                  Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Foam-Blowing Sector
Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-141b, and HCFC-22 in Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock; Rigid Polyurethane Appliance, Commercial Refrigeration, Spray, and Slabstock; Integral Skin Polyurethane
 Substitute: Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This risk screen does not contain Clean Air Act (CAA) Confidential Business Information (CBI) and, therefore, may be disclosed to the public.
INTRODUCTION
Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are being phased out of production in response to a series of diplomatic and legislative efforts that have taken place over the past two decades, including the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as authorized by Section 612 of the CAAA, administers the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, which identifies acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for ODS in specific end-uses based on assessment of their health and environmental impacts.
EPA's decision on the acceptability of a substitute is based on the findings of a screening assessment of potential human health and environmental risks posed by the substitute in specific applications.  EPA has already screened a large number of substitutes in many end-uses within all of the major ODS-using sectors, including refrigeration and air conditioning, solvent cleaning, foam blowing, aerosols, fire suppression, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilization. The results of these risk screens are presented in a series of Background Documents that are available in EPA's docket.
The purpose of this risk screen is to supplement EPA's Background Document on the foam blowing sector (EPA 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Background Document). This risk screen evaluates the potential use of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (also know as (E) 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene and hereinafter referred to as Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E)) as a substitute for CFC-11, HCFC-141b, and HCFC-22 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; rigid polyurethane appliance, commercial refrigeration, spray, and slabstock; and integral skin polyurethane. Table 1 presents information on the proposed substitute.
                 Table 1. Composition of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E)
                                  Constituent
                               Chemical Formula
                                  CAS Number
                               Percent of Total
                                (by weight)[a]
                   trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene
                                   C3H2ClF3
                                  102687-65-0
                                    >99%
                 Potential Impurities (maximum concentration)

The potential risks associated with use of foam blowing agents have been examined at length in the Background Document.  The reader is referred to this reference for a detailed discussion of the methodologies used to conduct this risk screen.  This risk screen addresses flammability risk and assesses the impact of potential releases of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) on the atmosphere and climate. Occupational exposure was modeled to ensure that manufacture and application of the proposed substitute in the proposed foam blowing end-uses does not pose unacceptable risk to workers.  Lastly, general population exposure modeling was performed to ensure that the proposed substitute would not pose an unacceptable risk to the population at large.
Section 2 of this report summarizes the results of the risk screen for the proposed substitute.  The remainder of the report is organized into the following sections:
         * Section 3: Atmospheric Assessment
         * Section 4: Flammability Assessment
         * Section 5: Potential Health Effects
         * Section 6: Occupational Exposure Assessment
         * Section 7: General Population Assessment
         * Section 8: Volatile Organic Compound Assessment
         * Section 9: References
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is recommended for SNAP approval as a foam-blowing agent in the following end-uses: rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; rigid polyurethane appliance, commercial refrigeration, spray, and slabstock; and integral skin polyurethane. EPA's risk screen indicates that the use of the proposed substitute will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the continued use of CFC-11, HCFC-141b, and HCFC-22. Given that appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) (OSHA Category C or higher) and engineering controls (e.g., exhaust ventilation, vapor-in-air detection systems) will be used during installation, maintenance, and disposal activities, no significant toxicity risks to workers or the general population are expected. In addition, based on the characteristics of the proposed substitute and the proper precautions listed in the MSDS for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), the proposed substitute is not expected to present a significant flammability concern during manufacture or end-use (see Section 4).
ATMOSPHERIC ASSESSMENT
This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to atmospheric integrity posed by the use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) in the foam blowing sector.  The ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential (GWP), and atmospheric lifetime (ALT) of the proposed substitute are presented in Table 2. As compared to CFC-11 and HCFC-141b, and HCFC-22, Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is substantially less harmful to the ozone layer, has less climate impact, and a shorter atmospheric lifetime. . In addition, Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) also has lower climate impact and a shorter atmospheric lifetime than those predicted for other substitutes examined in the Background Document. Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) has a non-zero ODP, but at 0.00024, this value is very small when considering continued used of HCFC-141b or HCFC-22. A recent report by Wang et. al. (2011) modeled the potential of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E)  to affect the amount of ozone in the global atmosphere. This report found that the release of all Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) , assuming it were substituted for all compounds it might replace and that the entire amount used were released, would have a statistically zero impact on global atmospheric ozone (less than 0.01% change in total column ozone).Thus, EPA believes that use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) would result in substantially less harm to the climate and ozone layer than the continued use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

Table 2. Atmospheric Impacts of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) Compared to CFC-11, HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, and HFC-134a
                                  Refrigerant
                                      ODP
                                      GWP
                                      ALT
                             Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E)
                            0.00024-0.00034[a][,c]
                                4.7-7[b][,][a]
                                  26 days[a]
                                    CFC-11
                                    1.0 [d]
                                    4,750e
                                   45 yearse
                                   HCFC-141b
                                    0.12[d]
                                    725[e]
                                 9.3 years[e]
                                    HCFC-22
                                    0.13[d]
                                   1,810[e]
                                  12 years[e]
                                   HFC-134a
                                       0
                                   1,430[e]
                                  14 years[e]
[a] Assuming emissions occur in the major regions of the world where blowing agents that HBA-2 might replace are significantly used. Wang et. al. (undated).
[b] Wang et. al. (2011)
c Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) SNAP Submission (Anonymous Submitter 2011b)
[d] WMO (2011)
e IPCC 4th Assessment Report (Forster et al. 2007)

FLAMMABILITY ASSESSMENT
Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is not flammable at ambient temperatures and atmospheric pressure, but can ignite when mixed with air under pressure and exposed to strong ignition sources; also, containers of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) may rupture when exposed to heat (Anonymous Submitter 2011b). Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is not expected be used under pressure, but may be exposed to a potential source of ignition during roofing applications. During such applications, tar, which may be used to construct the roof, is applied at temperatures ranging from 330° F to 440° F. Due to tar's flashpoint of  >=450°F, there is a risk of ignition under these conditions. In order to mitigate this risk, it is important to carefully monitor the temperature to prevent the tar from overheating or igniting.. In the case of roofing applications, containers of tar should be equipped with temperature control devices, and that personnel applying tar do so in stages. Foaming applications should be coordinated with tarring applications to ensure that risks are reduced. By keeping Solstice[TM] 1233zd(E) away from all sources of ignition and high heat and adhering to the other  precautions listed in the proposed substitute's MSDS, Solstice[TM] 1233zd(E) does not pose a significant flammability risk.
In addition, Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is expected to be incorporated into a typical polyurethane or polyisocyanurate foam formulation consisting of up to 15% flame retardants and other materials such that the final concentration of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) in the manufactured foam is generally expected to be between 10% and 25% of the entire formulation by weight, further reducing flammability risk. By following the proper precautions specified by the proposed substitute's MSDS, it is unlikely that Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) will pose a significant flammability risk.
POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS
To assess potential health risks from exposure to this proposed substitute, the submitter developed an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 300 ppm for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) (Anonymous Submitter 2012a). The AEL represents the maximum 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) at which a worker can be exposed regularly without adverse effects.

According to the MSDS, exposure to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) may be harmful by ocular or dermal absorption, inhalation, or ingestion. Exposures of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) to the eyes will cause serious eye irritation and may cause frostbite. In case of ocular exposure, the MSDS for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) recommends that person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with water for 15 minutes; should frostbite occur, the water should be lukewarm, not hot. Medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists. Exposures of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) to the skin may cause irritation or frostbite. In the case of dermal exposure, the MSDS for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) recommends that person(s) should immediately wash the affected area with water and remove all contaminated clothing; should frostbite occur, bathe (do not rub) the affected area with lukewarm, not hot, water. If water is not available, cover the affected area with a clean, soft cloth. Medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists.

Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) vapors are heavier than air and cause suffocation by reducing oxygen available for breathing, causing asphyxiation in high concentrations.  If person(s) are exposed to high concentrations, the person(s) will likely not realize that he/she is suffocating, but may experience central nervous system effects, such as drowsiness and dizziness. If Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately removed and exposed to fresh air. The MSDS recommends that if breathing is difficult, person(s) should be given oxygen, provided a qualified operator is present, and medical attention be sought.  Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is not likely to be hazardous by ingestion; however, in case of ingestion, the MSDS recommends having the person(s) drink a cup of water, if fully conscious, and consulting a physician immediately.  Do not induce vomiting without medical advice. EPA's review of the human health impacts of this proposed substitute is contained in the public docket for this decision.

The potential health effects of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) are unlikely to occur when following good industrial hygiene practices and the PPE and engineering control (e.g., ventilation) recommendations outlined in the MSDS for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) and Sections 6 and 7 of this risk screen.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section presents estimates of potential occupational exposures to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), which is anticipated to occur during application of spray foam and manufacture of blown foam. To ensure manufacture and application of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) for the proposed foam blowing end-uses do not present a risk to workers, occupational exposure modeling was performed for the proposed substitute.  Limited data are available regarding employee exposures to blowing agents for the proposed foam types.  The submitter, however, was able to provide monitoring data on potential exposures in typical settings for HFC-245fa. Due to their similar physical properties (i.e., boiling point, vapor pressure, heat of vaporization, and molecular weight), EPA believes that using HFC-245fa as a surrogate provides a reasonable estimate of potential air concentrations of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) (see Table 3).

Table 3. Boiling Point and Vapor Pressure for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) and HFC-245fa Analog
Parameter
                   Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) Proposed Substitute
                               HFC-245fa Analog
Boiling Point
                                      66F
                                     62.4F
Vapor Pressure
                               16 PSIA (at 68 C)
                               18 PSIA (at 68 C)
Heat of Vaporization
                              83.4 Btu/lb (at bp)
                              84.6 Btu/lb (at bp)
Molecular Weight
                                     130.5
                                      134

Potential occupational exposures to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) at foam manufacture and spray foam application were modeled based on the HFC-245fa monitoring data, and  found not to present a significant risk to workers, as described in the following sections.
Occupational Exposure at Manufacture
Using the surrogate HFC-245fa monitoring data provided by the submitter on boardstock and bunstock, appliance foam and laminated boardstock manufacture, maximum potential exposures to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) were modeled for employees involved in the manufacture of foam. Table 4 presents highest exposure concentrations modeled for each foam type, based on the HFC-245fa surrogate data.
Table 4.  Maximum Modeled Occupational Exposures to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) During Foam Manufacture
                                    End-Use
          Maximum Modeled Instantaneous Exposure Concentration (ppm)
Boardstock and Bunstock
                                     302a
Appliance Foam
                                    256[b]
Laminated Boardstock
                                     <1
        [a]Concentrations of HFC-245fa in  this 4-trial boardstock and bunstock report ranged from <1 ppm (the detection limit) to 795 ppm, with the majority of measurements recording the detection limit. The highest concentrations were obtained from one manufacturing facility and were considered not to be commercially acceptable. Thus, it is believed that with proper facility management, these concentrations would not be reached. The Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) concentration reported here (i.e., 302 ppm) is modeled based on the maximum reported HFC-245fa concentration that a person could reasonably be expected to be exposed to for the boardstock and bunstock scenario.
        [b]The highest concentration cited in this report on appliance foam exposure HFC-245fa concentrations was 5,549 ppm, however, this reading was from a vent hole -- a point that would not be accessible to workers, and hence not relevant. The Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) concentration reported here (i.e., 256 ppm) is modeled based on the maximum reported HFC-245fa concentration that a person could reasonably be expected to be exposed to for the appliance foam scenario.

Based on the toxicity data for the proposed substitute, the modeling indicates that worker exposure concentrations could reach 302 ppm during manufacture of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) blown foam, which is slightly above the AEL established by the submitter for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E). The concentrations reported, however, are based on instantaneous readings, and are not time-weighted over an 8-hour period. Given that 302 ppm was calculated from the maximum exposure concentration recorded that a person could reasonably be expected to be exposed to, and that exposure concentrations over the time duration were significantly lower than maximum recorded value, it is extremely unlikely that concentrations of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) would reach or exceed the AEL over an 8-hour time-weighted average. Although exposure data were not available for the manufacture of integral skin foam and slabstock foam, which are estimated to have the greatest first year losses (see Table 5), the actual loss at manufacture associated with integral skin foam and slabstock foam is anticipated to be higher than boardstock and appliance foam, but less than spray foam (discussed in Section 6.2); the majority of losses are anticipated to occur after manufacture, during processing (Jeffs 2012). For slabstock, this would include cutting of the foam, and for integral skin foams, this would include removing the foam from its molds. However, the resulting occupational exposure during these activities is not anticipated to present a significant concern (Jeffs 2012). Further, since the modeled instantaneous concentrations for spray foam application are less than the 8-hour AEL for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), it is unlikely that the time-weighted concentrations during manufacture and processing of integral skin foam and slabstock would result in concentrations beyond the acceptable occupational exposure limit.

During manufacture and use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), engineering controls should be in place, such as vapor-in air detection systems. Adequate ventilation should always be established during any use, handling, or storage of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E). In addition, an eye wash and safety shower should be near the manufacturing facility and ready for use. In general, use of OSHA Category C or higher PPE is recommended, such as respiratory protection (a NIOSH-approved positive-pressure supplied-air respirator is recommended where there is insufficient ventilation; self-contained breathing apparatuses should be used for rescue and maintenance work in storage tanks), chemical splash goggles or face shield, impervious gloves, and chemical-resistant boots and clothing (Anonymous Submitter 2011b, OSHA 1994). Contaminated clothing is not to leave the workplace and must be cleaned before reuse (Anonymous Submitter 2011b).

During handling of liquid Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) blowing agent for manufacture of blown foam, there is also risk of generation of toxic decomposition products such as hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and carbonyl halides when liquid Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is exposed to fires or temperatures greater than 250°C. Containers of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) should not be allowed to contact open flames, glowing metal surfaces, or electrical heating elements.

EPA believes that because proper handling guidelines are followed in accordance with good industrial hygiene and manufacturing practices and the MSDS for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), as described above, manufacture of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) foam does not present a significant risk to workers.
Occupational Exposure at Spray Foam Application
In addition to occupational exposure during manufacture of blown foam, there is also potential for occupational exposure to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) during rigid polyurethane spray foaming operations, which typically occurs on the site of installation, outside of a manufacturing facility. To ensure Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) does not present a risk during spray foam application, modeling was again performed for the proposed substitute using the HFC-245fa monitoring data provided by the submitter as a surrogate.  Using the HFC-245fa surrogate data provided, the maximum possible exposure for employees involved in the use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) for spray foams was calculated to be 291 ppm, which is less than the AEL of 300 ppm.

Although 291 ppm is close to the AEL for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), the surrogate data provided is based on instantaneous readings and are not time-weighted over an 8-hour period. Given that 291 ppm was calculated from the maximum exposure concentration and that exposure concentrations over the time duration were significantly lower than maximum recorded value, concentrations of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) would not reach or exceed the AEL over an 8-hour time-weighted average. Further, the submitter has indicated that use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) in the spray foam end-use is anticipated for use only by trained personnel or industrial applications. As such, personnel utilizing Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) in this end-use should ensure that blowing agent losses are minimized and that adequate ventilation is in place.  EPA believes that because proper handling guidelines are followed in accordance with good industrial hygiene and manufacturing practices and the MSDS for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) for the spray foam end-use does not present a significant risk to workers.
GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section screens potential risks to the general population from exposure to releases of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), specifically acute exposures when used in spray foam, and chronic exposures when released from foams. Because the proper safety precautions, as listed in the remainder of this section, are followed, Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is not expected to cause a significant impact on human health in the general population when used for foam end-uses.

0.1 Acute Exposure to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) at Spray Foam Application
There is potential for general population exposure to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) during rigid polyurethane spray foaming operations when performed in buildings with occupants. To ensure that these instances do not present a risk to the general population, EPA recommends that the contractors consult the building management prior to commencing foam-blowing activities. The contractor should also ensure that building occupants are made aware that foam-blowing is about to occur and should suggest the occupants leave the premises until foam-blowing is complete.
 7.2 Chronic Exposure to Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) during Lifetime Foam-Blowing Agent Releases
There is the potential for chronic general population exposures to foam-blowing agents during the lifetime of the foam in which they are used, because these agents can slowly leak from the foam over time.  As a result, in locations where persons are regularly present for extended periods, such as a home or apartment, the persons could be exposed to very low levels of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) over time.  Based on the foam blowing end-uses proposed for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E), the maximum annual rate of release of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) during the lifetime of the foam (i.e., after manufacture and before disposal) is anticipated to be 2.5%, resulting in very minimal exposure concentrations. In addition, the submitter has also provided modeling of potential emissions based on the proposed substitute's diffusion coefficient, and estimated an average Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) concentration of 1.6 ppm within the first two days of a home insulated with spray foam, reducing to 0.008 ppm on average during the foam lifetime (10-20 years).  Due to the low toxicity of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) and minimal expected release, EPA believes that such exposures do not pose a significant toxicity risk, and thus, Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is not expected to cause a significant impact on human health in the general population when used as a foam blowing agent in the proposed end-uses.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ASSESSMENT
Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) has not been exempted as a volatile organic compound (VOC) under the CAA (40 CFR 51.100(s)), and as such, emissions of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) should be controlled.  EPA has received a petition to exempt this compound from the definition of VOC for purposes of regulations in state implementation plans for local air quality because of low photochemical reactivity that would result in insignificant impacts on ground-level ozone; however, Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) continues to be regulated as a VOC for that purpose unless and until EPA issues a final rule exempting it.

An assessment was performed to compare the annual VOC emissions from use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) in the foam blowing end-uses in one year to other anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions. Assuming the submitter's maximum annual production of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) for all proposed foam blowing sector end-uses is entirely released, approximately 245 MT of VOCs would be emitted.  This is approximately equal to 2.0x10[-][3] percent of all anthropogenic VOC emissions in the U.S.

While these emissions may be significant, release of total production for all foam blowing end-uses is extremely unlikely to occur. Thus, an additional analysis was performed to determine likely annual VOC emissions from use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) in the foam blowing sector. Table 5 summarizes leak estimates and market penetrations from the Vintaging Model for the proposed foam blowing end-uses.

        Table 5. Foam Release Rates and Market Penetrations by End-Use
Foam End-Use
                              Operating Leak Rate
                              First Year Loss[a]
                                 Disposal Loss
                                Lifetime (yrs)
                            Annual Release Rate[b]
                                 Market Share
Integral Skin Foam
                                     2.50%
                                      95%
                                      0%
                                       2
                                      50%
                                     0.2%
PU and PIR Rigid  -  Boardstock
                                      1%
                                      6%
                                      44%
                                      50
                                      2%
                                     40.6%
PU Rigid  -  Commercial Refrigeration
                                     0.25%
                                      6%
                                    90.25%
                                      15
                                      7%
                                     1.3%
PU Rigid  -  Appliance
                                     0.25%
                                     3.75%
                                    39.88%
                                      14
                                      3%
                                     9.4%
PU Rigid  -  Slabstock
                                     0.75%
                                    37.50%
                                    51.25%
                                      15
                                      7%
                                     0.9%
PU Rigid  -  Spray
                                     1.50%
                                      15%
                                      1%
                                      56
                                      2%
                                     11.6%
Source: Vintaging Model (v4.4_3.23.11).
[a] First year losses include losses at manufacture and other production steps that occur prior to end-use.
[b] Calculated as Leak Rate + (First Year Loss + Disposal Loss)/Lifetime

Assuming that use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) is distributed according to existing market share for each proposed foam end-use, and the annual release rates for each of those end-uses, 0.3 MT of VOCs would be expected to be released into the atmosphere. This amount is approximately 2.3x10-6 percent of all anthropogenic VOC emissions. In addition, the end-uses with the greatest annual release rate are reasonably expected to occur indoors in a manufacturing or disposal facility, which would have engineering controls in place (e.g., exhaust ventilation, vapor-in-air detection systems, and carbon adsorption systems) such that actual quantities of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) emissions would be less than the quantity calculated in this assessment.  Further, EPA notes that C3-C6 hydrocarbons such as cyclopentane, other alternatives sometimes used in the same end uses, are also VOCs.  Thus, use of Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) would not necessarily result in greater impacts on local air quality than other available options.  As the calculated emissions from these analyses are several orders of magnitude smaller than other anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions, EPA believes that through the use of standard industry practices, the environmental impacts of these VOCs are not considered a significant concern.

	REFERENCES
Anonymous Submitter 2011a. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E). October 20, 2011.
Anonymous Submitter 2011b. SNAP Submission to EPA for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E). May 13, 2011.
Anonymous Submitter 2012a. Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E) Material Safety Data Sheet. February 28, 2012.
Anonymous Submitter. 2012b. Response to A Few More Questions on Foam Uses for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E). February 6, 2012.
Anonymous Submitter. 2012c. Response to Incomplete SNAP Submission for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E). January 31, 2012.
EPA 1994.  Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document:  Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning.  Stratospheric Protection Division.  March, 1994.
EPA 2011. National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data. Accessed 23 December 2011. Updated October 2011. Available at: <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html#tables>
Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007.  Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

ICF International. 2012. Determination of an Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL) for Solstice(TM) 1233zd(E). Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 23, 2012.

Jeffs, Mike. Personal communication between ICF International and Mike Jeffs. April 24-26, 2012.

OSHA. 1994. General description and discussion of the levels of protection and protective gear. 1910.120 App B. Last updated August 22, 1994. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9767

Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. Undated. "Three-Dimensional Model Evaluation of the Global Warming Potentials for tCFP." Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Draft Report.

Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. "Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone." Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization), 2011. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project -- Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.

                                  Appendix A:
             Determination of an Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL)
                  for Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene

Recommended AEL:
1,000 ppm (8-hour time-weighted average)

Basis and Endpoints:
NOAEC: 4,000 ppm (no significant cardiac histopathology observed at this concentration)

Critical Study:
90-day inhalation toxicity study in the rat (Muijser H., 2011)

Protocol:
Whole-body inhalation, 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 13 weeks

Concentrations:
0; 4,000; 10,000; 15,000 ppm

NOAEC:
4,000 ppm (identified by independent pathologist's report [Engelhardt, 2011])

NOAEC [HEC]:
4,000 ppm x 6 hr/8 hr = 3,000 ppm

Uncertainty Factors:
3 (interspecies extrapolation)
3  -  animal to human extrapolation

I.       Introduction

Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene has been proposed as a replacement for PFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and other halogenated compounds. It is intended for several end-uses, including as a foam blowing agent, a refrigerant in chillers, a solvent for cleaning in equipment and aerosol cans, and a carrier solvent in adhesives, coatings, and inks.  Several studies assessing the potential toxicity of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene have been conducted and include the following: 14-day, 28-day, and 90-day inhalation study in rats, developmental inhalation studies in rats and rabbits, a cardiac sensitization assay in beagle dogs, and genotoxicity studies in bacteria and mammalian cells in culture.  The results of these studies are discussed in the following sections to inform an assessment of the potential health risks from human exposure to the study compound in the intended end use.

II.       Summary of Toxicity Studies

The toxicological studies reviewed for the determination of acceptable exposure limit for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene are summarized below in Table 1.  Subclinical effects in the heart (monocyte infiltration) associated with inhalation exposure to trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene were considered to be the most sensitive human health effects for derivation of an AEL; therefore inhalation studies are described and discussed in detail.  The remaining studies are considered supporting studies.

Table 1.  Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene Toxicological Studies
                              Inhalation Studies
                                     Doses
                                NOAEL/ NOAEC[a]
                                    Effects
4-hour acute (nose-only, rat)
                                96,000, 156,000
                                and 120,000 ppm
                      LC50, 120,000 ppm (combined sexes)
                   Mortality at 96,000 ppm for some animals.
                           Tremors at all exposures.
14-day (whole body, rat)
                             0, 2,000, 7,500, and
                                  20,000 ppm
                            2,000 ppm (study rpt.)
                            7,500 (peer review)[b]
                Min. focal mononuclear cell infiltrate (heart)
28-day with 14-day recovery (nose-only, rat)
                            0, 2,000, 4,500, 7,500,
                                and 10,000 ppm
                          4,500 ppm[c] (study report)
                           10,000 ppm (peer review)
Increased serum K+ in 7,500-ppm males; reversible changes in hematology/clinical chemistry parameters
90-day study (nose-only, rat)
                        0, 4,000, 10,000 and 15,000 ppm
                            <4,000 (study rpt.)
                            4,000 ppm (peer review)
                Min. focal mononuclear cell infiltrate (heart)
Rat fetotoxicity
                       0, 4,000, 10,000, and 15,000 ppm
                                  10,000 ppm
                    Dilated urinary bladders in the fetuses
Rabbit fetotoxicity
                       0, 2,500, 10,000, and 15,000 ppm
                                  15,000 ppm
                           No adverse effects noted
Cardiac sensitization, dog
                        25,000, 35,000, and 50,000 ppm
                            Negative at 25,000 ppm
                  Tremors present during exposure 35,000 ppm
                              Supporting Studies
                                     Doses
                                NOAEL/ NOAEC[a]
                                    Effects
In vitro bacterial reverse mutation assay
                       Max concentration of 905,000 ppm
                                      NA
                                   Negative
In vivo unscheduled DNA synthesis
                           0, 7,500, and 10,000 ppm
                                      NA
                                   Negative
In vitro chromosomal aberration assay
                           469, 783, or 1,305 ug/mL
                                      NA
                                   Negative
In vivo micronucleus test (rats)
                    0, 2,000, 4,500, 7,500, and 10,000 ppm
                                      NA
                                   Negative
In vivo micronucleus test (mice)
                                 0, 50,000 ppm
                                      NA
                                   Negative
[a]All values NOAEL/NOAEC unless otherwise reported; NA- not applicable
[b]NOAEC values were revised in a pathology peer review report (Engelhardt, 2011)
[c]NOAEC identified in study report based on clinical chemistry, not histopathology results
NOAEL = No observed adverse effect level (commonly used for oral or dermal exposures)
NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration  (commonly used for inhalation exposures)

III.       Development of the AEL for Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene

Several repeated dose inhalation studies assessing the toxic potential of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene were available for development of an AEL. The NOAEC of 4,000 ppm from the 90-day inhalation study was chosen as the point of departure for derivation of an AEL for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene as this was the study with the longest exposure duration with an identifiable NOAEC.

The AEL was calculated in the following manner:

                       4000 ppm x (6/8) / 3 = 1000 ppm

A human equivalent concentration (HEC) was determined by adjusting the NOAEC of 4,000 ppm by the ratio of rat exposure duration per day to that of an occupational worker (6 hours/8 hours). The guidelines for developing Reference Concentration (RfC) values (U.S. EPA, 1994) were followed, which obviated the need to apply a full uncertainty factor (UF) of 3 for pharmacokinetic differences between rats as the animal model of study and humans (a UF of 3 for pharmacodynamic [PD] differences between the two species has been applied). Because subchronic studies are typically used to develop AEL values, an additional UF was not added to account for study duration. Similarly, the database is considered comprehensive, and no additional UF was added to account for database limitations.

IV.       Inhalation Studies for Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene

Four-Hour Acute Inhalation Study
In an acute 4-hour nose-only inhalation study, male and female Crl:SD (outbred) rats (5/sex) were exposed to three different concentrations  of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (purity 99.99%) and observed for 14 days post-exposure (when possible) (van Triel, 2009).  In the first group (Group A), animals were exposed to 100,000 ppm trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene.  Because of the low toxicity observed, a second group (Group B) of 5/sex were exposed to a target concentration of 125,000 ppm, that actually reached 156,000 ppm due to technical difficulties; all animals died during exposure.  A third group (Group C) of 5 animals/sex were then exposed to a target concentration of 120,000 ppm in an effort to provide more data to identify the LC50.

One female from Group A died on the first day of the recovery period.  Other animals, male and female, showed clinical signs during recovery, but did not die prematurely.  Necropsy did reveal gray discolored lungs in these animals, which was coincident with petechiae in some cases.   Three males and two females of Group C died during exposure. Necropsy of these animals revealed reddish lung, with some also being enlarged.  In two female animals of group B, red spots were also found on the thymus.  In animals sacrificed on schedule following recovery, no other abnormalities were found. The combined-sex LC50 was reported as 120,000 ppm.

Fourteen-Day Inhalation Study
In a dose-range-finding inhalation study, Crl:CD(SD) rats (5/sex/group) were exposed via whole body inhalation to 0, 2,000, 7,500, or 20,000 ppm trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (99.9% pure) (Staal, 2008).   Exposures were for 6 hr/day, 5 days/week, in a 2-week period (10 total exposure days).  Clinical signs, body weights and food consumption data were collected.  Blood samples were drawn at the end of each week for hematology and clinical chemistry analyses. Gross necropsies were performed on all animals following the last exposure, and organs were collected and weighed; select organs, including the respiratory tract, were processed and analyzed histologically.

The only clinical sign reported during exposure was restlessness, particularly in the highest concentration; the effect resolved after 15 minutes of exposure.  Test-compound exposure did not induce changes in body weights or food consumption.  Regarding changes in hematology, the study author noted an increase in prothrombin time in females at 20,000 ppm, and an increase in absolute and relative numbers of monocytes and absolute number of neutrophils in males at 20,000 ppm.  Increases in serum liver enzymes (ALAT and ASAT in males at 20,000 ppm) were not confirmed by any changes in liver histopathology, and were thus considered not toxicologically relevant.  Histology revealed multifocal mononuclear cell infiltrates, identified by the study laboratory in animals at 7,500 and 20,000 ppm.  However, following an independent pathological review of the histology slides of the heart tissues (Engelhardt, 2011), many of the lesions originally identified by the study laboratory as `very slight' or `slight focal myocardial mononuclear cell infiltrate' were downgraded to being `not remarkable' or were noted to be located only in the apex of the heart.  According to the reviewing pathologist, lesions in the apex and/or adjacent portions of the right and left ventricles and interventricular septum of the heart in rats with such lesions are "typical of rodent spontaneous cardiomyopathy".  Given the revised heart data, the reviewing pathologist increased the NOAEC to 7,500 ppm from the original NOAEC of 2,000 ppm identified by the study laboratory.  ICF accepts the revised value as reasonable, given the expertise of the reviewing pathologist.

Four-Week Inhalation Study
In a longer-term, nose-only, multi-exposure study, five groups of Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed 6 hrs/day, 5 days/week in a 28-day period (e.g., 20-21 exposure days) to the following nominal concentrations of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (99.9% pure): 0, 2,000, 4,500, 7,500, and 10,000 ppm (Staal, 2009).  Additional groups of 5/sex were exposed to either 0 or 10,000 ppm in an identical fashion, followed by a 14-day recovery period. The following parameters were measured in accordance with harmonized guidelines for this repeat-exposure study: clinical signs and mortality, food consumption and body weights, hematology and clinical chemistry, gross necropsy, organ weights, and histopathology of select organs.

The study compound did not induce any changes in clinical signs or mortality, food consumption, body weights, urinalysis parameters, gross necropsy, or organ weights.  In contrast to the histopathological findings from the 14-day study, no mononuclear cell infiltration was noted in cardiac tissue or any other selected organ.  An increase in the relative number of basophils was observed in males at 10,000 ppm, which resolved in the 14-day recovery period.   Changes in clinical chemistry parameters were limited to decreased creatinine in males at 10,000 ppm, which also was resolved at the end of the recovery period; and an increase in serum potassium in males at both 7,500 and 10,000 ppm, which were still slightly elevated after recovery, although not statistically significant.  The study authors identified a NOAEC of 4,500 ppm, arguing that the increased potassium levels at exposure concentrations of 7,500 and 10,000 ppm were related to treatment. The pathologist who performed the peer review of the cardiac histopathology slides for this study identified a NOAEC of 10,000 ppm, based on the confirmed absence of compound-induced subcellular damage to cardiac tissue.  ICF concurs with the reviewing pathologist, and would add that although the increased potassium level observed at >=7,500 ppm may be indicative of subclinical cardiotoxicity, it cannot be attributed to the test compound alone, and may also be attributed to spontaneous cardiomyopathy.  The NOAEC for this study is set, therefore, at 10,000 ppm.

Ninety-Day Inhalation Study
In a 90-day inhalation study, male and female Sprague-Dawley (Crl:CD[SD]) rats (10/sex/concentration) were exposed to trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (99.9% purity) via nose-only exposure at nominal vapor concentrations of 0, 4,000, 10,000, or 15,000 ppm for 6 hrs/day for 5 days/week for 13 weeks, for a total of 65 exposure days (Muijser, 2011).   Rats were observed twice daily for clinical signs of toxicity, morbidity, and mortality. Body weights and mean food consumption were recorded weekly. Ophthalmoscopic examinations were conducted at study initiation and during the last week of exposure. Blood samples and urine samples were taken just prior to or the last day prior to sacrifice at the end of the exposure period and were analyzed for hematology, clinical chemistry and urinalysis parameters consistent with harmonized guidelines.  Gross necropsies were performed on all surviving animals after the scheduled exposure period, and select organs were removed, weighed, and prepared for histopathology.

Mortality, Clinical Effects, Eye Effects, Food Consumption, Body Weights
Exposure to the study compound did not induce early mortality or any observed clinical abnormalities.  In addition, exposure did not affect body weight gain, food consumption, or changes in eye condition.

Hematology/Clinical Chemistry
Effects on hematological parameters were limited.  For example, exposure to the study compound had no effect on red blood cell parameters and affected white blood cells only by decreasing the relative number of lymphocytes in males at 15,000 ppm.  Clinical chemistry effects were inconsistent between the sexes.  Plasma of ASAT and ALAT were increased at statistically significant levels in males at 15,000 ppm, but not in females, while glucose and urea were increased in females at 10,000 and 15,000 ppm, but not in males.  High-concentration females also exhibited significantly increased potassium and decreased triglyceride levels.  No other changes in measured analytes were noted.

Organ Weights
A treatment-related decrease in absolute and relative heart weights was noted in male rats, which reached statistical significance at the highest concentration (15,000 ppm).  In addition, relative liver weights in the males were significantly increased at the highest concentration, whereas by contrast, the relative liver weights of high-concentration females were significantly decreased.  No other changes in organ weights were noted.

Macroscopic and Microscopic Findings
Exposure to trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene did not induce any changes in the appearance of organs or tissues in the bodies of rats evaluated following gross necropsy.  In general, no compound-induced effects were noted upon analyses of histopathology findings, with the exception of minimal multifocal mononuclear cell infiltrate in the heart.  The study authors also identified inflammation occurring coincident with the infiltrates in some animals.  The report of the peer review pathologist indicated that the vast majority of these findings were downgraded to categories of `not remarkable' or were localized to the apex, the lower left ventricle, or the atrium.  Again, because of the downgrading of incidences of infiltration reported in the original study, and the identification of some mononuclear infiltration as `spontaneous cardiomyopathy,' the NOAEC was identified as the lowest exposure concentration of 4,000 ppm (the study authors reported the NOAEC as less than 4,000 ppm).  ICF concurs, and as such, the NOAEC used in the determination of an AEL for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene is 4,000 ppm.

Developmental Toxicity
Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene was evaluated in two developmental toxicity studies, one in rats and one in rabbits.

Rat Prenatal Developmental Study
In the prenatal developmental study in rats (Waalkens-Berendsen and van den Hoven, 2011), groups of 24 mated female Wistar (Crl:WI[WU]) rats were exposed 6 hrs/day to concentrations of 0, 4,000, 10,000 or 15,000 ppm trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (99.9% pure) from gd 6 to gd 19.  Health parameters measured during the in-life phase of the study included mortality, clinical signs, maternal body weight, and food consumption.  A Caesarean section was performed following the gestation period, and females and fetuses were evaluated via gross necropsy, and for standard reproductive toxicity endpoints (e.g., gestation index, fecundity index, fetus sex ratio, number of corpora lutea, implantation sites, pre- and post-implantation loss, live and dead fetuses, and resorptions).  Fetuses, placentas and reproductive organs were weighed, and fetuses were processed for soft tissue and skeletal abnormalities and malformations.

Exposure to the study compound did not affect any of the measured parameters with the exception of the following: a statistically significant increase in the incidence of dilated urinary bladders was observed in the fetuses of the highest concentration group (15,000 ppm).  Because the incidence of this anomaly increased with higher concentrations, it is considered treatment-related.  No signs of maternal toxicity were noted at any concentration.  The NOAEC for developmental effects is established at 10,000 ppm; the NOAEC for maternal toxicity is established at 15,000 ppm.

Rabbit Prenatal Developmental Study
Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene was further evaluated in a developmental study in the New Zealand white rabbit.  Hoffman (2010) exposed 22 pregnant dams/group during organogenesis (gd 6 to gd 28) to trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (~100% purity) via whole-body inhalation for 6 hrs/day at concentrations of 0, 2,500, 10,000 or 15,000 ppm.  During the in-life phase of the study, the rabbits were observed for mortality, clinical signs, body weights, and food consumption.  Following euthanasia of the dams at gd 29, the following parameters were measured: gross necropsy, number of corpora lutea and implantation sites, uterine and placental weights, fetus number (live), fetal weights (live only), sex ratio, external defects, soft tissue abnormalities, and skeletal abnormalities and state of ossification.

Exposure to the test compound did not affect any changes in any of the measured parameters of the exposed dams or the fetuses.  Therefore, the NOAEC for both maternal and fetal toxicity is established at 15,000 ppm in this rabbit developmental assay.

Cardiac Sensitization
In a muzzle-only, acute exposure study in young beagle dogs (Atterson, 2011), 6 male dogs were exposed successively to 25,000 ppm (2.5%), 35,000 ppm (3.5%) and 50,000 ppm (5%) trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (99.978% pure) up to a maximum period of 33 minutes, with 48 hours of rest occurring in between exposure periods.  Control (air) exposures occurred in the same dogs.  For the cardiac sensitization, epinephrine challenge (bolus) injections, ranging from 2 to 8 ug/kg, were started approximately 5 minutes following the initiation of exposure and continued until termination of exposure. Only 2 of the 6 dogs were exposed to the highest trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene concentration, because behavioral responses (vocalization, injected sclera, excessive salivation, tremors, convulsions and/or reddened gums) prompted the termination of exposure; only one of the dogs at this concentration was given an epinephrine challenge.

No test-related deaths occurred in the study.  Clinical findings similar to those at 50,000 ppm were noted after exposure to 35,000 ppm (tremors, injected sclera, reddened ears and excessive salivation). No signs of cardiac sensitization were noted at 25,000 or 35,000 ppm; however, the presence of ECG noise in two animals exposed to 35,000 ppm precluded the complete characterization of cardiac sensitization at this concentration.  As noted previously, exposure was terminated at the highest concentration and assessment of cardiac sensitization was not possible at this level.  Therefore, the results indicate that the study compound does not cause cardiac sensitization at 25,000 ppm.

V.       Supporting Genotoxicity Studies for Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene

Reverse Mutation Assay
Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene was tested in an Ames bacterial reversion assay in Salmonella typhimurium (S. typhimurium) strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and E. coli strain WP2 uvrA (Wagner et al., 2011).  This assay measures the ability of the compound to induce either base pair or frame shift mutations in DNA in the presence or absence of S9 fraction from induced rat livers (metabolizing enzymes including mixed function oxidases).  The study compound was analyzed for mutagenicity twice at concentrations ranging from 73,400 to 905,000 ppm at 25°C for either 24 or 48 hours.  Appropriate negative and positive controls were analyzed in the same assays.  Mutagenicity was not induced in any strain, but toxicity was seen in all strains at the top two concentrations of 513,000 and 905,000 ppm.  A confirmatory assay was performed using slightly reduced exposure concentrations of 17,200; 24,500; 73,400; 147,000; 196,000; 269,000; 513,000 and 905,000 ppm at 25°C.  Cytotoxicity was observed at the top two concentrations, as in the previous assays.  No positive responses were observed with strains TA98 and TA1537 in the absence of S9 activation and with strains TA98 and WP2uvrA in the presence of S9 activation.  The compound is categorized as negative in this genotoxicity assay.

Unscheduled DNA Synthesis
Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene was tested for the ability to induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in liver hepatocytes isolated from male rats exposed to 7,500 and 10,000 ppm of the study compound in a 28-day study (Staal, 2009).  The control group was the same one used in the 28-day study and positive control animals were dosed with standard toxicants per harmonized guidelines.  Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene did not induce unscheduled DNA synthesis under the conditions used in the 28-day study, and is categorized as negative for this genotoxicity assay.

Micronuclei
Two studies were performed to assess the ability of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene to include micronuclei in bone marrow, as described below.

Micronuclei Rat Study
Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene was tested for the ability to induce micronuclei in bone marrow cells isolated from male rats exposed to 0, 2,000, 4,500, 7,500 and 10,000 ppm of the study compound in a 28-day study (Staal, 2009).  Appropriate positive control animals were dosed with standard toxicants per harmonized guidelines.  The test compound did not induce chromosomal damage or induce micronuclei in the bone marrow under the conditions used in this study (the maximum concentration administered, 10,000 ppm is equivalent to >12,000 mg/kg, much higher than the 1,000 mg/kg limit dose recommended by EPA) and is judged negative for this genotoxicity assay.

Micronuclei Mice Study
Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene was tested in an independent assay for its ability to induce micronuclei in the bone marrow of male mice (de Vogel, 2009).  Two groups of 10 male, albino mice (CD-1 strain, Charles River) were exposed for a single, nose-only, 4-hour exposure to trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (99.99% pure) at concentrations of 0, or 50,000 ppm.  Five male mice were injected intraperitoneally with 0.75 mg/kg-bw of mitomycin C as a positive control for comparison.  Bone marrow cells were isolated from half the exposure group at 24 hours and the remainder at 48 hours post-exposure; bone marrow smears were prepared and analyzed for the presence of polychromatic and normochromatic erythrocytes and micronuclei in a manner consistent with established guidelines.  The test compound did not induce micronuclei or any other form of chromosomal damage and was thus judged negative in this genotoxicity assay.

Chromosomal Aberration
Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene (99.98% pure) was tested in a chromosomal aberration assay with human lymphocytes cultured in vitro (Pritchard and Damant, 2011).  Human lymphocytes, isolated from whole blood samples provided by volunteers, were treated with trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene for either 3 or 21 hours at doses of 469, 783, or 1,305 ug/mL in the presence or absence of metabolic activation (S9 from the livers of chemically-induced rats). Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene was determined to be negative in this genotoxicity assay, as the cells treated with trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropro-1-ene in all experiments did not cause an increase in the frequency of cells exhibiting structural chromosomal aberrations compared with negative controls at any concentration tested.

References

Atterson PR. 2011. Acute cardiac sensitization study of 1233zd in beagle dogs.  WIL Research Laboratories, LLC, Ashland, OH, performed for Anonymous Submitter, NJ. 21 April 2011.
de Vogel N and van Triel JJ. 2009.  Micronucleus test in bone marrow cells of mice treated with 1233zd(E), administered by inhalation.  TNO Quality of Life, The Netherlands, performed for Anonymous Submitter, Morristown, NJ, 10 February 2009.
Engelhardt JA. 2011.  Peer review of hearts from inhalation toxicity studies with various fluorocarbons.  Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc. 19 October 2011.
Hoffman G. 2010.  1233zd(E): Embryo-fetal toxicity study in rabbits via whole-body inhalation exposure (GLP).  Huntingdon Life Sciences, New Jersey, for Anonymous Submitter New Jersey. 2 September 2010.
Muijser H. 2011.  Sub-chronic (13-week) inhalation toxicity study with 1233zd(E) in rats. TNO Quality of Life, The Netherlands, performed for Anonymous Submitter, NJ, 3 May 2011.
Pritchard L and Damant C. 2011.  1233zd in vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test in human lymphocytes. Amended Final Report. Huntingdon Life Sciences UK for Anonymous Submitter. NJ, 31 March 2011.
Staal YCM. 2009.  A sub-acute (4-week) inhalation toxicity study, including unscheduled DNA synthesis and micronucleus test, with 1233zd(E) in rats. TNO Quality of Life, The Netherlands, performed for Anonymous Submitter, USA, 27 May 2009.
Staal YCM. 2008. Sub-acute (14-day) inhalation toxicity study with 1233zd(E) in rats. TNO Quality of Life, The Netherlands, performed for Anonymous Submitter, USA, 15 December 2008.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-90/066F.
van Triel JJ. 2009.  Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity study with 1233zd(E) in rats.  TNO Quality of Life, The Netherlands, performed for Anonymous Submitter, USA, 17 February 2009.
Waalkens-Berendsen DH, and MJW van den Hoven. 2011.  A prenatal developmental inhalation toxicity study with 1233zd(E) in rats.  TNO Triskelion, The Netherlands, for Anonymous Submitter, New Jersey, 28 January 2011.
Wagner VO, Hines RM, Jois M. 2008. 1233zd(E) bacterial reverse mutation assay using gas-phase exposure. Amended Final Report. BioReliance, Rockville, MD, performed for Anonymous Submitter, New Jersey. 27 April 2011.


[Federal Register: February 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 9843-9844]
[DOCID:fr22fe08-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57335; File No. SR-NFA-2007-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Amendments, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, to the Interpretive Notice
Regarding Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and Proprietary
Information

February 14, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-7 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on November 30, 2007, the National Futures Association
(``NFA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NFA. On
December 19, 2007, NFA filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. NFA also
has filed the proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFA, on November 30, 2007, submitted the proposed rule change to
the CFTC for approval and invoked the ``ten-day'' provision of section
17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'').\3\ The ``ten-day''
provision permits NFA to make any rule changes or amendments effective
ten days after receipt by the CFTC unless, within those ten days, NFA
requests review or approval by the CFTC or the CFTC notifies NFA of its
intent to review the filing. By letter dated December 11, 2007, the
CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule
change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 21(j).
    \4\ See Letter from Lawrence B. Patent, Deputy Director, CFTC,
to Thomas W. Sexton, III, General Counsel, NFA (Dec. 11, 2007)
(``Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

Text of Rule Change

Interpretive Notices

NFA Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and Proprietary
Information

    National Futures Association (``NFA'') Compliance Rule 2-4 provides
that Members and Associates shall observe high standards of commercial
honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of
their commodity futures business. Over the years, NFA's Board of
Directors (``Board'') has provided guidance on certain issues to ensure
that Members and Associates understand their responsibilities to
observe just and equitable principles of trade and to act honestly,
fairly, and in the best interests of customers.
    Compliance Rule 2-4 prohibits Members and Associates from knowingly
obtaining or seeking to obtain another Member's or Associate's
confidential information or trade secrets without that person's
permission. It also prohibits Members and Associates from knowingly or
recklessly misusing confidential information or trade secrets in their
possession. Although that rule does not seek to regulate business
disputes between Members or extend beyond their commodity futures
activities, it does reach conduct that could potentially harm futures
customers.
    Conduct that may violate Compliance Rule 2-4 includes:
     Misusing sensitive personal information, such as a Social
Security number, or purposefully or recklessly violating the firm's
privacy policy;
     Disclosing customer orders prior to execution (except as
permitted by exchange rules); or
     Obtaining or attempting to obtain information disclosing a
CTA's historical trading positions without the CTA's permission.
    These are merely examples of conduct that could potentially harm
customers. Any Member or Associate that knowingly obtains or seeks to
obtain confidential information or trade secrets of another Member or
Associate without that person's permission or that knowingly or
recklessly misuses trade secrets and/or proprietary information in the
conduct of its commodity futures business violates Compliance Rule 2-4.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NFA has prepared statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change,
burdens on competition, and comments received from members,
participants, and others. The text of these statements may be examined
at the places specified in Item IV below. NFA has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act \5\ makes NFA a national
securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the
activities of NFA Members who are registered as brokers or dealers in
security futures products under section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange
Act.\6\ The revised interpretive notice applies to all NFA Members,
including those who are registered as security futures brokers or
dealers under section 15(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NFA Compliance Rule 2-4 requires NFA Members and Associates to
observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable
principles of trade in the conduct of their commodity futures business.
The notice makes clear that NFA Members and Associates violate NFA
Compliance Rule 2-4 if they knowingly obtain or seek to obtain another
NFA Member's or Associate's confidential information or trade secrets
without that person's permission, or knowingly or recklessly misuse
confidential information or trade secrets in their possession when
these activities may harm futures customers. The amendments to the
notice make technical changes that do not affect the substance of the
interpretive notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, section
15A(k) of the Exchange Act. Section 15(A)(k) requires NFA to have rules
that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest in connection
with security futures products. The proposed rule change accomplishes
this by prohibiting the misuse of nonpublic information.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Exchange Act. The interpretive notice should, however, prevent NFA
Members from using illegitimate means to gain a competitive advantage
when those means could harm futures customers.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    NFA, on November 30, 2007, submitted the proposed Interpretive
Notice entitled ``NFA Compliance Rule 2-4: Misuse of Trade Secrets and
Proprietary Information'' to the CFTC for approval and invoked the
``ten-day'' provision of section 17(j) of the CEA.\7\ The CFTC notified
NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.\8\ The
proposed rule change became effective on December 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 7 U.S.C. 21(j) (2002).
    \8\ See Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule
change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, could have
summarily abrogated the proposed rule change and required that the
proposed rule change be re-filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change conflicts with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by
any of the following methods.

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NFA-2007-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2007-05. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
NFA. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-
2007-05 and should be submitted on or before March 14, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3255 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11624-11627]
[DOCID:fr11mr10-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0016]

Highway Safety Programs; Conforming Products List of Evidential
Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice updates the Conforming Products List (CPL)
published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71480)
for instruments that conform to the Model Specifications for Evidential
Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices (58 FR 48705).

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Ms. De Carlo
Ciccel, Behavioral Research Division, NTI-131, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590; Telephone;<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues: Mr. David Bonelli,
Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 5, 1973, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the Standards for
Devices to Measure Breath Alcohol (38 FR 30459). A Qualified Products
List of Evidential Breath Measurement Devices comprised of instruments
that met this standard was first issued on November 21, 1974 (39 FR
41399).
    On December 14, 1984 (49 FR 48854), NHTSA converted this standard
to Model Specifications for Evidential Breath Testing Devices (Model
Specifications), and published a Conforming Products List (CPL) of
instruments that were found to conform to the Model Specifications as
Appendix D to that notice.
    On September 17, 1993, NHTSA published a notice to amend the Model
Specifications (58 FR 48705) and to update the CPL. That notice changed
the alcohol concentration levels at which instruments are evaluated,
from 0.000, 0.050, 0.101, and 0.151 BAC, to 0.000, 0.020, 0.040, 0.080,
and 0.160 BAC, respectively. These devices are identified on the CPL
with an asterisk. Additionally, that notice includes a test for the
presence of acetone and an expanded definition of alcohol to include
other low molecular weight alcohols e.g., methyl or isopropyl.
Thereafter, NHTSA has periodically updated the CPL with those breath
instruments found to conform to the Model Specifications. The most
recent update to the CPL was published December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71480).
    The CPL published today adds four (4) new instruments and updates
the mobility status of one (1) existing instrument that have been
evaluated and found to conform to the Model Specifications, as amended
on September 17, 1993, for mobile and non-mobile use. This update also
makes minor changes to instrument names and a change to a company
location. In alphabetical order by company, they are:
    (1) The ``Alcotest 7510'' manufactured by Draeger Safety, Inc.,
Irving, Texas. This is a hand-held instrument intended for use in
stationary or roadside operations. It uses a fuel cell detector and is
battery powered.
    (2) The ``Alcotest 9510'' manufactured by Draeger Safety, Inc.,
Irving, Texas. This instrument previously conformed to the model
specifications and was listed as a stationary device. After further
testing, this instrument conforms to the specifications for stationary
or roadside operations. This instrument is portable with a detachable
carrying handle. It can be powered by either 110 volts AC or 12 volts
DC, such as from a car battery. The Alcotest 9510 uses fuel cell and
infra-red type sensors.
    (3) The ``Alco-Sensor V'' manufactured by Intoximeters, Inc., St.
Louis, Missouri. This is a hand-held instrument intended for use in
stationary or roadside operations. It uses a fuel cell detector and is
battery powered.
    (4) The ``Evidenzer'' manufactured by Nanopuls AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
This instrument is intended for use in stationary or roadside
operations. The Evidenzer is a non-dispersive infra-red device that is
powered by either 120 volts AC power or 12 volts DC, such as from a car
battery.
    (5) The ``Mark V Alcovisor'' manufactured by PAS International,
Fredericksburg, Virginia. This is a hand-held instrument that uses a
fuel cell detector and is battery powered.
    Minor changes include adding ``Intox'' before or in the name of EC/
IR instruments by Intoximeters. Draeger Safety, Inc. address changed
from Durango, Colorado to Irving, Texas.
    The CPL has been updated to include the five instruments and the
minor changes identified above.
    In accordance with the foregoing, the CPL is therefore updated, as
set forth below.

    Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Measurement Devices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Manufacturer and model               Mobile         Nonmobile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp.,
 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada:
    Alert J3AD *......................               X                X

    Alert J4X.ec......................               X                X
    PBA3000C..........................               X                X
BAC Systems, Inc., Ontario, Canada:
    Breath Analysis Computer *........               X                X
CAMEC Ltd., North Shields, Tyne and
 Ware, England:
    IR Breath Analyzer *..............               X                X
CMI, Inc., Owensboro, Kentucky:
    Intoxilyzer Model:
        200...........................               X                X
        200D..........................               X                X
        240 (aka: Lion Alcolmeter 400+               X                X
         outside the U.S.)............
        300...........................               X                X
        400...........................               X                X
        400PA.........................               X                X
        1400..........................               X                X
        4011 *........................               X                X
        4011A *.......................               X                X
        4011AS *......................               X                X
        4011AS-A *....................               X                X
        4011AS-AQ *...................               X                X
        4011 AW *.....................               X                X
        4011A27-10100 *...............               X                X
        4011A27-10100 with filter *...               X                X
        5000..........................               X                X
        5000 (w/Cal. Vapor Re-Circ.)..               X                X
        5000 (w/3/8'' ID Hose option).               X                X
        5000CD........................               X                X
        5000CD/FG5....................               X                X
        5000EN........................               X                X
        5000 (CAL DOJ)................               X                X
        5000VA........................               X                X
        8000..........................               X                X
        PAC 1200 *....................               X                X
        S-D2..........................               X                X
        S-D5 (aka: Lion Alcolmeter SD-               X                X
         5 outside the U.S.)..........
Draeger Safety, Inc. (aka: National
 Draeger) Irving, Texas:
    Alcotest Model:
        6510..........................               X                X
        6810..........................               X                X
        7010 *........................               X                X
        7110 *........................               X                X
        7110 MKIII....................               X                X
        7110 MKIII-C..................               X                X
        7410..........................               X                X
        7410 Plus.....................               X                X
        7510..........................               X                X
        9510..........................               X                X
    Breathalyzer Model:
        900...........................               X                X
        900A *........................               X                X
        900BG *.......................               X                X
        7410..........................               X                X
        7410-II.......................               X                X
EnviteC by Honeywell GmbH, Fond du
 Lac, Wisconsin:
    AlcoQuant 6020....................               X                X
Gall's Inc., Lexington, Kentucky:
    Alcohol Detection System-A.D.S.                  X                X
     500..............................
Guth Laboratories, Inc., Harrisburg,
 Pennsylvania:
    Alcotector BAC-100................               X                X
    Alcotector C2H5OH.................               X                X
Intoximeters, Inc., St. Louis,
 Missouri:
    Photo Electric Intoximeter *......  ...............               X
    GC Intoximeter MK II *............               X                X
    GC Intoximeter MK IV *............               X                X
    Auto Intoximeter *................               X                X
    Intoximeter Model:
        3000..........................               X                X
        3000 (rev B1) *...............               X                X
        3000 (rev B2) *...............               X                X
        3000 (rev B2A) *..............               X                X
        3000 (rev B2A) w/FM option *..               X                X
        3000 (Fuel Cell) *............               X                X

        3000 D *......................               X                X
        3000 DFC *....................               X                X
        Alcomonitor...................  ...............               X
        Alcomonitor CC................               X                X
        Alco-Sensor III...............               X                X
        Alco-Sensor III (Enhanced with               X                X
         Serial Numbers above
         1,200,000)...................
        Alco-Sensor IV................               X                X
        Alco-Sensor IV XL.............               X                X
        Alco-Sensor V.................               X                X
        Alco-Sensor AZ................               X                X
        Alco-Sensor FST...............               X                X
        Intox EC/IR...................               X                X
        Intox EC/IR II................               X                X
        Intox EC/IR II (Enhanced with   ...............               X
         serial number 10,000 or
         higher)......................
        Portable Intox EC/IR..........               X                X
        RBT-AZ........................               X                X
        RBT-III.......................               X                X
        RBT III-A.....................               X                X
        RBT IV........................               X                X
        RBT IV with CEM (cell                        X                X
         enhancement module)..........
Komyo Kitagawa, Kogyo, K.K., Japan:
        Alcolyzer DPA-2 *.............               X                X
        Breath Alcohol Meter PAM 101B                X                X
         *............................
Lifeloc Technologies, Inc., (formerly
 Lifeloc, Inc.), Wheat Ridge,
 Colorado:
        PBA 3000B.....................               X                X
        PBA 3000[dash]P *.............               X                X
        PBA 3000C.....................               X                X
        Alcohol Data Sensor...........               X                X
        Phoenix.......................               X                X
        Phoenix 6.0...................               X                X
        EV 30.........................               X                X
        FC 10.........................               X                X
        FC 20.........................               X                X
Lion Laboratories, Ltd., Cardiff,
 Wales, United Kingdom:
    Alcolmeter Model:
        300...........................               X                X
        400...........................               X                X
        400+ (aka: Intoxilyzer 240 in                X                X
         the U.S.)....................
        SD-2 *........................               X                X
        SD-5 (aka: S-D5 in the U.S.)..               X                X
        EBA *.........................               X                X
    Intoxilyzer Model:
        200...........................               X                X
        200D..........................               X                X
        1400..........................               X                X
        5000 CD/FG5...................               X                X
        5000 EN.......................               X                X
Luckey Laboratories, San Bernardino,
 California:
    Alco-Analyzer Model:
        1000 *........................  ...............               X
        2000 *........................  ...............               X
Nanopuls AB, Uppsala, Sweden:
    Evidenzer.........................               X                X
National Patent Analytical Systems,
 Inc., Mansfield, Ohio:
    BAC DataMaster (with or without
     the Delta-1 accessory)
        BAC Verifier DataMaster (w/or                X                X
         without the Delta-1
         accessory)...................
        DataMaster cdm (w/or without                 X                X
         the Delta-1 accessory).......
        DataMaster DMT................               X                X
Omicron Systems, Palo Alto,
 California:
    Intoxilyzer Model:
        4011 *........................               X                X
        4011AW *......................               X                X
PAS International, Fredericksburg,
 Virginia
        Mark V. Alcovisor.............               X                X
Plus 4 Engineering, Minturn, Colorado:
        5000 Plus 4 *.................               X                X
Seres, Paris, France:
        Alco Master...................               X                X
        Alcopro.......................               X                X
Siemans-Allis, Cherry Hill, New
 Jersey:
        Alcomat *.....................               X                X
        Alcomat F *...................               X                X

Smith and Wesson Electronics,
 Springfield, Massachusetts:
    Breathalyzer Model:
        900 *.........................               X                X
        900A *........................               X                X
        1000 *........................               X                X
        2000 *........................               X                X
        2000 (non-Humidity Sensor) *..               X                X
Sound-Off, Inc., Hudsonville,
 Michigan:
        AlcoData......................               X                X
        Seres Alco Master.............               X                X
        Seres Alcopro.................               X                X
Stephenson Corp.:
        Breathalyzer 900 *............               X                X
Tokai-Denshi Inc., Tokyo, Japan:
        ALC-PRO II (US)...............               X                X
U.S. Alcohol Testing, Inc./Protection
 Devices, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga,
 California:
        Alco-Analyzer 1000............  ...............               X
        Alco-Analyzer 2000............  ...............               X
        Alco-Analyzer 2100............               X                X
Verax Systems, Inc., Fairport, New
 York:
    BAC Verifier *....................               X                X
    BAC Verifier Datamaster...........               X                X
    BAC Verifier Datamaster II *......               X                X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Instruments marked with an asterisk (*) meet the Model Specifications
  detailed in 49 FR 48854 (December 14, 1984) (i.e., instruments tested
  at 0.000, 0.050, 0.101, and 0.151 BAC.) Instruments not marked with an
  asterisk meet the Model Specifications detailed in 58 FR 48705
  (September 17, 1993), and were tested at BACs = 0.000, 0.020, 0.040,
  0.080, and 0.160. All instruments that meet the Model Specifications
  currently in effect (dated September 17, 1993) also meet the Model
  Specifications for Screening Devices to Measure Alcohol in Bodily
  Fluids.

(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 403; 49 CFR 1.50; 49 CFR Part 501).

    Issued on: March 5, 2010.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-5242 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P