Federal Register, Volume 65 Issue 81 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24387-24392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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