residential use, indicate space volume restrictions that would 
limit exposure to 1 percent, and describe proper evacuation 
and reentry requirements. In addition, the agent may only be 
sold in rechargeable units to encourage reuse and recycling 
and to minimize the potential for the agent to escape to the 
atmosphere through improper disposal. 
   (b) (CFC Blend). (CFC Blend) is acceptable as a Halon 1211 
substitute in non-residential applications. While this agent 
was listed in the SNAP NPRM as proposed acceptable, the sale 
and distribution of CFCs in pressurized dispensers (in this 
sector, portable fire extinguishers) are controlled under section 
610 of the CAA. The section 610 final rulemaking (58 FR 4768, 
January 15, 1993) bans the use of CFCs in portable fire
extinguishers. 
Therefore, in the upcoming proposed SNAP rulemaking, EPA will 
list this agent as proposed unacceptable due to section 610 
prohibitions. 
   This agent is unacceptable for use in residential applications 
since other viable alternatives exist. (CFC-Blend) contains 
CFCs with ODPs of 1.0. The predominant constituent has a 100-
year GWP of 3400, with an atmospheric lifetime of 55 years. 
The CFC constituent in this blend will be phased out of production 
on December 31, 1995. 
   This agent is the most effective of all other halon substitutes 
except for HBFC-22B1 and HCFC-123, and does not pose the exposure 
risk of HBFC-22B1 in certain scenarios. (CFC Blend) is generally 
considered non-toxic and could serve as a transitional substitute 
in many streaming applications. However, in light of its high 
ODP relative to other substitute agents and the large potential 
market for consumer/residential extinguishers, alternative agents 
such as water and dry chemical are considered sufficient for 
residential uses. 
   (c) C6F14. C6F14 is acceptable as a streaming agent in non-
residential applications: Where other alternatives are not
technically 
feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due 
to the physical or chemical properties of the agent, or (b) 
where human exposure to the extinguishing agent may approach 
cardiosensitization levels or result in other unacceptable health 
effects under normal operating conditions. This agent is
unacceptable 
for use in residential applications and for uses beyond the 
limits and conditions stipulated in this action. 
   The extinguishment concentration of C6F14 is 4.4 percent, 
and a cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40 percent. Its weight equivalence 
is 2.8 and its storage volume equivalence is 3.1. While C6F14 
has no ODP, its atmospheric lifetime is 3,000 years, and may 
potentially contribute to global climate change. 
   EPA intends that users select C6F14 out of need and that 
this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus, a user 
must determine that the characteristics of the end-use preclude 
use of other available alternatives. In most streaming
applications, 
the Agency believes that alternatives to C6F14 exist. These 
include the halocarbon replacements identified above as well 
as alternative agents such as water, CO2, foam, and dry chemicals. 
Users should attempt to use these other agents before deciding 
on an C6F14 system. At the time of publication of this rulemaking, 
EPA is unaware of any data which necessitates the use of any 
PFC as a streaming agent based on toxicological concerns. 
   Users must observe the limitations on C6F14 acceptability 
by undertaking the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation 
of foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human 
exposure to the other alternative extinguishing agents may pose 
a risk of cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity 
effects under normal operating conditions; and (iii) determine 
that the physical or chemical properties or technical constraints 
of the other available agents preclude their use. Users must 
maintain documentation on measures taken to justify use of this 
agent. 
   Some examples of potential end-uses where toxicity or physical 
characteristics may possibly be of concern are: i. Confined 
spaces which are difficult to egress, such as civilian and military

transportation applications, including armored vehicles, marine 
engines, power boats, aircraft cabins, and race cars; ii.
Applications 
where public safety or national security necessity may preclude 
personnel from evacuating, in event of emergency, such as nuclear 
power plants or guard/security facilities; iii. Emergency response 
applications such as crash rescue vehicles and aircraft
flightlines; 
iv. Military applications involving mission critical applications 
which are vital to national security; v. Other applications 
where, due to physical or chemical properties, there are no 
technically feasible alternatives. 
   EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions 
by limiting testing only to that which is essential to meet 
safety or performance requirements; recovering C6F14 from the 
fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing; 
and destroying C6F14 or recycling it for later use. EPA encourages 
manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship programs 
to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions. 
   (2) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C4F10. C4F10 is acceptable 
as a Halon 1301 substitute (i) where other alternatives are 
not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements:

(a) Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where 
human exposure to the agents may approach cardiosensitization 
levels or result in other unacceptable health effects under 
normal operating conditions. This agent is subject to the use 
conditions delineated in the preceding discussion concerning 
use to total flooding agents in the workplace. In addition, 
because this agent can be used in high concentrations due to 
its cardiotoxicity profile, the design concentration must result 
in oxygen levels of at least 16%.
   Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C4F10 can extinguish 
fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 5.5 
percent with a design concentration of 6.6 percent. The
cardiotoxicity 
NOAEL of 40 percent for this agent is well above its extinguishment

concentration and therefore is safe for use in occupied areas.
   Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation

by displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 percent, 
a design concentration of 22.6 percent may reduce oxygen levels 
to approximately 16 percent, the minimum level considered to 
be required to prevent impaired judgement or other physiological 
effects. Thus, the oxygen level resulting from discharge of 
this agent must be at least 16 percent.
   While C4F10 has a no ODP, it has an atmospheric lifetime 
of 2,600 years. Due to its long atmospheric lifetime, the Agency 
is finding this chemical acceptable only in those limited instances

where no other alternative is technically feasible due to
performance 
or safety requirements. In most total flooding applications, 
the Agency believes that alternatives to C4F10 exist. It is 
EPA's intention that users not select C4F10 out of simple
preference, 
but out of need and that this agent be used as the agent of 
last resort. Thus, a user must determine that the requirements 
of the specific end-use preclude utilization of other available 
alternatives.
   Users must observe the limitations on PFC use by undertaking 
the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation of foreseeable 
conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human exposure to 
the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach or result 
in cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity effects 
under normal operating conditions; and (iii) determine that 
the physical or chemical properties or other technical constraints 
of the other available agents preclude their use.
   Some examples of potential end-uses where toxicity may possibly 
be of concern are: i. Applications involving confined spaces 
where egress is difficult, such as in civilian and military 
transportation applications including aircraft engines, armored 
vehicles (engine and crew compartments), and ship engines; ii. 
Applications where public safety or national security necessity 
may preclude personnel from evacuating, in event of emergency, 
such as nuclear power plants or guard/security facilities; iii. 
Explosion and fire protection applications where high suppression 
or inerting concentrations are required such as processing and 
pump stations, flammable liquid processing areas, and flammable 
metal processing areas; iv. Health care facility applications 
involving impaired populations, such as hospitals and nursing 
homes where there may be a preference for use of this agent 
due to the unique concerns within the facility; v. Military 
mission critical applications which are vital to national security;

vi. Other applications where, due to physical or chemical
properties, 
there are no other technically feasible alternatives.
   EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions 
by limiting testing of C4F10 to that which is essential to meet 
safety or performance requirements; recovering C4F10 from the 
fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing; 
and destroying or recycling C4F10 for later use. In addition, 
EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product
stewardship 
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
   b. Unacceptable substitutes. (1) Streaming agents. (a) (CFC-
11). CFC-11 is unacceptable in its proposed application as a 
Halon 2402 substitute or for use in controlling large outdoor 
fires. This agent has been proposed as a substitute for Halon 
2402, as well as for use in controlling large outdoor fires, 
as when dropped from helicopters. Halon 2402 is not used in 
the U.S. and thus does not require a substitute agent. Other 
nonozone-depleting methods are already in use in fighting these 
large outdoor fires and, thus, EPA does not believe that
introduction 
of this substitute is warranted.
   (2) Total flooding agents. There are no total flooding agents 
listed as unacceptable.

H. Sterilants


1. Overview

   CFC-12 is widely used in combination with ethylene oxide 
(EtO) to sterilize medical equipment and devices. The most
prevalent 
combination consists of 12 percent EtO mixed with 88 percent 
CFC-12; the mixture is therefore referred to as ``12/88''. EtO 
serves as the actual sterilant in this mixture and can be used 
alone as a sterilant, but by itself, EtO is highly flammable. 
CFC-12 acts as a diluent to form a non-flammable blend.
   Sterilants, including 12/88, are used in a variety of
applications. 
These include hospital sterilization, medical equipment
sterilization, 
pharmaceutical production, spice fumigation, commercial research 
and development, and contract sterilization. Hospitals are by 
far the most numerous users of sterilants. Within hospitals, 
12/88 is the most popular sterilant. Estimates indicate that 
in 1989, EtO/CFC-12 was used for over 95 percent of all
sterilization 
in hospitals. Other individual users of sterilant such as contract 
sterilizers and pharmaceutical producers, while less numerous 
than hospitals, typically consume more sterilant than the average 
hospital but are more likely to use other alternatives such 
as pure EtO sterilization. 
   Despite the varied end uses of sterilants, the Agency did 
not divide its analysis and regulation of the sterilants sector 
into distinct end uses. This is because alternatives to 12/88 
are consistent across end uses, and the sterilant sector as 
a whole represents one of the smallest use sectors for Class 
I substances being considered in the SNAP program. On an ODP-
weighted basis, US consumption of CFC-12 for sterilization
represented 
less than 4 percent of the total US consumption of ozone depleting 
substances in 1990. 
   Several alternatives to 12/88 are currently in widespread 
use, but each is limited in applicability by material properties 
of the devices to be sterilized. These currently available
alternatives 
are unlikely to serve as widespread substitutes for 12/88. Steam 
sterilizers, for example, are used in many applications and 
are less expensive to purchase and operate than 12/88 systems. 
However, steam can only be used to sterilize equipment that 
can resist high temperatures and high humidity. Pharmaceutical 
manufacturers already use steam to the maximum extent possible, 
but hospitals may be able to shift some of their current 12/88 
use to steam by separating heat and moisture-resistant devices 
from sensitive ones. Other alternatives such as radiation,
peracetic 
acid, and glutaraldehyde are also in use, but, like steam, are 
incompatible with many of the materials now sterilized with 
12/88. For example, 30 to 50 percent of new products are initially 
sterilized with gamma radiation, but it is not possible to re-
sterilize hospital surgical equipment with gamma radiation. 
Rather, 12/88 must be used. 
   Several other alternatives, such as chlorine dioxide, gaseous 
ozone, vapor phase hydrogen peroxide, and ionized gas plasma, 
are currently under development. Many of these alternatives 
are also incompatible with materials currently sterilized with 
12/88. Those that may be applicable as partial substitutes for 
12/88, such as hydrogen peroxide, are not expected to be
commercially 
available in the near term. 
   Alternatives such as radiation and other currently available 
technologies should be used wherever applicable, but are not 
specifically addressed in this rule due to their limited potential 
to be widespread substitutes for 12/88. Additional information 
on such alternatives and on specific uses of 12/88 can be found 
in the supporting documentation retained in the public docket. 
The determinations in this section are based on the risk screen 
described in the background document titled ``Risk Screen on 
the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: 
Sterilization.'' Responses to comments received on the sterilants 
sector can be found in the ``Response to Comment'' document, 
also found in the public docket. 

2. Substitutes for Sterilization 

   a. Halocarbons. A number of halocarbon substitutes have been 
suggested as alternatives to CFC-12 in EtO blends for
sterilization. 
These include HCFC-123, HCFC-124, HFC-125, HCFC-141b, and HFC-
134a and HFC-227ea. At present, however, only HCFC-124, a blend 
of HCFCs, and HFC-227ea have been proposed as near-term candidates.

While HCFC-124 has been fully evaluated by the Agency in this 
rule, final determinations on the HCFC Blend and HFC-227ea will 
be made as soon as complete data is available and the products 
are approved under FIFRA. Additional research will be required 
to determine the suitability of the other agents in EtO blends. 
   Many of the proposed halocarbons offer good potential as 
EtO diluents. They demonstrate good flame retardation, low ODPs, 
low GWPs, low toxicity, materials compatibility, acceptable 
vapor pressures, and good blending properties. Mixtures of
halocarbons 
with EtO would most likely be at ratios similar to 12/88, or 
with a slightly lower EtO content. HCFC-124 has been tested 
with 8.6 percent EtO, for example. Such properties would make 
halocarbon blends virtual drop-in replacements for 12/88 in 
existing systems. The blends would also be far less damaging 
to stratospheric ozone than is 12/88. 
   b. Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is already in widespread 
use as a sterilant in blends with EtO. Previously, the most 
common blend contained 10 percent EtO and 90 percent CO2 and 
was referred to as ``10/90''. However, on October 1, 1993 the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) issued regulations on the 
transport of hazardous materials which listed EtO/CO2 mixtures 
as flammable if they contain more than 9 percent EtO. To avoid 
changing safety and handling procedures, manufacturers of this 
blend are changing the formulation of the EtO/CO2 blend to
8.5/91.5. 
   While the 8.5/91.5 blend is compatible with most of the
materials 
now sterilized with 12/88, it must be used at higher operating 
pressures than 12/88 systems and hence is not a direct drop-
in replacement for 12/88. Use of CO2 blends requires that the 
sterilizing unit be retrofitted to handle higher operating
pressures 
in order to prevent excessive leakages of EtO from the system. 
   CO2 and EtO tend to separate while stored in pressurized 
containers. Thus, initial discharges from the canisters during 
use may contain excessively high amounts of flammable EtO; final 
discharges from nearly empty canisters may contain pure CO2 
and may not effectively sterilize equipment. To overcome this 
problem, single ``unit dose'' canisters have been developed 
for use in conjunction with CO2 sterilizers. For safe operation, 
these canisters must be connected and disconnected from the 
sterilizing unit before and after every use, thereby increasing 
the risk of accidental exposure. Improved training procedures 
will be required with such systems. 
   c. Pure EtO. Pure EtO systems can also be used in place of 
current 12/88 sterilizers. By itself, EtO is toxic, carcinogenic, 
and flammable. It is also explosive at concentrations above 
3 percent in air. Thus, additional precautions must be taken 
to limit occupational exposures and conflagration. Present OSHA 
standards and proper engineering controls have demonstrated 
their ability to provide for safe operation of such systems. 
Pure EtO systems are currently used by many contract sterilizers, 
large hospitals, and other large users. 

3. Listing Decisions 

   a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable 
as a substitute for CFC-12 in EtO blends. Initial testing in 
hospital, industrial, and laboratory settings indicates that 
an EtO/HCFC-124 blend can serve as a virtual drop-in replacement 
for 12/88, enabling users to transition away from CFC-12 while 
still using their existing equipment. 
   Use of HCFC-124 in sterilizers will allow significant reductions

in skin cancer cases and deaths resulting from ozone depletion. 
HCFC-124 has an ODP of only 0.02. Modeling results indicate 
that even if HCFC-124 replaces all current use of CFC-12 in 
sterilization, resulting skin cancer deaths in the total US 
population born before 2030 will total only 600 more than if 
a zero ODP substitute were available. In addition, the low GWP 
of HCFC-124 ensures that use of the chemical in sterilizers 
will have a negligible effect on global warming. 
   Under Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 
the Agency is required to regulate any of the 189 hazardous 
air pollutants (HAPs). Ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user 
is alerted to follow all upcoming regulations concerning the 
use of ethylene oxide, whether used alone or in a blend. For 
example, it is likely in the future that Title III will require 
a system that prevents venting of EtO into the atmosphere,
therefore 
users installing new HCFC-124/EtO systems may choose to take 
this into consideration. 
   (2) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute

for CFC-12 in EtO blends used for sterilization. Carbon dioxide 
can effectively reduce the flammability of EtO and does not 
deplete stratospheric ozone. Most CO2 currently used in sterilant 
mixtures is the recaptured by-product of other chemical processes, 
so its manufacture for use in sterilizers should not increase 
emissions to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant 
in high concentrations, but engineering controls designed to 
limit occupational exposures from the more toxic EtO will also 
serve to prevent potentially lethal exposures to CO2. 
   Blends of CO2 and EtO are commercially available at present, 
and proven process cycles already exist. Blends of CO2 and EtO 
have been in widespread use for years and dominated the market 
before the development of 12/88. Recent regulations issued by 
DOT have prompted manufacturers to change the formulation of 
the blend to 8.5/91.5 EtO/CO2 due to flammability concerns. 
As mentioned above, ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user is 
alerted to follow all upcoming regulations under Title III of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments concerning the use of ethylene 
oxide, whether used alone or in a blend. 
   (3) Pure EtO. Pure EtO is acceptable as a substitute for 
12/88 in sterilization. By itself, EtO is neither an ozone
depleting 
substance nor a contributor to global warming. However, EtO 
is toxic, carcinogenic, and flammable. While these factors must 
be considered in the decision to approve EtO as a substitute 
for 12/88 and must be considered by users selecting appropriate 
substitutes for their current use of 12/88, the Agency considers 
current applicable standards and operating procedures (such 
as OSHA standards for occupational exposure) sufficient to protect 
human health and the environment. Thus, pure EtO systems are 
acceptable substitutes for 12/88. Users are advised to adhere 
to all existing workplace standards and to train workers in 
the proper operation of EtO equipment. Historical experience 
with pure EtO systems indicates that they can be used safely 
when operated in accordance with such guidelines. Because of 
the threat posed to the general population by vented EtO, the 
Agency also recommends that pure EtO systems be used in conjunction

with emission control technologies such as catalytic converters 
or acid water scrubbers to prevent exposures of the general 
population to dangerous levels of EtO. 
   As mentioned above, ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user 
is alerted to the probability of future regulations under Title 
III of the Clean Air Act Amendments concerning the use of ethylene 
oxide, whether used alone or in a blend. 
   (4) Steam. Steam sterilization is acceptable as a substitute 
for 12/88 in sterilization. As mentioned above, steam sterilization

can be used on devices that can withstand high temperature and 
very high humidity. The use of steam sterilization can be increased

by separating heat and moisture sensitive devices from resistant 
ones. 
   b. Unacceptable substitutes. (None). 

I. Aerosols 

   1. Overview 
   To provide perspective on EPA's decisions in the aerosols 
sector, this section presents first an overview of important 
related regulations affecting aerosols. Subsequent parts of 
the section describe the substitutes in the aerosols sector 
and present EPA's decisions on the substitutes. The decisions 
are summarized in Appendix B at the end of this notice. The 
proposed decisions presented in this section are based on the 
risk screen contained in the draft background document entitled 
``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting

Substances: Aerosols.'' 
   Following scientific concerns raised in 1974 regarding possible 
ozone depletion from CFCs, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) acted on March 17, 1978 (43 FR 11301; 43 FR 11318) to 
ban the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in all but essential 
applications. During the mid-1970s, use as aerosol propellants 
constituted over 50 percent of total CFC consumption in the 
United States. The 1978 ban reduced aerosol use of CFCs in this 
country by approximately 95 percent, eliminating nearly half 
of the then total U.S. consumption of these chemicals. 
   Some CFC aerosol products were specifically exempted from 
the ban based on a determination of essentiality. (See reference 
Essential Use Determinations-Revised, 1978.) The other uses 
of CFCs in aerosol and pressurized dispenser products (e.g., 
as an active ingredient, a solvent, or as the sole ingredient) 
were excluded from the ban because they did not fit the narrow 
definition of ``aerosol propellant.'' Therefore, prior to the 
1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, the only aerosol products 
that still contained CFCs were products exempted from the 1978 
ban on CFC propellants or products excluded from the 1978 ban. 
   The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 includes statutory
authorities 
relevant to use of ozone depleting chemicals used in aerosol 
applications in several sections of Title VI. In addition to 
mandating the phaseout of class I and class II substances (sections

604 and 605) and mandating the review of substitutes (section 
612), section 610 of title VI prohibits the sale of certain 
nonessential products made with class I and class II substances. 
Title VI divides controlled ozone-depleting substances into 
two distinct classes. Class I is comprised of CFCs, halons, 
carbon tetrachloride, MCF, hydrobromofluorocarbons, and methyl 
bromide. Class II is comprised solely of HCFCs. The product 
bans for class I substances and class II substances are distinct 
from one another and are addressed in subsections 610(b) and 
610(d), respectively. In section 610(b), Congress directed EPA 
to promulgate regulations that prohibit the sale or distribution 
of certain ``nonessential'' products that release class I
substances. 
Under this subsection, Congress specifies particular products 
as nonessential and directs EPA to identify other nonessential 
products. 
   In the final regulations implementing the Class I Nonessential 
Products ban (58 FR 4767; January 15, 1993), EPA issued regulations

that implement the requirements of section 610(b) and ban certain 
nonessential products that release class I substances. Under 
this rule, EPA banned, among other products, flexible and packaging

foam, and aerosols and other pressurized dispensers using CFCs. 
The use of methyl chloroform, while a class I substance, is 
not restricted under this regulation. 
   As directed by Congress, EPA researched the purpose or intended 
use of products containing class I substances, the technological 
availability of substitutes, safety and health considerations, 
and other relevant factors including the economic effect of 
banning selected products.  EPA then banned the use of CFCs as 
propellants and solvents in all aerosol products with the following

specific exemptions (58 FR 4767; January 15, 1993): 
-Medical devices listed in 21 CFR 2.125(c).
-Lubricants for pharmaceutical and tablet manufacture.
-Gauze bandage adhesives and adhesive removers.
-Topical anesthetic and vapocoolant products.
-Lubricants, coatings, or cleaning fluids for electrical and 
  electronic equipment that contain CFC-11, CFC-12 or CFC-113 
  for solvent purposes, but which contain no other CFC.
-Lubricants, coatings, or cleaning fluids for aircraft maintenance 
  that contain CFC-11 or CFC-113, but which contain no other 
  CFC.
-Release agents for molds using CFC-11 or CFC-113 in the production

  of plastic or elastomeric materials.
-Spinnerette lubricant/cleaning sprays used in the production 
  of synthetic fibers that contain CFC-114, but contain no other 
  CFCs.
-Containers of CFCs used as halogen ion sources in plasma etching.
-Document preservation sprays that contain CFC-113, but which 
  contain no other CFCs.
-Red pepper bear repellant sprays that contain CFC-113, but 
  which contain no other CFCs. 
   Exemption from the class I ban does not imply exemption from 
the phase-out requirements. 
   HCFCs also have
current and potential applications as propellants 
and as solvents in aerosol products. Until recently, their use 
has been limited by the aerosol industry because of their high 
cost relative to traditional options such as CFCs and hydrocarbons.

Increased regulation of CFCs, including taxation of these
substances 
and an eventual phase-out, has meant that HCFCs are, for an 
interim period, economically viable in some applications,
particularly 
where concern about flammability limits the use of cheaper
alternatives, 
such as hydrocarbons. 
   However, section 
610(d) of the CAA
prohibits as of January 
1, 1994, the sale or distribution of aerosol or foam products 
that contain or are manufactured with class II substances. All 
HCFCs are currently listed as class II substances. EPA believes 
that the ban on certain products containing class II substances 
is self-executing. Section 610(d)(1) bans the sale of the specified

class II products on its own terms, without any reference to 
required regulations. Thus, EPA is not required to determine 
which products will be banned. 
   However, section 610(d)(2) allows EPA to grant exceptions 
and exclusions from the ban on aerosol and pressurized dispenser 
products containing class II substances. Specifically, EPA is 
authorized to grant exceptions from the prohibition where the 
use of the aerosol product or pressurized dispenser is determined 
by the Administrator to be essential as a result of flammability 
or worker safety, and where the only available alternative to 
the use of a class II substance is the use of a class I substance 
which legally could be substituted for such class II substance 
(i.e., use of a class I substance that is still allowed). In 
addition to these two criteria for exceptions, aerosol products 
may be excluded from the ban as a result of a third consideration 
in section 610 (d)(2); namely, that the ban on products containing 
class II substances shall not apply to any medical device.
Reflecting 
the self-executing nature of the CAA ban, any aerosol product 
or pressurized dispenser containing a class II substance is 
banned as of January 1, 1994, unless EPA grants an exception. 
   EPA published a final rule under 610(d)(2) December 30, 1993 
(58 FR 69637). The following products were exempted: 
    Medical devices listed in 21 CFR 2.125(e); 
    Lubricants, coatings or cleaning fluids for electrical 
or electronic equipment, which contain class II substances for 
solvent purposes, but which contain no other class II substances; 
    Lubricants, coatings or cleaning fluids used for aircraft 
maintenance, which contain class II substances for solvent purposes

but which contain no other class II substances; 
    Mold release agents used in the production of plastic and 
elastomeric materials, which contain class II substances for 
solvent purposes but which contain no other class II substances, 
and/or mold release agents that contain HCFC-22 as a propellant 
where evidence of good faith efforts to secure alternatives 
indicates that, other than a class I substance, there are no 
suitable alternatives; 
    Spinnerette lubricants/cleaning sprays used in the production 
of synthetic fibers, which contain class II substances for solvent 
purposes and/or contain class II substances for propellant
purposes; 
    Document preservation sprays which contain HCFC-141b as 
a solvent, but which contain no other class II substance; and/or 
which contain HCFC-22 as a propellant, but which contain no 
other class II substance and which are used solely on thick 
books, books with coated, dense or paper and tightly bound
documents; 
    Portable fire extinguishing equipment sold to commercial 
users, owners of marine vessels or boats, and owners of
noncommercial 
aircraft that contains a class II substance as a fire extinguishant

where evidence of good faith efforts to secure alternatives 
indicate that, other than a class I substance, there are no 
suitable alternatives; and 
    Wasp and hornet sprays for use near high-tension power 
lines that contain a class II substance for solvent purposes 
only, but which contain no other class II substances. 
   EPA did not propose any exceptions for propellant uses of 
class II substances since sufficient propellant substitutes 
are available. 
   Uses of HCFCs granted an exemption under section 610 based 
on the lack of other alternatives will not face further
restrictions 
under the SNAP program and authority under section 612, since 
the express purpose of the SNAP program is to restrict substitutes 
only in cases where other alternatives do exist. 

2. Substitutes for Aerosols 

   The class I substances that are currently being used in aerosol 
applications include CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and methyl 
chloroform (MCF). Class II substances that are currently being 
used are HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-141b. 
   The Agency has elected only to discuss alternatives for CFC-
11, CFC-113, MCF, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-141b. The uses 
for CFC-12 and CFC-114 are as propellants in medical applications 
and will not be discussed here because the substitutes for these 
applications are currently being developed and will have to 
undergo FDA review. Possible substitutes in this application 
include HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, which both have low toxicity 
and zero ozone depletion potential. Regulatory approval for 
these compounds, however, is contingent on FDA approval, which 
will likely occur over the next several years. EPA's review 
of these substitutes will focus exclusively on environmental 
effects. 
   A variety of chemicals are currently being used or are being 
considered as substitutes for class I and II controlled substances 
used in non-inhalation aerosols and pressurized containers. 
The suitability of alternatives depends upon the product in 
which they are used. Each of these alternatives has its own 
physical and chemical characteristics which make it an optimal 
choice for the product in question, in terms of such factors 
as solvency properties, propellant characteristics, performance, 
cost, and environmental considerations. However, the Agency 
believes that the majority of the substitutes considered to 
replace the class I and II controlled substances used as
propellants 
or solvents in aerosols and pressurized containers as propellants 
and solvents are currently available and easily integrated into 
existing aerosol production facilities. 
   The primary substitutes for the propellant uses of CFC-11, 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are as follows: 
    Saturated hydrocarbons (C3-C6).
    Dimethyl ether.
    HFCs.
    Compressed gases.
    Alternative processes.
   HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b could technically be used as substitutes 
for CFC-11, but their use is extensively controlled under section 
610 of the CAA. 
   The primary substitutes for the solvent/diluent uses of CFC-
11, CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b are as follows: 
    Petroleum hydrocarbons (C6-C20).
    Oxygenated organic solvents (ketones, esters, ethers, and 
alcohols). 
    HCFC-141b. 
    Terpenes. 
    Chlorinated solvents. 
    Water-based systems. 
   Other substitutes, including
monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides, 
hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, are also being
investigated. 
This list of substitutes was compiled with the help of companies 
that submitted information on substitutes to the Agency in response

to the January 16, 1992, Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making. 
Today's decisions on these substitutes are listed in appendix 
B. The remainder of this section discusses these substitutes, 
the decision on each substitute, and the Agency's reasoning 
behind each determination. Vendors or users of substitutes not 
included on the table for the SNAP determinations on aerosols 
should provide information on the substitutes so that the Agency 
can add these substitutes to the lists. 
   a. Substitutes for propellants. (1) Saturated light hydrocarbons

(C3-C6). Hydrocarbons are promising replacements for nonessential 
uses of HCFC-22 as a propellant in aerosols and pressurized 
containers. The specific category of hydrocarbons used as
propellants 
are saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6). Examples of these 
small chain compounds include butane, isobutane, and propane. 
All have low boiling points, making them excellent propellants. 
They are used separately or in mixtures, are inexpensive compared 
to HCFC-22 (HCFC-22 is four times more expensive than
hydrocarbons), 
and are readily available from most chemical distributors. 
   The Agency believes that the major area of concern with the 
replacement of hydrocarbons for HCFC-22 is the flammability 
of hydrocarbons. In applications where a nonflammable propellant 
is needed, a hydrocarbon could not be used. For example, the 
use of hydrocarbons around electrical equipment could prove 
hazardous if sparks from the equipment were to ignite the
hydrocarbon 
propellant. 
   Saturated light hydrocarbons are adequate substitute propellants

where flammability is not a concern. To reduce product
flammability, 
hydrocarbons can be used with water-based formulations in products 
such as insecticides, where product quality would not be adversely 
affected. Manufacturers are also hindered from selling hydrocarbon-
propelled aerosols in certain jurisdictions. In California, 
for example, the use of hydrocarbons is restricted because of 
their classification as volatile organic compounds which contribute

to low level ozone or smog. 
   (2) Dimethyl ether. Dimethyl ether (DME) is a medium pressure, 
flammable, liquefied propellant. Because of its chemical
properties, 
it can be used as a combination propellant/solvent, although 
it is typically classified together with other propellants and 
is used in combination with other propellants. Practices for 
manufacture and use of aerosol products formulated with DME 
parallel practices employed with hydrocarbons. 
   (3) Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) such as 
HFC-134a, HFC-125 and HFC-152a are partially fluorinated
hydrocarbons 
and have been developed relatively recently. These compounds 
are less dense than HCFC-22, but with minor reformulation
adjustments 
could function equally well as propellants except in products 
such as noise horns, which require a more dense gas. Because 
HFCs have only recently been developed, they are only now becoming 
readily available and are expected to be priced significantly 
higher than HCFC-22, at least in the near term. 
   Preliminary studies show that HFC-134a and HFC-125 are
nonflammable 
and have very low toxicity, which would make them good replacements

for HCFC-22 as propellants in products where nonflammability 
is a requirement. Although HFC-152a is slightly flammable, it 
can be formulated with other materials-such as HFC-125-to control 
its flammability. HFCs also may be used in conjunction with 
other flammable chemicals to reduce the flammability of such 
mixtures. For example, HFCs are being tested for use with dimethyl 
ether (DME) in safety sprays and animal repellents. Although 
DME is flammable, the overall product formulation is not. HFC-
134a and HFC-125 are also being tested as replacements for CFCs 
still used in medical applications because of their nonflammable, 
nontoxic properties. 
   (4) Compressed gases. Compressed gases such as carbon dioxide, 
nitrogen, air, and nitrous oxide are common, low molecular weight 
gases used as propellants in aerosol products but not as drop-
in replacements. First, alternative dispensing mechanisms and 
stronger containers are needed because these gases are under 
significantly greater pressure. Containers holding compressed 
gases are, therefore, larger and bulkier. Second, because these 
chemicals have low molecular weights, they are inadequate as 
replacements for HCFC-22 in products requiring a dense gas
propellant, 
such as noise horns, or in products requiring fine dispersion 
of the product, such as surface lubricants and weld inspection 
developers. Third, compressed gases dispel material faster because 
they are under higher pressure, which contributes to wasted 
product. 
   Compressed gases are readily available from most chemical 
distributors and are relatively inexpensive. Compressed gases 
cool upon expansion. Compressed gases are also nonflammable 
and can serve as propellants in applications where a nonflammable 
propellant is necessary, but not in applications where a fine 
even dispersion is required. 
   (5) HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Limited use of these chemicals 
as substitutes is anticipated since section 610 imposes significant

restrictions as of January 1, 1994, on their use as aerosol 
propellants. 
   (6) Alternative processes. Alternative processes, such as 
manually operated pumps and sprays, provide an alternative delivery

mechanism in place of the aerosol dispenser. Development of 
alternative process replacements depends on technological
feasibility. 
Some products, such as aerosol foams, cannot now be easily formed 
with alternative processes, making the replacement of the
propellant 
difficult. In other products, the alternative process may not 
provide proper dispersion or accurate application of the product, 
limiting its use. Persons using manual pumps or sprays (in
applications 
where alternative processes function adequately as replacements) 
on a continuous basis may become fatigued with the constant 
pumping motion, thus producing poor product performance.
Nonetheless, 
these substitutes can serve as viable alternatives in certain 
applications. 
   b. Substitutes for solvent/diluents. (1) Petroleum hydrocarbons 
(C6-C20). Petroleum hydrocarbons are generally defined as C6-
C20 hydrocarbons fractionated from the distillation of petroleum. 
These compounds are loosely grouped into paraffins (six carbon 
chains to ten carbon chains-n-hexane, n-heptane, etc.) and light 
aromatics (toluene and xylene) and come in various grades of 
purity. Components with up to twenty carbons are now also being 
used in an effort to reduce flammability. These compounds have 
good solvent properties, are relatively inexpensive (about half 
the price of MCF), and are readily available from chemical
distributors. 
When a controlled substance is used only as a diluent, such 
as in automotive undercoatings, substitution using petroleum 
hydrocarbons can be achieved with minor reformulation. Many 
of these products containing petroleum hydrocarbons even outperform

their chlorinated counterpart. 
   Petroleum hydrocarbons are, however, flammable, and thus 
cannot be used as replacement solvents in applications where 
the solvent must be nonflammable such as electronic cleaning 
applications. In addition, pesticide aerosols formulated with 
certain petroleum hydrocarbons must adhere to requirements imposed 
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA). 
   (2) Oxygenated organic solvents. Oxygenated organic solvents 
are compounds based on hydrocarbons containing appendant oxygen 
(alcohols and ketones), integral oxygens (ethers), or both
(esters). 
These compounds are relatively inexpensive compared to MCF-about 
half the cost-and are readily available from chemical distributors.

These compounds are also flammable, however, and cannot be used 
as substitute solvents in applications where the solvent must 
be nonflammable. 
   These compounds are currently being blended with class I 
substances to reduce the amount of class I substances used in 
a product's formulation. Since the quantity of these compounds 
is small, the product still remains nonflammable. Some
manufacturers, 
however, are completely reformulating products such as spot 
removers with ketones, esters, ethers, or alcohols. To continue 
the safe use of these convenient products, consumers may have 
to be educated about the product's increased flammability. 
   (3) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFC-141b is a potential 
substitute to replace CFC-11 and CFC-113 used in solvent/diluent 
applications in aerosols and pressurized dispensers. HCFC-141b's 
ODP is similar to that of MCF, making it unlikely that aerosol 
manufacturers would reformulate their products away from MCF 
towards HCFC-141b. 
   HCFC-141b has a number of characteristics that make it a 
suitable alternative solvent, namely: It is nonconductive,
nonflammable 
according to U.S. Department of Transportation specifications, 
and evaporates quickly. However, HCFC-141b is expensive compared 
to the pretax price of CFC-113-almost three times the cost. 
Further, HCFC-141b is slightly corrosive to plastic parts, and 
could not serve as a drop-in replacement for all the uses of 
CFC-11 and CFC-113 as a solvent. 
   (4) Terpenes. Terpenes are unsaturated hydrocarbons based 
on isoprene subunits. They have good solvent properties and 
could replace ozone-depleting compounds in some solvent cleaning 
applications. They are flammable, which limits their use in 
applications that require nonflammable solvents. Some terpenes 
have a slight citrus scent while others have stronger, unpleasant 
odors, making them difficult to use over an extended period 
of time. 
   (5) Other chlorinated solvents. Other chlorinated solvents 
such as perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene 
chloride can be used to replace CFC-11, CFC-113, and MCF in 
solvent applications in aerosol and pressurized containers. 
These chlorinated solvents are extremely effective and can dissolve

compounds which are difficult to dissolve in other solvents, 
such as fluorinated polymers used in water and oil repellants. 
However, due to toxicity concerns associated with these substances,

their use is likely to be limited, especially in products sold 
to the general public or in products used frequently by workers. 
In addition, pesticide aerosols formulated with these chlorinated 
solvents must adhere to applicable requirements under FIFRA. 
   Because they are strong solvents and nonflammable, however, 
chlorinated solvents are promising substitutes in cleaning
applications 
for electronic equipment or electric motors where safeguards 
could protect workers from the potentially toxic fumes. These 
compounds are readily available from chemical distributors at 
prices comparable to those for MCF. 
   (6) Water-based formulations. Water-based formulations provide 
a replacement for the use of CFC-11, CFC-113, and MCF as solvents 
in aerosols and pressurized dispensers. These reformulated products

usually contain new components/active ingredients that are water 
soluble. The overall function of the reformulated product remains 
the same, but the product's substituents are changed. 
   Most formulations are nonflammable, yet may be difficult 
to use around sources of electricity because they may short 
out electrical equipment. Such products may also have short 
shelf-lives because the active ingredient may decompose in an 
aqueous environment. Also, these products when sprayed do not 
evaporate quickly, resulting in product accumulation. This may 
create problems in certain applications, such as where the
accumulation 
of a water-based product contributes to rust or corrosion. The 
possibility of reformulating products is product-specific,
depending 
on the feasibility of finding active ingredients that are water 
soluble. 
   (7) Monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluorides. Monochlorotoluenes 
and benzotrifluorides are of commercial interest as solvent 
substitutes for aerosols. These compounds can be used either 
in isolation or in various mixtures, depending on desired chemical 
properties. The Agency has not yet completed its review of these 
formulations, which will be included in the next SNAP update. 
   (8) HFC-4310. HFC-4310mee will soon be commercially available 
as a solvent cleaning agent and may be useful in aerosol products. 
The Agency has not completed review of preliminary data on this 
chemical. This chemical will be undergoing review under the 
Premanufacture Notice program of the Toxic substances Control 
Act. 
   Other HFCs are also currently in development for solvent 
usage, although their composition is still proprietary. 
   (9) Perfluorocarbons (C6F14). The Agency recently received 
a request to evaluate the perfluorocarbon C6F14 as a substitute 
solvent in aerosols. While this agent has been reviewed as a 
substitute for use in solvent cleaning, the Agency has not
completed 
review in this sector. 

3. Comment Response 

   Public comments on the aerosols decisions focused principally 
on technical issues, such as the flammability of various
propellants 
or the length of hydrocarbons used as propellants. Several
commenters 
noted that chlorinated solvents may be appropriate for use in 
consumer products where a nonflammable aerosol is necessary, 
such as for brake cleaners. The Agency recognizes this as a 
valid concern and has amended the comment made in the Notice 
of Proposed Rule-Making that stated that chlorinated solvents 
are not suitable for consumer applications. However, EPA still 
encourages manufacturers to formulate products with solvents 
of lower toxicity, where possible. 
   A number of commenters requested clarification of the
relationship 
between the section 612 SNAP program and the section 610
nonessential 
use ban. The Agency has added clarification to the relevant 
discussion of listing decisions. 

4. Listing Decisions 

   a. Acceptable Substitutes. (1) Propellants. (a) Saturated 
light hydrocarbons (C3-C6). Saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-
C6) are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b as propellants in the aerosols sector. These hydrocarbons 
have several environmental advantages over other substitutes. 
For example, they have zero ozone depletion potential, and because 
of their extremely short atmospheric residence times they are 
estimated to contribute little to global warming. Yet their 
reactivity contributes to formation of tropospheric ozone. However,

use of VOCs is already subject to stringent regulatory controls 
at the federal, state, and local level, and the Agency's risk 
screen suggests that these controls preclude the need for
additional 
regulation of aerosols formulated with VOCs. 
   Saturated light hydrocarbons have a long history of use, 
and the increase in use due to replacement of CFCs as aerosol 
propellants represents a fraction of current consumption.
Hydrocarbon 
propellants acquired industrial importance in the U.S. in the 
early 1950s. By 1978, when the ban on CFC propellants in the 
U.S. was promulgated, nearly half of all aerosol units being 
produced in the U.S were already using hydrocarbon propellants. 
This percentage grew to nearly 90 percent in 1979 as a result 
of the CFC ban. 
   Most of the hydrocarbon propellants are essentially non-toxic. 
Very high concentrations of hydrocarbons are necessary to alter 
normal body functions. No temporary or permanent physiological 
malfunctions are produced by these chemicals; however, very 
high concentrations of hydrocarbons may result in asphyxiation 
because of lack of oxygen. '
   Hydrocarbon propellants are flammable. Precautions should 
be taken in receiving, unloading, transferring, storing, and 
filling hydrocarbon aerosol products. The listing of these
compounds 
as acceptable substitutes does not exempt producers or users 
from other applicable regulatory or industrial standards such 
as those promulgated by OSHA. However, because of the widespread 
use of these materials, industry is already familiar with the 
safety precautions necessary in switching from a CFC filling 
operation to one using hydrocarbons. 
   (b) HFC-134a, HFC-125 and HFC-152a. HFC-134a, HFC-125 and 
HFC-134a are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-22, and 
HCFC-142b as propellants in the aerosols sector. HFC-152a has 
both zero ozone depletion potential and a comparatively low 
global warming potential. However, HFC-152a by itself is flammable,

and necessary precautions should be taken when using this chemical.

HFC-134a and HFC-125 also have no ozone depletion potential, 
yet these compounds do have atmospheric lifetimes and could 
contribute to global warming. Despite these concerns, the Agency 
has listed these substitutes as acceptable in today's rule-making 
since they meet the needs of specialized applications where 
other substitutes do not provide acceptable performance. The 
use of these HFCs by themselves is acceptable, as are blends 
of these chemicals with other acceptable substitutes. 
   (c) Dimethyl ether. Dimethyl ether is an acceptable substitute 
propellant for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the aerosols 
sector. The principal environmental concern for the use of DME 
is its ability to contribute to ground-level ozone formation. 
However, the Agency's screen of effects from increased use of 
VOCs in aerosol products suggests that increases in groundlevel 
ozone formation from use of DME can be controlled through existing 
VOC regulations. 
   (d) Compressed gases. Compressed gases are acceptable
substitutes 
for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as propellants in the aerosols 
sector. The Agency believes that although compressed gases such 
as air, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen are presently only used 
in about 7-9 percent of the aerosol products, their use will 
grow in the future. These gases have low toxicity and industrial 
practices for using these substitutes are well established. 
Since these gases are under significantly greater pressure than 
CFCs and HCFCs, containers holding these gases must be larger 
and bulkier, and safety precautions should be undertaken during 
filling operations. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are non-flammable 
and do not require the use of explosion proof gassing equipment. 
Nitrous oxide, while non-flammable, can create a moderate explosion

risk under certain temperature and pressure conditions. 
   (e) Alternative processes. Alternative processes are acceptable 
substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as propellants 
in the aerosols sector. Alternative processes such as finger 
and trigger pumps, two-compartment aerosol products, mechanical 
pressure dispenser systems, and nonspray dispensers (e.g., solid 
stick dispensers) have found increasing use as replacement for 
conventional aerosol products. The Agency believes that these 
products do not pose any significant risks, since they rely 
on mechanical force to replace the propellant. 
   (f) HCFC-22, HCFC-142b. HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are acceptable 
substitutes for CFC-11 as aerosol propellants. Users should 
note, however, that under section 610 of the Clean Air Act, 
extensive restrictions already govern the use of HCFCs as aerosol 
propellants as of January 1, 1994. Only one exemption for HCFCs 
used as aerosol propellants was granted under section 610 (58 
FR 69637). Today's listing allows the use HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b 
in the exempted application, but general use restrictions
established 
under section 610 must still be followed. Decisions taken under 
section 610 are described earlier in this chapter, as are the 
exemptions under section 610. 
   The principal problem with HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b is that 
they have significant ODPs and are therefore classified as class 
II substances. Yet in limited where flammability is a technical 
impediment to use of other alternatives, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b 
may be the only alternatives to replace other ozone-depleting 
propellants. The exemption for HCFC-141b use as an aerosol solvent 
under section 610 reflects these user needs. 
   (2) Solvents. (a) Petroleum hydrocarbons. C6-C20 petroleum 
hydrocarbons are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-113, 
methyl chloroform (MCF) and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosol 
sector. Petroleum hydrocarbons, both naturally and synthetically 
derived, have a long history of safe use, and any risks due 
to increased tropospheric ozone formation or worker exposure 
can be controlled by existing regulations. Concerns for risks 
from these compounds in possible uses as pesticide aerosol solvents

have already been addressed under FIFRA authorities. 
   (b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b, either by itself or blended with 
other compounds, is an acceptable substitute for CFC-11, CFC-
113 and MCF as an aerosol solvent. Under section 610 of the 
Clean Air Act, extensive restrictions already govern the use 
of HCFC-141b as an aerosol solvent as of January 1, 1994. Limited 
exemptions for HCFC-141b use as an aerosol solvent were granted 
under section 610 (58 FR 69637). Today's listing allows the 
use HCFC-141b in the exempted applications, but general use 
restrictions established under section 610 must still be followed. 
Decisions taken under section 610 are described earlier in this 
chapter, as are the exemptions under section 610. 
   The principal problem with HCFC-141b is that it has a
comparatively 
high ODP-0.11. This is the highest ODP of all HCFCs; in fact, 
the ODP of HCFC-141b is about twice as high as HCFC-22. Yet 
in certain cases, such as where flammability is a technical 
impediment to use of other alternatives, HCFC-141b may be the 
only alternative to replace other ozone-depleting solvents. 
Several companies contacted the Agency under both section 610 
and 612 indicating that they have tested alternatives, and that 
in some cases only HCFC141b meets performance or safety criteria. 
The exemptions for HCFC-141b use as an aerosol solvent under 
section 610 reflect these user needs. 
   (c) Other chlorinated solvents. Trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, 
and methylene chloride are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, 
CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosols sector. 
These substitutes have the technical capability to meet a large 
portion of the needs of the aerosols industry. However, the 
Agency anticipates that, due to toxicity concerns associated 
with the use of these alternatives, the market share for these 
other chlorinated solvents will not increase substantially. 
   The toxicity of these three solvents has been the subject 
of extensive analysis. Without regulation, their use has the 
potential to pose high risks to workers as well as to residents 
in nearby communities or consumers using household products 
containing such chemicals. However, while the Agency generally 
discourages the use of these chemicals in aerosol applications, 
they may be necessary in products where nonflammability is a 
critical characteristic. The Agency encourages formulators of 
aerosols to restrict their use of chlorinated solvents to products 
that must be nonflammable. 
   Given that the use of chlorinated solvents may be necessary 
to offset risks of flammability, the Agency has determined
chlorinated 
solvents to be acceptable substitutes since risks to workers 
can be reduced by adhering to OSHA standards. Residual risks 
to residents in nearby communities may remain. The Agency is 
aware of these potential risks and has the authority to address 
them under section 112 of the CAA. This section of the CAA lists 
three of these solvents as Hazardous Air Pollutants, and authorizes

the Agency to establish controls for their use. EPA will pursue 
any appropriate regulations under this authority. Any risks 
arising from use of these compounds as pesticide aerosols in 
reformulated products can be addressed using FIFRA authorities. 
   These solvents are occasionally found in consumer products. 
Consumer risks were not analyzed under the SNAP risk screens 
since these risks are controlled under authorities implemented 
by the Consumer Safety Product Commission, which has already 
established labeling requirements for use of these solvents. 
   (d) Oxygenated organic solvents. Oxygenated organic solvents 
(ketones, esters, ethers, and alcohols) are acceptable substitutes 
for CFC-11, CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosols 
sector. Most of these compounds have a long history of safe 
use, and regulations to control any risks due to tropospheric 
ozone formation or worker exposure are already in place under 
other relevant authorities. 
   (e) Terpenes. Terpenes are acceptable substitutes for CFC-
11, CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosols sector. 
Terpene-based formulations have a long history of safe use as 
industrial solvents, and any increased risks due to increased 
tropospheric ozone formation can be controlled through existing 
regulations. Additionally, many of these chemicals are naturally 
occurring organic hydrocarbons and exhibit significant
biodegradability. 
   The use history of these chemicals does not negate the toxicity 
of these compounds to aquatic life. However, the Agency does 
not believe that in this case significant adverse effects are 
to be expected, since in aerosol applications the terpenes
volatilize 
during use and would consequently not be discharged to surface 
or ground water where aquatic species are to be found. 
   (f) Water-based formulations. Water-based formulations are 
acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b 
as solvents in the aerosols sector. The Agency did not identify 
any significant environmental concerns associated with use of 
these products. They can contain small amounts of VOCs, but 
these amounts are minor in comparison to products formulated 
solely with organic solvents. 
   b. Substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions. (None). 
   c. Substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. 
(None). 
   d. Unacceptable substitutes. (None). 

J. Tobacco Expansion 


1. Overview 

   Tobacco expansion is the process of puffing leaves of tobacco 
to decrease the volume of tobacco used in cigarette production. 
Currently, one of the primary technologies used to expand tobacco 
in the U.S. relies on CFC-11. One and one half million pounds 
of CFC-11 are used annually in the U.S. in this sector. 
   In the CFC-11 process, tobacco is saturated with CFC-11 in 
a stainless steel vessel maintained at 120 degrees Fahrenheit 
and pressurized to 20 psi. The tobacco is then permeated with 
hot air (330 F) which expands the tobacco. The CFC-11 is vaporized 
and recovered by cooling and compressing, and is continually 
recovered and recycled. 
   The Agency received notification on two potential substitutes: 
(1) Carbon dioxide technology, an alternative process substitute, 
and (2) HFC-227ea. In this final rule, the Agency is listing 
carbon dioxide as an acceptable substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco 
expansion. Similarly, HFC-227ea is (currently under review and 
will be listed in the FRM pending completion of review of the 
data). 

2. Comment Response 

   The NPRM listed HCFC-123 as pending review for use as a
substitute 
for tobacco expansion. One commenter proposed that HCFC-123 
should not be listed as an acceptable substitute in the final 
rule because the sole U.S. manufacturer will not sell it for 
use in the tobacco expansion process. The sole U.S. manufacturer 
of HCFC-123 confirmed via public comment that HCFC-123 will 
not be sold to the tobacco industry for use in the tobacco
expansion 
process. The manufacturer requested EPA to withdraw this compound 
from consideration as an alternative for this end-use.
Subsequently, 
EPA terminated the review for HCFC-123 in tobacco expansion, 
and will not include HCFC-123 in the listing decisions for this 
sector. 

3. Listing Decisions 

   a. Carbon dioxide. The Agency has determined that the use 
of carbon dioxide as a substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco expansion 
is acceptable. Carbon dioxide has been successfully used in 
the tobacco industry for approximately twenty years. It is non-
toxic, non-flammable, and it has zero ODP. A permissible exposure 
level (PEL) has been set at 5,000 ppm, a level that can easily 
be met during the well contained tobacco expansion process. 
The carbon dioxide process is similar to the process using CFC-
11, though pressure and temperature parameters are different. 
For this reason carbon dioxide cannot be used as a retrofit 
for CFC-11 equipment; new equipment must be purchased in order 
to use carbon dioxide for tobacco expansion. 
   Although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, increased use 
of carbon dioxide for tobacco expansion will not increase global 
warming because the carbon dioxide used in tobacco expansion 
is a by-product of the production of other gases. The carbon 
dioxide is captured from a stream of gas that otherwise would 
be emitted to the ambient air. Additionally, carbon dioxide 
recycling equipment is available, which will also help limit 
emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. 
   b. Propane.  The Agency has determined that the use of propane 
as a substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco expansion is acceptable. 
Plant modifications may be necessary to control the flammability 
of this substitute to ensure worker safety. Propane is a VOC 
and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA. 

K. Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks 


1. Overview 

   Methyl chloroform (MCF) is used as a solvent in the adhesives, 
coatings, and inks sector because of its unique and favorable 
properties: High solvency, non flammability, low toxicity, relative

high stability, and low boiling point. For this section, coatings 
are defined to be durable and decorative coatings such as paints. 
Unlike a number of other solvents that are classified as volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs), MCF does not photochemically degrade 
in the lower atmosphere to lead to ground-level ozone formation. 
This key property caused many manufacturers to switch from
formulations 
containing VOC solvents to MCF in the mid 1980s because regulatory 
pressure increased to reduce VOC emissions in nonattainment 
areas. Companies achieved compliance by altering their VOC solvent-
borne formulations to MCF, thereby avoiding costly capital
investment 
in new equipment, changes in operating procedures, and employee 
retraining. This trend has now been reversed as companies have 
begun to respond to the phase-out of MCF under the stratospheric 
ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act. 
   This section examines substitutes that can be used in place 
of MCF in this sector, and presents the Agency's proposed decisions

and supporting analysis on acceptability of these substitutes. 
These determinations are summarized in appendix B at the end 
of the sector discussions. 
   Of the three uses for MCF in this sector, use of MCF is largest 
in the adhesives subsector. In 1989, manufacturers of adhesives 
consumed about 28,000 metric tons (MT) of MCF in their
formulations, 
roughly nine percent of the total MCF produced in the U.S. (HSIA, 
1991). Solvent-based adhesive formulations constitute 15 percent 
of all adhesive types. MCF is desirable as a solvent for adhesives 
because it evaporates rapidly, is nonflammable, exhibits a
relatively 
high PEL, performs comparably to VOC-formulated products, and 
does not photochemically degrade in the lower atmosphere. The 
1991 consumption of methyl chloroform as a solvent in the adhesives

sector was estimated to be 32,000 MT. EPA believes that this 
consumption has declined since 1991 due to increased excise 
taxes, the CFC labeling requirement of the CAA and the increasing 
awareness of the pending 1996 phaseout. 
   MCF is used in five adhesive types: 
    Laminate adhesives; 
    Flexible foam adhesives; 
    Hardwood floor adhesives; 
    Metal to rubber adhesives; and 
    Tire patch adhesives. 
   MCF is no longer commonly used in the following adhesive 
applications where its use was once widespread: 
    Pressure sensitive adhesives (tapes, labels, etc.); 
    Flexible packaging adhesives; 
    Aerosol-propelled adhesives; and 
    Shoe repair glues and other consumer adhesives. 
   In manufacture of coatings and inks, MCF usage rose steadily 
throughout the 1980s principally because of the VOC problems 
with other solvents. It began declining in the early 1990s because 
of the ozone depletion issue. In 1989, the consumption of MCF 
used in coatings and inks was 18,480 MT, six percent of the 
total 310,000 MT of MCF consumed in the U.S. The 1991 consumption 
in the coatings and inks sector was estimated to be 23,000 MT. 
This consumption figure has likely declined even more for the 
same reasons as cited in the adhesives section. MCF is the only 
ozone-depleting substance currently used in coatings and inks 
formulations. As with uses in adhesives, MCF has replaced some 
of the applications in coatings and inks which previously used 
VOC solvents and now the trend is reversing. 
   The current use of MCF in coatings and inks applications 
occurs in four use areas: 
    Flexographic and rotogravure printing inks; 
    Wood stains; 
    Metal coatings; and 
    Aerospace coatings. 

2. Substitutes in the Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks Sector 

   Methyl chloroform-based adhesives, coatings, and inks can 
be replaced by either substitute solvents or alternative
application 
technologies. In most instances, the alternatives are expected 
to perform as well as products containing MCF. Factors that 
determine which particular alternative is best in a given situation

include physical and chemical properties, replacement chemical 
costs, capital investment costs, and product performance. 
   The primary substitutes to replace methyl chloroform in
adhesives, 
coatings, and inks include: 
    Petroleum hydrocarbons; 
    Oxygenated organic solvents (ketones, esters, ethers,
alcohols); 
    Chlorinated solvents; 
    Terpenes; 
    Water-based formulations; 
    High-solids formulation; and 
    Alternative process alternatives; 
-Powder formulations;
-Hot melts;
-Thermoplastic plasma spray coatings;
-Radiation cured;
-Moisture cured;
-Chemical cured;
-Reactive liquids. 
   These substitutes can be grouped into four basic categories: 
Solvent substitutes, water-based formulations, high-solids
formulations, 
and alternative processes. 
   a. Solvent substitutes. Petroleum hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons 
fractionated from the distillation of petroleum. These compounds 
are loosely grouped into paraffins (six carbon chains to ten 
carbon chains-hexane, heptane, etc.) and light aromatics (toluene 
and xylene), and come in various levels of purity. These compounds 
have good solvent properties, cost about half as much as MCF, 
and are readily available from chemical distributors. 
   Oxygenated organic solvents such as alcohols, ketones, ethers, 
and esters dissolve a wide range of polar and semi-polar
substances. 
These compounds are relatively inexpensive compared to MCF (about 
half the cost) and are readily available. They function well 
as solvents and dissolve most resins and binders used in adhesives,

coatings, and inks. 
   Chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene and methylene 
chloride are chlorinated hydrocarbons. These chemicals can be 
used to replace MCF used in adhesives, coatings and inks. These 
solvents are commercially available from chemical distributors 
at prices comparable to those for methyl chloroform. 
   Chlorinated solvent compounds are chemically similar to MCF 
and thus are able to substitute directly for MCF with minor 
changes in the formulation of the product; product quality is 
expected to remain unchanged. Manufacturers can use chlorinated 
solvents in existing equipment with minor changes, resulting 
in low capital costs. 
   Terpenes are unsaturated hydrocarbons based on isoprene
subunits. 
They have good solvent properties and could replace MCF in some 
coating and ink products. Terpenes, such as d-limonene, cost 
about seven times more than MCF, and are commercially available 
from chemical distributors. Manufacturers can use terpenes in 
existing equipment with minor changes. 
   Monochlorotoluene and chlorobenzotrifluorides are also of 
commercial interest as solvent substitutes for adhesives, coatings,

and inks. These compounds can be used either in isolation or 
in various mixtures, depending on desired chemical properties. 
The Agency recently received information on these formulations, 
and will issue a SNAP determination for these substitutes in 
the next set of listing decisions. 
   b. Water-based formulations. Water-based coatings contain 
water rather than conventional solvents. Primary uses of these 
coatings include coating of furniture, aluminum siding, hardboard, 
metal containers, appliances, structural steel, and heavy
equipment. 
Water-based coatings are priced roughly 20 to 30 percent more 
than methyl chloroform-based coatings. 
   Water-based inks use water and other co-solvents such as 
alcohols and alkyl acetates to dissolve resins, binders, and 
pigments instead of conventional solvents. Water-based inks 
accounted for 55 percent of the flexographic inks and 15 percent 
of the gravure inks used in the U.S. in 1987. Water-based inks 
are priced roughly 10 percent less than methyl chloroform-based 
inks. 
   Water-based adhesives currently account for about 45 percent 
of the world adhesive market. Water-based adhesives will likely 
dominate the market to replace MCF in general consumer uses 
and in areas where a rigid bond is not needed. Water-based
adhesives-
especially water-based latexes, which are stable dispersions 
of solid polymeric material in an essentially aqueous medium-
can effectively replace MCF use in the flexible foams sector 
because of the flexibility of the bond they provide. Water-based 
latex adhesives have the potential to penetrate 85-90 percent 
of the MCF-based adhesive market in flexible foams applications. 
They still pose some problems, however, including: 
    Long set and dry times; newer developments seem to be solving 
this problem; 
    Deterioration during storage especially if frozen; and 
    The production of bacteria-contaminated waste water. 
   Water-based replacements have not proven effective in binding 
high density laminates or hardwood flooring principally because 
moisture enhances the chances of warping. In cases where MCF 
is used for door assemblies or sealants, water-based urethane 
adhesives containing polyisocyanates can be used. 
   c. High-solid formulations. High-solids coatings resemble 
conventional coatings in appearance and use, except high-solids 
coatings contain less solvent and a greater percentage of resin. 
High-solids coatings are currently used on appliances, metal 
furniture, and farm and road construction equipment. High-solids 
coatings are priced 20 to 30 percent higher than methyl chloroform-
based coatings, yet the buyer receives more usable paint because 
the coatings contain less solvent, thus reducing the volume 
of coatings required. 
   High-solids adhesives can reduce the amount of solvent used 
in adhesives by increasing the percentage of solids in the
formulation. 
Adhesives formerly containing 30-50 percent solids contain about 
80 percent solids after reformulation. High-solids adhesives 
have good performance characteristics, including initial bond 
strength, and can be applied using existing equipment at normal 
line speeds with minimal modification. For bonding rubber
assemblies, 
high solid adhesive films are often too thick, resulting in 
limited versatility and generally poor performance. High-solids 
formulations, however, are already used widely in the flexible 
foams, hardwood flooring, and high-pressure laminates industries. 
The solvent of choice in these industries remains MCF, but with 
a decreased portion of solvent in the formulations, so that 
less solvent is consumed overall. High-solids formulations are 
only a transitional replacement until adequate substitutes are 
found that do not contain MCF. 
   d. Alternative process substitutes. Powder adhesives, the 
first category of alternative process substitutes, are composed 
of one-part epoxies, urethanes, and natural resins. These adhesives

are often supplied as powders that require heat to cure. They 
are generally applied in one of three ways: (1) By sifting the 
powder onto preheated substrates, (2) by dipping a preheated 
substrate into the powder, and (3) by melting the powder into 
a paste or liquid and applying it by conventional means. Since 
high temperatures are required to activate and thermoset powder 
adhesives, their ability to replace MCF-based formulations will 
depend on the characteristics of the substrates being bonded: 
If the materials being bonded are heat sensitive, heat-activated 
powder adhesives cannot be used. 
   Powder coatings have no solvent, containing only resins and 
pigments in powder form. Typically, the powder is electrostatically

applied and the coated object is heated above the powder's melting 
point, so that the resin fuses into a continuous film. Powder 
coating is a mature technology and is used on various types 
of metal products such as appliances, concrete reinforced bars, 
automobiles, steel shelving, lawn and farm equipment, and some 
furniture. The elevated temperatures necessary to melt the
coatings, 
however, restrict the use of powder coatings on plastic and 
wood products. Powder coatings are priced comparably to methyl 
chloroform-based coatings. 
   Hot melt adhesives are 100 percent solid thermoplastic binders 
that can be used to replace MCF formulations in applications 
that require a rigid bond. Hot melts currently account for about 
20 percent of the adhesives market, and they, along with water-
based adhesives, will likely benefit most from the move away 
from MCF-based adhesive formulations. Hot melts are now used 
instead of MCF formulations in laminating applications, especially 
those involving the lamination of flexible foam products. They 
can also replace MCF-based adhesive formulations in the original 
equipment manufacturer's (OEM) production of high-pressure
laminates 
and possibly in the installation of hardwood flooring. The
potential 
ability of hot melt adhesives to replace MCF-based formulations 
in the flexible foams sector is limited to 10-15 percent
penetration 
because of the need for flexible bonds in most furniture and 
bedding applications. 
   Thermoplastic plasma spray coatings are powder coatings that 
melt in transit towards the object to be coated propelled by 
a pressurized inert gas, such as Argon. An electric arc strips 
electrons from the plastic particles fusing them together as 
they move through the applicator gun. Thermoplastic plasma spray 
coatings can be used to coat large and small objects of metal, 
wood, plastic, or fiberglass. 
   Radiation curing is a production technique for drying and 
curing adhesives with radiant energy in the form of ultraviolet 
(UV) or infrared (IR) light, electron beams (EB), and gamma 
or x-rays. The binding agents that can be cured with radiant 
energy are acrylics, epoxies, urethanes, anaerobic adhesives, 
and polyester resins. In many cases, if the materials are either 
heat sensitive or opaque, radiation curing cannot be employed. 
   Radiation-dried coatings are applied as either a powder or 
as a high-solids form and dried using the same radiant energy 
forms as used in radiation-cured adhesives. The binder systems 
that can be dried with radiant energy are also similar. In cases 
where the radiant energy is harmful to a component, such as 
sensitive electronic equipment, radiant-dried coating cannot 
be employed. 
   Moisture-cured, chemical-cured, and reactive liquid adhesives 
are still not widely used because they are still being developed 
or because performance or application problems still have to 
be addressed. They will not be widely commercially available 
for several years. 

3. Comment Response 

   a. Acceptable substitutes. It was suggested that the acceptable 
substitutes cited for MCF could also be extended to other ozone-
depleting solvents, such as CFC-113. Depending on the specific 
application, EPA believes that it is probable that the same 
substitutes would apply and has addressed such substitutes as 
appropriate. 
   Another commenter noted that some terminology was inconsistent 
and should be clarified. The use of the collective term ``organic 
solvent'' when describing alcohols, ketones and esters was cited. 
EPA agrees and believes that ``Oxygenated organic solvent'' 
is more specific. This phrase was substituted in the final rule. 
   b. Unacceptable substitutes-no comments received. c. Pending 
substitutes. One commenter suggested that other chlorinated 
solvents, glycol ethers, glycol ether acetates and N-methyl 
pyrollidone be forbidden as substitutes. EPA believes that when 
used as directed and within the specified controls, these
substances 
are safe alternative processes. 
   d. Other related issues-One commenter stated that ``coatings'' 
needs to be clarified to mean paint type coatings and not other 
coatings such as lubricants and mold releases. The phrase coatings 
is defined in the overview section to mean durable and decorative 
coatings such as paint to clarify this application. 
   4. Preliminary Listing Decisions 
   a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) Solvent substitutes. (a)
Petroleum 
distillates. Petroleum hydrocarbons are acceptable substitutes 
for MCF in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The principal concern 
with these substitutes is over risk to workers during manufacture 
and use of the alternative solvent. However, the Agency's analysis 
of these alternatives indicated that risks from use of petroleum 
hydrocarbons are well understood and already subject to necessary 
controls. For instance, although these solvents are flammable, 
industry has a good record of safe use of these substitutes. 
Additionally, certain of the petroleum hydrocarbons, for example 
n-hexane, have low Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), but the 
Agency's survey of exposures in the workplace found that these 
levels can successfully be attained if adequate ventilation 
and appropriate work practices are implemented. 
   The Agency's analysis of the potential for risks to residents 
in nearby communities did indicate the potential for adverse 
effects near a site with industrial use of petroleum hydrocarbons 
if a relatively toxic petroleum hydrocarbon is used. However, 
the Agency does not believe that the risk screen describes the 
true risk presented by these chemicals. First, the agency has 
determined that petroleum hydrocarbons used in this sector are 
rarely as toxic as n-hexane. Second, the screen used as past 
MCF emissions as a proxy for emissions of n-hexane. This approach 
does not account for other regulatory controls, such as VOC 
controls, that limit emissions of hydrocarbons from industrial 
sites, and would consequently also serve to lower any other 
health risks to the general population from these chemicals. 
   For this reason, the Agency believes that petroleum hydrocarbons

merit use as substitutes, although it encourages manufacturers 
to formulate products where possible with compounds with lowest 
inherent toxicity. 
   (b) Alcohols, ketones, ethers and esters. Alcohols, ketones, 
ethers and esters are acceptable substitutes for MCF in adhesives, 
coatings, and inks. The concerns for use of these solvents parallel

the concerns associated with petroleum hydrocarbons. In this 
case, two of the typical oxygenated hydrocarbons examined in 
the Agency's risk screen, methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl 
ketone, also have comparatively low toxicity. For the same reasons 
described in the section on petroleum distillates, the Agency 
is approving these compounds as substitutes for MCF. This approval 
also includes the same guidance to manufacturers-to select
chemicals 
for product formulations with lowest inherent toxicity. 
   (c) Chlorinated solvents. Perchloroethylene, methylene chloride 
and trichloroethylene are acceptable substitutes for adhesives, 
coatings, and inks. Use of these solvents merit special caution, 
since they are suspected human carcinogens. However, as with 
other solvents, the Agency's risk screen indicates that proper 
workplace practices significantly reduce risks in occupational 
settings. The Agency's examination of risks to the general
population 
determined the highest potential for adverse effects to be
associated 
with use of trichloroethylene, since it has the greatest cancer 
potency. Clearly there is a need for further assessment of the 
hazards from use of this chemical, and the Agency notes that 
authorities exist to address any risks determined from such 
analyses under Title III of the Clean Air Act. Title III lists 
all three of the chlorinated solvents as Hazardous Air Pollutants, 
and mandates development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
standards to control emissions of these chemicals in various 
industrial settings. 
   (d) Terpenes. Terpenes are acceptable substitutes for MCF 
in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The principal environmental 
concern with terpenes is their toxicity to aquatic life. In 
applications for terpenes in adhesives, coatings, and inks, 
however, the terpenes are both used and bound in the product 
formulation, meaning that there are no discharges of wastewater 
effluent that could present a risk. Other potential environmental 
hazards associated with these compounds arise from their
flammability 
and unpleasant odors, but these can be controlled by good workplace

practices. 
   (2) Water-based formulations/high-solid. Formulations. Water-
based formulations and high-solid formulations are acceptable 
substitutes for MCF in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The Agency 
did not identify any environmental or health concerns associated 
with use of these products. These formulations do contain small 
amounts of VOCs, but the increase in VOC loadings from these 
products is expected to be extremely small in comparison to 
VOC contributions from other sources. 
   (3) Alternative processes. Alternative processes, including 
powder formulations, hot melt, thermoplastic plasma spray,
radiation-
based formulations, and moisture-cured, chemical-cured, and 
reactive liquid alternatives, are all acceptable substitutes 
for MCF in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The Agency did not 
identify any health or environmental concerns associated with 
use of these substitutes. Since this grouping includes such 
a wide variety of products for which it is difficult to complete 
an in-depth risk screen, the Agency solicits additional detail 
on any potential environmental or health effects that merit 
further investigation. 

X. Additional Information 


A. Executive Order 12866 

   Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) 
The Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of 
the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments 
or communitites; 
   (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; 
   (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
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. 
   It has been determined that this is not a ``significant
regulatory 
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore 
not subject to OMB review. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

   The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires 
that federal agencies examine the effects of their regulations 
on small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency 
is required to publish a final rule-making, it must prepare 
a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is 
not required if the head of the Agency certifies that a rule 
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial 
number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 
   The Agency believes that this final rule will not have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities 
and has therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. 
Because costs of the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected 
to be minor, the rule is unlikely to adversely affect small 
businesses, particularly as the rule exempts small sectors and 
end-uses from reporting requirements and formal Agency review. 
In fact, to the extent that information gathering is more expensive

and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may well provide 
benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential
substitutes 
to any ozone-depleting class I and II substances they may be 
using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such 
substitutes available. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

   The information collection requirements in this rule have 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have 
been assigned control number 2060-0226. 
   This collection of information has an estimated reporting 
burden averaging 166 hours per response and an estimated annual 
recordkeeping burden averaging 25 hours per recordkeeper. These 
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, 
and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 
   Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions 
for reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; 
EPA; 401 M Street, SW., (Mail Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; 
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:

Desk Officer for EPA.'' 

XI. References 

   1. United Nations Environment Programme, World Meteorological 
Organization, et al. Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric 
Ozone: 1991 (17 December 1991). 
   2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World
Meteorological 
Organization, United Nations Environment Programme. Climate 
Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990). 
   3. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA),
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 
(Methyl Chloroform) White Paper (May 1991). 

Appendix A to the Preamble 

Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances 


Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances 


Class I 


Group I


    Chlorofluorocarbon-11
  CFC-11 (CFCl3); Trichlorofluoromethane

    Chlorofluorocarbon-12 
  CFC-12 (CF2Cl2); Dichlorodifluoromethane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-113 
  CFC-113 (C2F3Cl3); Trichlorotrifluoroethane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-114 
  CFC-114 (C2F4Cl2); Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-115 
  CFC-115 (C2F5Cl); Monochloropentafluoroethane 

Group II


    Halon-1211 
  (CF2ClBr); Bromochlorodifluoromethane 

    Halon-1301 
  (CF3Br); Bromotrifluoromethane 

    Halon-2402 
  (C2F4Br2); Dibromotetrafluoroethane Group III

    Chlorofluorocarbon-13 
  CFC-13 (CF3Cl); Chlorotrifluoromethane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-111 
  CFC-111 (C2FCl5); Pentachlorofluoroethane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-112 
  CFC-112 (C2F2Cl4); Tetrachlorodifluoroethane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-211 
  CFC-211 (C3FCl7); Heptachlorofluoropropane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-212 
  CFC-212 (C3F2Cl6); Hexachlorodifluoropropane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-213 
  CFC-213 (C3F3Cl5); Pentachlorotrifluoropropane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-214 
  CFC-214 (C3F4Cl4); Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-215 
  CFC-215 (C3F5Cl3); Trichloropentafluoropropane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-216 
  CFC-216 (C3F6Cl2); Dichlorohexafluoropropane 

    Chlorofluorocarbon-217 
  CFC-217 (C3F7Cl); Monochloroheptafluoropropane 

Group IV


    Carbon Tetrachloride 
  (CCl4) 

Group V


    Methyl Chloroform 
  (C2H3Cl3); 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 

Group VI


    Methyl Bromide 
  (CH3Br) 

Group VII


    Hydrobromofluorocarbons 
(HBFCs) 

Class II 


    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-21 
  HCFC-21 (CHFCl2); Dichlorofluoromethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 
  HCFC-22 (CHF2Cl); Monochlorodifluoromethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-31 
  HCFC-31 (CH2FCl); Monochlorofluoromethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-121 
  HCFC-121 (C2HFCl4); Tetrachlorofluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-122 
  HCFC-122 (C2HF2Cl3); Trichlorodifluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-123 
  HCFC-123 (C2HF3Cl2); Dichlorotrifluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-124 
  HCFC-124 (C2HF4Cl); Monochlorotetrafluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-131 
  HCFC-131 (C2H2FCl3); Trichlorofluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-132B 
  HCFC-132B (C2H2F2Cl2); Dichlorodifluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-133A 
  HCFC-133A (C2H2F3Cl); Monochlorotrifluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-141B 
  HCFC-141B (C2H3FCl2); Dichlorofluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-142B 
  HCFC-142B (C2H3F2Cl); Monochlorodifluoroethane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-221 
  HCFC-221 (C3HFCl6); Hexachlorofluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-222 
  HCFC-222 (C3HF2Cl5); Pentachlorodifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-223 
  HCFC-223 (C3HF3Cl4); Tetrachlorotrifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-224 
  HCFC-224 (C3HF4Cl3); Trichlorotetrafluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225CA 
  HCFC-225CA (C3HF5Cl2); Dichloropentafluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225CB 
  HCFC-225CB (C3HF5Cl2); Dichloropentafluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-226 
  HCFC-226 (C3HF6Cl); Monochlorohexafluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-231 
  HCFC-231 (C3H2FCl5); Pentachlorofluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-232 
  HCFC-232 (C3H2F2Cl4) Tetrachlorodifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-233 
  HCFC-233 (C3H2F3Cl3); Trichlorotrifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-234 
  HCFC-234 (C3H2F4Cl2); Dichlorotetrafluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-235 
  HCFC-235 (C3H2F5Cl); Monochloropentafluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-241 
  HCFC-241 (C3H3FCl4); Tetrachlorofluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-242 
  HCFC-242 (C3H3F2Cl3); Trichlorodifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-243 
  HCFC-243 (C3H3F3Cl2) Dichlorotrifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-244 
  HCFC-244 (C3H3F4Cl); Monochlorotetrafluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-251 
  HCFC-251 (C3H4FCl3); Trichlorofluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-252 
  HCFC-252 (C3H4F2Cl2) Dichlorodifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-253 
  HCFC-253 (C3H4F3Cl); Monochlorotrifluoropentane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-261 
  HCFC-261 (C3H5FCl2); Dichlorofluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-262 
  HCFC-262 (C3H5F2Cl); Monochlorodifluoropropane 

    Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-271 
  HCFC-271 (C3H6FCl); Monochlorofluoropropane 

Appendix B to the Preamble

Summary of Listing Decisions



                                             Refrigerants          
                                  
                                        Acceptable Substitutes     
                                  
                                                                   
                                  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute            Decision 
                   Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                           
CF-11 centrifugal   HCFC-123 .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA worker-monitoring studies of     
 chillers                                              
       123 show that 8-hour TWA can be     
 (retrofit).                                           
       kept within 1 ppm (well under the   
                                                       
       AEL of 30 ppm) when recycling and   
                                                       
       ASHRAE standards are followed.      
                                                       
       This substitute is subject to       
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations concerning HCFCs.       
CFC-12 centrifugal  HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
 chillers                                              
       containment and reclamation of      
 (retrofit).                                           
       this substitute.                    
CFC-113             None .............  Acceptable
.........  ..................................   
 centrifugal                                           
                                           
 chillers                                              
                                           
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
CFC-114             HCFC-124 .........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 centrifugal                                           
       containment and recovery            
 chillers.                                             
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
R-500 centrifugal   HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
 chillers                                              
       containment and reclamation of      
 (retrofit).                                           
       this substitute.                    
CFC-11, CFC-12,     HCFC-123 .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA worker-monitoring studies of     
 CFC-113, CFC-114,                                     
       123 show that 8-hour TWA can be     
 R-500 centrifugal                                     
       kept within 1 ppm (well under the   
 chillers (new                                         
       AEL of 30 ppm) when recycling and   
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       ASHRAE standards are followed.      
                                                       
       This substitute is subject to       
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations concerning HCFCs.       
                    HCFC-124 .........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HFC-227ea ........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Ammonia vapor       Acceptable
.........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
                    Evaporative         Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                     cooling                           
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Desiccant cooling   Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                                                       
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Ammonia/water       Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                     absorption                        
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Water/lithium       Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                     bromide                           
       currently commercially available;   
                     absorption                        
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-12              HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
 reciprocating                                         
       containment and reclamation of      
 chillers.                                             
       this substitute.                    
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
CFC-12              HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 reciprocating                                         
       containment and recovery            
 chillers (new.                                        
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HFC-227ea ........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Evaporative         Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                     cooling                           
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Desiccant cooling   Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                                                       
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-  HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 502 industrial                                        
       containment and recovery            
 process.                                              
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 refrigeration                                         
                                           
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507 ............  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Ammonia vapor       Acceptable
.........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
                    Propane ..........  Acceptable
.........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Propylene ........  Acceptable
.........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Butane ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Acceptable
.........  EPA recommends that this             
                     A                                 
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Chlorine .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use chlorine in      
                                                       
       the process stream.                 
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-  HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 502 industrial                                        
       containment and recovery            
 process.                                              
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 refrigeration                                         
                                           
 (new equipment/                                       
                                           
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HFC-227ea......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-402A............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A............ 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507............. 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Ammonia vapor      
Acceptable..........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
                    Propane........... 
Acceptable..........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Propylene......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Butane............ 
Acceptable..........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Hydrocarbon Blend  
Acceptable..........  EPA recommends that this             
                     A                                 
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use hydrocarbons     
                                                       
       in the process stream.              
                    Chlorine.......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA recommends that this             
                                                       
       substitute be used only at          
                                                       
       industrial facilities that          
                                                       
       manufacture or use chlorine in      
                                                       
       the process stream.                 
                    Evaporative        
Acceptable..........  Alternative technology that is       
                     cooling                           
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Desiccant cooling. 
Acceptable..........  Alternative technology that is       
                                                       
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Stirling cycle.... 
Acceptable..........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-114 industrial  HCFC-124.......... 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
 process air                                           
       containment and recovery            
 conditioning.                                         
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
CFC-114 industrial  HCFC-124.......... 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
 process air                                           
       containment and recovery            
 conditioning (new)                                    
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
CFC-12, R-502 ice   HCFC-22........... 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
 skating rinks                                         
       containment and recovery            
 (retrofit).                                           
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HFC-134a.......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    Ammonia vapor      
Acceptable..........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
CFC-12, R-502 ice   HCFC-22........... 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
 skating rinks                                         
       containment and recovery            
 (new equipment/.                                      
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    HFC-134a.......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Ammonia vapor      
Acceptable..........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
CFC-114 uranium     C4F8.............. 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
 isotope                                               
       containment and reclamation of      
 separation.                                           
       this substitute.                    
 processing                                            
                                           
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    C4F10............. 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    C5F12............. 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    C6F14............. 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    C5F11NO........... 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
CFC-12, R-502 cold  HCFC-22........... 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
 storage                                               
       containment and recovery            
 warehouses.                                           
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    HFC-134a.......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402A............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A............ 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507............. 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
CFC-12, R-502 cold  HCFC-22........... 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
 storage                                               
       containment and recovery            
 warehouses (new.                                      
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    HFC-134a.......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HFC-227ea......... 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-402A............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B............ 
Acceptable..........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A............ 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507............. 
Acceptable..........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Ammonia vapor      
Acceptable..........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
                    Evaporative         Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                     cooling                           
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    Desiccant cooling   Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                                                       
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    High to low         Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
                     pressure stepdown                 
                                           
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-12, R-500, R-   HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 502 refrigerated                                      
       containment and recovery            
 transport.                                            
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507 ............  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
CFC-12, R-500, R-   HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 502 refrigerated                                      
       containment and recovery            
 transport (new.                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-402A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507 ............  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                                                       
       currently commercially available.   
                    Nitrogen direct     Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
                     gas expansion                     
                                           
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 retail food                                           
       containment and recovery            
 refrigeration.                                        
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507 ............  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
CFC-12, R-502,      HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 retail food                                           
       containment and recovery            
 refrigeration.                                        
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (new equipment/                                       
                                           
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HFC-227ea ........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-402A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507 ............  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Ammonia vapor       Acceptable
.........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-12, R-502       R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 commercial ice                                        
       containment and recovery            
 machines.                                             
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507 ............  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 commercial ice                                        
       containment and recovery            
 machines (new.                                        
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-402A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-402B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-404A ...........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-507 ............  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Ammonia vapor       Acceptable
.........  Users should check local building    
                     compression                       
       codes related to the use of         
                                                       
       ammonia.                            
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-12 vending      HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 machines                                              
       containment and recovery            
 (retrofit).                                           
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
CFC-12 vending      HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 machines (new                                         
       containment and recovery            
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-12 water        HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
 coolers (retrofit)                                    
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
CFC-12 water        HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 coolers (new                                          
       containment and recovery            
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-12 household    HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 refrigerators                                         
       containment and recovery            
 (retrofit).                                           
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    HCFC blend alpha .  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
CFC-12 household    HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 refrigerators                                         
       containment and recovery            
 (new equipment/.                                      
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HFC-152a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HCFC blend alpha .  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R200b ............  Acceptable
.........  This substitute's composition is     
                                                       
       confidential. Its use may be        
                                                       
       governed by regulations             
                                                       
       concerning the use of ozone-        
                                                       
       depleting substances.               
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology currently     
                                                       
       under development for this end-     
                                                       
       use.                                
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 household                                             
       containment and recovery            
 freezers.                                             
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 household                                             
       containment and recovery            
 freezers (new.                                        
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    HFC-152a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
CFC-12, R-500       HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 residential                                           
       containment and recovery            
 dehumidifiers.                                        
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
                    R-401A ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    R-401B ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
CFC-12, R-500       HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
 residential                                           
       containment and recovery            
 dehumidifiers.                                        
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
 (new equipment/                                       
                                           
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
                                                       
       containment and reclamation of      
                                                       
       this substitute.                    
CFC-12 motor        HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
 vehicle air                                           
       containment and reclamation of      
 conditioners.                                         
       this substitute.                    
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
                    R-401C ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
CFC-12 motor        HFC-134a .........  Acceptable
.........  EPA strongly recommends the          
 vehicle air                                           
       containment and reclamation of      
 conditioners (new                                     
       this substitute.                    
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    R-401C ...........  Acceptable
.........  This substitute is subject to        
                                                       
       containment and recovery            
                                                       
       regulations covering HCFCs.         
                    Evaporative         Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology that is       
                     cooling                           
       currently commercially available;   
                                                       
       new developments have greatly       
                                                       
       expanded applicability.             
                    CO2 ..............  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology.              
                    Stirling cycle ...  Acceptable
.........  Alternative technology currently     
                                                       
       under development for this end-     
                                                       
       use.                                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                             Refrigerants          
                                  
                                       Unacceptable Substitutes    
                                  
                                                                   
                                  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute            Decision 
                   Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                           
CFC-11 centrifugal  HCFC-141b ........  Unacceptable
.......  Has a high ODP relative to other     
 chillers.                                             
       alternatives.                       
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
CFC-12 centrifugal  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 chillers.           CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-11, CFC-12,     HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 CFC-113, CFC-114,   CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 R-500 centrifugal                                     
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 chillers (new.                                        
       substances.                         
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
                    HCFC-141b ........  Unacceptable
.......  Has a high ODP relative to other     
                                                       
       alternatives.                       
CFC-12              HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 reciprocating.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 chillers                                              
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12              HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 reciprocating.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 chillers (new                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 industrial.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 process                                               
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 refrigeration.                                        
       substances.                         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 industrial.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 process                                               
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 refrigeration.                                        
       substances.                         
 (new equipment/                                       
                                           
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
CFC-12, R-502 ice   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 skating rinks.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502 ice   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 skating rinks.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (new equipment/                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 NIKs).                                                
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502 cold  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 storage.            CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 warehouses                                            
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502 cold  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 storage.            CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 warehouses (new                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-500, R-   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 refrigerated.   CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 transport                                             
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-500, R-   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 refrigerated.   CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 transport (new                                        
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 retail food.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 refrigeration                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 retail food.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 refrigeration                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (new equipment/.                                      
       substances.                         
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 commercial ice.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 machines                                              
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 commercial ice.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 machines (new                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 vending      HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 machines.           CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 vending      HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 machines (new.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 Water        HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 coolers (retrofit)  CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
                                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 water        HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 coolers (new.       CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 household    HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 refrigerators.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 household    HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 refrigerators.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (new equipment/                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 NIKs).                                                
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 household.          CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 freezers                                              
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 household.          CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 freezers (new                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-500       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 residential.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 dehumidifiers                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-500       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 residential.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 dehumidifiers                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (new equipment/.                                      
       substances.                         
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 motor        HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 vehicle air.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 conditioners                                          
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 motor        HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 vehicle air.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 conditioners (new                                     
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon Blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                          Refrigerants             
                            
                                        Pending Decisions          
                            
                                                                   
                            
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
    Application             Substitute                 
          Comments                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                      
CFC-11, CFC-113,    Perfluoropropane .........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
 CFC-114.                                        all
substitutes for this end-use.            
 recirculating                                         
                                      
 coolers.                                              
                                      
                    Perfluorobutane ..........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoropentane .........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluorohexane ..........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoroheptane .........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluorooctane ..........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoro-N-methyl          EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                     morphine                    all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoro-N-ethyl morphine  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoro-N-isopropyl       EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                     morphine                    all
substitutes for this end-use.            
CFC-11, CFC-113,    Perfluoropropane .........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
 CFC-114.                                        all
substitutes for this end-use.            
 thermosyphons.                                        
                                      
                    Perfluorobutane ..........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoropentane .........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluorohexane ..........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoroheptane .........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluorooctane ..........  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoro-N-methyl          EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                     morphine                    all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoro-N-ethyl morphine  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                                                 all
substitutes for this end-use.            
                    Perfluoro-N-isopropyl       EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
                     morphine                    all
substitutes for this end-use.            
CFC-12 Motor        HCFC Blend Beta ..........  EPA has
requested additional data.            
 vehicle air                                           
                                      
 conditioning.                                         
                                      
CFC-12 Cold         R200a ....................  EPA has
requested additional data.            
 storage.                                              
                                      
CFC-12 Chillers,    HFC-227ea ................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
 heat pumps and.                                 data. 
                                      
 commercial                                            
                                      
 refrigeration                                         
                                      
 systems.                                              
                                      
CFC-13, R-503 very  HFC-23 ...................  EPA
requests additional data on the use. of   
 low temperature.                                all
substitutes for this end-use.            
 refrigeration.                                        
                                      
                    PFC Blend Alpha ..........  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
                                                 data. 
                                      
                    PFC Blend Beta ...........  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
                                                 data. 
                                      
CFC-114             R200b ....................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
 Centrifugal.                                    data. 
                                      
 chillers (new                                         
                                      
 equipment/                                            
                                      
 alternative                                           
                                      
 substances).                                          
                                      
                    R200c ....................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
                                                 data. 
                                      
                    R200g ....................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
                                                 data. 
                                      
                    R200i ....................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
                                                 data. 
                                      
                    R200j ....................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
                                                 data. 
                                      
CFC-114 chillers,   HFC-227ea ................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
 heat pumps and.                                 data. 
                                      
 commercial                                            
                                      
 refrigeration                                         
                                      
 systems.                                              
                                      
R-502 Cold storage  R200a ....................  EPA has
not yet concluded review of the       
                                                 data. 
                                      
HCFC-22 Heat pumps  HFC-134a .................  EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II            
                                                
substitutes.                                 
                    HFC-152a .................  EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II            
                                                
substitutes.                                 
                    HFC-32 ...................  EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II            
                                                
substitutes.                                 
                    HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFC-32 ..  EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II            
                                                
substitutes.                                 
                    R200a ....................  EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II            
                                                
substitutes.                                 
HCFC-22             HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFC-32 ..  EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II            
 Conventional.                                  
substitutes.                                 
 (house.hold) air                                      
                                      
 conditioning.                                         
                                      
                    R200a ....................  EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II            
                                                
substitutes.                                 
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                              Foam Sector          
                                  
                                        Acceptable Substitutes     
                                  
                                                                   
                                  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute            Decision 
                   Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                           
CFC-11 Rigid        HCFC-123 .........  Acceptable
.........  Worker monitoring studies indicate   
 polyurethane and                                      
       AEL for 123 (30 ppm) can be         
 polyisocyanurate                                      
       achieved with increased             
 laminated                                             
       ventilation, where needed.          
 boardstock.                                           
       Availability is limited.            
                    HCFC-141b ........  Acceptable
.........  Has highest ODP of HCFCs.            
                    HCFC-142b ........  Acceptable
.........                                       
                    HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........                                       
                    HCFC-22/HCFC-141b   Acceptable
.........  HCFC-141b.                           
                     blends                            
                                           
                    HCFC-141b/HCFC-123  Acceptable
.........  Recent worker monitoring studies     
                     blends                            
       indicate OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can   
                                                       
       be achieved with increased          
                                                       
       ventilation, where needed. Fairly   
                                                       
       good energy efficiency properties.  
                    HCFC-22/HCFC-142b   Acceptable
.........                                       
                     blends                            
                                           
                    HFC-134a ........  Acceptable
.........                                       
                    HCFC-152a ........  Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                                                       
       workers and consumers.              
                    Saturated light     Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       workers and consumers. Major        
                     C6                                
       sources of VOC emissions are        
                                                       
       subject to the New Source Review    
                                                       
       (NSR) program.                      
                    2-Chloropropane ..  Acceptable
.........                                       
                    Carbon dioxide ...  Acceptable
.........  Has highest thermal conductivity     
                                                       
       relative to other acceptable        
                                                       
       substitutes in this end use.        
CFC-11              HCFC-22 (for        Acceptable
.........                                       
 Polyurethane,       blends thereof)                   
                                           
 rigid appliance.                                      
                                           
                    HCFC-123 (or        Acceptable
.........  Recent worker monitoring studies     
                     blends thereof)                   
       indicate OEL for 123 (30 ppm) can   
                                                       
       be achieved with increased          
                                                       
       ventilation, where needed. Easy     
                                                       
       to use as a retrofit; energy        
                                                       
       efficiency close to CFC-11.         
                                                       
       Current availability is limited.    
                    HCFC-141b (or       Acceptable
.........  HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,        
                     blends thereof)                   
       almost equivalent to that of        
                                                       
       methyl chloroform, a Class I        
                                                       
       substance. Fairly good energy       
                                                       
       efficiency properties.              
                    HCFC-142b (or       Acceptable
.........                                       
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    HFC-134a (or       Acceptable
.........                                       
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    HCFC-152a (or       Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     blends thereof)                   
       workers and consumers.              
                    Saturated light     Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       workers and consumers. Major        
                     C6 (or blends                     
       sources of VOC emissions are        
                     thereof)                          
       subject to the New Source Review    
                                                       
       (NSR) program.                      
                    Carbon dioxide (or  Acceptable
.........                                       
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
CFC-11              HCFC-22 (or blends  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
 Polyurethane,       thereof)                          
                                           
 rigid commercial.                                     
                                           
Refrigeration       HCFC-123 (or        Acceptable
.........  Recent worker monitoring studies     
 foams, spray.       blends thereof)                   
       indicate AEL for 123 (30 ppm) can   
 foams and                                             
       be achieved with use of increased   
 sandwich panel                                        
       ventilation, where needed. Easy     
 foams.                                                
       to use as a retrofit; energy        
                                                       
       efficiency close to CFC-11.         
                                                       
       Availability is limited.            
                    HCFC-141b (or       Acceptable
.........  HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,        
                     blends thereof)                   
       almost equivalent to that of        
                                                       
       methyl chloroform, a Class I        
                                                       
       substance. Fairly good energy       
                                                       
       efficiency properties.              
                    HCFC-142b (or       Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    HFC-134a (or        Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    HFC-152a (or        Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     blends thereof)                   
       workers and consumers.              
                    Saturated light     Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       workers and consumers. Major        
                     C6 (or blends                     
       sources of VOC emissions are        
                     thereof)                          
       subject to the New Source Review    
                                                       
       (NSR) program.                      
                    Carbon dioxide (or  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
CFC-11              HCFC-22 (or blends  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
 Polyurethane,       thereof)                          
                                           
 rigid slabstock                                       
                                           
 and other.                                            
                                           
                    HCFC-141b (or       Acceptable
.........  HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,        
                     blends thereof)                   
       almost equivalent to that of        
                                                       
       methyl chloroform, a Class I        
                                                       
       substance.                          
                    HCFC-123 (or        Acceptable
.........  Recent worker monitoring studies     
                     blends thereof)                   
       indicate AEL for 123 (30 ppm) can   
                                                       
       be achieved by increased            
                                                       
       ventilation, where needed.          
                                                       
       Availability is limited.            
                    HFC-134a (or        Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    HFC-152a (or        Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    Saturated light     Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     Hydrocarbons C3-                  
       workers and consumers. Major        
                     C6 (or blends                     
       sources of VOC emissions are        
                     thereof)                          
       subject to the New Source Review    
                                                       
       (NSR) program.                      
                    Carbon dioxide (or  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
CFC-12 Polystyrene, HCFC-22...........  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
 extruded                                              
                                           
 boardstock and                                        
                                           
 billet.                                               
                                           
                    HCFC-142b.........  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                    HCFC-22/142b        Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                     blends                            
                                           
                    HFC-22/142b blends  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                                                       
                                           
                    HFC-134a..........  Acceptable     
      ..................................   
                    HFC-152a..........  Acceptable     
      Flammability may be an issue for     
                                                       
       workers and consumers.              
                    Saturated light    
Acceptable..........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       workers and consumers. Major        
                     C6                                
       sources of VOC emissions are        
                                                       
       subject to the New Source Review    
                                                       
       (NSR) program.                      
                    HCFC-22/Saturated  
Acceptable..........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     light                             
       workers and consumers. Major        
                     hydrocarbons                      
       sources of VOC emissions are        
                                                       
       subject to the New Source Review    
                                                       
       (NSR) program.                      
                    Carbon dioxide.... 
Acceptable..........  High thermal conductivity compared   
                                                       
       to other acceptable substitutes     
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-11, CFC-113     HCFC-141b......... 
Acceptable..........  HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,        
 Phenolic,                                             
       almost equivalent to that of        
 insulation board.                                     
       methyl chloroform, a Class I        
                                                       
       substance. Fairly good energy       
                                                       
       efficiency properties.              
                    HCFC-142b......... 
Acceptable..........                                       
                    HCFC-22........... 
Acceptable..........                                       
                    HCFC-22/142b ..... 
Acceptable..........                                       
                    HCFC-22/Saturated  
Acceptable..........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     light                             
       workers and consumers.              
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
                                           
                     C6                                
                                           
                    Saturated light    
Acceptable..........  Major sources of VOC emissions are   
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       subject to the New Source Review    
                     C6                                
       (NSR) program. Flammability may     
                                                       
       be an issue for workers and         
                                                       
       consumers.                          
                    HFC-143a.......... 
Acceptable..........  Has relatively high global warming   
                                                       
       potential compared to other         
                                                       
       acceptable substitutes in this      
                                                       
       end-use.                            
                    2-Chloropropane... 
Acceptable..........  Proprietary technology.              
                                                       
       Flammability may be an issue for    
                                                       
       workers and consumers.              
                    Carbon dioxide.... 
Acceptable..........  High thermal conductivity relative   
                                                       
       to other acceptable substitutes     
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-11              HFC-134a (or        Acceptable     
                                           
 Polyurethane,       blends thereof)                   
                                           
 flexible.                                             
                                           
                    HFC-152a (or       
Acceptable..........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     blends thereof)                   
       workers and consumers.              
                    Methylene chloride 
Acceptable..........  Revised OSHA PELs have been          
                     (or blends                        
       proposed at 25 ppm (TWA) for        
                     thereof)                          
       methylene chloride (Nov. 7, 1991)   
                                                       
       . Subject to meeting all future     
                                                       
       ambient air controls for            
                                                       
       hazardous air pollutants under      
                                                       
       Title III section 112 of the 1990   
                                                       
       CAAA. RCRA standards must be met.   
                    Acetone (or blends 
Acceptable..........  Regulated as a VOC under Title I     
                     thereof)                          
       of the Clean Air Act. Major         
                                                       
       sources of VOC emissions are        
                                                       
       subject to the New Source Review    
                                                       
       (NSR) program. Flammability may     
                                                       
       be an issue for workers and         
                                                       
       consumers.                          
                    AB technology..... 
Acceptable..........  AB generates more carbon monoxide    
                                                       
       (CO) than other blowing agents.     
                                                       
       OSHA has set a PEL for CO at 35     
                                                       
       ppm TWA with a ceiling of 200 ppm.  
                    Carbon dioxide (or  Acceptable     
                                           
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
CFC-11              HCFC-22 (or blends 
Acceptable..........  Use restricted by section 610 Non-   
 Polyurethane,       thereof)                          
       Essential Use Ban to motor          
 integral skin.                                        
       vehicle safety foams. See HCFC      
                                                       
       discussion in Preamble for detail.  
                    HCFC-123 (or       
Acceptable..........  Use restricted by section 610 Non-   
                     blends thereof)                   
       Essential Use Ban to motor          
                                                       
       vehicle safety foams. See HCFC      
                                                       
       discussion in Preamble for detail.  
                                                       
       Worker monitoring studies           
                                                       
       indicate AEL for HCFC-123 (30 ppm)  
                                                       
       can be achieved with increased      
                                                       
       ventilation, where needed. Very     
                                                       
       easy to use a retrofit; energy      
                                                       
       efficiency close to CFC-11.         
                                                       
       Supply is currently limited.        
                    HCFC-141b (or       Acceptable
.........  Use restricted by section 610 Non-   
                     blends thereof)                   
       Essential Use Ban to motor          
                                                       
       vehicle safety foams. See HCFC      
                                                       
       discussion in Preamble for detail.  
                                                       
       HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,       
                                                       
       almost equivalent to that of        
                                                       
       methyl chloroform, a class I        
                                                       
       substance.                          
                    HFC-134a (or        Acceptable     
                                           
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    HFC-152a (or        Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     blends thereof)                   
       workers and consumers.              
                    Saturated light     Acceptable
.........  Major sources of VOC emissions are   
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       subject to the New Source Review    
                     C6 (or blends                     
       (NSR) program. Flammability may     
                     thereof)                          
       be an issue for workers and         
                                                       
       consumers.                          
                    Methylene chloride  Acceptable
.........  Revised OSHA PELs have been          
                     (or blends                        
       proposed at 25 ppm (TWA) for        
                     thereof)                          
       methylene chloride (Nov. 7, 1991)   
                                                       
       . Subject to meeting all future     
                                                       
       ambient air controls for            
                                                       
       hazardous air pollutant under       
                                                       
       Title III section 112 of the 1990   
                                                       
       CAA Amendments. RCRA standards      
                                                       
       must be met.                        
                    Carbon dioxide (or  Acceptable     
                                           
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
CFC-12 Polystyrene, HFC-134a (or        Acceptable     
                                           
 extruded sheet.     blends thereof)                   
                                           
                    HFC-152a (or        Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                     blends thereof)                   
       workers and consumers.              
                    Saturated light     Acceptable
.........  Major sources of VOC emissions are   
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       subject to the New Source Review    
                     C6 (or blends                     
       (NSR) program. Flammability may     
                     thereof)                          
       be an issue for workers and         
                                                       
       consumers.                          
                    Carbon dioxide (or  Acceptable     
                                           
                     blends thereof)                   
                                           
CFC-12, CFC-114,    HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  Use restricted under section 610     
 CFC-11 Polyolefin                                     
       Non-Essential Use Ban to            
                                                       
       polyethylene thermal insulating     
                                                       
       applications. See HCFC discussion   
                                                       
       in Preamble for detail.             
                    HCFC-142b ........  Acceptable
.........  Use restricted under section 610     
                                                       
       Non-Essential Use Ban to            
                                                       
       polyethylene thermal insulating     
                                                       
       applications. See HCFC discussion   
                                                       
       in Preamble for detail.             
                    HCFC-22/HCFC-142b   Acceptable
.........  Use restricted under section 610     
                                                       
       Non-Essential Use Ban to            
                                                       
       polyethylene thermal insulating     
                                                       
       applications. See HCFC discussion   
                                                       
       in Preamble for detail.             
                    HCFC-22/Saturated   Acceptable
.........  HCFC use restricted to thermal       
                     light                             
       insulating applications under       
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban.  
                     C6                                
       Major sources of VOC emissions      
                                                       
       are subject to the New Source       
                                                       
       Review (NSR) program.               
                                                       
       Flammability may be an issue for    
                                                       
       workers and consumers.              
                    HFC-134a .........  Acceptable     
                                           
                    HFC-143a .........  Acceptable
.........  Has relatively high global warming   
                                                       
       potential compared to other         
                                                       
       acceptable substitutes in this      
                                                       
       end-use.                            
                    HFC-152a .........  Acceptable
.........  Flammability may be an issue for     
                                                       
       workers and consumers.              
                    Saturated light     Acceptable
.........  Major sources of VOC emissions are   
                     hydrocarbons C3-                  
       subject to the New Source Review    
                     C6                                
       (NSR) program. Flammability may     
                                                       
       be an issue for workers and         
                                                       
       consumers.                          
                    Carbon dioxide ...  Acceptable     
                                           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                                 Foams             
                                   
                                        Unacceptable Substitutes   
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
CFC-11 Polyolefin   HCFC-141b (or       Unacceptable
........  HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,        
                     blends thereof)                   
        almost equivalent to that of        
                                                       
        methyl chloroform, a Class I        
                                                       
        substance. The Agency believes      
                                                       
        that non-ODP alternatives are       
                                                       
        sufficiently available to render    
                                                       
        the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary    
                                                       
        in polyolefin foams.                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                              Foams                
                            
                                       Pending Substitutes         
                            
                                                                   
                            
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use               Substitute                 
          Comments                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                      
CFC-11, CFC-113     Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Polyurethane and    expanded polystyrene,             
                                      
 polyisocyanurate,   fiberboard, fiberglass            
                                      
 rigid laminated                                       
                                      
 boardstock.                                           
                                      
CFC-11, CFC-113     Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Rigid.              fiberglass, vacuum panels         
                                      
 polyurethane,                                         
                                      
 appliance foams.                                      
                                      
CFC-11              Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Polyurethane,       fiberglass, expanded              
                                      
 rigid slabstock.    polystyrene                       
                                      
 and other.                                            
                                      
CFC-11              Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Polyurethane,       fiberglass, expanded              
                                      
 rigid spray and.    polystyrene                       
                                      
 commercial                                            
                                      
 refrigeration                                         
                                      
 foams, and                                            
                                      
 sandwich panels.                                      
                                      
CFC-11, CFC-113     Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Phenolic.           fiberglass, expanded              
                                      
                     polystyrene                       
                                      
CFC-11              Alternative processes:      Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Polyurethane,       Enviro-Cure process               
                                      
 flexible.                                             
                                      
                    Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                     fiberfill, natural latex          
                                      
                     foams, polyester batting          
                                      
                    2-Chloropropane .......... 
...........................................   
Foams, alternative  Electroset process........ 
Insufficient data. Also need information on   
 process.                                       
proposed end-use.                            
CFC-12, CFC-114     Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Polystyrene,        expanded polystyrene,             
                                      
 extruded.           fiberboard                        
                                      
 boardstock and                                        
                                      
 billet.                                               
                                      
                    HCFC-124..................  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                    HCFC-125..................  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                    HFC-143a..................  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
CFC-11,             2-Chloropropane...........  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Polyurethane                                          
                                      
 integral skin.                                        
                                      
CFC-12, CFC-114     Alternative products:       Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 Polyolefin.         paper, cardboard,                 
                                      
                     expanded polystyrene              
                                      
                    HFC-152a/Hydrocarbons.....  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                    Methylene chloride........  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
Polyurethane,       HFC-356................... 
Insufficient data. Also need information on   
 rigid.                                         
proposed end-use(s).                         
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                            Solvent Cleaning       
                                   
                                         Acceptable Substitutes    
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
Metals cleaning w/  Aqueous cleaners .  Acceptable
..........  EPA expects to issue effluent        
 CFC-113, MCF.                                         
        guidelines for this industry        
                                                       
        under the Clean Water Act by as     
                                                       
        early as 1994.                      
                    Semi-aqueous       
Acceptable...........  EPA expects to issue effluent        
                     cleaners                          
        guidelines for this industry        
                                                       
        under the Clean Water Act by as     
                                                       
        early as 1994.                      
                    Straight organic   
Acceptable...........  OSHA standards must be met, if       
                     solvent cleaning                  
        applicable.                         
                     (with terpenes,                   
                                            
                     C6-C20 petroleum                  
                                            
                     hydrocarbons,                     
                                            
                     oxygenated                        
                                            
                     organic solvents                  
                                            
                     such as ketones,                  
                                            
                     esters, ethers,                   
                                            
                     alcohols, etc.)                   
                                            
                    Trichloro-ethylene,
Acceptable...........  OSHA and RCRA standards must be      
                     perchloro-                        
        met. EPA expects to issue Maximum   
                     ethylene,                         
        Achievable Control Technology       
                     methylene                         
        requirements under the Clean Air    
                     chloride                          
        Act for this application by 1994.   
                    Vanishing oils.... 
Acceptable...........  Depending on geographic region,      
                                                       
        may be subject to VOC controls.     
                    Supercritical      
Acceptable...........                                       
                     fluids                            
                                            
                    Volatile methyl    
Acceptable...........  Other siloxanes are being examined   
                     siloxanes                         
        for possible workplace standards    
                     (dodecamethyl                     
        and will be listed under a          
                     cyclohexasiloxane                 
        separate rulemaking.                
                    , hexamethyl                       
                                            
                     disiloxane, octa                  
                                           
                    methyltrisiloxane                  
                                           
                    , decamethyltetra                  
                                           
                    siloxane)                          
                                           
Electronics         Aqueous cleaners.. 
Acceptable...........  EPA expects to issue effluent        
 cleaning w/CFC-                                       
        guidelines for this industry        
 113, MCF.                                             
        under the Clean Water Act by as     
                                                       
        early as 1994.                      
                    Semi-aqueous       
Acceptable...........  EPA expects to issue effluent        
                     cleaners                          
        guidelines for this industry        
                                                       
        under the Clean Water Act by 1994.  
                    Straight organic   
Acceptable...........  OSHA standards must be met, if       
                     solvent cleaning                  
        applicable.                         
                     (with terpenes,                   
                                            
                     C6-C20 petroleum                  
                                            
                     hydrocarbons,                     
                                            
                     oxygenated                        
                                            
                     organic solvents                  
                                            
                     such as ketones,                  
                                            
                     esters, ethers,                   
                                            
                     alcohols, etc.)                   
                                            
                    Trichloro-ethylene,
Acceptable...........  OSHA and RCRA standards must be      
                     perchloro-                        
        met. EPA expects to issue Maximum   
                     ethylene,                         
        Achievable Control Technology       
                     methylene                         
        requirements under the Clean Air    
                     chloride                          
        Act for this application by 1994.   
                    No-clean           
Acceptable...........  Substitutes found acceptable         
                     alternatives                      
        include low solids fluxes and       
                                                       
        inert gas soldering.                
                    Supercritical      
Acceptable...........  OSHA standards for ozone must be     
                     fluids, plasma                    
        met.                                
                     cleaning, UV/                     
                                            
                     Ozone cleaning                    
                                            
                    Volatile methyl    
Acceptable...........  Other siloxanes are being examined   
                     siloxanes                         
        for possible workplace standards    
                     (dodecamethyl                     
        and will be listed under a          
                     cyclohexasiloxane                 
        separate rulemaking.                
                    , hexamethyl                       
                                            
                     disiloxane, octa                  
                                           
                    methyltrisiloxane                  
                                           
                    , decamethyltetra                  
                                           
                    siloxane)                          
                                           
Precision cleaning  Aqueous cleaners.. 
Acceptable...........  EPA expects to issue effluent        
 w/CFC-113, MCF.                                       
        guidelines for this industry        
                                                       
        under the Clean Water Act by as     
                                                       
        early as 1994.                      
                    Semi-aqueous       
Acceptable...........  EPA expects to issue effluent        
                     cleaners                          
        guidelines for this industry        
                                                       
        under the Clean Water Act by as     
                                                       
        early as 1994.                      
                    Straight organic   
Acceptable...........  OSHA standards must be met, if       
                     solvent cleaning                  
        applicable.                         
                     (with terpenes,                   
                                            
                     C6-C20 petroleum                  
                                            
                     hydrocarbons,                     
                                            
                     oxygenated                        
                                            
                     organic solvents                  
                                            
                     such as ketones,                  
                                            
                     esters, ethers,                   
                                            
                     alcohols, etc.)                   
                                            
                    Trichloro-ethylene,
Acceptable...........  OSHA and RCRA standards must be      
                     perchloro-                        
        met. EPA expects to issue Maximum   
                     ethylene,                         
        Achievable Control Technology       
                     methylene                         
        requirements for this application   
                     chloride                          
        by 1994.                            
                    Supercritical      
Acceptable...........  OSHA standards for ozone must be     
                     fluids, plasma                    
        met.                                
                     cleaning, UV/                     
                                            
                     Ozone cleaning                    
                                            
                    Volatile methyl    
Acceptable...........  Other siloxanes are being examined   
                     siloxanes                         
        for possible workplace standards    
                     (dodecamethyl                     
        and will be listed under a          
                     cyclohexasiloxane                 
        separate rulemaking.                
                    , hexamethyl                       
                                            
                     disiloxane, octa                  
                                           
                    methyltrisiloxane                  
                                           
                    , decamethyltetra                  
                                           
                    siloxane)                          
                                           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                        Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed
Use Limits                       
                                                                   
                                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute           Decision  
                 Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                         
Electronics         Perfluoro carbons   Acceptable for 
    The principal environmental          
 cleaning w/CFC-     (C5F12, C6F12,      high
performance,   characteristic of concern for       
 113, MCF.           C6F14, C7F16,       precision-    
     PFCs is that they have long         
                     C8F18, C5F11NO,     engineered    
     atmospheric lifetimes and high      
                     C6F13NO, C7F15NO,   applications
only   global warming potentials.          
                     and C8F16)          where
reasonable    Although actual contributions to    
                                         efforts have
been   global warming depend upon the      
                                         made to
ascertain   quantities of PFCs emitted, the     
                                         that other    
     effects are for practical           
                                         alternatives
are    purposes irreversible.              
                                         not
technically    Users must observe this limitation   
                                         feasible due
to     on PFC acceptability by             
                                         performance or
     conducting a reasonable             
                                         safety        
     evaluation of other substitutes     
                                         requirements  
     to determine that PFC use is        
                                                       
     necessary to meet performance or    
                                                       
     safety requirements.                
                                                       
     Documentation of this evaluation    
                                                       
     must be kept on file.               
                                                       
    For additional guidance regarding    
                                                       
     applications in which PFCs may be   
                                                       
     appropriate, users should consult   
                                                       
     the Preamble for this rulemaking.   
Precision cleaning  Perfluorocarbons    Acceptable for 
    The principal environmental          
 w/CFC-113, MCF.     (C5F12, C6F12,      high
performance,   characteristic of concern for       
                     C6F14, C7F16,       precision-    
     PFCs is that they have long         
                     C8F18, C5F11NO,     engineered    
     atmospheric lifetimes and high      
                     C6F13NO, C7F15NO,   applications
only   global warming potentials.          
                     and C8F16)          where
reasonable    Although actual contributions to    
                                         efforts have
been   global warming depend upon the      
                                         made to
ascertain   quantities of PFCs emitted, the     
                                         that other    
     effects are for practical           
                                         alternatives
are    purposes irreversible.              
                                         not
technically    Users must observe this limitation   
                                         feasible due
to     on PFC acceptability by             
                                         performance or
     conducting a reasonable             
                                         safety        
     evaluation of other substitutes     
                                         requirements  
     to determine that PFC use is        
                                                       
     necessary to meet performance or    
                                                       
     safety requirements.                
                                                       
     Documentation of this evaluation    
                                                       
     must be kept on file.               
                                                       
    For additional guidance regarding    
                                                       
     applications in which PFCs may be   
                                                       
     appropriate, users should consult   
                                                       
     the Preamble for this rulemaking.   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                        Unacceptable Substitutes   
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
Metals cleaning w/  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 CFC-113.            blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment. EPA will        
                                                       
        grant, if necessary, narrowed use   
                                                       
        acceptability listings for CFC-     
                                                       
        113 past the effective date of      
                                                       
        the prohibition.                    
Metals cleaning w/  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 MCF.                blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment.                 
Electronics         HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 cleaning w/CFC-.    blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
 113.                                                  
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment. EPA will        
                                                       
        grant, if necessary, narrowed use   
                                                       
        acceptability listings for CFC-     
                                                       
        113 past the effective date of      
                                                       
        the prohibition.                    
Electronics         HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 cleaning w/MCF.     blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment.                 
Precision cleaning  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 w/CFC-113.          blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment. EPA will        
                                                       
        grant, if necessary, narrowed use   
                                                       
        acceptability listings for CFC-     
                                                       
        113 past the effective date of      
                                                       
        the prohibition.                    
Precision cleaning  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 w/MCF.              blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment.                 
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                       Pending Substitutes         
                            
                                                                   
                            
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End use               Substitute                 
          Comments                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                      
Metals cleaning w/  Monochloro-toluene/         Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 CFC-113, MCF.       benzotrifluorides          
Evaluation of exposure and toxicity data     
                                                 still
ongoing.                               
                    Dibromomethane ...........  Agency
has completed review of data, and      
                                                
intends to propose this chemical as an       
                                                
unacceptable substitute under a separate     
                                                
rule-making.                                 
                    Volatile methyl siloxanes   Agency
has completed review of data, and      
                     (octamethylcyclotetrasil   intends
under separate rule-making to        
                    oxane, decamethylcyclope   propose
these chemicals as acceptable with   
                    ntasiloxane)                the use
condition that the company-set       
                                                
exposure limits must be met.                 
Electronics         Monochloro-toluene/         Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 cleaning w/CFC-.    benzotrifluorides          
Evaluation of exposure and toxicity data     
 113, MCF.                                       still
ongoing.                               
                    Dibromomethane ...........  Agency
has completed review of data, and      
                                                
intends to propose this chemical as an       
                                                
unacceptable substitute under a separate     
                                                
rule-making.                                 
                    Volatile methyl siloxanes   Agency
has completed review of data, and      
                     (octamethylcyclotetrasil   intends
under separate rule-making to        
                    oxane, decamethylcyclope   propose
these chemicals as acceptable with   
                    ntasiloxane)                the use
condition that the company-set       
                                                
exposure limits must be met.                 
                    HFC-4310mee ..............  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                                                
Premanufacture Notice review under the       
                                                 Toxic
Substances Control Act not yet         
                                                
completed.                                   
Precision cleaning  Monochloro-toluene/         Agency
has not completed review of data.      
 w/CFC-113, MCF.     benzotrifluorides          
Evaluation of exposure and toxicity data     
                                                 still
ongoing.                               
                    Dibromomethane ...........  Agency
has completed review of data, and      
                                                
intends to propose this chemical as an       
                                                
unacceptable substitute under a separate     
                                                
rule-making.                                 
                    Volatile methyl siloxanes   Agency
has completed review of data, and      
                     (octamethylcyclotetrasil   intends
under separate rule-making to        
                    oxane, decamethylcyclope   propose
these chemicals as acceptable with   
                    ntasiloxane)                the use
condition that the company-set       
                                                
exposure limits must be met.                 
                    HCFC-123 .................  New
toxicity data has led to an upward        
                                                
revision of the company-set workplace        
                                                
exposure limit. EPA intends to propose       
                                                 under
separate rule-making this chemical     
                                                 as an
acceptable substitute subject to the   
                                                 new
limit.                                   
                    HCFC-225 ................. 
Toxicity data only recently completed. HCFC   
                                                 -225ca
isomer has comparatively low          
                                                
company-set exposure limit; EPA intends to   
                                                
propose HCFC-225 as acceptable subject to    
                                                 this
limit under separate rule-making.       
                                                 This
limit should be readily achievable      
                                                 since
HCFC-225 is sold commercially as a     
                                                 blend
of ca- and cb-isomers. In addition,    
                                                
equipment where HCFC-225 is used typically   
                                                 has
very low emissions.                      
                    HFC-4310mee ..............  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                                                
Premanufacture Notice review under the       
                                                 Toxic
Substances Control Act not yet         
                                                
completed.                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                    Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Streaming Agents                    
                                      Acceptable Substitutes       
                              
                                                                   
                              
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute          Decision   
               Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                       
Halon 1211 .......  HCFC-123 .........  Acceptable
.....  See additional comments 1, 2.        
Streaming agents .  .................. 
................  Use of HCFCs in pressurized          
                                                       
   dispensers are controlled under     
                                                       
   CAA section 610(d). EPA intends     
                                                       
   to publish a proposed rulemaking    
                                                       
   banning the use of this agent in    
                                                       
   residential applications.           
                    [HCFC Blend] B ...  Acceptable
.....  Contains small percentage of PFC     
                                                       
   which has an unusually long         
                                                       
   atmospheric lifetime, and could     
                                                       
   potentially contribute to global    
                                                       
   climate change.                     
                                                       
  See additional comments 1, 2.        
                                                       
  Use of HCFCs in pressurized          
                                                       
   dispensers are controlled under     
                                                       
   CAA section 610(d). EPA intends     
                                                       
   to publish a proposed rulemaking    
                                                       
   banning the use of this agent in    
                                                       
   residential applications.           
                    [Surfactant Blend]  Acceptable
.....  This blend is not a clean agent,     
                     A                                 
   but can reduce the quantity of      
                                                       
   water required to extinguish a      
                                                       
   fire.                               
                                                       
  EPA recommends that the              
                                                       
   manufacturer label the canister     
                                                       
   cautioning the consumer about       
                                                       
   possible eye irritation.            
                    Carbon Dioxide ...  Acceptable
.....                                       
                    Dry Chemical .....  Acceptable
.....                                       
                    Water ............  Acceptable
.....                                       
                    Foam .............  Acceptable
.....                                       
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
  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.              
                              



                                      Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection-Streaming Agents                              
       
                                         Substitutes Acceptable
Subject to Narrowed Use Limits                                     
  
                                                                   
                                                                  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use          Substitute              Decision
             Conditions                       Comments 
                  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
                  
Halon 1211 .......  [CFC Blend] ....  Acceptable in    
          ................  Use of CFCs are controlled
under CAA          
                                       nonresidential
uses only                      section 610 which bans
use of CFCs in        
                                                       
                             pressurized dispensers,
and therefore are    
                                                       
                             not permitted for use in
portable fire       
                                                       
                             extinguishers. EPA will
list this agent as   
                                                       
                             proposed unacceptable in
the next SNAP       
                                                       
                             proposed rulemaking.      
                  
Streaming agents .                                     
                            Because CFCs are a Class I
substance,         
                                                       
                             production will be phased
out by January 1,  
                                                       
                             1996.                     
                  
                                                       
                            See additional comments 1,
2.                 
                    HBFC-22B1 ......  Acceptable in    
          ................  Proper procedures regarding
the operation     
                                       nonresidential
uses only                      of the extinguisher and
ventilation          
                                                       
                             following dispensing the
extinguishant is    
                                                       
                             recommended. Worker
exposure may be a        
                                                       
                             concern in small office
areas.               
                                                       
                            HBFC-22B1 is considered an
interim            
                                                       
                             substitute for Halon 1211.
Because the       
                                                       
                             HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of
.74, production      
                                                       
                             will be phased out (except
for essential     
                                                       
                             uses) on January 1, 1996. 
                  
                                                       
                            This agent was submitted to
the Agency as a   
                                                       
                             Premanufacture Notice
(PMN) and is           
                                                       
                             presently subject to
requirements            
                                                       
                             contained in a Toxic
Substance Control Act   
                                                       
                             (TSCA) Consent Order.     
                  
                                                       
                            See additional comments 1,
2.                 
                    C6F14 ..........  Acceptable for   
          ................  Users must observe the
limitations on PFC     
                                       nonresidential
uses where                     acceptability by making
reasonable effort    
                                       other
alternatives are                        to undertake
the following measures:         
                                       not technically
feasible                     (i) conduct an evaluation
of foreseeable      
                                       due to
performance or                         conditions of
end use;                       
                                       safety
requirements:                         (ii) determine
that the physical or           
                                      a. due to the
physical or                      chemical properties or
other technical       
                                       chemical
properties of                        constraints of the
other available agents    
                                       the agent, or   
                             preclude their use; and   
                  
                                      b. where human
exposure to                    (iii) determine that
human exposure to the    
                                       the
extinguishing agent                       other
alternative extinguishing agents may   
                                       may approach    
                             approach or result in
cardiosensitization    
                                      
cardiosensitization                           or other
unacceptable toxicity effects       
                                       levels or result
in other                     under normal operating
conditions;           
                                       unacceptable
health                          Documentation of such
measures must be        
                                       effects under
normal                          available for review
upon request.           
                                       operating
conditions                         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 preamble
to this             
                                                       
                             rulemaking.               
                  
                                                       
                            See additional comments 1,
2.                 
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
  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.                                               
                                                                  



                       Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Streaming Agents                      
                                        Unacceptable Substitutes   
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
Halon 1211          [CFC-11] .........  Unacceptable
........  This agent has been suggested for    
Streaming agents                                       
        use on large outdoor fires for      
                                                       
        which non-ozone-depleting           
                                                       
        alternatives are currently used.    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                   Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Streaming Agents                   
                                       Pending Substitutes         
                            
                                                                   
                            
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use               Substitute                 
          Comments                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                      
Halon 1211          HBFC-22B1/HFC-227ea Blend  
Cardiotoxicity, decomposition product, and    
Streaming agents.                               
personal monitoring data required.           
                                                Because
the HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74,      
                                                
production will be phased out (except for    
                                                
essential uses) on January 1, 1996.          
                    HCFC-124 ................. 
Personal monitoring data required.            
                    HFC-134a ................. 
Personal monitoring data required.            
                    HFC-227ea ................ 
Personal monitoring data required.            
                    [Powdered Aerosol] B .....  EPA has
not completed the review of this      
                                                 agent.
                                      
                    Water Mist ...............  EPA is
continuing to evaluate this new        
                                                
technology.                                  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                    Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection-Total
Flooding Agents                    
                                         Acceptable Substitutes    
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
Halon 1301 .......  [Inert Gas Blend]   Acceptable in  
       Agency review for occupied areas     
                     B                   unoccupied
areas       is incomplete.                      
Total flooding      [Powdered Aerosol]  Acceptable in  
       For use in occupied areas,           
 agents.             A                   unoccupied
areas       additional decomposition product    
                                                       
        and health effect data are          
                                                       
        required.                           
                    [Powdered Aerosol]  Acceptable in  
       Agency review for occupied areas     
                     B                   unoccupied
areas       is incomplete.                      
                    Carbon Dioxide ...  Acceptable     
       System design must adhere to OSHA    
                                                       
        1910.162(b)5 and NFPA Standard 12.  
                    Water ............  Acceptable
..........                                       
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                    Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Total Flooding Agents                                   

                                            Substitutes Acceptable
Subject to Use Conditions                                          

                                                                   
                                                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use          Substitute          Decision    
              Conditions                          
Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
                   
Halon 1301          HBFC-22B1....... 
Acceptable........  Until OSHA establishes applicable  
The comparative design               
Total flooding.                                        
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
 agents                                                
  Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 5.3%,       
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is 1%   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use this     . Thus, it is
unlikely that this    
                                                       
   agent in concentrations exceeding   agent will be
used in normally      
                                                       
   its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 0.3%.      occupied areas. 
                   
                                                       
                                      HBFC-22B1 can be
considered only     
                                                       
                                       an interim
substitute for Halon     
                                                       
                                       1301. HBFC-22B1
has an ODP of .74;  
                                                       
                                       thus, production
will be phased     
                                                       
                                       out January 1,
1996.                
                                                       
  Where egress takes longer than 30   This agent was
submitted to the      
                                                       
   seconds but less than one minute,   Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use the      (PMN) and is
presently subject to   
                                                       
   agent in a concentration greater    requirements
contained in a Toxic   
                                                       
   than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 1.0   Substance
Control Act (TSCA)        
                                                       
   %                                   Consent Order.  
                   
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
  HBFC-22B1 concentrations greater   
..................................   
                                                       
   than 1.0% are only permitted in                     
                   
                                                       
   areas not normally occupied by                      
                   
                                                       
   employees provided that any                         
                   
                                                       
   employee in the area can escape                     
                   
                                                       
   within 30 seconds. The employer                     
                   
                                                       
   shall assure that no unprotected                    
                   
                                                       
   employees enter the area during                     
                   
                                                       
   agent discharge                                     
                   
                    HCFC-22......... 
Acceptable........  Until OSHA establishes applicable  
The comparative design               
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                                       
  Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 13.9%       
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
   the employer shall not use this     5.0%. Thus, it
is unlikely that     
                                                       
   agent in concentrations exceeding   this agent will
be used in          
                                                       
   its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 2.5%.      normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
  Where egress takes longer than 30  
..................................   
                                                       
   seconds but less than one minute,                   
                   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use the                      
                   
                                                       
   agent in a concentration greater                    
                   
                                                       
   than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 5.0                   
                   
                                                       
   %                                                   
                   
                                                       
  HCFC-22 concentrations greater     
..................................   
                                                       
   than 5.0% are only permitted in                     
                   
                                                       
   areas not normally occupied by                      
                   
                                                       
   employees provided that any                         
                   
                                                       
   employee in the area can escape                     
                   
                                                       
   within 30 seconds. The employer                     
                   
                                                       
   shall assure that no unprotected                    
                   
                                                       
   employees enter the area during                     
                   
                                                       
   agent discharge                                     
                   
                    HCFC-124........ 
Acceptable........  Until OSHA establishes applicable  
The comparative design               
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                                       
  Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 8.4%        
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
   the employer shall not use this     2.5%. Thus, it
is unlikely that     
                                                       
   agent in concentrations exceeding   this agent will
be used in          
                                                       
   its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 1.0%.      normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
  Where egress takes longer than 30  
..................................   
                                                       
   seconds but less than one minute,                   
                   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use the                      
                   
                                                       
   agent in a concentration greater                    
                   
                                                       
   than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 2.5                   
                   
                                                       
   %                                                   
                   
                                                       
  HCFC-123 concentrations greater    
..................................   
                                                       
   than 2.5% are only permitted in                     
                   
                                                       
   areas not normally occupied by                      
                   
                                                       
   employees provided that any                         
                   
                                                       
   employee in the area can escape                     
                   
                                                       
   within 30 seconds. The employer                     
                   
                                                       
   shall assure that no unprotected                    
                   
                                                       
   employees enter the area during                     
                   
                                                       
   agent discharge                                     
                   
                    [HCFC Blend] A .  Acceptable
.......  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The
comparative design               
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on full scale   
                                                       
  Where egress from an area cannot     testing is
approximately 8.6%.      
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute, The agent should
be recovered from   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use [HCFC    the fire
protection system in       
                                                       
   Blend] A in concentrations          conjunction with
testing or         
                                                       
   exceeding its cardiotoxic NOAEL     servicing, and
should be recycled   
                                                       
   of 10.0%.                           for later use or
destroyed.         
                                                       
   Where egress takes greater than    See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
   30 seconds but less than one                        
                   
                                                       
   minute, the employer shall not                      
                   
                                                       
   use [HCFC Blend] A in a                             
                   
                                                       
   concentration greater than its                      
                   
                                                       
   cardiotoxic LOAEL of 10.0%.                         
                   
                                                       
  [HCFC Blend] A concentrations                        
                   
                                                       
   greater than 10 percent are only                    
                   
                                                       
   permitted in areas not normally                     
                   
                                                       
   occupied by employees provided                      
                   
                                                       
   that any employee in the area can                   
                   
                                                       
   escape within 30 seconds. The                       
                   
                                                       
   employer shall assure that no                       
                   
                                                       
   unprotected employees enter the                     
                   
                                                       
   area during agent discharge                         
                   
                    HFC-23 .........  Acceptable
.......  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The
comparative design               
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                                       
  Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 14.4%       
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute,  while data
indicates that its       
                                                       
   the employer shall not use HFC-23   cardiotoxicity
NOAEL is 30%         
                                                       
   in concentrations exceeding 30%.    without added
oxygen and 50% with   
                                                       
                                       added oxygen.
Its LOAEL is likely   
                                                       
                                       to exceed 50%.  
                   
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
  Where egress takes greater than 30                   
                   
                                                       
   seconds but less than one minute,                   
                   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use HFC-23                   
                   
                                                       
   in a concentration greater than                     
                   
                                                       
   50.0%.                                              
                   
                                                       
  HFC-23 concentrations greater than                   
                   
                                                       
   50 percent are only permitted in                    
                   
                                                       
   areas not normally occupied by                      
                   
                                                       
   employees provided that any                         
                   
                                                       
   employee in the area can escape                     
                   
                                                       
   within 30 seconds. The employer                     
                   
                                                       
   shall assure that no unprotected                    
                   
                                                       
   employees enter the area during                     
                   
                                                       
   agent discharge.                                    
                   
                                                       
  The design concentration must                        
                   
                                                       
   result in an oxygen level of at                     
                   
                                                       
   least 16%.                                          
                   
                    HFC-125 ........  Acceptable.
......  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The
comparative design               
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                                       
  Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 11.3%       
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
   the employer shall not use this     10.0%. Thus, it
is unlikely that    
                                                       
   agent in concentrations exceeding   this agent will
be used in          
                                                       
   its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 7.5%.      normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
  Where egress takes longer than 30                    
                   
                                                       
   seconds but less than one minute,                   
                   
                                                       
   the emploer shall not use the                       
                   
                                                       
   agent in a concentration greater                    
                   
                                                       
   than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of                       
                   
                                                       
   10.0%                                               
                   
                                                       
  HFC-125 concentrations greater                       
                   
                                                       
   than 10.0% are only permitted in                    
                   
                                                       
   areas not normally occupied by                      
                   
                                                       
   employees provided that any                         
                   
                                                       
   employee in the area can escape                     
                   
                                                       
   within 30 seconds. The employer                     
                   
                                                       
   shall assure that no unprotected                    
                   
                                                       
   employees enter the area during                     
                   
                                                       
   agent discharge                                     
                   
                    HFC-134a ....... 
Acceptable........  Until OSHA establishes applicable  
The comparative design               
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                                       
  Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 12.6%       
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
   the employer shall not use this     8.0%. Thus, it
is unlikely that     
                                                       
   agent in concentrations exceeding   this agent will
be used in          
                                                       
   its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 4.0%.      normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
  Where egress takes longer than 30                    
                   
                                                       
   seconds but less than one minute,                   
                   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use the                      
                   
                                                       
   agent in a concentration greater                    
                   
                                                       
   than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 8.0                   
                   
                                                       
   %                                                   
                   
                                                       
  HFC-134a concentrations greater                      
                   
                                                       
   than 8.0% are only permitted in                     
                   
                                                       
   areas not normally occupied by                      
                   
                                                       
   employees provided that any                         
                   
                                                       
   employee in the area can escape                     
                   
                                                       
   within 30 seconds. The employer                     
                   
                                                       
   shall assure that no unprotected                    
                   
                                                       
   employees enter the area during                     
                   
                                                       
   agent discharge                                     
                   
                    HFC-227ea....... 
Acceptable........  Until OSHA establishes applicable  
The comparative design               
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                                       
  Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 7.0%        
                                                       
   be accomplished within one minute,  while data
indicate that its        
                                                       
   the employer shall not use HFC-     cardiotoxicity
LOAEL is probably    
                                                       
   227ea in concentrations exceeding   greater than
10.5%. EPA is          
                                                       
   its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 9.0%       accepting 10.5%
as its LOAEL.       
                                                       
  Where egress takes longer than 30   This agent was
submitted to the      
                                                       
   second but less than one minute,    Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice   
                                                       
   the employer shall not use the      (PMN) agent and
is presently        
                                                       
   agent in a concentration greater    subject to
requirements contained   
                                                       
   than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of       in a Toxic
Substances Control Act   
                                                       
   10.5%.                              (TSCA)
Significant New Use Rule     
                                                       
                                       (SNUR).         
                   
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
  HFC-227ea concentrations greater                     
                   
                                                       
   than 10.5% are only permitted in                    
                   
                                                       
   areas not normally occupied by                      
                   
                                                       
   employees provided that any                         
                   
                                                       
   employee in the area can escape                     
                   
                                                       
   within 30 seconds. The employer                     
                   
                                                       
   shall assure that no unprotected                    
                   
                                                       
   employees enter the area during                     
                   
                                                       
   agent discharge                                     
                   
                    C4F10...........  Acceptable       
  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The comparative
design               
                                      where other      
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                       alternatives are
  For occupied areas from which        values is
approximately 6.6%.       
                                       not technically 
   personnel cannot be evacuated in   Users must
observe the limitations   
                                       feasible due to 
   one minute, use is permitted only   on PFC
acceptability by making      
                                       performance or  
   up to concentrations not            reasonable
efforts to undertake     
                                       safety          
   exceeding the cardiotoxicity        the following
measures:             
                                       requirements:   
   NOAEL of 40%                       (i) conduct an
evaluation of         
                                      a. due to their  
  Although no LOAEL has been           foreseeable
conditions of end use;  
                                       physical or     
   established for this product,      (ii) determine
that human exposure   
                                       chemical        
   standard OSHA requirements apply,   to the other
alternative            
                                       properties, or  
   i.e., for occupied areas from       extinguishing
agents may approach   
                                      b. where human   
   which personnel can be evacuated    or result in
cardiosensitization    
                                       exposure to the 
   or egress can occur between 30      or other
unacceptable toxicity      
                                       extinguishing   
   and 60 seconds, use is permitted    effects under
normal operating      
                                       agents may      
   up to a concentration not           conditions; and 
                   
                                       approach cardios
  exceeding the LOAEL                (iii) determine
that the physical    
                                      ensitization     
 All personnel must be evacuated      or chemical
properties or other     
                                       levels or result
   before concentration of C4F10       technical
constraints of the        
                                       in other        
   exceeds 40%                         other available
agents preclude     
                                       unacceptable    
  Design concentration must result     their use.      
                   
                                       health effects  
   in oxygen levels of at least 16%.  Documentation of
such measures       
                                       under normal    
                                       must be
available for review upon   
                                       operating       
                                       request.        
                   
                                       conditions      
                                      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 this           
                                                       
                                       rulemaking.     
                   
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                    [IG-541]........ 
Acceptable........  Until OSHA establishes applicable  
Studies have shown that healthy,     
                                                       
   workplace requirements:             young
individuals can remain in a   
                                                       
  The design concentration must        10% to 12%
oxygen atmosphere for    
                                                       
   result in at least 10% oxygen and   30 to 40 minutes
without            
                                                       
   no more than 5% CO2                 impairment.
However, in a fire      
                                                       
  If the oxygen concentration of the   emergency, the
oxygen level may     
                                                       
   atmosphere falls below 10%,         be reduced below
safe levels, and   
                                                       
   personnel must be evacuated and     the combustion
products formed by   
                                                       
   egress must occur within 30         the fire are
likely to cause harm.  
                                                       
   seconds.                            Thus, the Agency
does not           
                                                       
                                       contemplate
personnel remaining     
                                                       
                                       in the space
after system           
                                                       
                                       discharge during
a fire without     
                                                       
                                       Self Contained
Breathing            
                                                       
                                       Apparatus (SCBA)
as required by     
                                                       
                                       OSHA.           
                   
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2.        
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
  Additional Comments                                              
                                                                   
  1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.                                                  
 
  2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.                      
  3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.           
  4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later   
 
   use or destroyed.                                               
                                                                   



                                                    Fire
Suppression and Explosion Protection                               
                    
                                                              Total
Flooding Agents                                                    
         
                                              Substitutes
Acceptable Subject To Narrowed Use Limits                          
                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
         
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End use           Substitute              
Decision                       Conditions              
            Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
                             
Halon 1301 Total    C4F10 ............  Acceptable
where other      Until OSHA establishes applicable  
The comparative design               
 Flooding Agents.                        alternatives
are not        workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                         technically
feasible due   For occupied areas from which       
values is approximately 6.6%.       
                                         to performance
or safety    personnel cannot be evacuated in   Users
must observe the limitations   
                                         requirements: 
             one minute, use is permitted only   on PFC
approval by undertaking      
                                        a. Due to their
physical     up to concentrations not            the
following measures:             
                                         or chemical
properties,     exceeding the cardiotoxicity       (i)
Conduct an evaluation of         
                                         or            
             NOAEL of 40%.                      
foreseeable conditions of end use;  
                                        b. Where human
exposure to  Although no LOAEL has been          (ii)
Determine that human exposure   
                                         the
extinguishing agents    established for this product,    
  to the other alternative            
                                         may approach  
             standard OSHA requirements apply,  
extinguishing agents may approach   
                                        
cardiosensitization         i.e. for occupied areas from     
  or result in cardiosensitization    
                                         levels or
result in other   which personnel can be evacuated   
or other unacceptable toxicity      
                                         unacceptable
health         or egress can occur between 30     
effects under normal operating      
                                         effects under
normal        and 60 seconds, use is permitted   
conditions; and                     
                                         operating
conditions.       up to a concentration not         
(iii) Determine that the physical    
                                                       
             exceeding the LOAEL.                or
chemical properties or other     
                                                       
            All personnel must be evacuated     
technical constraints of the        
                                                       
             before concentration of C4F10       other
available agents preclude     
                                                       
             exceeds 40%.                        their
use;                          
                                                       
            Design concentration must result   
Documentation of such measures       
                                                       
             in oxygen levels of at least 16%.   must
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 preamble   
                                                       
                                                 to
this rulemaking.                 
                                                       
                                                See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
  Additional Comments                                              
                                                                   
         
  1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.                                                  
           
  2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.                      
         
  3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.           
         
  4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later
use or        
   destroyed.                                                      
                                                                   
         



                   Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection       
           
                             Total Flooding Agents                 
           
                              Pending Substitutes                  
           
                                                                   
           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute                  
Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                     
Halon 1301 Total    HBFC-22B1/HFC-      Cardiotoxicity
and decomposition     
 Flooding.           227ea Blend         product data
required.              
                                        Because the
HBFC-22B1 has an ODP     
                                         of .74,
production will be phased   
                                         out (except
for essential uses)     
                                         on January 1,
1996.                 
                    HCFC/HFC Blend....  Pending
submission.                  
                    [Inert Gas Blend]   Pending
development of peer review   
                     B                   on health
effects.                  
                    [Powdered Aerosol]  For use in
occupied areas,           
                     A                   additional
decomposition product    
                                         and health
effect data is           
                                         required.     
                     
                    [Powdered Aerosol]  For use in
occupied areas, EPA       
                     B                   review of
submission incomplete.    
                    [Water Mist System  EPA is
continuing to evaluate this   
                     ] A                 new
technology.                     
                    [Water Mist System  EPA is
continuing to evaluate this   
                     ] B                 new
technology.                     
                    SF6...............  This agent has
been proposed as an   
                                         alternative
for discharge testing.  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                                        Sterilants 
                                                      
                                                  Acceptable
Substitutes                                                  
                                                                   
                                                      
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
    Application         Substitute             Decision
          Conditions                  Comments         
      
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
      
12/88 Blend of EtO  CO2/ETO ..........  Acceptable
..........  ................  CO2/EtO blends can serve
as drop-    
 /CFC-12 Sterilant                                     
                          in replacements to 12/88 in
some    
                                                       
                          but not in all existing
equipment   
                                                       
                          because they require a higher
      
                                                       
                          operating pressure.          
      
                                                       
                         As a HAP, use of EtO must
comply     
                                                       
                          with Title III of the CAA.   
      
                    HCFC-124/ETO .....  Acceptable
..........  ................  In a blend with EtO,
HCFC-124 is     
                                                       
                          the only available drop-in   
      
                                                       
                          replacement for about half of
the   
                                                       
                          equipment now using 12/88.   
      
                                                       
                          However, HCFC-124 is an ozone
      
                                                       
                          depleting substance; it
should be   
                                                       
                          used to sterilize only that  
      
                                                       
                          equipment that cannot be     
      
                                                       
                          sterilized using other       
      
                                                       
                          alternatives such as steam or
CO2   
                                                       
                          /EtO blends.                 
      
                                                       
                         Because HCFC-124 is a Class II
      
                                                       
                          substance, its use may be
subject   
                                                       
                          to future regulation
promulgated    
                                                       
                          under Section 608 of the
Clean      
                                                       
                          Air Act Amendments of 1990.  
      
                                                       
                         As a HAP, use of EtO must
comply     
                                                       
                          with Title III of the CAA.   
      
12/88 Blend of EtO  Pure ETO .........  Acceptable
..........  ................  EtO is a toxic,
carcinogenic         
 /CFC-12 Sterilant                                     
                          substance and is considered a
      
                                                       
                          hazardous air pollutant.     
      
                                                       
                          Potential exposures of the   
      
                                                       
                          general population to EtO    
      
                                                       
                          releases can be limited
either      
                                                       
                          through the use of catalytic 
      
                                                       
                          converters which convert
waste      
                                                       
                          EtO into CO2 and water, or   
      
                                                       
                          through the use of acid water
      
                                                       
                          scrubbers which convert waste
EtO   
                                                       
                          into ethylene glycol.        
      
                                                       
                         Must be used in accordance
with      
                                                       
                          manufacturer recommendations
to     
                                                       
                          address flammability
concerns.      
                                                       
                         Must be used in accordance
with      
                                                       
                          OSHA standards to limit      
      
                                                       
                          occupational exposures.      
      
                                                       
                         As a HAP, use of EtO must
comply     
                                                       
                          with Title III of the CAA.   
      
                    Steam ............  Acceptable
..........  ................  Applicable only to
devices           
                                                       
                          resistant to heat and
moisture.     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                           Sterilants              
                            
                                        Pending Decisions          
                            
                                                                   
                            
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
    Application             Substitute                 
          Comments                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                      
12/88 Blend of EtO  [HCFC Blend] A ........... 
Decision pending completion of FIFRA review.  
 /CFC-12 Sterilant                                     
                                      
                    HFC-125/EtO ..............  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                    HFC-227ea/EtO ............  Need
exposure data.                           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                              Aerosols             
                                
                                       Acceptable Substitutes      
                                
                                                                   
                                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute           Decision  
                 Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                         
CFC-11, HCFC-22,    Saturated light    
Acceptable........  Hydrocarbons are flammable           
 HCFC-142b as        hydrocarbons, C3-                 
     materials. Use with the necessary   
 aerosol.            C6 (e.g., propane,                
     precautions.                        
 propellants.        isobutane, n-                     
                                         
                     butane)                           
                                         
                    Dimethyl ether.... 
Acceptable........  DME is flammable. Use with the       
                                                       
     necessary precautions. Blends of    
                                                       
     DME with HCFCs are subject to       
                                                       
     section 610 restrictions.           
                    HFC-152a, HFC-134a,
Acceptable........  HFC-134a, HFC-125 and HFC-152a are   
                     HFC-125                           
     potential greenhouse gases.         
                    Alternative         Acceptable
.......  ..................................   
                     processes (pumps,                 
                                         
                     mechanical                        
                                         
                     pressure                          
                                         
                     dispensers, non-                  
                                         
                     spray dispensers)                 
                                         
                    Compressed Gases    Acceptable
.......  ..................................   
                     (Carbon dioxide,                  
                                         
                     air, nitrogen,                    
                                         
                     nitrous oxide)                    
                                         
CFC-11 as aerosol   HCFC-22, HCFC-142b 
Acceptable........  All aerosol propellant uses of       
 propellant.                                           
     HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are already   
                                                       
     prohibited as of January 1, 1994    
                                                       
     under Section 610 (d) of the        
                                                       
     Clean Air Act. Only one exemption   
                                                       
     exists. It is described in the      
                                                       
     section on aerosol substitutes.     
CFC-11, CFC-113,    C6-C20 Petroleum   
Acceptable........  Petroleum hydrocarbons are           
 MCF, HCFC-141b as   hydrocarbons                      
     flammable. Use with the necessary   
 aerosol solvents.                                     
     precautions. Pesticide aerosols     
                                                       
     must adhere to FIFRA standards.     
                    Chlorinated        
Acceptable........  Extensive regulations under other    
                     solvents                          
     statutes govern use of these        
                     (                                 
     chemicals, including VOC            
                     trichloroethylene                 
     standards, workplace standards,     
                    ,                                  
     waste management standards, and     
                     perchloroethylene                 
     pesticide formulation and           
                    , methylene                        
     handling standards. Should be       
                     chloride)                         
     used only for products where        
                                                       
     nonflammability is a critical       
                                                       
     feature.                            
                    Oxygenated organic 
Acceptable........  These substitutes are flammable.     
                     solvents (esters,                 
     Use with the necessary              
                     ethers, alcohols,                 
     precautions.                        
                     ketones)                          
                                         
                    Terpenes ......... 
Acceptable........  These substitutes are flammable.     
                                                       
     Use with the necessary              
                                                       
     precautions.                        
                    Water-based         Acceptable
.......  ..................................   
                     formulations                      
                                         
CFC-11, CFC-113,    HCFC-141b and its   Acceptable
.......  All aerosol solvent uses of HCFC-    
 MCF as aerosol.     blends                            
     141b, either by itself or blended   
 solvents.                                             
     with other compounds, are already   
                                                       
     prohibited as of January 1, 1994    
                                                       
     under Section 610 (d) of the        
                                                       
     Clean Air Act. Limited exemptions   
                                                       
     exist. These are described in the   
                                                       
     section on aerosol substitutes.     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                            Aerosols               
                            
                                       Pending Substitutes         
                            
                                                                   
                            
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use               Substitute                 
          Comments                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                      
CFC-12 as aerosol   HFC-227 ..................  FDA
approval still required in metered dose   
 propellant.                                    
inhalers. Likely to have low environmental   
                                                
impacts.                                     
CFC-11, CFC-113,    Monochlorotoluene/          Agency
has not yet completed review of data.  
 MCF, HCFC-141b as   benzotrifluorides                 
                                      
 aerosol solvents.                                     
                                      
                    HFC-4310mee ..............  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
                                                
Premanufacture Notice review under the       
                                                 Toxic
Substances Control Act not yet         
                                                
completed.                                   
                    Perfluorocarbons (C6F14) .  Agency
has not completed review of data.      
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                                   Tobacco
Expansion                                                   
                                                 Acceptable
Substitutes                                                
                                                                   
                                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
    Application         Substitute          Decision   
      Conditions                   Comments            
   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
   
CFC-11              Carbon Dioxide ...  Acceptable
.....  ..................  Carbon dioxide cannot be
used as a   
Tobacco Expansion                                      
                       drop-in or a retrofit, but      
   
                                                       
                       requires new equipment.         
   
                    Propane .......... 
Acceptable......  ..................  Propane tobacco
expansion is a       
                                                       
                       patented process. Flammability  
   
                                                       
                       may be of concern for workers.  
   
                                                       
                       Major sources of VOC emissions  
   
                                                       
                       are subject to the New Source   
   
                                                       
                       Review (NSR) program under the  
   
                                                       
                       CAA.                            
   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                               Tobacco Expansion                   
           
                              Pending Substitutes                  
           
                                                                   
           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-Use           Substitute                  
Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                     
CFC-11              HFC-227ea ........  Agency has not
completed review of   
Tobacco Expansion.                       data.         
                     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                   Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks   
                              
                                      Acceptable Substitutes       
                              
                                                                   
                              
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute          Decision   
               Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                       
Methyl Chloroform   Petroleum           Acceptable
.....  OSHA standards exist for many of     
 Adhesives,          Hydrocarbons                      
   these chemicals. Formulators        
 Coatings, and                                         
   should use chemicals with lowest    
 Inks.                                                 
   toxicity, where possible.           
                    Oxygenated          Acceptable
.....  OSHA standards exist for many of     
                     solvents                          
   these chemicals. Formulators        
                     (Alcohols,                        
   should use chemicals with lowest    
                     Ketones, Ethers,                  
   toxicity, where possible.           
                     and Esters)                       
                                       
                    Chlorinated         Acceptable     
  High inherent toxicity. Use only     
                     solvents                          
   when necessary. OSHA and RCRA       
                     (methylene                        
   standards must be met.              
                     chloride,                         
                                       
                     trichloro-                        
                                       
                     ethylene,                         
                                       
                     perchloro-                        
                                       
                     ethylene)                         
                                       
                    Terpenes .........  Acceptable     
  ..................................   
                    Water-based         Acceptable     
  ..................................   
                     formulations                      
                                       
                    High-solid          Acceptable     
  ..................................   
                     formulations                      
                                       
                    Alternative         Acceptable     
  ..................................   
                     technologies                      
                                       
                     (e.g., powder,                    
                                       
                     hot melt,                         
                                       
                     thermoplastic                     
                                       
                     plasma spray,                     
                                       
                     radiation-cured,                  
                                       
                     moisture-cured,                   
                                       
                     chemical-cured,                   
                                       
                     and reactive                      
                                       
                     liquid)                           
                                       
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                         Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks             
           
                               Pending Decisions                   
           
                                                                   
           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
    Application         Substitute                  
Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                     
Methyl Chloroform   Monochloro-toluene  Agency has not
completed review of   
 Adhesives,          /benzo-             data.         
                     
 Coatings and Inks   trifluorides                      
                     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴


Appendix C to the Preamble 


Data Confidentiality Claims 


Data Confidentiality Claims 


1. Special Requirements for Submitting Data to the Docket 

   Data submissions must be provided in three copies. If
information 
is claimed as confidential, all CBI must be deleted from the 
third copy which will become part of the public docket. If no 
claims of confidentiality are made for the submission, the third 
copy should be identical to the other two. When portions of 
the submission are claimed as CBI, the first two copies will 
include the CBI material as provided in section V of this notice, 
which shall be deleted from the third copy. For the third copy, 
the following special preparation is required: 
-Remove the ``Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality 
  Claims.'' 
-Excise from the body of the study any information you claim 
  as confidential. Replace with generic information if it is 
  available. 
-Mark the third copy plainly on both its cover and its title 
  page with the phrase ``Public Docket Material-contains no 
  information claimed as confidential.'' 

2. Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims 

   For any portion of a submission that is claimed as confidential,

the following information must be included within a Supplementary 
Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims: 
-Identify specifically by page and line number(s) each portion 
  of the study for which you claim confidentiality. 
-Give the reasons why the cited passage qualifies for confidential 
  treatment. 
-Indicate the length of time-until a specific date or event, 
  or permanently-for which the information should be treated 
  as confidential. 
-Identify the measures taken to guard against undesired disclosure 
  of this information. 
-Describe the extent to which the information has been disclosed, 
  and what precautions have been taken in connection with these 
  disclosures. 
-Enclose copies of any determinations of confidentiality made 
  by EPA, other Federal agencies, or courts concerning this 
  information. 
-If you assert that disclosure of this information would be 
  likely to result in substantial harmful effects to you, describe 
  those harmful effects and explain why they should be viewed 
  as substantial. 
-If you assert that the information is voluntarily submitted, 
  indicate whether you believe disclosure of this information 
  might tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar
information 
  in the future, and if so, how. 

If required substantiation is not provided along with the
submission 
of information claimed as confidential, EPA may make the complete 
submitted information available to the public without further 
notice to the submitter. 

List of Subjects


40 CFR Part 9

   Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 82

   Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

   Dated: February 15, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,
Administrator. 
   For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 9 and 
82 are amended as follows: 

PART 9-OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 

   1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as 
follows: 

   Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 
2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 
9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 
1330, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 
3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 
300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 
300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 
7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

   2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding the new entries to the 
table under the indicated heading to read as follows: 

 9.1   OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
*     *     *     *     *     


                                                                   
          
                                                                   
          
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                        40 CFR citation                         
OMB control  
                                                                   
 No.      
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                                   
          
                                                                   
          
               *              *              *              *      
       *  
               Protection of Stratospheric Ozone                   
          
                                                                   
          
                                                                   
          
               *              *              *              *      
       *  
82.176(a) .....................................................   
2060-0226  
82.176(c)(3) ..................................................   
2060-0226  
82.178 ........................................................   
2060-0226  
82.180(a)(5) ..................................................   
2060-0226  
82.180(b)(3) ..................................................   
2060-0226  
82.184(c) .....................................................   
2060-0226  
82.184(e) .....................................................   
2060-0226  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

*     *     *     *     *     

PART 82-PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

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

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

   2. Part 82 is amended by adding subpart G consisting of  
82.170 through 82.184 to read as follows: 

Subpart G-Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 
Sec. 
82.170 Purpose and scope. 
82.172 Definitions. 
82.174 Prohibitions. 
82.176 Applicability. 
82.178 Information required to be submitted. 
82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions. 
82.182 Confidentiality of data. 
82.184 Petitions. 
   Appendix A to subpart G-Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 
and Unacceptable Substitutes 

Subpart G-Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 

 82.170   Purpose and scope. 

   (a) The purpose of these regulations in this subpart is to 
implement section 612 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, regarding 
the safe alternatives policy on the acceptability of substitutes 
for ozone-depleting compounds. This program will henceforth 
be referred to as the ``Significant New Alternatives Policy'' 
(SNAP) program. The objectives of this program are to identify 
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds, to evaluate the
acceptability 
of those substitutes, to promote the use of those substitutes 
believed to present lower overall risks to human health and 
the environment, relative to the class I and class II compounds 
being replaced, as well as to other substitutes for the same 
end-use, and to prohibit the use of those substitutes found, 
based on the same comparisons, to increase overall risks. 
   (b) The regulations in this subpart describe persons and 
substitutes subject to reporting requirements under the SNAP 
program and explain preparation and submission of notices and 
petitions on substitutes. The regulations also establish Agency 
procedures for reviewing and processing EPA's determinations 
regarding notices and petitions on substitutes. Finally, the 
regulations prohibit the use of alternatives which EPA has
determined 
may have adverse effects on human health or the environment 
where EPA has identified alternatives in particular industrial 
use sectors that on an overall basis, reduce risk to human health 
and the environment and are currently or potentially available. 
EPA will only prohibit substitutes where it has identified other 
substitutes for a specific application that are acceptable and 
are currently or potentially available. 
   (c) Notifications, petitions and other materials requested 
shall be sent to: SNAP Document Control Officer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (6205-J), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. 

 82.172   Definitions. 

   Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq. 
   Agency means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
   Application means a specific use within a major industrial 
sector end-use. 
   Class I or class II means the specific ozone-depleting compounds

described in section 602 of the Act. 
   Decision means any final determination made by the Agency 
under section 612 of the Act on the acceptability or
unacceptability 
of a substitute for a class I or II compound. 
   EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
   End-use means processes or classes of specific applications 
within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to 
replace an ozone-depleting substance. 
   Formulator means any person engaged in the preparation or 
formulation of a substitute, after chemical manufacture of the 
substitute or its components, for distribution or use in commerce. 
   Health and safety study or study means any study of any effect 
of a substitute or its components on health and safety, or the 
environment or both, including underlying data and epidemiological 
studies, studies of occupational, ambient, and consumer exposure 
to a substitute, toxicological, clinical, and ecological, or 
other studies of a substitute and its components, and any other 
pertinent test. Chemical identity is always part of a health 
and safety study. Information which arises as a result of a 
formal, disciplined study is included in the definition. Also 
included is information relating to the effects of a substitute 
or its components on health or the environment. Any available 
data that bear on the effects of a substitute or its components 
on health or the environment would be included. Examples include: 
   (1) Long- and short-term tests of mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,

or teratogenicity; data on behavioral disorders; dermatoxicity; 
pharmacological effects; mammalian absorption, distribution, 
metabolism, and excretion; cumulative, additive, and synergistic 
effects; acute, subchronic, and chronic effects; and
structure/activity 
analyses; 
   (2) Tests for ecological or other environmental effects on 
invertebrates, fish, or other animals, and plants, including: 
Acute toxicity tests, chronic toxicity tests, critical life 
stage tests, behavioral tests, algal growth tests, seed germination

tests, microbial function tests, bioconcentration or
bioaccumulation 
tests, and model ecosystem (microcosm) studies; 
   (3) Assessments of human and environmental exposure, including 
workplace exposure, and effects of a particular substitute on 
the environment, including surveys, tests, and studies of:
Biological, 
photochemical, and chemical degradation; air, water and soil 
transport; biomagnification and bioconcentration; and chemical 
and physical properties, e.g., atmospheric lifetime, boiling 
point, vapor pressure, evaporation rates from soil and water, 
octanol/water partition coefficient, and water solubility; 
   (4) Monitoring data, when they have been aggregated and analyzed

to measure the exposure of humans or the environment to a
substitute; 
and 
   (5) Any assessments of risk to health or the environment 
resulting from the manufacture, processing, distribution in 
commerce, use, or disposal of the substitute or its components. 
   Importer means any person who imports a chemical substitute 
into the United States. Importer includes the person primarily 
liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise or an 
authorized agent acting on his or her behalf. The term also 
includes, as appropriate: 
   (1) The consignee; 
   (2) The importer of record; 
   (3) The actual owner; and 
   (4) The transferee, if the right to draw merchandise in a 
bonded warehouse has been transferred. 
   Major Industrial Use Sector or Sector means an industrial 
category which EPA has reviewed under the SNAP program with 
historically high consumption patterns of ozone-depleting
substances, 
including: Refrigeration and air conditioning; foam-blowing; 
fire suppression and explosion protection; solvents cleaning; 
aerosols; sterilants; tobacco expansion; pesticides; and adhesives,

coatings and inks sectors. 
   Manufacturer means any person engaged in the direct manufacture 
of a substitute. 
   Mixture means any mixture or blend of two or more compounds. 
   Person includes an individual, corporation, partnership, 
association, state, municipality, political subdivision of a 
state, and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the 
United States and any officer, agent, or employee of such entities.

   Pesticide has the meaning contained in the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. and the 
regulations issued under it. 
   Potentially available is defined as any alternative for which 
adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required 
for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination 
of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to 
be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been 
completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold. 
   Premanufacture Notice (PMN) Program has the meaning described 
in 40 CFR part 720, subpart A promulgated under the Toxic
Substances 
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 
   Producer means any person who manufactures, formulates or 
otherwise creates a substitute in its final form for distribution 
or use in interstate commerce. 
   Research and development means quantities of a substitute 
manufactured, imported, or processed or proposed to be
manufactured, 
imported, or processed solely for research and development. 
   Residential use means use by a private individual of a chemical 
substance or any product containing the chemical substance in 
or around a permanent or temporary household, during recreation, 
or for any personal use or enjoyment. Use within a household 
for commercial or medical applications is not included in this 
definition, nor is use in automobiles, watercraft, or aircraft. 
   Significant new use means use of a new or existing substitute 
in a major industrial use sector as a result of the phaseout 
of ozone-depleting compounds. 
   Small uses means any use of a substitute in a sector other 
than a major industrial use sector, or production by any producer 
for use of a substitute in a major industrial sector of 10,000 
lbs. or less per year. 
   Substitute or alternative means any chemical, product
substitute, 
or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, 
intended for use as a replacement for a class I or II compound. 
   Test marketing means the distribution in interstate commerce 
of a substitute to no more than a limited, defined number of 
potential customers to explore market viability in a competitive 
situation. Testing must be restricted to a defined testing period 
before the broader distribution of that substitute in interstate 
commerce. 
   Use means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class 
II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use 
in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the 
end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging

for other subsequent uses. 
   Use Restrictions means restrictions on the use of a substitute 
imposing either conditions on how the substitute can be used 
across a sector end-use or limits on the end-uses or specific 
applications where it can be used within a sector. 

 82.174   Prohibitions. 

   (a) No person may introduce a new substitute into interstate 
commerce before the expiration of 90 days after a notice is 
initially submitted to EPA under  82.176(a). 
   (b) No person may use a substitute which a person knows or 
has reason to know was manufactured, processed or imported in 
violation of the regulations in this subpart, or knows or has 
reason to know was manufactured, processed or imported in violation

of any use restriction in the acceptability determination, after 
the effective date of any rulemaking imposing such restrictions. 
   (c) No person may use a substitute without adhering to any 
use restrictions set by the acceptability decision, after the 
effective date of any rulemaking imposing such restrictions. 
   (d) No person may use a substitute after the effective date 
of any rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of
unacceptable 
substitutes. 

 82.176   Applicability. 

   (a) Any producer of a new substitute must submit a notice 
of intent to introduce a substitute into interstate commerce 
90 days prior to such introduction. Any producer of an existing 
substitute already in interstate commerce must submit a notice 
as of July 18, 1994 if such substitute has not already been 
reviewed and approved by the Agency. 
   (b) With respect to the following substitutes, producers 
are exempt from notification requirements: (1) Substitutes already 
listed as acceptable. Producers need not submit notices on
substitutes 
that are already listed as acceptable under SNAP. 
   (2) Small sectors. Persons using substitutes in sectors other 
than the nine principal sectors reviewed under this program 
are exempt from the notification requirements. This exemption 
shall not be construed to nullify an unacceptability determination 
or to allow use of an otherwise unacceptable substitute. 
   (3) Small volume use within SNAP sectors. Within the nine 
principal SNAP sectors, persons introducing a substitute whose 
expected volume of use amounts to less than 10,000 lbs. per 
year within a SNAP sector are exempt from notification
requirements. 
This exemption shall not be construed to allow use of an otherwise 
unacceptable substitute in any quantity. Persons taking advantage 
of this exemption for small uses must maintain documentation 
for each substitute describing how the substitute meets this 
small use definition. This documentation must include annual 
production and sales information by sector. 
   (4) Research and development. Production of substitutes for 
the sole purpose of research and development is exempt from 
reporting requirements. 
   (5) Test marketing. Use of substitutes for the sole purpose 
of test marketing is exempt from SNAP notification requirements 
until 90 days prior to the introduction of such substitutes 
for full-scale commercial sale in interstate commerce. Persons 
taking advantage of this exemption are, however, required to 
notify the Agency in writing that they are conducting test
marketing 
30 days prior to the commencement of such marketing. Notification 
shall include the name of the substitute, the volume used in 
the test marketing, intended sector end-uses, and expected duration

of the test marketing period. 
   (6) Formulation changes. In cases where replacement of class 
I or II compounds causes formulators to change other components 
in a product, formulators are exempt from reporting with respect 
to these auxiliary formulation changes. However, the SNAP submitter

is required to notify the Agency if such changes are expected 
to significantly increase the environmental and human health 
risk associated with the use of any class I or class II substitute.

   (7) Substitutes used as feedstocks. Producers of substitutes 
used as feedstocks which are largely or entirely consumed,
transformed 
or destroyed in the manufacturing or use process are exempt 
from reporting requirements concerning such substitutes. 
   (c) Use of a substitute in the possession of an end-user 
as of March 18, 1994 listed as unacceptable or acceptable subject 
to narrowed use limits may continue until the individual end-
users' existing supply, as of that date, of the substitute is 
exhausted. Use of substitutes purchased after March 18, 1994 
is not permitted subsequent to April 18, 1994. 

 82.178   Information required to be submitted. 

   (a) Persons whose substitutes are subject to reporting
requirements 
pursuant to  82.176 must provide the following information: 
   (1) Name and description of the substitute. The substitute 
should be identified by its: Chemical name; trade name(s);
identification 
numbers; chemical formula; and chemical structure. 
   (2) Physical and chemical information. The substitute should 
be characterized by its key properties including but not limited 
to: Molecular weight; physical state; melting point; boiling 
point; density; taste and/or odor threshold; solubility; partition 
coefficients (Log KOW, Log KOC); atmospheric lifetime and vapor 
pressure. 
   (3) Substitute applications. Identification of the applications 
within each sector end-use in which the substitutes are likely 
to be used. 
   (4) Process description. For each application identified, 
descriptive data on processing, including in-place pollution 
controls. 
   (5) Ozone depletion potential. The predicted 100-year ozone 
depletion potential (ODP) of substitute chemicals. The submitter 
must also provide supporting documentation or references. 
   (6) Global warming impacts. Data on the total global warming 
potential of the substitute, including information on the GWP 
index and the indirect contributions to global warming caused 
by the production or use of the substitute (e.g., changes in 
energy efficiency). GWP must be calculated over a 100, 500 and 
1000-year integrated time horizon. 
   (7) Toxicity data. Health and safety studies on the effects 
of a substitute, its components, its impurities, and its
degradation 
products on any organism (e.g., humans, mammals, fish, wildlife, 
and plants). For tests on mammals, the Agency requires a minimum 
submission of the following tests to characterize substitute 
risks: A range-finding study that considers the appropriate 
exposure pathway for the specific use (e.g., oral ingestion, 
inhalation, etc.), and a 90-day subchronic repeated dose study 
in an appropriate rodent species. For certain substitutes, a 
cardiotoxicity study is also required. Additional mammalian 
toxicity tests may be identified based on the substitute and 
application in question. To sufficiently characterize aquatic 
toxicity concerns, both acute and chronic toxicity data for 
a variety of species are required. For this purpose, the Agency 
requires a minimum data set as described in ``Guidelines for 
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection 
of Aquatic Organisms and their Uses,'' which is available through 
the National Technical Information Service (#PB 85-227049). 
Other relevant information and data summaries, such as the Material

Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), should also be submitted. To assist 
in locating any studies previously submitted to EPA and referred 
to, but not included in a SNAP submission, the submitter must 
provide citations for the date, type of submission, and EPA 
Office to which they were submitted, to help EPA locate these 
quickly. 
   (8) Environmental Fate and Transport. Where available,
information 
must be submitted on the environmental fate and transport of 
substitutes. Such data shall include information on
bioaccumulation, 
biodegradation, adsorption, volatility, transformation, and 
other data necessary to characterize movement and reaction of 
substitutes in the environment. 
   (9) Flammability. Data on the flammability of a substitute 
chemical or mixture are required. Specifically, the flash point 
and flammability limits are needed, as well as information on 
the procedures used for determining the flammability limits. 
Testing of blends should identify the compositions for which 
the blend itself is flammable and include fractionation data 
on changes in the composition of the blend during various leak 
scenarios. For substitutes that will be used in consumer
applications, 
documentation of testing results conducted by independent
laboratories 
should be submitted, where available. If a substitute is flammable,

the submitter must analyze the risk of fire resulting from the 
use of such a substitute and assess the effectiveness of measures 
to minimize such risk. 
   (10) Exposure data. Available modeling or monitoring data 
on exposures associated with the manufacture, formulation,
transport, 
use and disposal of a substitute. Descriptive process information 
for each substitute application, as described above, will be 
used to develop exposure estimates where exposure data are not 
readily available. Depending on the application, exposure profiles 
may be needed for workers, consumers, and the general population. 
   (11) Environmental release data. Data on emissions from the 
substitute application and equipment, as well as on pollutant 
releases or discharge to all environmental media. Submitters 
should provide information on release locations, and data on 
the quantities, including volume, of anticipated waste associated 
with the use of the substitute. In addition, information on 
anticipated waste management practices associated with the use 
of the substitute. Any available information on any pollution 
controls used or that could be used in association with the 
substitute (e.g., emissions reduction technologies, wastewater 
treatment, treatment of hazardous waste) and the costs of such 
technology must also be submitted. 
   (12) Replacement ratio for a chemical substitute. Information 
on the replacement ratio for a chemical substitute versus the 
class I or II substances being replaced. The term ``replacement 
ratio'' means how much of a substitute must be used to replace 
a given quantity of the class I or II substance being replaced. 
   (13) Required changes in use technology. Detail on the changes 
in technology needed to use the alternative. Such information 
should include a description of whether the substitute can be 
used in existing equipment-with or without some retrofit-or 
only in new equipment. Data on the cost (capital and operating 
expenditures) and estimated life of any technology modifications 
should also be submitted. 
   (14) Cost of substitute. Data on the expected average cost 
of the alternative. In addition, information is needed on the 
expected equipment lifetime for an alternative technology. Other 
critical cost considerations should be identified, as appropriate. 
   (15) Availability of substitute. If the substitute is not 
currently available, the timing of availability of a substitute 
should be provided. 
   (16) Anticipated market share. Data on the anticipated near-
term and long-term nationwide substitute sales. 
   (17) Applicable regulations under other environmental statutes. 
Information on whether the substitute is regulated under other 
statutory authorities, in particular the Clean Water Act, Safe 
Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the 
Toxic Substances Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Emergency Planning 
and Community Right-to-Know Act, or other titles under the Clean 
Air Act. 
   (18) Information already submitted to the Agency. Information 
requested in the SNAP program notice that has been previously 
submitted to the Agency as part of past regulatory and information-
gathering activities may be referenced rather than resubmitted. 
Submitters who cannot provide accurate references to data sent 
previously to the Agency should include all requested information 
in the SNAP notice. 
   (19) Information already available in the literature. If 
any of the data needed to complete the SNAP program notice are 
available in the public literature, complete references for 
such information should be provided. 
   (b) The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Information 
Notice is designed to provide the Agency with the information 
necessary to reach a decision on the acceptability of a substitute.

(1) Submitters requesting review under the SNAP program should 
send the completed SNAP notice to: SNAP Document Control Officer, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6205-J), 401 M Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
   (2) Submitters filing jointly under SNAP and the Premanufacture 
Notice Program (PMN) should send the SNAP addendum along with 
the PMN form to: PMN Document Control Officer, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (7407), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. Submitters must also send both documents to the SNAP 
program, with a reference to indicate the notice has been furnished

to the Agency under the PMN program. Submitters providing
information 
on new chemicals for joint review under the TSCA and SNAP programs 
may be required to supply additional toxicity data under TSCA 
section 5. 
   (3) Submitters filing jointly under SNAP and under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act should send the 
SNAP form to the Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration 
Division, (7505C) 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460, 
as well as to the SNAP Document Control Officer. 

 82.180   Agency review of SNAP submissions. 

   (a) Processing of SNAP notices. (1) 90-day review process. 
The 90-day review process will begin once EPA receives a submission

and determines that such submission includes data on the substitute

that are complete and adequate, as described in  82.178. The 
Agency may suspend or extend the review period to allow for 
submission of additional data needed to complete the review 
of the notice. 
   (2) Initial review of notice. The SNAP Document Control Officer 
will review the notice to ensure that basic information necessary 
to process the submission is present (i.e., name of company, 
identification of substitute, etc.). The SNAP Document Control 
Officer will also review substantiation of any claim of
confidentiality. 
   (3) Determination of data adequacy. Upon receipt of the SNAP 
submission, the Agency will review the completeness of the
information 
supporting the application. If additional data are needed, the 
submitter will be contacted following completion of this review. 
The 90-day review period will not commence until EPA has received 
data it judges adequate to support analysis of the submission. 
   (4) Letter of receipt. The SNAP Document Control Officer 
will send a letter of receipt to the submitter to confirm the 
date of notification and the beginning of EPA's 90-day review 
period. The SNAP Document Control Officer will also assign the 
SNAP notice a tracking number, which will be identified in the 
letter of receipt. 
   (5) Availability of new information during review period. 
If critical new information becomes available during the review 
period that may influence the Agency's evaluation of a substitute, 
the submitter must notify the Agency about the existence of 
such information within 10 days of learning of such data. The 
submitter must also inform the Agency of new studies underway, 
even if the results will not be available within the 90-day 
review period. The Agency may contact the submitter to explore 
extending or suspending the review period depending on the type 
of information received and the stage of review. 
   (6) Completion of detailed review. Once the initial data 
review, described in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section, 
has been completed, the Agency will complete a detailed evaluation 
of the notice. If during any time the Agency perceives a lack 
of information necessary to reach a SNAP determination, it will 
contact the submitter and request the missing data. 
   (7) Criteria for review. To determine whether a substitute 
is acceptable or unacceptable as a replacement for class I or 
II compounds, the Agency will evaluate: 
   (i) Atmospheric effects and related health and environmental 
impacts; 
   (ii) General population risks from ambient exposure to compounds

with direct toxicity and to increased ground-level ozone; 
   (iii) Ecosystem risks; 
   (iv) Occupational risks; 
   (v) Consumer risks; 
   (vi) Flammability; and 
   (vii) Cost and availability of the substitute. 
   (8) Communication of decision. (i) Communication of decision 
to the submitter. Once the SNAP program review has been completed, 
the Agency will notify the submitter in writing of the decision. 
Sale or manufacture of new substitutes may commence after the 
initial 90-day notification period expires even if the Agency 
fails to reach a decision within the 90-day review period or 
fails to communicate that decision or the need for additional 
data to the submitter. Sale or manufacture of existing substitutes 
may continue throughout the Agency's 90-day review. 
   (ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency 
will publish in the Federal Register on a quarterly basis a 
complete list of the acceptable and unacceptable alternatives 
that have been reviewed to date. In the case of substitutes 
proposed as acceptable with use restrictions, proposed as
unacceptable 
or proposed for removal from either list, a rulemaking process 
will ensue. Upon completion of such rulemaking, EPA will publish 
revised lists of substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions 
or narrowed use limits and unacceptable substitutes to be
incorporated 
into the Code of Federal Regulations. (See appendix A of this 
subpart.) 
   (b) Types of listing decisions. When reviewing substitutes, 
the Agency will list substitutes in one of five categories: 
   (1) Acceptable. Where the Agency has reviewed a substitute 
and found no reason to prohibit its use, it will list the
alternative 
as acceptable for the end-uses listed in the notice. 
   (2) Acceptable subject to use conditions. After reviewing 
a notice, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute 
is acceptable only if conditions of use are met to minimize 
risks to human health and the environment. Where users intending 
to adopt a substitute acceptable subject 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. 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. Use of such substitutes in ways that are 
inconsistent with such use conditions renders them unacceptable. 
   (3) Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. 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 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 
them unacceptable. 
   (4) Unacceptable. This designation will apply to substitutes 
where the Agency's review indicates that the substitute poses 
risk of adverse effects to human health and the environment 
and that other alternatives exist that reduce overall risk. 
   (5) Pending. Submissions for which the Agency has not reached 
a determination will be described as pending. For all substitutes 
in this category, the Agency will work with the submitter to 
obtain any missing information and to determine a schedule for 
providing the missing information if the Agency wishes to extend 
the 90-day review period. EPA will use the authority under section 
114 of the Clean Air Act to gather this information, if necessary. 
In some instances, the Agency may also explore using additional 
statutory provisions (e.g., section 5 of TSCA) to collect the 
needed data. 
   (c) Joint processing under SNAP and TSCA. The Agency will 
coordinate reviews of substitutes submitted for evaluation under 
both the TSCA PMN program and the CAA. 
   (d) Joint processing under SNAP and FIFRA. The Agency will 
coordinate reviews of substitutes submitted for evaluation under 
both FIFRA and the CAA. 

 82.182   Confidentiality of data. 

   (a) Clean Air Act provisions. Anyone submitting information 
must assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission 
for any data they wish to have treated as confidential business 
information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Failure to 
assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission 
may result in disclosure of the information by the Agency without 
further notice to the submitter. The submitter should also be 
aware that under section 114(c), emissions data may not be claimed 
as confidential. 
   (b) Substantiation of confidentiality claims. At the time 
of submission, EPA requires substantiation of any confidentiality 
claims made. Failure to provide any substantiation may result 
in disclosure of information without further notice by the Agency. 
All submissions must include adequate substantiation in order 
for an acceptability determination on a substitute to be published.

Moreover, under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, there are further 
instances in which confidentiality assertions may later be reviewed

even when confidentiality claims are initially received. The 
submitter will also be contacted as part of such an evaluation 
process. 
   (c) Confidentiality provisions for toxicity data. In the 
event that toxicity or health and safety studies are listed 
as confidential, this information cannot be maintained as
confidential 
where such data are also submitted under TSCA or FIFRA, to the 
extent that confidential treatment is prohibited under those 
statutes. However, information contained in a toxicity study 
that is not health and safety data and is not relevant to the 
effects of a substance on human health and the environment (e.g., 
discussion of process information, proprietary blends) can be 
maintained as confidential subject to 40 CFR part 2, subpart 
B. 
   (d) Joint submissions under other statutes. Information
submitted 
as part of a joint submission to either SNAP/TSCA or SNAP/FIFRA 
must adhere to the security provisions of the program offices 
implementing these statutes. For such submissions, the SNAP 
handling of such notices will follow the security provisions 
under these statutes. 

 82.184   Petitions. 

   (a) Who may petition. Any person may petition the Agency 
to amend existing listing decisions under the SNAP program, 
or to add a new substance to any of the SNAP lists. 
   (b) Types of petitions. Five types of petitions exist: (1) 
Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed under 
the SNAP program to the acceptable list. This type of petition 
is comparable to the 90-day notifications, except that it would 
generally be initiated by entities other than the companies 
that manufacture, formulate, or otherwise use the substitute. 
Companies that manufacture, formulate, or use substitutes that 
want to have their substitutes added to the acceptable list 
should submit information on the substitute under the 90-day 
review program; 
   (2) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed 
under the SNAP program to the unacceptable list; 
   (3) Petitions to delete a substitute from the acceptable 
list and add it to the unacceptable list or to delete a substitute 
from the unacceptable and add it to the acceptable list; 
   (4) Petitions to add or delete use restrictions on an
acceptability 
listing. 
   (5) Petitions to grandfather use of a substitute listed as 
unacceptable or acceptable subject to use restrictions. 
   (c) Content of the petition. The Agency requires that the 
petitioner submit information on the type of action requested 
and the rationale for the petition. Petitions in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section must contain the information 
described in  82.178, which lists the items to be submitted 
in a 90-day notification. For petitions that request the re-
examination of a substitute previously reviewed under the SNAP 
program, the submitter must also reference the prior submittal 
or existing listing. Petitions to grandfather use of an
unacceptable 
substitute must describe the applicability of the test to judge 
the appropriateness of Agency grandfathering as established 
by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (see Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). 
This test includes whether the new rule represents an abrupt 
departure from previously established practice, the extent to 
which a party relied on the previous rule, the degree of burden 
which application of the new rule would impose on the party, 
and the statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately. 
   (d) Petition process. (1) Notification of Affected Companies. 
If the petition concerns a substitute previously either approved 
or restricted under the SNAP program, the Agency will contact 
the original submitter of that substitute. 
   (2) Review for data adequacy. The Agency will review the 
petition for adequacy of data. As with a 90-day notice, the 
Agency may suspend review until the petitioner submits the
information 
necessary to evaluate the petition. To reach a timely decision 
on substitutes, EPA may use collection authorities such as those 
contained in section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended, as 
well as information collection provisions of other environmental 
statutes. 
   (3) Review procedures. To evaluate the petition, the Agency 
may submit the petition for review to appropriate experts inside 
and outside the Agency. 
   (4) Timing of determinations. If data are adequate, as described

in  82.180, the Agency will respond to the petition within 
90 days of receiving a complete petition. If the petition is 
inadequately supported, the Agency will query the petitioner 
to fill any data gaps before the 90-day review period begins, 
or may deny the petition because data are inadequate. 
   (5) Rulemaking procedures. EPA will initiate rulemaking whenever

EPA grants a petition to add a substance to the list of
unacceptable 
substitutes, remove a substance from any list, or change or 
create an acceptable listing by imposing or deleting use conditions

or use limits. 
   (6) Communication of decision. The Agency will inform
petitioners 
within 90 days of receiving a complete petition whether their 
request has been granted or denied. If a petition is denied, 
the Agency will publish in the Federal Register an explanation 
of the determination. If a petition is granted, the Agency will 
publish the revised SNAP list incorporating the final petition 
decision within 6 months of reaching a determination or in the 
next scheduled update, if sooner, provided any required rulemaking 
has been completed within the shorter period. 

Appendix A to Subpart G-Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 
and Unacceptable Substitutes 



                                             Refrigerants          
                                  
                                       Unacceptable Substitutes    
                                  
                                                                   
                                  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute            Decision 
                   Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                           
CFC-11 centrifugal  HCFC-141b ........  Unacceptable
.......  Has a high ODP relative to other     
 chillers.                                             
       alternatives.                       
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
CFC-12 centrifugal  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 chillers.           CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can used safely in   
                                                       
       this end-use.                       
CFC-11, CFC-12,     HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 CFC-113, CFC-114,   CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 R-500 centrifugal                                     
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 chillers (new.                                        
       substances.                         
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
                                           
                    Hydrocabon blend A  Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                                                       
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
                    HCFC-141b ........  Unacceptable
.......  Has a high ODP relative to other     
                                                       
       alternatives.                       
CFC-12              HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 reciprocating.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 chillers                                              
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12              HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 reciprocating.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 chillers (new                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 industrial.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 process                                               
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 refrigeration.                                        
       substances.                         
 (retrofit).                                           
                                           
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 industrial.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 process                                               
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 refrigeration.                                        
       substances.                         
 (new equipment/                                       
                                           
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
CFC-12, R-502 ice   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 skating rinks.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502 ice   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 skating rinks.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (new equipment/                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 NIKs).                                                
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502 cold  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 storage.            CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 warehouses                                            
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502 cold  HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 storage.            CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 warehouses (new                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-500, R-   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 refrigerated.   CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 transport                                             
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-500, R-   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 502 refrigerated.   CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 transport (new                                        
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 retail food.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 refrigeration                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 retail food.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 refrigeration                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (new equipment/.                                      
       substances.                         
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 commercial ice.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 machines                                              
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 commercial ice.     CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 machines (new                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 vending      HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 machines.           CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFC-12 vending      HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 machines (new.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, water       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 coolers (retrofit)  CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
                                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, water       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 coolers (New.       CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, household   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 refrigerators.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (retrofit).                                           
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
                                                       
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, household   HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 refrigerators.      CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 (new equipment/                                       
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 NIKs).                                                
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, R-502       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 household.          CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 freezers                                              
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, 502         HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 household.          CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 freezers (new                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, R-500       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 residential.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 dehumidifiers                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, R-500       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 residential.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 dehumidifiers                                         
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (new equipment/.                                      
       substances.                         
 NIKs).                                                
                                           
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, motor       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 vehicle air.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 conditioners                                          
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 (retrofit).                                           
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be used safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
CFR-12, motor       HCFC-22/HFC-142b/   Unacceptable
.......  As a blend of both Class I and       
 vehicle air.        CFC-12                            
       Class II substances, it has a       
 conditioners (new                                     
       higher ODP than use of Class II     
 equipment/NIKs).                                      
       substances.                         
                    Hydrocarbon blend   Unacceptable
.......  Flammability is a serious concern.   
                     A                                 
       Data have not been submitted to     
                                                       
       demonstrate it can be sued safely   
                                                       
       in this end-use.                    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                                 Foams             
                                   
                                        Unacceptable Substitutes   
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
CFC-11 Polyolefin   HCFC-141b (or       Unacceptable
........  HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,        
                     blends thereof)                   
        almost equivalent to that of        
                                                       
        methyl chloroform, a Class I        
                                                       
        substance. The Agency believes      
                                                       
        that non-ODP alternatives are       
                                                       
        sufficiently available to render    
                                                       
        the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary    
                                                       
        in polyolefin foams.                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                        Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed
Use Limits                       
                                                                   
                                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute           Decision  
                 Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                         
Electronics         Perfluoro-carbons   Acceptable for 
    The principal environmental          
 cleaning w/CFC-     (C5F12, C6F12,     
high-performance,   characteristic of concern for       
 113, MCF.           C6F14, C7F16,       precision-    
     PFCs is that they have long         
                     C8F18, C5F11NO,     engineered    
     atmospheric lifetimes and high      
                     C6F13NO, C7F15NO,   applications
only   global warming potentials.          
                     and C8F16)          where
reasonable    Although actual contributions to    
                                         efforts have
been   global warming depend upon the      
                                         made to
ascertain   quantities of PFCs emitted, the     
                                         that other    
     effects are for practical           
                                         alternatives
are    purposes irreversible.              
                                         not
technically    Users must observe this limitation   
                                         feasible due
to     on PFC acceptability by             
                                         performance or
     conducting a reasonable             
                                         safety        
     evaluation of other substitutes     
                                         requirements  
     to determine that PFC use is        
                                                       
     necessary to meet performance or    
                                                       
     safety requirements.                
                                                       
     Documentation of this evaluation    
                                                       
     must be kept on file.               
                                                       
    For additional guidance regarding    
                                                       
     applications in which PFCs may be   
                                                       
     appropriate, users should consult   
                                                       
     the Preamble for this rulemaking.   
Precision cleaning  Perfluoro-carbons   Acceptable for 
    The principal environmental          
 w/CFC-113, MCF.     (C5F12, C6F12,     
high-performance,   characteristic of concern for       
                     C6F14, C7F16,       precision-    
     PFCs is that they have long         
                     C8F18, C5F11NO,     engineered    
     atmospheric lifetimes and high      
                     C6F13NO, C7F15NO,   applications
only   global warming potentials.          
                     and C8F16)          where
reasonable    Although actual contributions to    
                                         efforts have
been   global warming depend upon the      
                                         made to
ascertain   quantities of PFCs emitted, the     
                                         that other    
     effects are for practical           
                                         alternatives
are    purposes irreversible.              
                                         not
technically    Users must observe this limitation   
                                         feasible due
to     on PFC acceptability by             
                                         performance or
     conducting a reasonable             
                                         safety        
     evaluation of other substitutes     
                                         requirements  
     to determine that PFC use is        
                                                       
     necessary to meet performance or    
                                                       
     safety requirements.                
                                                       
     Documentation of this evaluation    
                                                       
     must be kept on file.               
                                                       
    For additional guidance regarding    
                                                       
     applications in which PFCs may be   
                                                       
     appropriate, users should consult   
                                                       
     the Preamble for this rulemaking.   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                        Unacceptable Substitutes   
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
Metals cleaning w/  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 CFC-113.            blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment. EPA will        
                                                       
        grant, if necessary, narrowed use   
                                                       
        acceptability listings for CFC-     
                                                       
        113 past the effective date of      
                                                       
        the prohibition.                    
Metals cleaning w/  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 MCF.                blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment.                 
Electronics         HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 cleaning w/CFC-.    blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
 113.                                                  
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment. EPA will        
                                                       
        grant, if necessary, narrowed use   
                                                       
        acceptability listings for CFC-     
                                                       
        113 past the effective date of      
                                                       
        the prohibition.                    
Electronics         HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 cleaning w/MCF.     blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment.                 
Precision cleaning  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 w/CFC-113.          blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment. EPA will        
                                                       
        grant, if necessary, narrowed use   
                                                       
        acceptability listings for CFC-     
                                                       
        113 past the effective date of      
                                                       
        the prohibition.                    
Precision cleaning  HCFC 141b and its   Unacceptable
........  High ODP; other alternatives exist.  
 w/MCF.              blends                            
        Effective date: As of 30 days       
                                                       
        after final rule for uses in new    
                                                       
        equipment (including retrofits      
                                                       
        made after the effective date);     
                                                       
        as of January 1, 1996 for uses in   
                                                       
        existing equipment.                 
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                 Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection Streaming Agents                                
                                   Substitutes Acceptable Subject
to Narrowed Use Limits                                   
                                                                   
                                                       
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use             Substitute           
Decision           Conditions                  Comments
               
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
       
Halon 1211          [CFC Blend] .........  Acceptable
in       .................  Use of CFCs are controlled
under     
 Streaming Agents.                         
nonresidential                         CAA section 610
which bans use of   
                                            uses only  
                           CFCs in pressurized
dispensers,     
                                                       
                           and therefore are not
permitted     
                                                       
                           for use in portable fire    
       
                                                       
                           extinguishers. EPA will list
this   
                                                       
                           agent as proposed
unacceptable in   
                                                       
                           the next SNAP proposed
rulemaking.  
                                                       
                          Because CFCs are a Class I   
       
                                                       
                           substance, production will
be       
                                                       
                           phased out by January 1,
1996.      
                                                       
                          See additional comments 1, 2.
       
                    HBFC-22B1............ 
..................  Acceptable in      Proper
procedures regarding the      
                                                       
        nonresidential     operation of the
extinguisher and   
                                                       
        uses only          ventilation following
dispensing    
                                                       
                           the extinguishant is
recommended.   
                                                       
                           Worker exposure may be a
concern    
                                                       
                           in small office areas.      
       
                                                       
                          HBFC-22B1 is considered an
interim   
                                                       
                           substitute for Halon 1211.  
       
                                                       
                           Because the HBFC-22B1 has an
ODP    
                                                       
                           of .74, production will be
phased   
                                                       
                           out (except for essential
uses)     
                                                       
                           on January 1, 1996.         
       
                                                       
                          This agent was submitted to
the      
                                                       
                           Agency as a Premanufacture
Notice   
                                                       
                           (PMN) and is presently
subject to   
                                                       
                           requirements contained in a
Toxic   
                                                       
                           Substance Control Act (TSCA)
       
                                                       
                           Consent Order.              
       
                                                       
                          See additional comments 1, 2.
       
                    C6F14 ...............  Acceptable
for      .................  Users must observe the
limitations   
                                           
nonresidential                         on PFC
acceptability by making      
                                            uses where
other                       reasonable effort to
undertake      
                                           
alternatives are                       the following
measures:             
                                            not
technically                       (i) conduct an
evaluation of         
                                            feasible
due to                        foreseeable conditions of
end use;  
                                            performance
or                        (ii) determine that the
physical     
                                            safety     
                           or chemical properties or
other     
                                           
requirements:                          technical
constraints of the        
                                                       
                           other available agents
preclude     
                                                       
                           their use; and              
       
                                           a. due to
the       .................  (iii) determine that human
          
                                            physical or
                           exposure to the other
alternative   
                                            chemical   
                           extinguishing agents may
approach   
                                            properties
of the                      or result in
cardiosensitization    
                                            agent, or  
                           or other unacceptable
toxicity      
                                                       
                           effects under normal
operating      
                                                       
                           conditions;                 
       
                                                       
                          Documentation of such
measures       
                                                       
                           must be available for review
upon   
                                                       
                           request.                    
       
                                           b. where
human      .................  The principal
environmental          
                                            exposure to
the                        characteristic of concern
for       
                                           
extinguishing                          PFCs is that
they have high GWPs    
                                            agent may  
                           and long atmospheric
lifetimes.     
                                            approach
cardios                      Actual contributions to
global      
                                           ensitization
                          warming depend upon the      
      
                                            levels or
result                       quantities of PFCs
emitted.         
                                            in other   
                          For additional guidance
regarding    
                                           
unacceptable                           applications in
which PFCs may be   
                                            health
effects                         appropriate, users
should consult   
                                            under
normal                           the description of
potential uses   
                                            operating  
                           which is included in the
preamble   
                                            conditions 
                           to this rulemaking.         
       
                                                       
                          See additional comments 1, 2.
       
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
  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.                                     
                                                       



                       Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
Streaming Agents                      
                                        Unacceptable Substitutes   
                                   
                                                                   
                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute             Decision
                    Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                            
Halon 1211          [CFC-11] .........  Unacceptable
........  This agent has been suggested for    
 Streaming Agents.                                     
        use on large outdoor fires for      
                                                       
        which non-ozone depleting           
                                                       
        alternatives are currently used.    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



                                      Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection Total Flooding Agents                         
            
                                              Substitutes
Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions                               
             
                                                                   
                                                                   
   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute            Decision 
                  Conditions                          
Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
                       
Halon 1301 Total    HBFC-22B1 ........  Acceptable
.........   Until OSHA establishes applicable  The
comparative design               
 Flooding Agents.                                      
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 5.3%,       
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is 1%   
                                                       
       the employer shall not use this     . Thus, it
is unlikely that this    
                                                       
       agent in concentrations exceeding   agent will
be used in normally      
                                                       
       its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 0.3%       occupied
areas.                     
                                                       
                                          HBFC-22B1 can
be considered only     
                                                       
                                           an interim
substitute for Halon     
                                                       
                                           1301.
HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74;  
                                                       
                                           thus,
production will be phased     
                                                       
                                           out January
1, 1996.                
                                                       
      Where egress takes longer than 30   This agent
was submitted to the      
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,   Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice   
                                                       
       the employer shall not use the      (PMN) and is
presently subject to   
                                                       
       agent in a concentration greater    requirements
contained in a Toxic   
                                                       
       than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 1.0   Substance
Control Act (TSCA)        
                                                       
       %                                   Consent
Order.                      
                                                       
      HBFC-22B1 concentrations greater    See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
       than 1.0% are only permitted in                 
                       
                                                       
       areas not normally occupied by                  
                       
                                                       
       employees provided that any                     
                       
                                                       
       employee in the area can escape                 
                       
                                                       
       within 30 seconds. The employer                 
                       
                                                       
       shall assure that no unprotected                
                       
                                                       
       employees enter the area during                 
                       
                                                       
       agent discharge                                 
                       
                    HCFC-22 ..........  Acceptable
.........  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The
comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
                                           values is
approximately 13.9%       
                                                       
                                           while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
                                           5.0%. Thus,
it is unlikely that     
                                                       
                                           this agent
will be used in          
                                                       
                                           normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot    See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute,              
                       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use this                 
                       
                                                       
       agent in concentrations exceeding               
                       
                                                       
       its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 2.5%                   
                       
                                                       
      Where egress takes longer than 30  
..................................   
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,               
                       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use the                  
                       
                                                       
       agent in a concentration greater                
                       
                                                       
       than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 5.0               
                       
                                                       
       %                                               
                       
                                                       
      HCFC-22 concentrations greater     
..................................   
                                                       
       than 5.0% are only permitted in                 
                       
                                                       
       areas not normally occupied by                  
                       
                                                       
       employees provided that any                     
                       
                                                       
       employee in the area can escape                 
                       
                                                       
       within 30 seconds. The employer                 
                       
                                                       
       shall assure that no unprotected                
                       
                                                       
       employees enter the area during                 
                       
                                                       
       agent discharge                                 
                       
                    HCFC-124 .........  Acceptable
.........  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The
comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 8.4%        
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
       the employer shall not use this     2.5%. Thus,
it is unlikely that     
                                                       
       agent in concentrations exceeding   this agent
will be used in          
                                                       
       its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 1.0%.      normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
      Where egress takes longer than 30                
                       
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,               
                       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use the                  
                       
                                                       
       agent in a concentration greater                
                       
                                                       
       than its cardiotoxic LOAEL OF 2.5               
                       
                                                       
       %                                               
                       
                                                       
      HCFC-123 concentrations greater                  
                       
                                                       
       than 2.5% are only permitted in                 
                       
                                                       
       areas not normally occupied by                  
                       
                                                       
       employees provided that any                     
                       
                                                       
       employee in the area can escape                 
                       
                                                       
       within 30 seconds. The employer                 
                       
                                                       
       shall assure that no unprotected                
                       
                                                       
       employees enter the area during                 
                       
                                                       
       agent discharge                                 
                       
                    [HCFC BLEND] A.... 
Acceptable..........  Until OSHA establishes applicable 
 The comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on full-scale   
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot     testing is
approximately 8.6%.      
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute, The agent
should be recovered from   
                                                       
       the employer shall not use [HCFC    the fire
protection system in       
                                                       
       Blend] A in concentrations          conjunction
with testing or         
                                                       
       exceeding its cardiotoxic NOAEL     servicing,
and should be recycled   
                                                       
       of 10.0%.                           for later
use or destroyed.         
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
      Where egress takes greater than 30               
                       
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,               
                       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use [HCFC                
                       
                                                       
       Blend] A in a concentration                     
                       
                                                       
       greater than its cardiotoxic                    
                       
                                                       
       LOAEL of 10.0%                                  
                       
                                                       
      [HCFC Blend] A concentrations                    
                       
                                                       
       greater than 10 percent are only                
                       
                                                       
       permitted in areas not normally                 
                       
                                                       
       occupied by employees provided                  
                       
                                                       
       that any employee in the area can               
                       
                                                       
       escape within 30 seconds. The                   
                       
                                                       
       employer shall assure that no                   
                       
                                                       
       unprotected employees enter the                 
                       
                                                       
       area during agent discharge                     
                       
                    HFC-23............ 
Acceptable..........  Until OSHA establishes applicable 
 The comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 14.4%       
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute,  while data
indicates that its       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use HFC-23  
cardiotoxicity NOAEL is 30%         
                                                       
       in concentrations exceeding 30%.    without
added oxygen and 50% with   
                                                       
                                           added
oxygen. Its LOAEL is likely   
                                                       
                                           to exceed
50%.                      
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
      Where egress takes greater than 30 
..................................   
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,               
                       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use HFC-23               
                       
                                                       
       in a concentration greater than                 
                       
                                                       
       50.0%.                                          
                       
                                                       
      HFC-23 concentrations greater than               
                       
                                                       
       50 percent are only permitted in                
                       
                                                       
       areas not normally occupied by                  
                       
                                                       
       employees provided that any                     
                       
                                                       
       employee in the area can escape                 
                       
                                                       
       within 30 seconds. The employer                 
                       
                                                       
       shall assure that no unprotected                
                       
                                                       
       employees enter the area during                 
                       
                                                       
       agent discharge                                 
                       
                                                       
      The design concentration must                    
                       
                                                       
       result in an oxygen level of at                 
                       
                                                       
       least 16%                                       
                       
                    HFC-125........... 
Acceptable..........  Until OSHA establishes applicable 
 The comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 11.3%       
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
       the employer shall not use this     10.0%. Thus,
it is unlikely that    
                                                       
       agent in concentrations exceeding   this agent
will be used in          
                                                       
       its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 7.5%.      normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
      Where egress takes longer than 30                
                       
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,               
                       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use the                  
                       
                                                       
       agent in a concentration greater                
                       
                                                       
       than its cadiotoxic LOAEL of 10.0               
                       
                                                       
       %                                               
                       
                                                       
      HFC-125 concentrations greater                   
                       
                                                       
       than 10.0% are only permitted in                
                       
                                                       
       areas not normally occupied by                  
                       
                                                       
       employees provided that any                     
                       
                                                       
       employee in the area can escape                 
                       
                                                       
       within 30 seconds. The employer                 
                       
                                                       
       shall assure that no unprotected                
                       
                                                       
       employees enter the area during                 
                       
                                                       
       agent discharge                                 
                       
                    HFC-134a.......... 
Acceptable..........  Until OSHA establishes applicable 
 The comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 12.6%       
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute,  while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is      
                                                       
       the employer shall not use this     8.0%. Thus,
it is unlikely that     
                                                       
       agent in concentrations exceeding   this agent
will be used in          
                                                       
       its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 4.0%.      normally
occupied areas.            
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
      Where egress takes longer than 30                
                       
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,               
                       
                                                       
       the employer shall not use the                  
                       
                                                       
       agent in a concentration greater                
                       
                                                       
       than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 8.0               
                       
                                                       
       %                                               
                       
                                                       
      HFC-134a concentrations greater    
..................................   
                                                       
       than 8.0% are only permitted in                 
                       
                                                       
       areas not normally occupied by                  
                       
                                                       
       employees provided that any                     
                       
                                                       
       employee in the area can escape                 
                       
                                                       
       within 30 seconds. The employer                 
                       
                                                       
       shall assure that no unprotected                
                       
                                                       
       employees enter the area during                 
                       
                                                       
       agent discharge                                 
                       
                    HFC-227ea......... 
Acceptable..........  Until OSHA establishes applicable 
 The comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
      Where egress from an area cannot     values is
approximately 7.0%        
                                                       
       be accomplished within one minute,  while data
indicate that its        
                                                       
       the employer shall not use HFC-    
cardiotoxicity LOAEL is probably    
                                                       
       227ea in concentrations exceeding   greater than
10.5%. EPA is          
                                                       
       its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 9.0%       accepting
10.5% as its LOAEL.       
                                                       
      Where egress takes longer than 30   This agent
was submitted to the      
                                                       
       seconds but less than one minute,   Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice   
                                                       
       the employer shall not use the      (PMN) agent
and is presently        
                                                       
       agent in a concentration greater    subject to
requirements contained   
                                                       
       than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of       in a Toxic
Substances Control Act   
                                                       
       10.5%.                              (TSCA)
Significant New Use Rule     
                                                       
                                           (SNUR).     
                       
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                                                       
      HFC-227ea concentrations greater   
..................................   
                                                       
       than 10.5% are only permitted in                
                       
                                                       
       areas not normally occupied by                  
                       
                                                       
       employees provided that any                     
                       
                                                       
       employee in the area can escape                 
                       
                                                       
       within 30 seconds. The employer                 
                       
                                                       
       shall assure that no unprotected                
                       
                                                       
       employees enter the area during                 
                       
                                                       
       agent discharge                                 
                       
                    C4F10.............  Acceptable
.........  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The
comparative design               
                                                       
       workplace requirements:            
concentration based on cup burner   
                                                       
                                           values is
approximately 6.6%.       
                                        where other    
      For occupied areas from which       Users must
observe the limitations   
                                         alternatives
are      personnel cannot be evacuated in    on PFC
acceptability by making      
                                         not
technically       one minute, use is permitted only  
reasonable efforts to undertake     
                                         feasible due
to       up to concentrations not            the
following measures:             
                                         performance or
       exceeding the cardiotoxicity       (i) conduct
an evaluation of         
                                         safety
requirements:  NOAEL of 40%                       
foreseeable conditions of end use;  
                                        a. due to their
      Although no LOAEL has been          (ii)
determine that human exposure   
                                         physical or   
       established for this product,       to the other
alternative            
                                         chemical
properties,  standard OSHA requirements apply,  
extinguishing agents may approach   
                                         or            
       i.e., for occupied areas from       or result in
cardiosensitization    
                                                       
       which personnel can be evacuated    or other
unacceptable toxicity      
                                                       
       or egress can occur between 30      effects
under normal operating      
                                                       
       and 60 seconds, use is permitted    conditions;
and                     
                                                       
       up to a concentration not          (iii)
determine that the physical    
                                                       
       exceeding the LOAEL                 or chemical
properties or other     
                                                       
                                           technical
constraints of the        
                                                       
                                           other
available agents preclude     
                                                       
                                           their use.  
                       
                                        b. where human 
                                                       
                       
                                         exposure to
the                                                    
                          
                                         extinguishing 
                                                       
                       
                                         agents may
approach                                               
                           
                                        
cardiosensitization                                    
                                      
                                         levels or
result in                                              
                            
                                         other
unacceptable                                           
                                
                                         health effects
                                                       
                       
                                         under normal  
                                                       
                       
                                         operating     
                                                       
                       
                                         conditions    
                                                       
                       
                                                       
      All personnel must be evacuated     The principal
environmental          
                                                       
       before concentration of C4F10      
characteristic of concern for       
                                                       
       exceeds 40%.                        PFCs is that
they have high GWPs    
                                                       
      Design concentration must result     and long
atmospheric lifetimes.     
                                                       
       in oxygen levels of at least 16%.   Actual
contributions to global      
                                                       
      Documentation of such measures       warming
depend upon the             
                                                       
       must be available for review upon   quantities
of PFCs emitted.         
                                                       
       request.                                        
                       
                                                       
                                          For
additional guidance regarding    
                                                       
                                           applications
in which PFCs may be   
                                                       
                                           appropriate,
users should consult   
                                                       
                                           the
description of potential uses   
                                                       
                                           which is
included in this           
                                                       
                                           rulemaking. 
                       
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
                    [IG-541].......... 
Acceptable..........  Until OSHA establishes applicable 
 Studies have shown that healthy,     
                                                       
       workplace requirements:             young
individuals can remain in a   
                                                       
      The design concentration must        10% to 12%
oxygen atmosphere for    
                                                       
       result in at least 10% oxygen and   30 to 40
minutes without            
                                                       
       no more than 5% CO2                 impairment.
However, in a fire      
                                                       
      If the oxygen concentration of the   emergency,
the oxygen level may     
                                                       
       atmosphere falls below 10%,         be reduced
below safe levels, and   
                                                       
       personnel must be evacuated and     the
combustion products formed by   
                                                       
       egress must occur within 30         the fire are
likely to cause harm.  
                                                       
       seconds.                            Thus, the
Agency does not           
                                                       
                                           contemplate
personnel remaining     
                                                       
                                           in the space
after system           
                                                       
                                           discharge
during a fire without     
                                                       
                                           Self
Contained Breathing            
                                                       
                                           Apparatus
(SCBA) as required by     
                                                       
                                           OSHA.       
                       
                                                       
                                          See
additional comments 1, 2.        
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
  Additional Comments:                                             
                                                                   
   
  1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.                                                  
     
  2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.                      
   
  3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.           
   
  4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later
use or  
   destroyed.                                                      
                                                                   
   



                                    Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection Total Flooding Agents                                   

                                         Substitutes Acceptable
Subject to Narrowed Use Limits                                     
   
                                                                   
                                                                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      End-use           Substitute          Decision   
              Conditions                          
Comments                
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                                       
                   
Halon 1301 Total    C4F10.............  Acceptable
where  Until OSHA establishes applicable   The
comparative design               
 Flooding Agents.                        other         
   workplace requirements:             concentration
based on cup burner   
                                         alternatives  
  For occupied areas from which        values is
approximately 6.6%.       
                                         are not       
   personnel cannot be evacuated in   Users must
observe the limitations   
                                         technically   
   one minute, use is permitted only   on PFC approval
by undertaking      
                                         feasible due
to   up to concentrations not            the following
measures:             
                                         performance or
   exceeding the cardiotoxicity       (i) Conduct an
evaluation of         
                                         safety        
   NOAEL of 40%.                       foreseeable
conditions of end use;  
                                         requirements: 
                                      (ii) Determine
that human exposure   
                                                       
                                       to the other
alternative            
                                                       
                                       extinguishing
agents may approach   
                                                       
                                       or result in
cardiosensitization    
                                                       
                                       or other
unacceptable toxicity      
                                                       
                                       effects under
normal operating      
                                                       
                                       conditions; and 
                   
                                        a. Due to their
  Although no LOAEL has been          (iii) Determine
that the physical    
                                         physical or   
   established for this product,       or chemical
properties or other     
                                         chemical      
   standard OSHA requirements apply,   technical
constraints of the        
                                         properties, or
   i.e. for occupied areas from        other available
agents preclude     
                                        b. Where human 
   which personnel can be evacuated    their use;      
                   
                                         exposure to
the   or egress can occur between 30     Documentation
of such measures       
                                         extinguishing 
   and 60 seconds, use is permitted    must be
available for review upon   
                                         agents may    
   up to a concentration not           request.        
                   
                                         approach cardi
  exceeding the LOAEL                The principal
environmental          
                                        osensitization 
 All personnel must be evacuated      characteristic of
concern for       
                                         levels or     
   before concentration of C4F10       PFCs is that
they have high GWPs    
                                         result in
other   exceeds 40%                         and long
atmospheric lifetimes.     
                                         unacceptable  
  Design concentration must result     Actual
contributions to global      
                                         health effects
   in oxygen levels of at least 16%    warming depend
upon the             
                                         under normal  
                                       quantities of
PFCs emitted.         
                                         operating     
                                      For additional
guidance regarding    
                                         conditions.   
                                       applications in
which PFCs may be   
                                                       
                                       appropriate,
users should consult   
                                                       
                                       the description
of potential uses   
                                                       
                                       which is
included in the preamble   
                                                       
                                       to this
rulemaking.                 
                                                       
                                      See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
  Additional Comments                                              
                                                                   
  1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.                                                  
 
  2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.                      
  3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.           
  4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later   
 
   use or destroyed.                                               
                                                                   


[FR Doc. 94-4753 Filed 3-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
The Contents entry for this article reads as follows:

Air programs:
  Stratospheric ozone protection-
    Significant new alternatives policy program, 13044
             

Top of page


Local Navigation




Jump to main content.