[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24387-24392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10422]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-6585-3]
RIN 2060-AG12


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action lists two substitutes for ozone-depleting 
substances (ODSs) in the fire suppression and explosion protection 
sector as acceptable (subject to use restrictions) 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 (59 FR 13044), and has 
since issued decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a 
number of substitutes. In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing 
its decisions on the acceptability of halon substitutes in the fire 
suppression and explosion protection sector that were included in a 
notice of proposed rulemaking published on February 18, 1999 (64 FR 
8038) and a correction to the February 18 proposal that was published 
on

[[Page 24388]]

March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14417). To arrive at determinations on the 
acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media 
evaluation of risks to human health and the environment by sector end-
use.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Information relevant to this rulemaking is available in 
Docket A-91-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAR Docket and 
Information Center, 401 M Street, S.W., Room M-1500, Mail Code 6102, 
Washington, D.C. 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: Meg Victor at (202) 564-9193 or fax 
(202) 565-2096, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric 
Protection Division, Mail Code 6205J, Washington, D.C. 20460. Overnight 
or courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 501 3rd 
Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20001. The Stratospheric Protection Hotline 
at (800) 296-1996. EPA's Ozone Depletion 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) directs 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 a final rule (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; solvents 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 management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has 
identified four possible decision categories: acceptable; acceptable 
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; 
and unacceptable. 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.
    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

[[Page 24389]]

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.
    EPA does not believe that notice and comment rulemaking procedures 
are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no restrictions. 
Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior 
license to use a substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the 
list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new 
listings. Updates to the acceptable lists are published as separate 
Notices of Acceptability in the Federal Register.
    In this final rule, EPA is issuing its decision on the 
acceptability (subject to use restrictions) of certain substitutes in 
the fire suppression and explosion protection sector. Today's rule 
incorporates decisions that were proposed on February 18, 1999 at 64 FR 
8038 (referred to hereinafter as ``the proposal''). A correction to the 
proposal was published on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14417). As described in 
the original March 18, 1994 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.
    The section below presents a detailed discussion of the fire 
suppression and explosion protection substitute listing determinations 
that are finalized in today's Final Rule. Tables summarizing these 
listing decisions are in Appendix I. The comments contained in Appendix 
I provide additional information on substitutes determined to be either 
unacceptable, acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable 
subject to use conditions. Since the comments contained in the appendix 
are not part of the regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use 
of a substitute. Nor should such 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 
such comments in their application of these substitutes, regardless of 
any regulatory requirements. In many instances, these comments simply 
allude to sound operating practices that have already been identified 
in existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of 
these comments, if adopted, would not require significant changes in 
existing operating practices for the affected industry.

A. Listing Decisions--Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    a. Total Flooding Agents. IG-100 is acceptable as a halon 1301 
substitute for total flooding applications. IG-100, which is composed 
of 100% nitrogen, is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected 
area to a level that does not support combustion. Typically most 
combustibles will not burn once the oxygen concentration reaches 15% or 
below. Since the oxygen level during fire suppression is designed to be 
lower than atmospheric, EPA is applying specific use conditions 
designed to protect employees and workplace personnel who may be 
present in areas where IG-100 is discharged. The conditions specify 
design requirements for IG-100 systems that are meant to assure that 
sufficient oxygen will be available to workplace personnel.
    These precautionary requirements are supported by medical 
specialists who have investigated human responses to inert gas fire 
suppression systems. They are consistent with conditions EPA has 
specified in approving other inert gas total flooding agents under the 
SNAP program. They are also consistent with worker safety conditions 
required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
and standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association: 
NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent fire Extinguishing Systems. (NFPA is 
a non-regulatory organization that publishes consensus codes and 
standards on fire safety issues for voluntary use.
    The use conditions referenced here, which are conditions of 
acceptability under SNAP, are intended to protect worker safety in the 
absence of OSHA and other workplace limits. 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. 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] Section 4(b)(1) is determined by the 
[Agency's] intent.''
    In accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d), EPA has worked in consultation with 
OSHA to encourage development of technical standards to be adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards setting bodies.
    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), EPA has 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.''
2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
    a. Streaming Agents. HCFC Blend E is acceptable as a halon 1211 
substitute for streaming agent uses in nonresidential applications. 
This agent is a blend of an HCFC, an HFC, and an additive. The primary 
constituent, an HCFC, is currently listed as acceptable for use in non-
residential streaming applications. The secondary constituent, an HFC, 
is listed acceptable as a flooding agent subject to use conditions.
    Halocarbon fire extinguishing agents (including HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs 
and CF3I) break down into hazardous decomposition products 
as they are exposed to a fire. Halogen acids, in particular hydrogen 
fluoride, are the decomposition products of most concern because of 
their potential toxicity to humans. Users should avoid breathing gases 
produced by thermal decomposition of the agents, and evacuate and 
ventilate the area immediately after use. As with other halocarbon 
agents, EPA recommends that the potential human health risks associated 
with the use of HCFC Blend E, as well as handling procedures to reduce 
such risk, be clearly labeled on each extinguisher containing this 
blend. See the extinguisher marking requirements in Underwriters 
Laboratories Inc. Standard for Safety for Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire 
Extinguishers (UL 2129).
    Additionally, section 610(d) of the Clean Air Act and its 
implementing regulations prohibit the sale and distribution of HCFCs in 
fire extinguishers for residential applications. (See 61 FR 64424, 
December 4, 1996, and 58 FR 69637, December 30, 1993.)

[[Page 24390]]

    EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of this blend 
and has concluded that, by comparison to halon 1211, it significantly 
reduces overall risk to the environment, particularly with respect to 
its ozone-depletion potential. The ozone-depletion potential of the 
HCFC in this blend is 0.02; no other constituent in the blend has 
ozone-depleting characteristics. Although there are clean agent 
substitutes acceptable for halon 1211, there are no commercially 
available alternatives for this end-use with zero ozone-depletion 
potential, low toxicity, and low global warming potential that provide 
ample fire suppression capabilities. EPA's review of environmental and 
human health impacts of this blend is contained in the public docket 
for this rulemaking.

B. Response to Comments

    No comments were received on the proposal (64 FR 8038; February 18, 
1999) or the correction to the proposal (64 FR 14417; March 25, 1999).

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 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 
will be 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

[[Page 24391]]

``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 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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. However, this rule 
does make use of the NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire 
Extinguishing Systems. EPA has worked in consultation with OSHA to 
encourage development of technical standards to be adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies.

IV. Additional Information

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional 
information on SNAP, contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 
(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 20, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    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 I to read 
as follows:

[[Page 24392]]

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix I to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions, 
Listed in the April 26, 2000, Final Rule, Effective May 26, 2000

                        Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents
                               [Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End Use               Substitute           Decision             Conditions             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 Total Flooding      IG-100          Acceptable...........  IG-100 systems        IG-100 systems must
 Systems.                                                              should be designed    include alarms and
                                                                       to maintain an        warning mechanisms.
                                                                       oxygen level of      Workplace personnel
                                                                       10%. A design         and employees
                                                                       concentration of      should not remain
                                                                       less than 10% may     in or re-enter the
                                                                       only be used in       area after system
                                                                       normally unoccupied   discharge (even if
                                                                       areas and in areas    such discharge is
                                                                       where egress is       accidental) without
                                                                       possible within 30    appropriate
                                                                       seconds.              personal protective
                                                                      If it is not           equipment.
                                                                       possible to egress   See additional
                                                                       an area within one    comments 1, 2, 3.
                                                                       minute, IG-100
                                                                       systems must be
                                                                       designed to
                                                                       maintain an oxygen
                                                                       level of 12%.
                                                                      If the possibility
                                                                       exists for oxygen
                                                                       levels to drop
                                                                       below 10%,
                                                                       employees must be
                                                                       evacuated prior to
                                                                       such oxygen
                                                                       depletion..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments:
1. Should conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.
2. Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel must re-enter the
  area.
3. 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--Streaming Agents
                                                 [Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End Use                           Substitute                      Decision                  Limitations                 Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211 Streaming Agents..........  HCFC Blend E.................  Acceptable...................  Nonresidential uses     As with other streaming
                                                                                                      only.                   agents, EPA recommends
                                                                                                                              that potential risks of
                                                                                                                              combustion byproducts be
                                                                                                                              labeled on the
                                                                                                                              extinguisher (see UL
                                                                                                                              2129).
                                                                                                                             See additional comments 1,
                                                                                                                              2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Comments:
1. Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
2. The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.

[FR Doc. 00-10422 Filed 4-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U