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

SUMMARY: This action imposes restrictions or prohibitions on

substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1990, which requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for

the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.

Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and

unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors.

The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away

from ozone-depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into substitutes

posing other environmental problems.

On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth

its plan for administering the SNAP program, and has since issued

decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of

substitutes. In this Final Rule (FRM), EPA is issuing its decisions on

the acceptability of certain substitutes included in a May 21, 1997

notice of proposed rulemaking. Specifically, this action clarifies the

criteria for unique fittings used in motor vehicle air-conditioning

systems, and addresses the acceptability of certain substitutes in the

fire suppression, solvent, and aerosol sectors, and the unacceptability

of substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning, solvents,

aerosols, fire suppression, and adhesives, coatings, & inks sectors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data are available in Docket A-91-42,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAR Docket and Information

Center, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC

20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on

weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-7548; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in

40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Protection Hotline

at (800) 296-1996. Kelly Davis at (202) 564-2303 or fax (202) 565-2096,

Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Mail

Code 6205J, Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries

should be sent to 501 3rd Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20001. EPA's

Ozone World Wide Web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/

snap/''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is divided into four sections:

I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

II. Listing of Substitutes

III. Administrative Requirements

IV. Additional Information

I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to develop a

program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA

is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate

rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,

halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance

with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present

adverse effects to human health or the environment where the

Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the

overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently

or potentially available.

Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section

612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes

unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list

of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.

Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any

person to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute

from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency

has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the

petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six

months.

90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to

require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I

substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or

existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for

significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The

producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's health and

safety studies on such substitutes.

Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator

shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and

resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying

and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key

commercial applications.

Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to

set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product

substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available

for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II

substances.

B. Regulatory History

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (59 FR 13044)

which described the process for administering the SNAP program and

issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major

industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air

conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and

explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and

inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal

industrial sectors that historically consumed large volumes of ozone-

depleting compounds.

The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product

substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or

new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who

produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety

studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into

interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This

requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include

importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for

introducing a substitute into commerce.

II. Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,

EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risk posed by various

substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The

outcome of these risk screens can be found in the public docket, as

described above in the Addresses portion of this document.

Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the

risk

[[Page 22983]]

management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has identified

five possible decision categories: acceptable; acceptable subject to

use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;

unacceptable; and pending. Fully acceptable substitutes, i.e., those

with no restrictions, can be used for all applications within the

relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is illegal to replace an ODS

with a substitute listed by SNAP as unacceptable. A pending listing

represents substitutes for which the Agency has not received complete

data or has not completed its review of the data.

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination

that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are

met to minimize risk to human health and the environment. Such

substitutes are described as ``acceptable subject to use conditions.''

Use of such substitutes without meeting associated use conditions

renders these substitutes unacceptable and subjects the user to

enforcement for violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act.

Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based

on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a

narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of

alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a

substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that

other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies

must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results

on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation

shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,

processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for

rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety

standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available

and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of

such substitutes in applications and end-uses which are not specified

as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes

unacceptable.

In this final rule, EPA is issuing its decision on the

acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the

Agency. Today's rule incorporates decisions proposed on May 21, 1997,

at 62 FR 27873 (referred to hereinafter as ``the proposal''). As

described in the final rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA

believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any

alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute

as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed use limits,

or to remove an alternative from either the list of prohibited or

acceptable substitutes.

Parts A-E below present a detailed discussion of the substitute

listing determinations by major use sector. Tables summarizing listing

decisions in this Final Rule are in Table 1 and Appendix H. Appendix H

will appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 82.

Listings in Table 1 will not appear in the CFR and add to the list of

alternatives acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not

impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a

substitute. The comments contained in Appendix H provide additional

information on substitutes determined to be either unacceptable,

acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable subject to use

conditions. Since comments are not part of the regulatory decision,

they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. Nor should the comments

be considered comprehensive with respect to other legal obligations

pertaining to the use of the substitute. However, EPA encourages users

of substitutes to apply all comments in their application of these

substitutes, regardless of any regulatory requirements. In many

instances, the comments simply allude to sound operating practices that

have already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code

standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require

significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected

industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Class I

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners,

Retrofit and New

(1) Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings

Current SNAP regulations require that each refrigerant used in

motor vehicle air conditioning may only be used with a set of fittings

that is unique to that refrigerant. This final rule clarifies minimum

criteria for uniqueness of fittings.

In the course of retrofitting a motor vehicle air-conditioning

(MVAC) system, servicers of these systems, whether professional

technicians or do-it-yourselfers, must affix fittings that are designed

to work only with that refrigerant. To meet that goal, servicers must

install fittings that satisfy the requirements set forth below.

High-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must

differ from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants,

including CFC-12, and from low-side screw-on fittings for CFC-12;

Low-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must

differ from low-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants,

including CFC-12;

High-side screw-on fittings for a given refrigerant must

differ from low-side screw-on fittings for that refrigerant, to protect

against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure one;

High-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must

differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other

refrigerants, including CFC-12 (if they exist);

Low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must

differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants,

including CFC-12 (if they exist);

High-side quick-connect fittings for a given refrigerant

must differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for that refrigerant,

to protect against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure

one;

For each type of container, the fitting for each

refrigerant must differ from the fitting for that type of container for

all other refrigerants, including CFC-12.

For screw-on fittings, ``differ'' means that either the diameter

must differ by at least \1/16\ inch or the thread direction must be

reversed (i.e. right-handed vs. left-handed). Simply changing the

thread pitch is not sufficient. For quick-connect fittings, ``differ''

means that a person using normal force and normal tools (including

wrenches) must not be able to cross-connect fittings. Following are

some examples:

a \3/8\ (\6/16\) inch outside diameter screw-on fitting

with a right-hand thread differs from a \5/16\ inch outside diameter

screw-on fitting with a right-hand thread;

a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a

left-hand thread differs from a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on

fitting with a right-hand thread;

a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a

right-hand thread pitch of 18 threads/inch does not differ from a \3/8\

inch outside screw-on diameter fitting with a right-hand thread pitch

of 24 threads/inch;

a quick-connect fitting differs from another quick-connect

fitting if all combinations of the same type male and female parts

(high, low, small can, 30-lb. cylinder) will not connect using normal

tools.

[[Page 22984]]

The sole exception to the \1/16\ inch difference requirement is the

difference between the small can fittings for GHG-X4 and R-406A. The

GHG-X4 small can fitting uses a metric measurement, and is slightly

less than \1/16\ inch larger than the small can fitting for R-406A. EPA

has concluded that these fittings will not cross-connect, and therefore

they may be used. No other exception exists, although EPA will consider

any requests on a case-by-case basis.

2. Response to Comments

A commenter noted that the fittings for small cans of GHG-X4 are

not \1/16\ inch different from those of other refrigerants, and

expressed concern that the fittings would be disallowed under the

criteria for uniqueness in today's rule. The commenter further

suggested that because the fittings were metric and EPA had confirmed

they would not cross-thread with other fittings, that an exception be

granted. EPA agrees and discusses this above.

B. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Class II

1. Unacceptable Substitutes

a. NARM-22

NARM-22, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-152a, is

unacceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 in all new and retrofitted

end-uses.

NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, which is a class II ozone-depleting

substance. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to replace a class II

refrigerant with a blend containing a class II refrigerant. Listing

this blend as acceptable would be a barrier to a smooth transition away

from ozone-depleting refrigerants. Other alternatives to HCFC-22 are

already acceptable that do not contain any ozone-depleting

refrigerants.

In addition, HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year

global warming potential (GWP) is 11,700.\1\ Both of these

characteristics are considerably higher than other HFCs and HCFCs.

Other acceptable HCFC-22 substitutes do not contain such high global

warming components. The 1993 Climate Change Action Plan directs EPA to

narrow the scope of uses allowed for HFCs with high global warming

potentials where better alternatives exist. For this reason, and the

fact that NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, the use of this blend as an HCFC-22

substitute is unacceptable.

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

\1\ GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes cited in this document are

from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report

entitled Climate Change 1995--The Science of Climate Change, IPCC

Second Assessment Report. More recent values for GWPs and

atmospheric lifetimes published in the Scientific Assessment of

Ozone Depletion: 1998, World Meteorological Organization Global

Ozone Research and Monitoring Project--Report No. 44, may be

somewhat different than the values cited here but do not alter any

of the technical or policy determinations by EPA in this rule.

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

C. Solvents Cleaning

1. Acceptable Substitutes

a. Metals Cleaning

(1) HFC-4310mee

HFC-4310mee is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl

chloroform (MCF) in metals cleaning. This chemical does not deplete the

ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. Review under

the SNAP program and the Toxic Substances Control Act premanufacture

notification program determined that a time-weighted average workplace

exposure standard of 200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400

ppm established by the submitting company would adequately protect

human health and that the industry can meet these exposure limits using

the types of equipment specified in the product safety information

provided by the chemical manufacturer. The ceiling limit, established

by the submitting company, was set based on a potential acute central

nervous system effect above 1500 ppm.

2. Unacceptable Substitutes

a. Chlorobromomethane

Chlorobromomethane (CBM) is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-

113, methyl chloroform (MCF), and HCFC-141b in metals cleaning,

electronics cleaning and precision cleaning. CBM, also called Halon

1011, has been used as a fire suppressant. EPA has received

notification that it can also be used as a solvent and that it is a

potential substitute for the ozone-depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl

chloroform and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission requesting

consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in

solvents cleaning of metals, electronics, and in precision cleaning.

Recent model analyses establish a best estimate for the ozone

depletion potential (ODP) for CBM in the range of 0.07 to 0.15.

Numerous other alternatives exist with either zero or much lower ODP

that do not pose a comparable risk.

3. Response to Comments

Commenters identified six issues related to the proposed determination

for chlorobromomethane:

Ozone depletion potential of chlorobromomethane;

Uncertainty in ODP calculation;

CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b;

Comparison of CBM with CFC-113;

CBM under the Montreal Protocol phaseout;

Toxicological issues regarding CBM.

a. Ozone Depletion Potential of Chlorobromomethane

A number of the comments questioned the science employed in

calculating the ODP of CBM. Other comments included studies to

determine ODP conducted by separate groups. As these studies were

completed, they were added to the docket during the comment period. The

differences in estimates from the studies resulted in a conference

among the modelers to compare results, and two of the modelers were

found to have made miscalculations that affected their initial ODP

estimates. Because the commenters were not privy to these collaborative

conversations amongst the modelers, the Agency offers the following

chronology to clarify the sequence of events leading to the agreement

on ODP values.

The initial studies performed on CBM were the following:

``Estimates of the Atmospheric Lifetime and ODP of CBM,'' (Ko and

Chang, 1994); Calculation of the ODP of CBM (Pyle and Bekki, 1994);

``Evaluation of ODP for CBM and 1-Bromo-Propane,'' (Wuebbles, Jain, and

Patten, 1997). These studies produced ODP estimates for CBM ranging

from 0.05 to 0.28. Because of inconsistencies between the models, Pyle,

Bekki and Wuebbles met in the spring of 1997 to discuss the proper

modeling procedures and appropriate variables to be used. The Pyle/

Bekki model had not taken into account several key factors used in the

standard assessments for determining ODP in international forums (e.g.,

WMO, 1995). The meeting resulted in a clarification of various model

parameters (e.g., atmospheric lifetimes and atmospheric transport of

different ozone-depleting compounds, relative reactivity of bromine,

losses to the ocean sink), and recalculation of the original values.

Based on their reanalyses, the group estimated the ODP for CBM,

including the ocean sink, to be in the range of 0.07-0.15.

Based on additional sensitivity analyses on the potential effects

of the ocean sink and the nearly negligible effects of the soil sink,

Wuebbles et al. (1997) determined an ODP range of 0.11-0.13.

Subsequently, extensive revisions were made to the underlying two-

dimensional model to reflect recent data on various parameters

including tropospheric chemistry and kinetic

[[Page 22985]]

rates, atmospheric transport rates, and ozone hole processes. Based on

these changes, Wuebbles et al. (1998) derived an ODP for CBM in the

range of 0.08-0.1, with the range reflecting uncertainty in the ocean

sink for CBM. A semi-empirical model used by a researcher in the NOAA

Aeronomy Laboratory generated an ODP range comparable to the range

derived in the analyses described above (Solomon, 1997).

Considering all available model results, EPA concludes that the

best estimate for the ODP of CBM lies in the range 0.07 to 0.15 when an

estimate for the ocean sink is included. This range is similar to the

ODP for HCFC-141b, a compound also unacceptable for use as a solvent or

adhesive, and whose use as a solvent is allowed only for specific

aerosol applications exempted from the nonessential products

prohibition under section 610 of the Clean Air Act.

b. Uncertainty in ODP Calculation

One commenter suggested that EPA should not make decisions until

all areas of uncertainty are resolved and areas of disagreement among

researchers have been understood. In fact, the Agency has attempted to

gather and assess all available information from the full range of

experts on the ODP of chlorobromomethane. Under section 612 of the CAA,

the Agency has the obligation to reduce the overall risk to human

health and the environment associated with substitutes to ozone-

depleting substances. If new data become available after final

rulemaking that are contrary to the current scientific understanding,

section 612 of the CAA allows the Agency to reconsider its SNAP

decision in response to either a petition or additional information.

c. CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b

A commenter stated that in the past, the Agency has approved HCFC-

141b while expressing concern for its ODP of 0.11, but that such

approval was warranted to assist in the goal of the Montreal Protocol

and section 612 of the CAA to move usage away from other compounds with

higher ODPs (e.g., CFCs). The commenter believed that the same analysis

applies to CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b. The Agency disagrees with

this comparison. In the case of HCFC-141b, there were no other viable

alternatives for specific end-uses, and consequently HCFC-141b was

deemed acceptable despite its relatively high ODP. HCFC-141b is

scheduled for a production phaseout in 2003, and has been listed as

unacceptable in many specific end-uses, including solvent end-uses,

because available alternatives exist with a lower ODP. HCFC-141b use is

banned under section 610 of the Clean Air Act (the nonessential

products ban) for many uses, with exemptions limited to aerosol

applications of wasp and hornet sprays, mold release agents, solvent

cleaners for electronics applications, lubricants, aircraft maintenance

products, and spinnerette cleaner lubricants. Considering that the ODP

range for CBM is comparable to that of HCFC-141b and HCFC-141b is

unacceptable as a substitute solvent in all end-uses, the Agency sees

no environmental benefit to approving CBM.

d. Comparison of CBM with CFC-113

One commenter declared that the U.S. EPA must compare the ODP of

CBM only to that of CFC-113, and not to the ODP of other substitutes.

The Agency disagrees; under section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

the Agency is required to compare substitutes to each other when they

are available:

``* * * it shall be unlawful to replace any class I or class II

substance with any substitute substance which the Administrator

determines may present adverse effects to human health or the

environment, when the Administrator has identified an alternative

that reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment

and is currently or potentially available.''

Recent model analyses establish a best estimate for the ODP for CBM

in the range of 0.07 to 0.15. Numerous other alternatives exist with

either zero or a much lower ODP that do not pose a comparable risk.

Therefore, while the Agency does compare the substitute to the

substance being replaced, if there are alternatives that pose a lower

overall risk, EPA cannot list the substitute as acceptable.

e. CBM under the Montreal Protocol Phaseout

A commenter stated that the Montreal Protocol does not require the

phaseout of CBM. While Parties to the Protocol have agreed to phase out

many ozone-depleting substances, many other chemicals that pose risks

to the ozone layer, including CBM, have not yet been addressed.

Nevertheless, the CAA gives EPA authority to take actions more

stringent than the Montreal Protocol, and the Agency believes that

section 612 of the Act requires EPA to list CBM as an unacceptable

substitute because of the environmental and health effect risks that it

poses.

f. Toxicological Issues regarding CBM

Many commenters submitted comments regarding toxicological issues

related to CBM. EPA is not addressing comments raised on toxicity

issues at this time because the SNAP decision is based solely on the

ODP of CBM.

D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Total Flooding Agents

(1) C3F8

C3F8 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute

where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or

chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing

agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.

See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)

of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for

a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to

this agent in this end-use.

(2) C4F10

C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301

substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or

chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing

agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.

See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)

of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for

a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to

this agent in this end-use.

(3) HFC-236fa

HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute when

manufactured using any process that does not convert

perfluoroisobutylene directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. HFC-236fa

may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion

applications without use limits, and may be used in fire suppression

applications where other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not

technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a)

because their physical or chemical properties, or (b) where human

exposure to the extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet

applicable use conditions.

As discussed in the initial SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13044, March 18,

1994), total flooding agents are acceptable for use in occupied areas

only under the following conditions:

1. Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within one

minute, the employer shall not use the agent in

[[Page 22986]]

concentrations exceeding its ``no observed adverse effect level''

(NOAEL);

2. Where egress takes greater than 30 seconds but less than one

minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration greater

than its ``lowest observed adverse effect level'' (LOAEL);

3. Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only permitted

in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any employee

in the area can escape within 30 seconds.

4. The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter

the area during agent discharge.

These conditions were derived from an OSHA safety and health

standard governing fire protection systems used in all workplaces (29

CFR part 1910, subpart L). This OSHA standard is designed to limit

employee exposures to toxic levels of gaseous agents used in fixed

total flood systems. Because OSHA had not set specific workplace

standards for halon substitutes, EPA adopted the relevant provisions of

29 CFR part 1910, subpart L to govern the general use of halon

substitute gaseous agents. As stated in the original SNAP rulemaking,

EPA specifically defers to OSHA and has no intention to assume

responsibility for regulating workplace safety in regard to fire

protection (59 FR 13099 and 13101; also see discussion directly below).

The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0% (by volume)

and its LOAEL is 15%. Cup burner tests with heptane indicate that the

extinguishment concentration for this agent is 5.3%, thus making its

calculated design concentration 6.4%. Compared to the cardiac

sensitization values, these concentrations provide a sufficient margin

of safety for use in a normally occupied area. HFC-236fa can replace

Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.3 by weight and 1.5 by volume. Due to its

relatively high boiling point of minus 1.6 degrees centigrade, this

agent may not be suitable in a low temperature environment.

The exposure concentration limits referred to here, set as

conditions of acceptability under SNAP, are intended to protect worker

safety in the absence of OSHA or other workplace limits established

under voluntary consensus bodies. As suggested by the court in Southern

Pacific Transp. Co. v. Usery, 539 F.2nd 386 (5th Cir.1976), ``the scope

of the exemption created by [OSHA] Sec. 4(b)(1) is determined by the

[Agency's] intent.'' EPA wishes to clarify that it has no intention of

duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal

protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection,

hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety

and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon

substitutes. In accordance with the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d), EPA will work in

consultation with OSHA to encourage development of technical standards

to be adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Once applicable

consensus standards are established, EPA will rescind the workplace

standards established under this rulemaking.

In the original March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13099), the

Agency made clear that in cases like this (where EPA finds acceptable

the use of an agent only under certain conditions), we have sought to

avoid overlap with other existing regulatory authorities. In setting

conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace under

SNAP, EPA has specifically deferred to OSHA's other regulations that

govern workplace safety. As stated in the preamble to the original SNAP

rule at 59 FR 13099, ``EPA has no intention to assume responsibility

for regulating workplace safety especially with respect to fire

protection, nor does the Agency intend SNAP regulations to bar OSHA

from regulating under its Public Law 91-596 authority.''

In the March 18, 1994 final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044), EPA required

manufacturers to submit information on manufacturing processes to allow

an assessment of the risks posed to the general public and workers. EPA

clarified in that action that acceptability determinations made on the

basis of one company's submission would apply to the same chemical

produced by other manufacturers, obviating the need for duplicative

reporting requirements and review. However, manufacturers who believe a

given manufacturing process may pose additional risks beyond those

posed by other processes involving the same chemical were required to

alert EPA to that increased hazard. The February 8, 1996 (61 FR 4736)

Notice of Acceptability specifically discussed the manufacturing

process used in making HFC-236fa, and that discussion is repeated

below.

EPA is aware of several methods for manufacturing HFC-236fa,

including one that produces HFC-236fa directly from

perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB). PFIB is an extremely toxic substance that

could pose risks in very small concentrations. Thus, EPA believes it is

appropriate to distinguish among the different methods for producing

HFC-236fa. This acceptability determination does not prohibit the

manufacture of HFC-236fa directly from PFIB. Rather, it finds

acceptable the production of HFC-236fa in processes that do not convert

PFIB directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. If a manufacturer wishes

to produce HFC-236fa directly from PFIB, it must submit that process to

EPA for review under SNAP.

HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone. However, it has an

atmospheric lifetime of 209 years and a 100-year GWP of 6300. Concerns

have been raised about this agent's potential atmospheric effects.

Please see discussion in the ``Response to Comments'' section II.D.4 on

this issue. This agent should be handled so as to minimize unnecessary

emissions, including: avoiding discharge testing and training;

providing a high level of maintenance to avoid leaks and accidental

discharges; recovering HFC-236fa from fire protection equipment in

conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroying HFC-236fa or

recycling it for later use. In addition, EPA encourages manufacturers

to develop aggressive product stewardship programs to help users avoid

such unnecessary emissions.

While HFC-236fa may be used without ``last resort'' use

restrictions in explosion protection applications, this is not so for

other total flooding applications, see section II.D.2 below. Before

users adopt it for general fire suppression applications in the total

flooding end-use, they must first ascertain that other non-PFC

substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements. In contrast, if a PFC is the only

other substitute that is technically feasible due to performance or

safety requirements, then this agent may be used in a general fire

suppression application. Potential users are expected to evaluate the

technical feasibility of other non-PFC substitutes or alternatives to

determine their adequacy to control the particular fire risk. Such

assessment may include an evaluation of the performance or functional

effectiveness of the non-PFC agents for the intended applications as

well as the risk to personnel potentially exposed to the agent.

Similarly, use of HFC-236fa would be appropriate where use of other

non-PFC substitutes or alternatives would violate the workplace safety

use conditions set forth in the SNAP rulemakings and thus pose risks of

adverse health effects.

To assist users in their evaluation for general fire suppression

applications, EPA has prepared a list of vendors manufacturing halon

substitutes and alternatives. Although users are not required to report

the results of their investigation to EPA, companies must

[[Page 22987]]

retain these results for five years for future reference.

2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

a. Total Flooding Agents

(1) C3F8

C3F8 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute

where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or

chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing

agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.

See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)

of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for

a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to

this agent in this end-use.

(2) C4F10

C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301

substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or

chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing

agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.

See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)

of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for

a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to

this agent in this end-use.

(3) HFC-236fa

HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute when

manufactured using any process that does not convert

perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single step.

HFC-236fa may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion

applications, and may be used in fire suppression applications where

other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not technically feasible due

to performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or

chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing

agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions. Please

see the section on ``Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' (II.D.1)

for a complete discussion of this agent. This agent is subject to the

use conditions stated in that section.

b. Streaming Agents

(1) C6F14

C6F14 is acceptable as a Halon 1211

substitute in nonresidential applications where other alternatives are

not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a)

because of their physical or chemical, or (b) where human exposure to

the extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet applicable use

conditions.

See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)

of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. No applicable use

conditions exist for this agent in the streaming agent end-use.

(2) HFC-236fa

HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in

nonresidential applications when manufactured using any process that

does not convert perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a

single step. The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0% and

its LOAEL is 15%. (See preceding discussion regarding OSHA, HFC-236fa,

and voluntary consensus workplace standards in section II.D.1) Cup

burner tests with heptane indicate that the extinguishment

concentration for this agent is 5.3%. Compared to Halon 1211, HFC-236fa

has a weight equivalence of 1.08 to 2.15.

As discussed above, HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone.

However, it has an atmospheric lifetime of 209 years and a 100-year GWP

of 6300. Concerns have been raised about this agent's potential

atmospheric effects. Please see discussion in ``Response to Comments''

section II.D.4 regarding this issue. This agent should be handled so as

to minimize unnecessary emissions, including: avoiding discharge

testing and training; providing a high level of maintenance to avoid

leaks and accidental discharges; recovering HFC-236fa from the fire

protection equipment in conjunction with testing or servicing; and

destroying HFC-236fa or recycling it for later use. In addition, EPA

encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship

programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.

Further, this agent may not be used in residential applications,

e.g., by a private individual in applications in or around a permanent

or temporary household, during recreation, or for any personal use or

enjoyment. Use in watercraft or aircraft is excluded from the

definition of residential use. As discussed in the ``Response to

Comments'' section II.D.4, the use of this agent in local application

extinguishing systems in textile process machinery is considered to be

a streaming agent application.

(3) HFC-227ea

HFC-227ea is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in

nonresidential applications. The weight equivalence of this agent is

1.66 pounds per pound of Halon 1211. It has a cardiac sensitization

NOAEL of 9.0%, and a LOAEL of 10.5%. (See preceding discussion

regarding OSHA and voluntary consensus workplace standards in section

II. D.1) Its cup burner extinguishment value is 5.8%.

This agent has no ozone depletion potential, a 100-year GWP of

2,900 relative to carbon dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of 36.5

years. It is already listed as acceptable subject to use conditions for

use in total flooding applications as an alternative to Halon 1301 (See

59 FR 13107, March 18, 1994).

3. Unacceptable Substitutes

a. Total Flooding Agents

(1) Chlorobromomethane

Chlorobromomethane (CBM) is unacceptable as a substitute for Halon

1301 in total flooding applications. Recent analyses establish an ODP

range for CBM of 0.07 to 0.15. Other alternatives exist for total

flooding applications with lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable

risk. For example, HFC-227ea, as well as several inert gases, have no

ODP. Additionally, current OSHA regulations prohibit the use of CBM as

an extinguishing agent in fixed fire extinguishing systems where

employees may be exposed. See 29 CFR 1910.160(b)(11).

4. Response to Comments

EPA received 197 letters with comments related to proposed halon

substitute listings in the NPRM. Many of the letters were identical.

This section summarizes the major comments and provides EPA's response

to those comments. A supplemental response to comments document that

addresses the remaining comments is available in the public docket for

this rulemaking. The comments addressed in this document are grouped

into the following four major categories:

Limits on PFCs and other long-lived gases;

HFC-236fa;

Unrelated issues;

Chlorobromomethane.

a. Limits on PFCs and Other Long-lived Gases

(1) Description of Use Limits

In the May 21, 1997 proposal, EPA proposed a change in the

description of the use limits (often referred to as ``last resort'' use

limits, first described in the June 13, 1995 final rule, 60 FR 31100)

applicable to PFCs and other long-lived gases. Two commenters supported

EPA's stated purpose in clarifying the

[[Page 22988]]

language but disagreed with the proposed change in language. One of the

commenters opposed the proposed change because it eliminates the

existing reference to cardiac sensitization. The commenter suggests

that, despite EPA's statement that it is not changing but only

clarifying policy, this change could be viewed by fire protection

professionals, who might not read the preamble discussion, as a reduced

concern by EPA for cardiac sensitization and therefore a change in

policy. This commenter proposed alternative language, as follows:

``[X] is proposed acceptable as a Halon [1211/1301] substitute

where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements: (a) due to their chemical or

physical properties or (b) where human exposure may result in

exposure to agent concentrations at or above established cardiac

sensitization levels or below safe oxygen levels, in a failure to

meet other applicable use conditions or in other unacceptable health

effects under normal operating conditions.''

In response, EPA reiterates that the proposed change in language is

indeed a clarification of, not a change in, policy and that reference

to ``failure to meet applicable use conditions'' is the most precise

way to refer to the existing use conditions for any halon substitute.

Existing SNAP use conditions for ``clean agent'' halon substitutes

(meaning they dissipate rapidly, leaving no residue thereby avoiding

secondary damage to the property they are protecting) are generally

based on two measurements of exposure to health risks: the

concentration and the length of time a person is exposed to the agent.

To describe the applicable use conditions as ``exposure to agent

concentrations at or above established cardiac sensitization levels or

below safe oxygen levels'' is imprecise (as is the original language,

``may approach cardiac sensitization levels'') because it refers only

to the exposure concentration, i.e., a ``NOAEL,'' ``LOAEL,'' ``no

effect level,'' or ``lowest effect level,'' and not to the length of

exposure.

The applicable use conditions for each SNAP-listed acceptable halon

substitute are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations chart in a

column immediately adjacent to the decision column containing the

narrowed use limit language, if applicable. See 40 CFR part 82, subpart

G, appendices A through G. It is easy for any fire protection

professional to check the applicable use conditions to see the cardiac

sensitization NOAEL or LOAEL, or the oxygen deprivation ``no effect

level'' or ``lowest effect level'' by simply reading the next column of

the chart for a particular halon substitute. Thus, EPA believes the

commenter's concerns are addressed by EPA's proposed revised language

and therefore rejects the proposed alternative language suggested by

this commenter.

A second commenter supported EPA's proposed change in language,

with one exception. The exception is EPA's proposed decision not to

change the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable health effects

under normal operating conditions.'' The commenter suggests that this

language may still allow for too much latitude regarding ability to

select PFCs as an acceptable alternative. The commenter recommends

deleting the phrase or, if that is not possible, changing the phrase to

specify the type of unacceptable health effects, i.e., hypoxia for

inert gases or cardiac sensitization for halocarbons. This would

prevent system designers or specifiers from using theoretical or

potentially insignificant health effects to justify the use of PFCs.

EPA acknowledges that the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable

health effects under normal operating conditions'' is vague, and leaves

open the possibility of citing unnamed health effects as reasons for

using otherwise unacceptable halon substitutes. EPA's use of this

phrase in the original language was intended to refer to hypoxia for

inert gases. Other than halocarbon clean agents for which cardiac

sensitization is the health effect of concern, inert gases were the

only type of clean agents for which use conditions were imposed. In

making the proposed change to ``failure to meet applicable use

conditions,'' EPA no longer needs the phrase ``or result in other

unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions'' because

both specified health effects, i.e., cardiac sensitization and hypoxia,

are incorporated by reference to the ``applicable use conditions'' of

halon substitutes. EPA's proposal should have made a corresponding

change to delete the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable health

effects under normal operating conditions,'' or it should have

specifically identified other health effects that would be the basis of

proposed use conditions for particular agents. The phrase adds no

information without identifying specific health concerns, and

contributes to the imprecision of the original language. Thus, EPA

accepts the commenter's suggestion to delete this phrase, which EPA

neglected to do in the proposal. The final language reads as follows:

``[X] is proposed acceptable as a Halon [1211/1301] substitute

where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or

chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the

extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet applicable use

conditions.''

(2) Changes to ``Comments'' Column in CFR

Each substitute reviewed under SNAP and found unacceptable,

acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable subject to use

conditions is listed in charts in the Code of Federal Regulations by

end-use. For each substitute, ``comments'' may be listed in a separate

column, and they provide additional information on a substitute

intended to help users apply sound operating practices (e.g., existing

industry standards) for listed substitutes. EPA proposed a change to

the ``comments'' which apply to halon substitutes for which the ``last

resort'' use limits apply. One comment was received that opposed

changing the language from ``making reasonable effort to undertake the

following measures'' to ``taking the following measures.'' The

commenter cites SNAP regulations at Sec. 82.180(b)(2), where the users

intending to adopt a restricted substitute are directed as follows:

--82.180(b)(2) Acceptable subject to use conditions. . . . Where

users intending to adopt a substitute acceptable to use conditions

must make reasonable efforts to ascertain that other alternatives

are not feasible due to safety, performance or technical reasons,

documentation of this assessment must be retained on file for the

purpose of demonstrating compliance.

The commenter objects that EPA has not provided any basis for

making the change, and that any changes to an existing regulation must

be justified and explained. The commenter states this change unfairly

singles out PFCs, and could confuse the user community in light of the

regulatory language cited above.

EPA may have caused some confusion by incorrectly indicating in the

preamble of the proposed rule that the ``last resort'' use limits at

issue here are ``use conditions,'' when in fact they are not; instead,

they are ``narrowed use limits.'' The instructions to users are worded

differently in the regulatory text for these two different types of

listing decisions.

``Narrowed use limits'' are described in Sec. 82.180(b)(3) of the

SNAP regulations, which provides that:

-82.180(b)(3) Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. . . .

Users intending to adopt a substitute acceptable with narrowed use

limits must ascertain that other alternatives are not technically

feasible. Companies must document the results of

[[Page 22989]]

their evaluation, and retain the results on file for the purpose of

demonstrating compliance.''

The ``comments'' language, as proposed, that users must observe the

limits by ``taking'' certain steps, conforms to the regulatory language

that users ``must ascertain'' that other alternatives are not

technically feasible. Thus, EPA is not changing the regulatory language

but rather providing ``comment'' language that is consistent with the

existing regulations. Although these instructions are contained in the

``comments'' column of the appendix to the final rule, the source of

the instructions is the SNAP regulation itself. The only change is in

the summary of this regulatory language which appears in the

``comments'' column as a convenience to users of substitutes.

This change in wording does not ``unfairly single out'' PFCs. EPA

notes that the same ``last resort'' use restrictions apply to a non-PFC

substitute, HFC-236fa, which is listed in this final rule as acceptable

as a total flooding agent subject to these narrowed use limits.

(3) Procedural Aspects of EPA's review

The May 21, 1997 proposal discussed a petition that EPA received

asking for reconsideration of the wording of use conditions for PFCs

and other long-lived gases. EPA received one comment expressing concern

that the procedure for EPA's review of this petition might be used in

the future as a way to urge changes in proposed use conditions without

providing sufficient technical justification for those changes.

Specifically, the commenter raises a concern that it did not receive

notice from EPA of the petition, as Sec. 82.184(d)(1) of the SNAP

regulations requires. Although, it is the original submitter of the

substitutes which were the subject of the petition. Additionally, the

commenter notes that the SNAP rule allows EPA to submit the petition

for review by appropriate experts inside and outside EPA prior to

proceeding to a proposed rule. The commenter recommends that EPA should

rely on this provision in the future to engage in technical dialogue

with affected companies and other stakeholders to ensure that any

proposed rule resulting from the petition reflects such technical

input.

In response, EPA regrets any concerns that may have been raised by

the Agency's process in reviewing this petition, and assures the public

that the Agency does not view the petition process as a way for

interested parties to urge changes in SNAP regulatory conditions

without providing sufficient technical justification for those changes.

EPA acknowledges that the Agency failed to formally notify the

commenter upon receipt of the petition, and EPA apologizes for this

failure. EPA notes, however, that the commenter did contact the Agency

to discuss the petition. This initial contact was followed by several

discussions between representatives of EPA and representatives of the

commenter over several months, as well as a letter from the commenter

to EPA discussing the merits of the petition.

Although EPA failed to meet the required notice provision of

Sec. 82.184(d)(1) of the SNAP regulations, the purpose of the notice

requirement-- to provide the opportunity to communicate on the merits

of the petition--was in fact fulfilled. EPA did not deny any

opportunity to the commenter to participate in discussing the merits of

the petition. EPA has placed in the docket for this rulemaking a

description of the contacts between EPA staff and the commenter's staff

on this subject; it is EPA's belief that the commenter fully

participated in the process of commenting on the merits of the

petition.

EPA agrees that in certain cases it may be appropriate to engage in

technical dialogue with affected companies and other stakeholders to

ensure that any proposed rule resulting from a petition reflects such

technical input. However, the Agency notes that the SNAP regulations do

not require such dialogue; rather, the regulations provide EPA with the

discretion to allow internal or external experts an opportunity to

review the petition. The Agency will determine on a case-by-case basis

if and when to seek review by outside experts and whether additional

dialogue with others is appropriate. In addition, Sec. 82.184(d)(5) of

the SNAP regulations requires EPA to follow standard rulemaking

procedures whenever the Agency grants a petition to change an

acceptable listing by imposing or deleting use conditions or limits,

among other actions. Such rulemaking procedures require public notice

and comment, which afford interested parties the opportunity to comment

on the merits of EPA's decision on a petition, or to recommend that EPA

consult with outside experts or others in a particular case. EPA has

followed that process in this case.

In any event, EPA notes that it did engage in dialogue with

stakeholders, including the commenter, on the merits of this petition

prior to publishing the proposed rule, and the description in the

docket explains EPA's contacts with the commenter in this regard.

Further, as described above in discussing its response to the comments

on the substance of the proposed changes, EPA believes there is

sufficient technical justification for these changes, and that the

justification was discussed with affected parties and adequately

explained in the preamble to the proposed rule. Both commenters who

provided written comments on EPA's proposed language, including this

commenter, stated they supported EPA's purpose in clarifying the

language.

b. HFC-236fa

(1) Use Conditions and Limits

EPA proposed various use conditions and use limits for HFC-236fa as

a streaming agent and as a total flooding agent. Many comments objected

to the lack of proposed ``last resort'' use limits to the streaming

agent end-use of HFC-236fa. One commenter also specifically objected to

the lack of proposed ``last resort'' use limits to explosion protection

applications within the total flooding end-use of HFC-236fa. These

comments were based on concerns that since this substitute's global

warming potential (GWP) is high and its atmospheric lifetime is long,

it should be subject to the same ``last resort'' use restrictions in

all end-use categories and applications.

One commenter stated that the GWP of HFC-236fa is between 6,300 and

8,000 and that its atmospheric lifetime is 250 years; others stated

that the GWP of HFC-236fa is more than three times that of HFC-227ea.

For HFC-236fa, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report lists a GWP of

6,300 (on a 100-year basis) not a range from 6,300 to 8,000, and an

atmospheric lifetime of 209 years not 250 years. (Based on information

available at the time, EPA listed the atmospheric lifetime of HFC-236fa

as 250 years in the preamble to the May 21, 1997 proposed rule.) By

comparison, the GWP (on a 100-year basis) for HFC-227ea is listed in

the 1995 IPCC Report as 2,900, which is roughly one-half the listed

value for HFC-236fa.

Several commenters stated that the GWP of HFC-236fa is higher than

those of the PFCs. In fact, the GWP of HFC-236fa for the 100-year time

horizon is comparable to the GWP of many PFCs. This is not the case,

however, when comparisons are made in terms of GWPs integrated over a

longer time horizon that reflects the significantly longer atmospheric

lifetimes of PFCs. Because PFCs have atmospheric lifetimes at least an

order of magnitude longer than HFC-236fa (2,600 to 50,000 years for

PFCs versus 209 years for HFC-236fa), a more relevant comparison is in

terms of

[[Page 22990]]

GWPs integrated over 500 years. As such, the GWP of HFC-236fa for the

500-year time horizon (4700 according to the 1995 IPCC report) is

significantly lower than the 500-year GWP for any of the listed PFCs

(which range between 10,000 and 14,000).

These commenters supported their concerns with both general

statements regarding the need to limit use of greenhouse gases, and

specific statements designed to show that the streaming agent end-use

would be highly emissive, and/or that the streaming agent end-use would

be at least as, if not more, emissive than the total flooding end-use.

The general statements include the following: (a) HFC-236fa is 6,300

times more effective than carbon dioxide in its global warming

potential; (b) HFC-236fa is not a byproduct or feedstock of another

chemical's production, which was the justification for SNAP listing of

HFC-23, another potent greenhouse gas, as a total flooding agent; (c)

the unrestricted use of HFC-236fa as a streaming agent is tantamount to

a decision to do nothing about global warming; and (d) the unrestricted

use of HFC-236fa contradicts President Clinton's 1993 Climate Change

Action Plan (CCAP), which directs EPA (in Action 40) to reduce the use

of greenhouse gases as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.

EPA appreciates the concerns for both global warming potential and

atmospheric lifetime. EPA does not disagree with the first two general

statements regarding the potency of HFC-236fa as a greenhouse gas and

this agent's lack of status as a byproduct or feedstock in another

chemical process.

With respect to the final two general statements, EPA disagrees

that the lack of ``last resort'' restrictions on HFC-236fa in its use

as a streaming agent is tantamount to a decision to do nothing about

global warming, and that it contradicts Action 40 of the CCAP. In

discussing HFCs generally as a halon substitute in the preamble to the

original SNAP rule (59 FR 13100), EPA noted that, because HFCs can

contribute to global warming, they are included in the CCAP, and EPA is

directed to limit uses of gases with high global warming potentials as

substitutes for ozone-depleting substances where better substitutes

exist. EPA noted further that, because EPA is simultaneously also

interested in promoting the broader shift away from ozone-depleting

substances, any limits on use will be imposed in ways that preserve as

much flexibility as possible for those trying to move to alternatives.

EPA evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework in

order to fulfill both the mandate under Clean Air Act section 612 to

identify alternatives to ozone-depleting substances which reduce

overall risk to human health and the environment, and the President's

direction under the CCAP. In evaluating a potential substitute by

comparing risks, EPA compares the substitute to the original ODS it

would replace and to other substitutes by use. Although it may be

desirable to compare restrictions between end-uses such as streaming

agents and total flooding agents, EPA's SNAP determinations require a

relative comparison among all substitutes available for a particular

end-use, as well as to the original ODS, at the time the comparison is

made. See discussion in the preamble to the original SNAP rule, 59 FR

13044 (March 18, 1994), at pages 13046 and 13067-13069.

Thus, in evaluating the use of HFC-236fa as a streaming agent, EPA

compared its use to that of other SNAP-listed and proposed streaming

agent substitutes currently available. Of clean agent substitutes for

Halon 1211, there are no commercially available alternatives for

general fire protection use with both zero ozone depletion potential

and low toxicity. HFC-236fa meets these criteria and thus can serve a

unique role as a streaming agent, aiding in the transition from halons.

Although some of the commercially available streaming agent substitutes

which are not clean agents have no ozone depletion potential and are

low in toxicity, they are not as widely applicable as halocarbon clean

agent alternatives and thus are not suitable for general fire

protection use.

EPA made a similar comparison of SNAP-listed and proposed halon

substitutes which are commercially available in the total flooding

agent end-use. By contrast to the streaming agent end-use, there are

commercially available clean agent alternatives in the flooding agent

end-use for general fire suppression which have both zero ozone

depletion potential and low toxicity, such as HFC-227ea and the inert

gases. In the explosion protection application, however, which is a

type of total flooding use, the required design concentration is much

higher than for general fire suppression. As a practical matter, this

eliminates most of the SNAP-listed total flooding clean agent

substitutes for use in explosion protection except for HFC-23 and the

PFCs, some of which have even higher GWPs, and all of which have longer

atmospheric lifetimes, than that of HFC-236fa. By comparison to the

commercially available clean agent substitutes, HFC-236fa can serve a

unique role in the explosion protection application of the total

flooding agent end-use, but not in the general fire suppression

applications of this end-use.

Responses are given below to each of the specific comments that

emissions from streaming end-uses are high and are at least as great,

if not greater, compared to total flooding end-uses. EPA notes that

most of these statements were made without any specific supporting

data.

(a) Expected discharge in a streaming application would be greater

than if used in a flooding system.

As noted previously, EPA's SNAP determinations require a relative

comparison among all substitutes available for a particular end-use, as

well as to the original ODS, at the time the comparison is made.

Nevertheless, streaming agent uses in fire extinguishers, whether

handheld, wheeled, or vehicular, typically use many fewer pounds of

agent than total flooding systems, which are piped into an enclosed

space to flood the enclosure upon discharge. One would expect,

therefore, that discharges from streaming applications would be less

per discharge than those from a flooding system. It is not clear

whether the commenters who claimed that ``expected discharge in a

streaming application would be greater than if used in a flooding

system'' (without any supporting data) meant discharges per unit or

total discharges, which would require data on the total number of units

in each end-use and/or the rates of discharge for each end-use.

(b) Both streaming and flooding systems are intended to be

discharged, and are not closed systems.

EPA notes that all fire extinguishing uses are emissive by their

nature, even though the cylinder or container which holds the agent is

a ``closed system'' in the sense that the chemical is contained in

equipment that precludes full emission unless emission is triggered. In

order to extinguish a fire, however, the agent must be emitted from its

container.

The emission of fire extinguishing agents is usually only done in

case of fire, a life-threatening emergency. Other possible sources of

emissions are leakage, accidental discharge, maintenance losses during

servicing, and discharge during testing and training. EPA estimates the

total amount of losses for leakage and discharges other than for fire

protection is less than 5% per year. Of this amount, virtually none is

due to testing and training. In response to the phaseout of halon and

[[Page 22991]]

concerns over atmospheric impacts of both halon and halocarbon

substitutes, the fire protection community has greatly decreased the

use of fire extinguishing agents in testing and training (formerly the

single largest use of halon fire extinguishers). There is also a

financial incentive to conserve halocarbon fire extinguishing agents

which serve as clean agent substitutes for halon because they are more

expensive than traditional fire extinguishing agents such as dry

chemical and foam.

(c) Portable fire extinguishers are more numerous than flooding

systems, and are discharged more often.

EPA has no data on the number of portable fire extinguishers versus

flooding systems, nor on relative discharge rates of portables versus

flooding systems. No data were offered by the commenters who claimed

portables are more numerous, and are discharged more often. EPA

believes that this type of comparison is not relevant to the risk

comparison of particular substitutes within a particular end-use, but

EPA refers to its earlier estimate of 5% total losses (not related to

fire suppression) from all fire extinguishers as support for the

statement that non-emergency emissions of halocarbon fire extinguishing

agents in both streaming agent and total flooding agent end-uses is

relatively small.

(d) This agent should be restricted to the ``original design

concept'' of a closed system such as refrigeration substitutes for CFC-

114 in heat pumps, which are subject to venting prohibitions.

This comment reflects concern about possible emissions from any

fire extinguishing system, whether streaming or flooding. As noted

above, fire extinguishing systems are by nature emissive but serve a

valuable purpose in preventing or mitigating danger to human health and

property. Fire extinguisher emission rates are relatively low and, when

balanced against the risks of fire emergencies, are extremely valuable.

Comparing refrigeration uses to fire suppression uses is not relevant

to the risk comparison of particular fire suppression substitutes

within a particular end-use. Previous decisions in another SNAP

industrial sector are not relevant to decisions in a different SNAP

industrial sector, just as decisions for a particular end-use within a

single sector are not relevant to a different end-use in the same

sector.

(e) This agent has a lower weight equivalence to Halon 1301 than to

Halon 1211, is more effective as a Halon 1301 substitute than as a

Halon 1211 substitute, and is probably more efficient as a flooding

agent than as a streaming agent.

Weight equivalence relates the number of pounds of substitute

required to replace each pound of halon to achieve the same fire

extinguishing capability. A substitute's weight equivalence to halon is

not the only measure of a substitute's efficiency or effectiveness in

extinguishing fires. A substitute's extinguishing (or design)

concentration is important as well as its storage volume equivalence to

halon. Additional factors, which would be tested in full-scale

performance fire testing by independent testing laboratories in order

to rate particular products, include the extinguisher configurations,

pressurization, nozzle and valve assembly as well as other

characteristics. EPA notes that several portable fire extinguishing

products using this agent have received performance ratings from an

independent testing laboratory which could not have happened without

satisfactory performance test results. These commenters provided no

further information to support their statements that this agent may be

more efficient and more effective as a replacement for halon 1301 in

flooding systems than as a replacement for halon 1211 as a streaming

agent. EPA is not aware of any evidence to support these statements.

Nevertheless, EPA notes that the reported weight equivalencies in

the preamble to the proposed rule were based on information in the SNAP

submission, which has become outdated due to further commercial

development of portable fire extinguishing equipment using this agent

as a replacement for halon 1211. EPA requested and obtained current

information from the system designer regarding this agent's weight

equivalence to halon 1211, and has placed in the public docket for this

rulemaking the memo from the system designer providing this

information, as well as information from Underwriters Laboratories,

Inc., showing its current listing information for portable fire

extinguishing products containing this agent.

The commenters are correct in identifying the weight equivalence of

this agent to halon 1211 as 2.4 in the portable fire extinguishing

product containing 6.0 pounds of this agent, since it apparently

replaced a product with equivalent fire extinguishment ratings

containing 2.5 pounds of halon 1211. However, there are three other

sizes of portable extinguishers containing this agent which have weight

equivalencies to halon 1211 ranging from 1.08 to 2.15. The product with

6.0 pounds of this agent, although it is still listed by UL, has been

replaced by the system designer with a product containing 4.75 pounds

of this agent, with the same UL rating, resulting in a weight

equivalence to halon 1211 of 2.15. Thus, this agent's weight

equivalence to halon 1211 currently ranges from 1.08 to 2.15, rather

than a range of 1.1 to 1.5 as indicated in the preamble to the proposed

rule.

Even if this agent's efficiency and effectiveness as a halon

replacement were in doubt, these characteristics are not the only

factors involved in making a SNAP determination on the substitute's

acceptability. As stated in the preamble to the original SNAP rule, at

59 FR 13101 (March 18, 1994), EPA believes that efficacy of a

substitute is a consideration in decision making in the fire

suppression sector in order to help assess the risks of using a

substitute, its health effects, and its potential to fill various niche

markets. However, this is only one of many characteristics of a

substitute that are evaluated in making a SNAP determination which

fulfills the section 612 mandate to ``reduce overall risk to human

health and the environment.'' See discussion in preamble to the

original SNAP rule, 59 FR 13044 (March 18, 1994) at pages 13054-13056,

and at pages 13068-13069, for more information on the characteristics

to be evaluated.

(f) Since there are fewer limits on testing and training for

streaming agents, and more testing and training is done with portable

fire extinguishers than with flooding systems, the discussion in the

preamble regarding the need to minimize emissions during such

activities should be equally as strict for streaming agent uses as for

total flooding agent uses.

EPA agrees that the discussion in the preamble regarding the need

to minimize emissions during testing and training should be equally as

strict for streaming agents as for total flooding agents; these two

discussions in the preamble to the final rule are now the same. EPA

notes that it has no information to support or oppose the statements

made by these commenters that there are fewer limits on testing and

training for streaming agents, and that more testing and training is

done with portable fire extinguishers than with flooding systems.

(2) Use in Local Application Systems

Under the SNAP program, halon substitutes have been categorized as

either those used in streaming applications (manually dispensed from

[[Page 22992]]

a hand-held or portable fire extinguisher), or in total flooding and

explosion protection applications (a predetermined quantity of the gas

is dispensed into an enclosed space and maintained at a certain

concentration for a period of time throughout the entire protected

space). Another well-recognized type of fire protection product,

referred to as ``local application'' or ``pre-engineered'' local

application extinguishing systems, is not clearly considered either a

streaming agent system or a total flooding agent system. Local

application extinguishers are designed to release a set amount of an

extinguishing agent from a fixed nozzle or nozzles directly onto

burning material. They have been used to provide fire protection for

specialized industrial uses such as textile processing machinery.

The Agency received several comments, discussed below, that HFC-

236fa be listed acceptable for use in a newly created category of local

application or pre-engineered systems. Elsewhere in today's action,

HFC-236fa is being listed as acceptable for use as a substitute for

halon 1211 and halon 1301 in fire suppression and explosion protection;

the Agency does not believe it is necessary or appropriate at this

time, however, to designate under SNAP a new category of fire

protection specifically for local application systems.

Although the vast majority of fire protection systems using halon

and halon substitutes can be classified as streaming agents or total

flooding agent systems, the local application systems defy easy

classification in either category. Unlike total flooding systems, they

are not designed to distribute the extinguishing agent evenly at a

specific design concentration maintained throughout the entire volume

of the protected space and, unlike streaming agents, they are not

designed to allow a person to manipulate the discharge direction or

quantity of the extinguishing agent. Local application or pre-

engineered systems are mentioned in and may be subject to parts of

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards which apply to

total flooding systems (NFPA 12, 12A, and 2001, for example). However,

as mentioned by two commenters referred to below, local application

systems primarily use halon 1211 (which is more commonly associated

with streaming agents), rather than halon 1301 (which is more commonly

associated with total flooding agents), as the fire extinguishant.

Five commenters urged EPA to list HFC-236fa acceptable for use in a

third, distinct category--``local application'' systems. Three of the

five commenters specifically urged acceptability of this agent as a

replacement for halon 1211 in local application systems; two of these

three commenters specifically urged acceptability of this agent as a

replacement for halon 1211 in textile process machinery, and indicated

that this type of use could be considered a streaming agent

application.

The remaining two commenters urged EPA to list HFC-236fa acceptable

for use in local application systems as a replacement for either halon

1211 or halon 1301. One of these commenters urged EPA to create an

additional category for ``pre-engineered systems'' or ``local

application systems'' or ``pre-engineered local application systems,''

which would be distinct from engineered total flooding systems.

The other commenter urged that EPA list HFC-236fa acceptable for

use in local application systems as a type of streaming agent

application, presumably as a replacement for halon 1211, and acceptable

for use in local application systems as a type of total flooding agent

application, presumably as a replacement for halon 1301. This commenter

specifically urged EPA to consider such local application uses in the

total flooding agent category as ``without prejudice'' (similar to the

proposal for use in explosion suppression and explosion inertion

applications in the total flooding agent category) and therefore not

subject to the ``last resort'' restrictions which EPA proposed for

general fire suppression applications in the total flooding agent

category.

Based on the description from the commenters of local application

systems generally, and local application systems for textile process

machinery specifically, neither of EPA's existing risk assessment

methodologies for halon substitutes are relevant to local application

systems. The existing methodology for evaluating end-use exposure to

streaming agent substitutes assumes the discharged extinguishing agent

will be completely released into the protected space immediately

following its discharge, resulting in a high concentration of

extinguishing agent which eventually disperses throughout the space at

lower concentrations. Local application systems for textile process

machinery, by contrast, discharge the extinguishing agent at a very

high concentration into the localized protected space, inside the

machinery. The extinguishing agent is eventually released outside the

machinery by dissipating into the rest of the space where the machinery

is located. In neither case is there an alarm before discharge or is

the extinguishing concentration maintained at a constant level in an

enclosed space as for total flooding systems.

EPA's evaluation of the characteristics of local application

systems, particularly in the case of textile process machinery (which

is the only case presented to EPA with actual design specifications for

use of this agent in a local application system) shows that exposure

patterns for this type of use are more similar to streaming agents than

total flooding agent systems. Evaluating the exposure risk of persons

who are near the textile process machinery when a local application

system is discharged requires modifying the streaming agent methodology

to account for the different rate of release of the extinguishing

agent. Based on relevant system and exposure specifications provided by

one of the commenters, EPA has made these modifications. The Agency's

analyses project that local application extinguishing systems using

HFC-236fa located inside textile process machinery would maintain

worker exposures below the cardiotoxicity NOAEL and LOAEL

concentrations.

In summary, EPA agrees with the suggestion of some of the

commenters that the use of HFC-236fa in local application systems

inside textile process machinery as a replacement for halon 1211 is

covered by the acceptability listing of this agent in the streaming

agent end-use. Local application systems other than those used inside

textile process machinery are not included in the streaming agent end-

use since EPA's review is based solely on the specifications for such

systems in textile process machinery. Thus, EPA rejects suggestions by

some of the commenters that this agent be listed acceptable as a

replacement for halon 1211 in local application systems generally.

Since EPA has no specific information on the potential use of this

agent in local application systems as a replacement for halon 1301, and

since the methodology for evaluating exposure to total flooding agents

is not appropriate for the textile processing machinery system, EPA

does not agree that local application systems using this agent as a

replacement for halon 1301 are covered by the total flooding agent end-

use. Thus, EPA is rejecting suggestions by some of the commenters that

this agent be listed acceptable as a replacement for halon 1301 in

local application systems, either as a separate end-use or as part of

the total flooding

[[Page 22993]]

end-use. EPA welcomes information about potential uses of this agent

and other halon substitutes in local application systems as a

replacement for either halon 1211 or halon 1301, and may consider

creating a separate end-use for local application extinguishing systems

in the future. EPA notes the potential for environmental benefit if

more use is made of these systems since they may require relatively

small amounts of extinguishing agent and pose less risk of occupational

exposure than other types of fire extinguishing systems, such as total

flooding systems.

(3) ``Grandfathering'' Existing Uses of HFC-236fa

One commenter took issue with the following paragraph, which

appeared in Section III.D.3 of the preamble to the proposed rule and

was incorporated by reference in the proposed listing of HFC-236fa

acceptable subject to use conditions in the total flooding agent end-

use:

``In the event of the development of acceptable alternatives

which EPA finds should not only replace halon 1301 and HFC-236fa in

new systems, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only to the

extent warranted by cost and timing as outlined in the original SNAP

rule discussion of grandfathering of unacceptable substitutes (59 FR

13057).''

The commenter requested that this paragraph be modified and

relocated. The commenter believes that such discussion is inappropriate

when specifically isolated to comments about one particular substitute;

to the extent this may be consistent with EPA's mandate under the Act,

the commenter states it should be clear to potential end-users that the

comments apply to all alternatives or to all members of a defined class

of alternatives.

EPA has included similar language in the preamble discussion of

specific listings of substitutes in previous rulemakings. (See

discussion of PFCs as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in the

Solvents sector in the original SNAP rule (March 18, 1994) at 59 FR

13095-13096). This commenter suggests this statement by EPA is

consistent with the scope of EPA's authority to permit the continuation

of activities otherwise restricted where the balance of equities

supports such grandfathering. See discussion in the preamble of the

original SNAP rule (59 FR 13057).

EPA believes, since this language is merely a statement of the

Agency's authority and not a stated intention to take such action, it

is appropriate to include this statement in discussion of listings of

any substitute, even if this statement is not included in its

discussion of listings of all substitutes in a particular rulemaking.

EPA can use its grandfathering authority, within the limits described

above, any time it changes a listing of a substitute. EPA did not

intend, however, to create confusion by including this language in the

listing of this particular substitute alone; thus, EPA is deleting any

reference in this final rule to potential grandfathering in this sector

and refers end-users to the discussion of grandfathering in the

original SNAP rule as described above.

c. Unrelated Issues

EPA received one letter with comments purportedly relating to this

proposal but which actually are unrelated. This commenter asked that

EPA modify the use conditions and/or change to unacceptable several

halon substitutes currently listed as acceptable by SNAP. Since none of

these listings was proposed to be changed in this rulemaking, the

comments are not relevant to this final rule. In any event, the

commenter did not provide adequate information to justify re-opening

the listings which were made through notice-and-comment rulemakings in

the past. A more complete discussion of this comment and EPA's response

is contained in the Supplemental Response to Comments which is

available in the public docket for this rulemaking.

d. Chlorobromomethane

As described in the response to comments received under the

Solvents; Aerosols; and Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks sectors, EPA

received several comments on its proposal listing of chlorobromomethane

as unacceptable in those sectors. The same comments apply to the

proposed listing of CBM as unacceptable in the total flooding end-use

in the Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection sector with respect to

its ozone depletion potential. See the discussion of the ODP of CBM

under the solvents section, II.C.3. Specific information related to

flooding systems is discussed under the unacceptable determination for

CBM, II.D.3.

E. Aerosols

1. Acceptable Substitutes

a. Solvents

(1) HFC-4310mee

HFC-4310mee is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl

chloroform (MCF) in aerosols. For further information, see the

discussion of HFC-4310mee in section II.C.1 above in the metals

cleaning end-use within the solvents cleaning sector.

(2) HCFC-225 ca/cb

HCFC-225 ca/cb is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl

chloroform (MCF) in aerosols. HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered as a 45%-

ca/55%-cb blend. The company-set exposure limit for the -ca isomer is

25 ppm. The company-set exposure limit for the -cb isomer is 250 ppm.

Based on the results of exposure assessment studies, it is EPA's

opinion that companies can meet the 25 ppm limit of the HCFC-225 ca

isomer in defluxing and cleaning providing that the standard operating

procedures and employee work habits are conducted in accordance with

the procedures specified in the product safety information provided by

the chemical manufacturer.

2. Unacceptable

a. Chlorobromomethane

Chlorobromomethane is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113,

methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in aerosols. See the discussion of CBM

in section II.C.2 above in the metals cleaning end-use within the

solvents cleaning sector.

3. Response to Comments

EPA incorporates by reference the response to comments on

chlorobromomethane in the solvents cleaning sector, II.C.3.

F. Adhesives, coatings, and inks

1. Unacceptable

a. Chlorobromomethane

Chlorobromomethane is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113,

methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in adhesives, coatings and inks. See

the discussion of CBM in section II.C.2 above in the metals cleaning

end-use within the solvents cleaning sector.

2. Response to Comments

EPA incorporates by reference the response to comments on

chlorobromomethane in the solvents cleaning sector, II.C.3.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

[[Page 22994]]

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter

the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)

raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA

that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the

meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations

have been documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded

Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the

Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires

the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule. Section 204 requires the Agency to

develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal government

officials to provide input in the development of any action containing

a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate. Under section 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule

for which a budgetary impact statement is prepared. The Agency must

select from those alternatives the least costly, most cost-effective,

or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the

rule, unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected

or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.

Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure

by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less

than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a

budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.

Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan

with regard to small governments. Finally, because this FRM does not

contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not

required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state,

local, and tribal officials.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This rule would not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because costs of the SNAP

requirements as a whole are expected to be minor. In fact, this rule

offers regulatory relief to small businesses by providing alternatives

to phased-out ozone-depleting substances. EPA has determined that it is

not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in

connection with this final rule. The actions herein may well provide

benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential substitutes

to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they may be

using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such

substitutes available. Therefore, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has determined that this final rule contains no information

requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., that are not already approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). OMB has reviewed and approved two Information Collection

Requests (ICRs) by EPA which are described in the March 18, 1994

rulemaking (59 FR 13044, at 13121, 13146-13147) and in the October 16,

1996 rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at 54038-54039). These ICRs included five

types of respondent reporting and record-keeping activities pursuant to

SNAP regulations: submission of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA

Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, record-keeping for

substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, and record-

keeping for small volume uses. The OMB Control Numbers are 2060-0226

and 2060-0350.

E. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

F. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks''

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies

to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''

as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health

or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or

safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is

not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the

Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or

safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk

to children, as the exposure limits and acceptability listings in this

final rule primarily apply to the workplace.

G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

[[Page 22995]]

costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the

nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the

governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian

Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments, because this regulation

applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to

governmental entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA), section 12(d), Public Law 104-113, requires federal agencies

and departments to use technical standards that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical

standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities

determined by the agencies and departments. If use of such technical

standards is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical,

a federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards

that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards

bodies if the head of the agency or department transmits to the Office

of Management and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such

standards. This rule does not mandate the use of any technical

standards; accordingly, the NTTAA does not apply to this rule.

IV. Additional Information

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional

information on SNAP, contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-

800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m. (EST).

For more information on the Agency's process for administering the

SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the

SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,

1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as

well as EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are

available from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at ``http://

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/'' and from the Stratospheric Protection

Hotline number as listed above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 21, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Note: The following Table 1 will not appear in the Code of

Federal Regulations.

Table 1: Summary of Acceptable Decisions

Solvents Cleaning--Acceptable Subsitutes

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

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

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

Metals cleaning w/CFC-113..... HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average

workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,

and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400

ppm.

Metals cleaning w/MCF......... HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average

workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm

and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400

ppm.

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

Aerosols--Acceptable Substitutes

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

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

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

Solvent in aerosols w/CFC-113. HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average

workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,

and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400

ppm.

Solvent in aerosols w/MCF..... HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average

workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,

and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400

ppm.

Solvent in aerosols w/CFC-113. HCFC-225ca/cb.... Acceptable....... Company-set time weighted average exposure

limit of 25 ppm for the HCFC-225 ca

isomer.

Solvent in aerosols w/MCF..... HCFC-225ca/cb.... Acceptable....... Company-set time weighted average exposure

limit of 25 ppm for the HCFC-225 ca

isomer.

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

[[Page 22996]]

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

as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

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

as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix H to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions

and Unacceptable Substitutes, Effective May 28, 1999.

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

Retrofit and New

Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings

(a) All fittings for alternative motor vehicle refrigerants must

meet the following requirements:

(1) high-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must differ

from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, including

CFC-12, and from low-side screw-on fittings for CFC-12;

(2) low-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must differ

from low-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, including

CFC-12;

(3) high-side screw-on fittings for a given refrigerant must differ

from low-side screw-on fittings for that refrigerant, to protect

against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure one;

(4) high-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must

differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other

refrigerants, including CFC-12 (if they exist);

(5) low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must

differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants,

including CFC-12 (if they exist);

(6) high-side quick-connect fittings for a given refrigerant must

differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for that refrigerant, to

protect against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure

one;

(7) for each type of container, the fitting for each refrigerant

must differ from the fitting for that type of container for all other

refrigerants, including CFC-12.

(b) For screw-on fittings, ``differ'' means that either the

diameter must differ by at least \1/16\ inch or the thread direction

must be reversed (i.e. right-handed vs. left-handed). Simply changing

the thread pitch is not sufficient. For quick-connect fittings,

``differ'' means that a person using normal force and normal tools

(including wrenches) must not be able to cross-connect fittings.

(c) The sole exception to the \1/16\ inch difference requirement is

the difference between the small can fittings for GHG-X4 and R-406A.

The GHG-X4 small can fitting uses a metric measurement, and is slightly

less than \1/16\ inch larger than the small can fitting for R-406A. EPA

has concluded that these fittings will not cross-connect, and therefore

they may be used.

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Unacceptable Substitutes

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

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

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

All HCFC-22 end-uses, retrofit NARM-22.......... Unacceptable..... This blend contains HCFC-22, and it is

and new. inappropriate to use such a blend as a

substitute for HCFC-22. In addition, this

blend contains HFC-23, which has an

extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other

substitutes for HCFC-22 exist that do not

contain either HCFC-22 or HFC-23.

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

Solvents Cleaning--Unacceptable Substitutes

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

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

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

Metals, Electronic, and Chlorobromo- Unacceptable..... Other alternatives exist with zero or much

Precision cleaning with CFC- methane. lower ODP.

113, methyl chloroform, and

HCFC-141b.

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

[[Page 22997]]

Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

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

End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

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

Halon 1301 replacement............. C3F8 Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other For occupied areas from which personnel cannot The comparative design

alternatives are not technically feasible due be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted concentration based on cup

to performance or safety requirements: only up to concentrations not exceeding the burner values is

(a) because of their physical or chemical cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30%; Although no approximately 8.8%. Users

properties, or LOAEL has been established for this product, should observe the

(b) where human exposure to the extinguishing standard OSHA requirements apply, i.e., for limitations on PFC

agents may result in failure to meet occupied areas from which personnel can be acceptability by taking the

applicable use conditions evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and following measures:

60 seconds, use is permitted up to a (i) conduct an evaluation of

concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. foreseeable conditions of end-

All personnel must be evacuated before use;

concentration of C3F8 exceeds 30%. (ii) determine that the

Design concentration must result in oxygen physical or chemical

levels of at least 16%. properties or other technical

See additional comment 5 constraints of the other

available agents preclude

their use; and

(iii) determine that human

exposure to the other

alternative extinguishing

agents may result in failure

to meet applicable use

conditions.

Documentation of such measures

should be available for

review upon request.

The principal environmental

characteristic of concern for

PFCs is that they have high

GWPs and long atmospheric

lifetimes. Actual

contributions to global

warming depend upon the

quantities of PFCs emitted.

For additional guidance

regarding applications in

which PFCs may be

appropriate, users should

consult the description of

potential uses which is

included in the March 18,

1994 final rule (59 FR

13044.)

See additional comments 1, 2,

3, 4.

[[Page 22998]]

Halon 1301 replacement............. C4F10 Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other For occupied areas from which personnel cannot The comparative design

alternatives are not technically feasible due be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted concentration based on cup

to performance or safety requirements: only up to concentrations not exceeding the burner values is

(a) because of their physical or chemical cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40%; approximately 6.6%. Users

properties, or Although no LOAEL has been established for should observe the

(b) where human exposure to the extinguishing this product, standard OSHA requirements limitations on PFC

agents may result in failure to meet apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which acceptability by taking the

applicable use conditions personnel can be evacuated or egress can following measures:

occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is (i) conduct an evaluation of

permitted up to a concentration not exceeding foreseeable conditions of end-

the LOAEL. use;

All personnel must be evacuated before (ii) determine that the

concentration of C4F10 exceeds 40%. physical or chemical

Design concentration must result in oxygen properties or other technical

levels of at least 16%. constraints of the other

See additional comment 5 available agents preclude

their use; and

(iii) determine that human

exposure to the other

alternative extinguishing

agents may result in failure

to meet applicable use

conditions.

Documentation of such measures

should be available for

review upon request.

The principal environmental

characteristic of concern for

PFCs is that they have high

GWPs and long atmospheric

lifetimes. Actual

contributions to global

warming depend upon the

quantities of PFCs emitted.

For additional guidance

regarding applications in

which PFCs may be

appropriate, users should

consult the description of

potential uses which is

included in the March 18,

1994 final rule (59 FR

13044.)

See additional comments 1, 2,

3, 4.

Halon 1301 replacement............. HFC-236fa Acceptable when manufactured using any process For occupied areas from which personnel cannot The comparative design

that does not convert perfluoroiso-butylene be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted concentration based on cup

(PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single only up to concentrations not exceeding the burner values is

step: cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 10%; approximately 6.4%. Users

--for use in explosion suppression and For occupied areas from which personnel can be should observe the

explosion inertion applications, and evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and limitations on HFC-236fa

--for use in fire suppression applications 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a acceptability by taking the

where other non-PFC agents or alternatives concentration not exceeding the LOAEL of 15%; following measures:

are not technically feasible due to All personnel must be evacuated before (i) conduct an evaluation of

performance or safety requirements: concentration of HFC-236fa exceeds 15%. foreseeable conditions of end-

(a) because of their physical or chemical Design concentration must result in oxygen use;

properties, or levels of at least 16%. (ii) determine that the

(b) where human exposure to the extinguishing See additional comment 5 physical or chemical

agents may result in failure to meet properties or other technical

applicable use conditions constraints of the other

available agents preclude

their use; and

(iii) determine that human

exposure to the other

alternative extinguishing

agents may result in failure

to meet applicable use

conditions.

Documentation of such measures

should be available for

review upon request.

Feasible for use in a normally

occupied area.

See additional comments 1, 2,

3, 4.

Additional comments

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

1--Should conform with OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.

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

3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.

4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.

[[Page 22999]]

5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication,

worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon substitutes.

Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits--

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

End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

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

Halon 1301 replacement.......... C3F8 Acceptable for For occupied areas from which personnel The comparative design

nonresidential uses cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is concentration based on cup

where other permitted only up to concentrations not burner values is

alternatives are not exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30%; approximately 8.8%. Users

technically feasible Although no LOAEL has been established for should observe the

due to performance or this product, standard OSHA requirements limitations on PFC

safety requirements: apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which acceptability by taking

(a) because of their personnel can be evacuated or egress can the following measures:

physical or chemical occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is (i) conduct an evaluation

properties, or (b) permitted up to a concentration not of foreseeable conditions

where human exposure to exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be of end-use; (ii) determine

the extinguishing evacuated before concentration of C3F8 that the physical or

agents may result in exceeds 30%. Design concentration must chemical properties or

failure to meet result in oxygen levels of at least 16%. other technical

applicable use See additional comment 5 constraints of the other

conditions available agents preclude

their use; and (iii)

determine that human

exposure to the other

alternative extinguishing

agents may result in

failure to meet applicable

use conditions.

Documentation of such

measures should be

available for review upon

request. The principal

environmental

characteristic of concern

for PFCs is that they have

high GWPs and long

atmospheric lifetimes.

Actual contributions to

global warming depend upon

the quantities of PFCs

emitted. For additional

guidance regarding

applications in which PFCs

may be appropriate, users

should consult the

description of potential

uses which is included in

the March 18, 1994 final

rule (59 FR 13044.) See

additional comments 1, 2,

3, 4.

Halon 1301 replacement.......... C4F10 Acceptable for For occupied areas from which personnel The comparative design

nonresidential uses cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is concentration based on cup

where other permitted only up to concentrations not burner values is

alternatives are not exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40%; approximately 6.6%. Users

technically feasible Although no LOAEL has been established for should observe the

due to performance or this product, standard OSHA requirements limitations on PFC

safety requirements: apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which acceptability by taking

(a) because of their personnel can be evacuated or egress can the following measures:

physical or chemical occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is (i) conduct an evaluation

properties, or (b) permitted up to a concentration not of foreseeable conditions

where human exposure to exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be of end-use; (ii) determine

the extinguishing evacuated before concentration of C4F10 that the physical or

agents may result in exceeds 40%. Design concentration must chemical properties or

failure to meet result in oxygen levels of at least 16%. other technical

applicable use See additional comment 5 constraints of the other

conditions available agents preclude

their use; and (iii)

determine that human

exposure to the other

alternative extinguishing

agents may result in

failure to meet applicable

use conditions.

Documentation of such

measures should be

available for review upon

request. The principal

environmental

characteristic of concern

for PFCs is that they have

high GWPs and long

atmospheric lifetimes.

Actual contributions to

global warming depend upon

the quantities of PFCs

emitted. For additional

guidance regarding

applications in which PFCs

may be appropriate, users

should consult the

description of potential

uses which is included in

the March 18, 1994 Final

Rule (59 FR 13044.) See

additional comments 1, 2,

3, 4.

[[Page 23000]]

Halon 1301 replacement.......... HFC-236fa Acceptable when For occupied areas from which personnel The comparative design

manufactured using any cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is concentration based on cup

process that does not permitted only up to concentrations not burner values is

convert perfluoroiso- exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 10%; approximately 6.4%. Users

butylene (PFIB) For occupied areas from which personnel can should observe the

directly to HFC-236fa be evacuated or egress can occur between 30 limitations on HFC-236fa

in a single step: -for and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a acceptability by taking

use in explosion concentration not exceeding the LOAEL of the following measures:

suppression and 15%; All personnel must be evacuated before (i) conduct an evaluation

explosion inertion concentration of HFC-236fa exceeds 15%. of foreseeable conditions

applications, and -for Design concentration must result in oxygen of end-use; (ii) determine

use in fire suppression levels of at least 16%. See additional that the physical or

applications where comment 5 chemical properties or

other non-PFC agents or other technical

alternatives are not constraints of the other

technically feasible available agents preclude

due to performance or their use; and (iii)

safety requirements: determine that human

(a) because of their exposure to the other

physical or chemical alternative extinguishing

properties, or (b) agents may result in

where human exposure to failure to meet applicable

the extinguishing use conditions.

agents may result in Documentation of such

failure to meet measures should be

applicable use available for review upon

conditions request. Feasible for use

in a normally occupied

area. See additional

comments 1, 2, 3, 4.

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

Additional comments:

\1\ Should conform with OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.

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

\3\ Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.

\4\ The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.

\5\ EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),

fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon

substitutes.

[[Page 23001]]

Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Streaming Agents--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

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

End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

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

Halon 1211......................... C6F14 Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other .............................................. Users should observe the

replacement........................ alternatives are not technically feasible due limitations on PFC

to performance or safety requirements: (a) acceptability by taking the

because of their physical or chemical following measures: (i)

properties, or (b) where human exposure to conduct an evaluation of

the extinguishing agents may result in foreseeable conditions of end-

failure to meet applicable use conditions. use; (ii) determine that the

physical or chemical

properties or other technical

constraints of the other

available agents preclude

their use; and (iii)

determine that human exposure

to the other alternative

extinguishing agents may

result in failure to meet

applicable use conditions

Documentation of such

measures should be available

for review upon request. The

principal environmental

characteristic of concern for

PFCs is that they have high

GWPs and long atmospheric

lifetimes. Actual

contributions to global

warming depend upon the

quantities of PFCs emitted.

For additional guidance

regarding applications in

which PFCs may be

appropriate, users should

consult the description of

potential uses which is

included in the March 18,

1994 Final Rule (59 FR

13044.) See comments 1, 2.

Halon 1211 replacement............. HFC-236fa Acceptable in nonresidential uses when .............................................. See comments 1, 2, 3.

manufactured using any process that does not

convert perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly

to HFC-236fa in a single step

Halon 1211 replacement............. HFC-227ea Acceptable in nonresidential uses only .............................................. See comments 1, 2.

Additiona

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.