[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4185-4203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1495]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-7130-7]
RIN 2060-AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Removal of Restrictions on
Certain Fire Suppression Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances;
and Listing of Substitutes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to remove restrictions previously imposed on the use of
certain substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. Specifically, EPA
is rescinding use conditions imposed under the SNAP program that limit
human exposure to halocarbon and inert gas agents used in the fire
suppression and explosion protection industry. These use conditions are
redundant with safety standards that have since been established by the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). These halocarbon and inert
gas agents will now either be acceptable or acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits, depending on the specific agent.
Today, EPA is also taking direct final action to change the listing
from acceptable, subject to use conditions, to unacceptable, for a fire
suppressant which the manufacturer has withdrawn from the market
because of concerns about fetal toxicity; add a substitute to the SNAP
list of acceptable substitutes with narrowed use limits in the fire
suppression and explosion protection sector; and change a listing
decision to remove a restriction from one substitute and to make it an
acceptable agent for fire suppression and explosion protection, without
use conditions or narrowed use limits. EPA is issuing a companion
proposal to this direct final rule elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. If we receive any adverse comments in response to an
amendment, table, or table entry of the rule, EPA will withdraw those
amendments, tables, or table entries of this direct final action and
will consider and respond to any comments prior to taking any new,
final action.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 1, 2002 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment or receives a request for a public
hearing by February 28, 2002. If we receive adverse comment or a
request for a public hearing, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that all or amendments,
tables, or table entries of this rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and data specific to this final rule to
Docket A-91-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAR Docket and
Information Center, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 6102,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket is physically located at 401 M Street,
SW., Room M-1500. You may inspect the docket 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. To expedite review, send a second copy of your comments
directly to Margaret Sheppard at the address listed below under For
Further Information. Information designated as Confidential Business
Information (CBI) under 40 CFR, part 2, Subpart 2, must be sent
directly to the contact person for this notice. However, the Agency is
requesting that all respondents submit a non-confidential version of
their comments to the docket as well.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard at (202) 564-9163 or
fax (202) 565-2155, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global
Programs Division, Mail Code 6205J, Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or
courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 501 3rd
Street, NW., 4th floor; Washington, DC 20001. Also contact the
Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996 and EPA's Ozone
Depletion World Wide Web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/
snap/''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this direct final rule, EPA is removing,
or in some cases, modifying, restrictions that were imposed on the use
of certain substitutes for ODSs under the SNAP program in the fire
suppression and explosion protection industry sector. Today's action
also adds a fire suppression agent to the list of acceptable
substitutes, subject to narrowed use limits. The regulations
implementing the SNAP program are codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart
G. The appendices to subpart G list substitutes for ODSs that have had
restrictions imposed on their use. The revisions in this direct final
rule modify the appendices to subpart G.
EPA is publishing today's revisions to the SNAP lists without prior
proposal because the Agency views them as non-controversial and
anticipates no adverse comment. The most significant position of this
rule is to simply remove restrictions that are now duplicative of
standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). In
addition, we are adding a new agent to the list of acceptable
substitutes, subject to narrowed use limits, and changing the listing
from acceptable, subject to use conditions, to unacceptable for an
agent that is no longer sold or produced because of fetal toxicity and
a high ozone depletion potential. This action does not place any
significant new burden on the regulated community. Rather, it removes
mandatory conditions on use of certain substitutes under the SNAP
program while encouraging voluntary compliance with NFPA's 2001
Standard. For the only part of the action creating further
restrictions, it is our understanding that the agent we are listing as
unacceptable is not currently being used; thus, it should not add
significantly to regulatory burden. Today's action decreases the
regulatory burden on the fire protection community while continuing to
protect human health and the environment. Members of the fire
protection community participate on NFPA's technical committee that is
responsible for developing and updating the 2001 standard and adhere to
the standards set by NFPA. For these reasons, EPA anticipates that this
action will be welcomed.
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a
[[Page 4186]]
companion proposed rule that proposes the same actions as this direct
final rule. The direct final rule will be effective on April 1, 2002
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment (or a request
for a public hearing) by February 28, 2002. If EPA receives adverse
comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that all or amendments, tables, or table entries
of this rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not
institute a second public comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.
You may claim that information in your comments is confidential
business information, as allowed by 40 CFR part 2. If you submit
comments and include information that you claim as confidential
business information, we request that you submit them directly to
Margaret Sheppard in two versions: one clearly marked ``Public'' to be
filed in the public docket, and the other marked ``Confidential'' to be
reviewed by authorized government personnel only.
Table of Contents
I. The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program and How It
Works
A. What Are the Statutory Requirements and Authority for the
SNAP Program?
B. How Do the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work?
C. Where Can I Get Additional Information about the SNAP
Program?
II. Today's Regulatory Action
A. How are ODSs and Their Substitutes Used in the Fire
Suppression and Explosion Protection Industry Sector?
1. How Does the SNAP Program Assess Risk for Total Flooding
Agents?
2. How Does the National Fire Protection Association Set Safety
Standards for Total Flooding Agents?
B. How Is EPA Changing the SNAP Program's Existing Substitute
Listings for Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection To Coordinate
with the NFPA 2001 Standard?
C. How Will Exposure Limits and Egress Times Be Determined for
New Halocarbon and Inert Gas Total Flooding Agents in the Future?
D. How is EPA Responding to the Withdrawal of HBFC-22B1 from the
Market?
E. What New Fire Suppressant is EPA Finding Acceptable Subject
to Narrowed Use Limits in Today's Action?
F. How Is EPA's Decision on the Acceptability of Envirogel
(Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension) Changing in Today's
Rule?
G. How Will Today's SNAP Listings Fit in with Previous SNAP
Listings in the Code of Federal Regulations?
III. Administrative Requirements
I. The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program and How
It Works
A. What Are the Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP
Program?
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate
rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section
612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list
of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any
person to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute
from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency
has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the
petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six
months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to
require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I
substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or
existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for
significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The
producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's health and
safety studies on such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator
shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying
and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key
commercial applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available
for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II
substances.
B. How Do the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work?
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR
13044) that 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 substances.
Anyone who produces a substitute for an ODS 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.
The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitutes: acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions;
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable. Use
conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered ``use
restrictions'' and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed
acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or narrowed use
limits) can be used for all applications within the relevant sector
end-use. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions
may be used only in accordance with such restrictions. It is illegal to
replace an ODS with a substitute listed 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.
For some substitutes the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use
within a sector (that is, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute
to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
[[Page 4187]]
industry sector), to allow agents to be used in specific uses that
would otherwise be deemed unacceptable. Such substitutes are described
as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.'' Users intending to
adopt a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits
must ascertain that other acceptable alternatives are not technically
feasible. Users 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 (for example, performance,
technical or safety standards), and the anticipated date other
substitutes will be available and projected time for switching to other
available substitutes. Use of such substitutes in applications and end-
uses which are not specified as acceptable in the narrowed use limit
renders these substitutes unacceptable.
The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal
Register. For those substitutes that are deemed acceptable subject to
use restrictions (use conditions and/or narrowed use limits), or for
substitutes deemed unacceptable, EPA first publishes these decisions as
proposals to allow the public opportunity to comment, and final
decisions are published as final rulemakings. In contrast, substitutes
that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions are published as
``notices of acceptability'', rather than as proposed and final rules.
As described in the rule implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044),
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list
alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such
listings neither impose any sanction nor remove any prior license to
use a substitute.
Many SNAP listings include statements in the column labelled
``Further Information'' (or in earlier listings, ``Comments''). These
comments provide additional information on substitutes determined to be
either unacceptable, acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or
acceptable subject to use conditions. Since these statements are not
part of the regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a
substitute unless they specifically reference regulatory requirements.
Nor should the information 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 this
information in their application of these substitutes, regardless of
any regulatory requirements. In many instances, the information simply
refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified
in existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the
statements, if adopted, would not require significant changes in
existing operating practices for the affected industry.
C. Where Can I Get Additional Information About the SNAP Program?
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 a.m. and 4 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), and see also the Code of Federal Regulations at
40 CFR part 82, subpart G. You can find a complete chronology of SNAP
decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations at EPA's Ozone
Depletion World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/chron.html.
II. Today's Regulatory Action
A. How Are ODSs and Their Substitutes Used in the Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection Industry Sector?
Substitutes for halons in the fire suppression and explosion
protection industry are classified as either total flooding agents or
streaming agents under the SNAP program. Today's action removes or
modifies restrictions pertaining to workplace exposures on certain
substitutes used as total flooding agents.
A total flooding fire protection system can be defined as ``a
system consisting of an agent supply and distribution network designed
to achieve a total flooding condition in a hazard volume,'' when total
flooding is defined as ``the act and manner of discharging an agent for
the purpose of achieving a specified minimum agent concentration
throughout a hazard volume'' (National Fire Protection Association 2001
Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2000 Edition).
1. How Does the SNAP Program Assess Risk for Total Flooding Agents?
Beginning with the original SNAP rulemaking (March 18, 1994, 59 FR
13044) and continuing in subsequent rulemakings, EPA has listed several
halocarbon and inert gas agents as acceptable substitutes for halons as
total flooding agents. However, because of health risks associated with
exposures at elevated concentrations of these agents, the acceptability
decisions for halocarbon and inert gas agents were made subject to use
conditions that are intended to limit human exposure to these agents.
For halocarbon agents, the health effect of concern is cardiac
sensitization (an increase in the sensitivity of the heart to
adrenaline). The use conditions for halocarbon substitutes under the
SNAP program are based on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
and lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for cardiac
sensitization. See 59 FR 13098 (March 18, 1994).
For inert gas agents, the human health effect of concern is
reduction of oxygen to potentially unsafe levels. The use conditions
under the SNAP program for inert gas substitutes are based on minimum
oxygen levels associated with use of the agent. See 59 FR 13098 (March
18, 1994).
In establishing standards for safe use of halocarbon total flooding
alternatives, EPA based exposure limits on available animal
toxicological data and established exposure times to be consistent with
the exposure limits for halon 1301 in the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration's (OSHA) standard on fixed fire suppression
equipment (see 29 CFR 1910, subpart L sections 1910.162 and 1910.160).
Section 1910.162 limits workers' exposure to halon 1301 by linking
percent agent concentration in air with the length of time required to
safely leave an area (the egress time). EPA developed standards for
safe use of halocarbons that link percent concentration in air of the
agent (based on the cardiac sensitization NOAEL and LOAEL as determined
by animal testing) with egress times.
In establishing standards for safe use of inert gases used as
alternatives to halons for total flooding applications, EPA linked
minimum oxygen concentration in air with egress times. This is similar
to the approach for setting exposure limits for halocarbon agents. For
inert gases, we used 12% and 10% oxygen as functional equivalents of
the NOAEL and LOAEL, respectively. See 59 FR 13108 and 13142 (March 18,
1994) and 61 FR 25588-25590 (May 22, 1996).
2. How Does the National Fire Protection Association Set Safety
Standards for Total Flooding Agents?
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an independent,
[[Page 4188]]
voluntary membership, non-profit international organization that is
dedicated to reducing the burden of fire on the quality of life by
advocating scientifically-based consensus codes and standards,
research, and education for fire and related safety issues. NFPA codes
and standards are developed through a consensus process accredited by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). NFPA codes and
standards are used by the fire protection community throughout the
United States and the world, and are widely used as a basis for
legislation and regulation at all levels of government, from local to
international.
Since 1896, the NFPA has been developing and updating
scientifically based consensus codes and standards concerning all areas
of fire safety. There are currently more than 300 NFPA fire codes and
standards in use. Examples include NFPA 10 on Portable Extinguishers,
NFPA 12 on Carbon Dioxide Systems, and NFPA 12A on Halon 1301 Systems.
These standards allow for safe use of fire protection agents and
systems.
NFPA codes and standards are developed and updated through an open,
consensus-based process involving thousands of volunteers with
technical expertise in a wide range of areas. Volunteers come from the
fire services, educational institutions, businesses, insurance
companies, industry, labor, consumers, and governing agencies. Any
person can submit a proposal to NFPA for a new document or to update an
existing one. Various technical committees, made up of volunteers
representing a balance of different interests, are assigned to each
project. The technical committee develops an initial draft of the
project, and issues public notices asking for proposals to include in
the document. The committee meets to consider all proposals on a
project, and the proposals and the committee's action on them are
published and made widely available to the public. Anyone may attend
the committee meetings, and address technical committees. If a
committee votes to approve their action on the proposals, a 60-day
public comment period begins, after which the committee meets again to
act on the comments (again anyone may attend the meeting and address
the committee). If the committee votes to approve the comments, a
report on the comments is published and is made available to anyone for
review. The proposals and comments are then submitted for open debate
at either of NFPA's twice annual Association meetings. Anyone
(regardless of whether they are an NFPA member or not) can present
their views on the proposal and comments at the annual meetings. After
deliberation, the NFPA membership votes to either approve, amend, or
return portions or the entire document to the technical committee. The
technical committee then votes on any amendments to the document that
were made at the NFPA Association meeting. Any person can file an
appeal to NFPA if they are dissatisfied with actions taken during the
development of codes and standards.
Building codes (or other local codes) specify requirements for fire
protection systems based on the specific level of fire hazard present.
These codes apply to the design, installation and operation of the fire
protection system and assign the approval authority (or ``authority
having jurisdiction,'' AHJ) that is responsible for determining that
all systems installed meet the codes. The design and installation
requirements for individual systems are based on compliance with
applicable NFPA standards. NFPA standards apply to the fire protection
agents, and the equipment and devices that make up the entire fire
protection system. NFPA standards establish applicability of fire
protection agents in particular system applications, and require that
all equipment and devices used in a system be listed by a third party
organization that is acceptable to the approval authority and is
concerned with product evaluation. (``Listed'' means ``Equipment,
materials or services included in a list published by an organization
that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned
with evaluation of products or services, that maintains periodic
inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic
evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either the
equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated standards
or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose.''
National Fire Protection Association 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems, 2000 Edition)
At the time that EPA developed the original SNAP rule, neither a
relevant regulatory agency (for example, OSHA) nor a voluntary
consensus standard setting body (for example, NFPA) had yet established
use conditions that would adequately limit human exposure to
alternatives to halons used as total flooding agents, nor had they
established a procedure for determining use conditions. Thus, we
developed exposure criteria under the SNAP program to allow for safe
use of these alternative agents (that is, halocarbon and inert gas
agents) in the interim. In the original SNAP rule, EPA established use
conditions to allow halocarbon and inert gas alternative agents to be
safely used and to facilitate the transition from use of halon 1301 to
these agents. See 59 FR 13102 and 13139 through 13143 (March 18, 1994).
As halocarbon and inert gas total flooding alternatives were being
developed to replace halon 1301, NFPA began work on a voluntary
consensus standard to address design, installation, maintenance and
operation of systems using these alternatives. The resulting standard,
first published February 11, 1994, is called NFPA 2001 Standard on
Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems. The NFPA 2001 Standard is
approved by the American National Standards Institute. The NFPA
technical committee that developed and updates the 2001 standard is the
Technical Committee on Alternative Protection Options to Halon.
NFPA 2001 established use conditions designed to limit human
exposure to the alternative total flooding agents. The original NFPA
2001 Standard restricted use of agents to areas that are not normally
occupied, if used in concentrations exceeding the NOAEL concentration.
Concentrations less than the NOAEL were allowed in areas that are
normally occupied. However, these earlier versions of the NFPA standard
did not set limits on the duration of exposure at concentrations less
than the NOAEL, and did not establish egress times. Thus, the February
11, 1994 version of the standard did not include as much protection for
human health as the March 18, 1994 final SNAP rule. Only the most
recent revision to NFPA 2001 established standard egress times
consistent with OSHA requirements and the SNAP use conditions.
The latest edition of NFPA 2001 was published in March 2000 (NFPA
2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems 2000 Edition).
This most recent version of the standard includes the following
revisions to the exposure limits and times for halocarbon and inert gas
agents:
For halocarbon agents, the NFPA 2001 Standard has been
revised to adopt the use of a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic
(PBPK) model to establish limits on exposure concentrations and times.
Use of the PBPK model is a more precise method of determining safe
human exposure concentrations and times than the method contained in
previous editions of NFPA 2001 and EPA's SNAP listings.
[[Page 4189]]
For inert gas agents, the NFPA 2001 Standard has been
revised to adopt the findings of an expert panel on health effects of
hypoxic (low oxygen) atmospheres. This expert panel was convened by EPA
to re-evaluate egress times for inert gas agents using the latest
technical information. Based on the expert panel's findings, the egress
times in the NFPA 2001 Standard were revised.
The latest NFPA 2001 Standard is based on the most current
scientific information and procedures for assessing risks associated
with the use of halocarbon and inert gas fire suppression agents.
NFPA's 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems is now
the basis for regulation of halon replacement systems throughout North
America and is also widely used in other parts of the world. Based on
these developments, EPA has concluded that NFPA has established a
standard that:
(1) Adequately addresses safe exposure limits and times for
halocarbon and inert gas agents;
(2) Takes into account the latest science and;
(3) Is more up-to-date than the SNAP exposure limits and egress
times for these agents. Thus, we believe that there now exists a
standard industry procedure with a scientific basis to establish
exposure levels and egress times and that the use conditions required
by the SNAP program, which establish exposure levels and egress times
for these agents, are redundant and should be rescinded.
B. How Is EPA Changing the SNAP Program's Existing Substitute Listings
for Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection To Coordinate With the
NFPA 2001 Standard?
Today EPA is rescinding the SNAP use conditions that limit human
exposure to halocarbon and inert gas total flooding alternatives, and
is instead referring to the latest NFPA 2001 Standard for safe use of
these agents. EPA originally established exposure limits and egress
times for these alternatives to allow for their safe use in the absence
of existing standards that addressed these issues. In setting those
conditions, EPA did not intend to preempt other regulatory authorities
or standard-setting bodies from establishing exposure levels for these
agents. In fact, as stated in the proposal for the original SNAP rule
(58 FR 28098; May 12, 1993), EPA intended only to fill regulatory gaps
until other controls or standards were developed; we intended to
rescind any conditions that became redundant or irrelevant once such
gaps were filled.
EPA has worked with NFPA on development of each edition of the 2001
standard, including the latest revisions, and plans to work with NFPA
on future editions. Rather than modifying SNAP exposure limits and
times to reflect the same changes as are in the latest NFPA 2001
Standard, EPA is rescinding the SNAP exposure limits and times and is
instead deferring to NFPA 2001, as the appropriate American national
industry standard.
Although EPA is removing use conditions on the use of halocarbon
and inert gas alternatives, we believe that the fire protection
community will continue to use these agents safely because the NFPA
2001 Standard establishes exposure limits and times for safe use of
these agents. EPA believes that by rescinding the SNAP regulation's use
conditions for halocarbon and inert gas agents, these agents will be
used more efficiently for the following two reasons:
(1) The fire protection industry is familiar with NFPA standards
and is accustomed to using the 2001 Standard in design, installation
and use of systems with these agents, and will now only have to look to
one source (the 2001 Standard) to determine conditions for safe use
instead of looking to both the 2001 Standard and SNAP's exposure limits
and times; and
(2) The recent revisions to the halocarbon exposure limits and
times in NFPA 2001 (that is, incorporating use of PBPK model data to
set concentrations and times) allow for more efficient use of the
agents themselves. They allow for safe use of optimal concentrations of
agents designed to extinguish a fire more quickly and thus reduce the
development of hazardous breakdown products as the agents themselves
are exposed to fire.
Relying on NFPA's 2001 Standard for the establishment of safe
exposure limits and times for halocarbon and inert gas alternatives is
consistent with the government's goal of adopting voluntary consensus
standards where appropriate. EPA has served and plans to continue to
participate in NFPA's Technical Committee on Halon Alternative
Protection Options, the committee responsible for development of the
2001 Standard, in keeping with the government's goal of Federal agency
participation in the development of voluntary consensus standards.
These goals are outlined in Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular No. A-119 on Federal Participation in the Development and Use
of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities.
EPA is rescinding SNAP use conditions that limit human exposure to
halocarbon and inert gases used as substitutes for halons in the total
flooding end use because we believe the NFPA standard will provide
necessary protection for human health and the environment. As required
by section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program will continue to:
review halon alternatives to ensure that they reduce overall risks to
human health and the environment; publish lists of acceptable and
unacceptable substitutes; and prohibit the use of any substitute that
may present adverse effects to human health or the environment (where
EPA has identified an alternative that reduces overall risk and is
currently or potentially available). In the future, we expect to defer
to the NFPA and other standard-setting bodies where they establish
appropriate voluntary consensus standards that are accepted and
followed by the relevant industry.
As a result of our decision to rescind the use conditions described
above, EPA is revising the SNAP listings for halocarbon and inert gas
alternatives to include the following comment, ``Use of this agent
should be in accordance with the safety guidelines in the latest
edition of the NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems.'' In the edition of NFPA 2001 that was published in March
2000, safety guidelines for halocarbon and inert gas agents are found
in section 1-6, entitled ``Safety.''
As described below under the heading ``How Do the Regulations for
SNAP Program Work?'', the SNAP program includes four possible listing
decisions. An alternative may be listed as: (1) Acceptable with no
restrictions; (2) acceptable with use conditions; (3) acceptable with
narrowed use limits; or (4) unacceptable. Use conditions and narrowed
use limits are two different types of regulatory restrictions that
affect use of alternatives. Use conditions govern how an alternative
may be used (for example, establishing maximum concentrations and times
that people may be exposed to an agent). In contrast, narrowed use
limits govern where an alternative may be used (for example,
restricting use of an agent to nonresidential uses only).
Each of the inert gas agents previously listed as acceptable total
flooding agents under SNAP were subject to use conditions that limit
human exposure to the agents, but no other restrictions. As these use
conditions are rescinded as of today's action, the inert gas agents now
fall under the category of acceptable
[[Page 4190]]
alternatives without restrictions. Most of the halocarbon agents
previously listed as acceptable total flooding agents under SNAP were
subject to use conditions that limit human exposure to the agents (with
no other restrictions). Likewise, these now fall under the category of
acceptable alternatives without restrictions. Acceptable substitutes
without restrictions are not listed in appendix G to subpart G of part
82. However, you can find lists of acceptable substitutes on EPA's SNAP
Program web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/lists/index.html. Table 1, below, summarizes today's acceptability listings.
Table 1.--Summary of Acceptable Total Flooding Substitutes, Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding................... IG-01........................ Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 5.
Total flooding................... IG-100....................... Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 5.
Total flooding................... IG-541....................... Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
This agent contains
CO2, which is
intended to
increase blood
oxygenation and
cerebral blood flow
in low oxygen
atmospheres. The
design
concentration
should result in no
more than 5% CO2.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 5.
Total flooding................... IG-55........................ Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 5.
Total flooding................... HFC-227ea.................... Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5.
Total flooding................... HFC-125...................... Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5.
Total flooding................... HFC-23....................... Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5.
Total flooding................... HCFC-124..................... Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5.
Total flooding................... HCFC Blend A................. Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5.
Total flooding................... HFC-134a..................... Acceptable.............. Use of blends
containing this
agent should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6.
Total flooding................... HCFC-22...................... Acceptable.............. Use of blends
containing this
agent should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
edition of the NFPA
2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and
1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the
area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective
equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other
occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
6--The NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems gives guidelines for blends that contain
HFC-134a or HCFC-22 and other acceptable total flooding agents, rather than referring to HFC-134a or HCFC-22
alone.
Two of the halocarbon agents in the above table, HFC-134a and HCFC-
22, are not addressed in NFPA's 2001 Standard. Currently, neither of
these agents is used (outside of blends) in total flooding systems in
the U.S. For either of these agents to be used as total flooding agents
(outside of any blend containing these agents that is already
[[Page 4191]]
addressed by NFPA 2001), a proposal would need to be submitted to NFPA
to have the agent added to the 2001 Standard under NFPA's usual
procedure for updating existing standards, and a total flooding system
would need to be in compliance with any other local requirements.
(NFPA's procedure for updating codes and standards is described above,
under the heading ``NFPA's Safety Standards for Total Flooding
Agents.'')
As noted, in previous SNAP listings, most of the halocarbons that
are alternatives to halons for use as total flooding agents were
subject to use conditions that limit human exposure without any
additional restrictions. However, three halocarbon agents (HFC-236fa,
C3F8 and C4F10) that we
previously listed as acceptable were also subject to narrowed use
limits that restrict where these alternatives may be used (in addition
to use conditions that limit human exposure to the agents). Although
EPA is today rescinding the use conditions regarding safe exposure to
HFC-236fa, C3F8 and C4F10,
the Agency is maintaining the narrowed use limits for these three
agents. Therefore, these agents are still subject to restrictions under
SNAP, and fall into the category of acceptable alternatives subject to
narrowed use limits. The listings for these three agents are summarized
in Table 2, below. EPA established the narrowed use limits imposed on
the use of HFC-236fa, C3F8 and
C4F10 to restrict the use of these agents because
of their relatively long atmospheric lifetimes and high global warming
potentials, which are particularly high in the case of the
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) C3F8 and
C4F10 (see Appendix H to subpart G of part 82).
Some agents have been listed in more than one appendix to subpart G
of part 82. For example, when OSHA introduced standards for the use of
C3F8 and C4F10, EPA revised
the SNAP listing for those agents and placed them in a new Appendix,
which then contained all relevant information for those agents. Thus,
although C3F8 appeared both in Appendix B and
appendix H, and C4F10 appeared in both appendix A
and appendix H, the listings in Appendices A and B for these agents
were obsolete. Since we are revising the appendices to subpart G of
part 82 at this time, we decided to leave only the more recent,
complete decisions, found in appendix H, and to delete the obsolete
listings in appendices A and B.
In reviewing the listings for total flooding agents, we found that
there were a few agents that should be subject to a narrowed use limit,
rather than subject to a use condition. For example, EPA had previously
listed CF3I as ``acceptable for use in normally unoccupied
areas, subject to use conditions.'' We had originally stated in our
decision that it is acceptable only for use in normally unoccupied
areas, as well as subject to use conditions for the exposure limits and
egress times. Although we are removing the use conditions regarding
exposure limits and egress times, we believe that it is still
appropriate to restrict the use of CF3I to normally
unoccupied areas. This is because we have not received information
showing that this agent is safe to use in occupied areas. Consistent
with our past practice for other substitutes, EPA now believes that
this restriction should be included on the ``narrowed use'' list,
rather than the ``use condition'' list. Thus, as an administrative
matter, EPA is shifting CF3I, with the limit on use to
normally unoccupied areas, to the narrowed use list. This shift does
not modify the substantive requirements applicable to use of
CF3I. (The same need to retain restrictions applies to some
uses of the agent known as Gelled Halocarbon / Dry Chemical Suspension
or Envirogel. Because there are additional actions that EPA is taking
with respect to Envirogel and we believe it would be confusing to
discuss our actions with respect to Envirogel in a piecemeal fashion,
we discuss the retention of the restrictions as well as the other
actions pertaining to Envirogel below in section II.D. of the preamble
under the heading ``How is EPA's Decision on the Acceptability of
Envirogel (Gelled Halocarbon / Dry Chemical Suspension) Changing in
Today's Rule?''. For that reason, Envirogel is not included on Table 2
below; Tables 5 and 6 reflect all of the actions that EPA is taking on
Envirogel in this notice.)
Finally, we also are changing the wording of the listing for
SF6 to list it as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits'' with a narrowed use limit that it be used only as a discharge
testing agent in military applications and in civilian aircraft. (As
new alternatives are now available for discharge testing, EPA will re-
assess the acceptability listing of SF6 in this application
as part of a future regulatory review.) Currently, this restriction is
listed in the ``use conditions'' list and, as with CF3I, EPA
believes that this restriction is more appropriately included in the
narrowed use table. Thus, this also is a clarification of the
limitations in the original decision, rather than a substantive change
to the SNAP listings.
We also have slightly revised some information in the ``comments''
column, for the agents in Table 2 below. These are minor changes for
consistency with current information and in presenting information
about the Agency's decision. For example, we have added a note about
the global warming potential and atmospheric lifetime of HFC-236fa to
be consistent with the current comments for
C4H10, C3F8, and
SF6. We also removed an obsolete reference about ODP data
for the agent CF3I.
[[Page 4192]]
Table 2.--Total Flooding Substitutes, Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits, Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Flooding...................... HFC-236fa....................... Acceptable subject to narrowed Acceptable when Use of this agent
use limits. manufactured using should be in
any process that does accordance with the
not convert safety guidelines in
perfluoroisobutylene the latest edition of
(PFIB) directly to the NFPA 2001
HFC-236fa in a single Standard for Clean
step: Agent Fire
-for use in explosion Extinguishing
suppression and Systems.
explosion inertion Users should observe
applications and. the limitations on
-for use in fire HFC-236fa
suppression acceptability by
applications where taking the following
other non-PFC agents measures:
or alternatives are (i) conduct an
not technically evaluation of
feasible due to foreseeable
performance or safety conditions of end-
requirements:. use;
(a) because of their (ii) determine that
physical or chemical the physical or
properties, or. chemical properties
(b) where human or other technical
exposure to the constraints of the
extinguishing agents other available
may result in failure agents preclude their
to meet safety use; and
guidelines in the (iii) determine that
latest edition of the human exposure to the
NFPA 2001 Standard other alternative
for Clean Agent Fire extinguishing agents
Extinguishing Systems. may result in failure
to meet safety
guidelines in the
latest edition of the
NFPA 2001 Standard
for Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review
upon request.
The principal
evironmental
characteristic of
concern for HFC-236fa
is its high GWP of
9400 and long
atmospheric lifetime
of 226 years. Actual
contributions to
global warming depend
upon the quantities
emitted.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
Total flooding...................... C3F8............................ Acceptable subject to narrowed Acceptable for Use of this agent
use limits. nonresidential uses should be in
where other accordance with the
alternatives are not safety guidelines in
technically feasible the latest edition of
due to performance or the NFPA 2001
safety requirements: Standard for Clean
(a) because of their Agent Fire
physical or chemical Extinguishing
properties, or. Systems.
(b) where human Users should observe
exposure to the the limitations on
extinguishing agents PFC acceptability by
may result in failure taking the following
to meet safety measures:
guidelines in the (i) conduct an
latest edition of the evaluation of
NFPA 2001 Standard foreseeable
for Clean Agent Fire conditions of end-
Extinguishing Systems. use;
(ii) determine that
the physical or
chemical properties
or other technical
constraints of the
other available
agents preclude their
use; and
(iii) determine that
human exposure to the
other alternative
extinguishing agents
may result in failure
to meet safety
guidelines in the
latest edition of the
NFPA 2001 Standard
for Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review
upon request.
The principal
environmental
characteristic of
concern for PFCs is
that they have high
GWPs and long
atmospheric
lifetimes. Actual
contributions to
global warming depend
upon the quantities
of PFCs emitted.
[[Page 4193]]
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
Total flooding...................... C4F10........................... Acceptable subject to narrowed Acceptable for Use of this agent
use limits. nonresidential uses should be in
where other accordance with the
alternatives are not safety guidelines in
technically feasible the latest edition of
due to performance or the NFPA 2001
safety requirements: Standard for Clean
(a) because of their Agent Fire
physical or chemical Extinguishing
properties, or. Systems.
(b) where human Users should observe
exposure to the the limitations on
extinguishing agents PFC acceptability by
may result in failure taking the following
to meet safety measures:
guidelines in the (i) conduct an
latest edition of the evaluation of
NFPA 2001 Standard foreseeable
for Clean Agent Fire conditions of end-
Extinguishing Systems. use;
(ii) determine that
the physical or
chemical properties
or other technical
constraints of the
other available
agents preclude their
use; and
(iii) determine that
human exposure to the
other alternative
extinguishing agents
may result in failure
to meet safety
guidelines in the
latest edition of the
NFPA 2001 Standard
for Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review
upon request.
The principal
enviromental
characteristic of
concern for PFCs is
that they have high
GWPs and long
atmospheric
lifetimes. Actual
contributions to
global warming depend
upon the quantities
of PFCs emitted.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
Total flooding...................... CF3I............................ Acceptable subject to narrowed Use only in normally Use of this agent
use limits. unoccupied areas. should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines in
the latest edition of
the NFPA 2001
Standard for Clean
Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The decisions for Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension (Envirogel) are summarized below in Section II.D. in Tables 5 and 6.
Additional comments:
1--Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),
fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
As noted, the Agency is rescinding the SNAP use conditions that
limit human exposure to halocarbons or inert gases used as total
flooding agents, and EPA is not rescinding any other use restrictions
on any other substitutes for halons at this time. For example, narrowed
use limits on substitutes used as total flooding agents remain the
same, such as restrictions that limit use of a substitute to normally
unoccupied areas. Existing use restrictions for total flooding
substitutes other than halocarbons and inert gases also are not
affected by today's action. Use conditions and narrowed use limits for
substitutes for halons used as streaming agents are unaffected by
today's direct final rule.
Previously listed total flooding agents other than halocarbon and
inert gas agents that are not addressed by the NFPA 2001 standard are
not affected by today's action. These include Inert Gas/Powdered
Aerosol Blend, Powdered Aerosol C, Powdered Aerosol A, Carbon Dioxide,
Foam A, Water, and Water mist (using potable or natural sea water).
Today's action does not affect the existing SNAP listings for these
agents in any way (use restrictions and/or comments apply to the use of
many of these agents; see 40 CFR part 82 Subpart
[[Page 4194]]
G for complete listings). EPA may reconsider these listings in the
future, depending upon the availability of technically feasible
alternative methods to evaluate these other total flooding agents.
C. How Will Exposure Limits and Egress Times Be Determined for New
Halocarbon and Inert Gas Total Flooding Agents in the Future?
EPA does not intend to establish exposure limits or egress times as
use conditions for halocarbon and inert gas fire suppressants used as
total flooding agents in future SNAP submissions. Instead, for any fire
suppressant to be used as a total flooding agent that was previously
unlisted, the manufacturer would need to submit a proposal to NFPA to
have the agent added to the 2001 Standard under NFPA's usual procedure
for updating existing standards. (described above under the heading
``NFPA's Safety Standards for Total Flooding Agents.'') A total
flooding system would need to be in compliance with any other local
requirements. The NFPA 2001 standard would take over the role of
establishing exposure limits and egress times for total flooding
agents.
As halocarbon or inert gas total flooding agents are submitted to
the SNAP program in the future, EPA's regulations will continue to
require the same information (including complete toxicological data) as
has been required previously. The SNAP program will continue to
evaluate these agents based on overall human health and environmental
risks, and will publish listing decisions in the Federal Register. We
plan to provide information on occupational exposure limits in future
listing decisions, including the NOAEL and LOAEL. However, the SNAP
listing would not specify exposure limits or egress times for
halocarbon or inert gas total flooding agents; rather, we would expect
submitters to request the NFPA 2001 committee to establish those
values. A submitter would not need to receive exposure limits and
egress times from the NFPA on their substitute, however, before EPA
could decide on its acceptability under the SNAP program. To avoid
confusion, we choose not to establish temporary exposure guidelines or
use conditions under the SNAP program that could conflict with future,
more appropriate exposure limits and egress times from the NFPA 2001
Committee. Not issuing use conditions on exposure for new agents also
reduces administrative burden for the Agency and for submitters.
Importantly, we believe this approach will sufficiently protect
public health and the environment. Generally, local fire codes
reference NFPA standards where they exist. Therefore, we expect that
the NFPA 2001 Committee will include new agents in the standard before
new agents will be used. In addition, mentioning the NOAEL and LOAEL in
SNAP decisions will assist users in assessing the health impacts of
fire suppression agents, while avoiding potential conflicts with
decisions of the NFPA committee. We expect that submitters of new
agents will continue to work with the NFPA to have their agents
included in the 2001 Standard, as has been the practice. We plan to
participate in NFPA's voluntary consensus process on future editions of
the 2001 Standard.
D. How is EPA Responding to the Withdrawal of HBFC-22B1 From the
Market?
EPA previously listed HBFC-22B1 (tradename FM-100) as acceptable
subject to use conditions for the total flooding end use for fire
suppression in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rule. Since then, the
manufacturer of HBFC-22B1 withdrew this fire suppression agent from the
market because it was found to be a fetal toxin. Furthermore, this
substitute has a high ozone depletion potential of 0.74, and its
production was required to be phased out by January 1, 1996 (except for
essential uses). Therefore, EPA is removing it from the list of
acceptable substitutes and is listing it as an unacceptable substitute.
EPA reviewed the presentation of all listings for total flooding
agents in the Code of Federal Regulations as part of rescinding use
conditions for halocarbon and inert gas agents, as discussed above in
section II.B. During that review, we decided that it was inappropriate
to rescind the use conditions on HBFC-22B1 and list it as an acceptable
substitute for halon 1301. We reasoned that if an agent is too toxic
for the manufacturer to sell it, then the agent should be considered
unacceptable under the SNAP program. In addition, because HBFC-22B1 has
a relatively high ODP and because the manufacturer has withdrawn HBFC-
22B1 from the market, we cannot consider this to be a viable substitute
for halons that would help in the transition away from ozone depleting
substances. Since listing this substitute as acceptable is contrary to
the purpose of the SNAP program, we are listing it as an unacceptable
substitute for halon 1301 in the total flooding end use in the fire
protection sector. As a result of this listing, it will be unlawful to
use HBFC-22B1 as a fire suppression agent as of the effective date of
this regulation. This decision is summarized below in Table 3.
Table 3.--Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector, Total Flooding Substitutes, Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301........................ HBFC-22B1................. Unacceptable............. HBFC-22B1 is a Class
I ozone depleting
substance with an
ozone depletion
potential of .74.
Production was
phased out January
1, 1996.
Total Flooding Agents............. .......................... ......................... The manufacturer of
this agent removed
it from the market
because it is a
fetal toxin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this agent has not been produced for more than five years,
because it is not available for sale, and because we believe no one is
currently using this agent, we expect that our decision will not have a
substantial impact on the industry or users. Because there should be
little or no impact and because the manufacturer has recognized its
toxicity, we expect our decision will not be controversial. Therefore,
EPA is giving notice today of our decision to find HBFC-22B1
unacceptable without prior proposal.
E. What New Fire Suppressant Is EPA Finding Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits in Today's Action?
A manufacturer of fire suppression agents submitted the new agent
Halotron II for review by the SNAP program. The submitter for Halotron
II requested that it be listed only for areas that are not normally
occupied. EPA finds Halotron II acceptable as a substitute for halon
1301 for use as a total flooding agent in the fire suppression and
explosion protection sector, subject to the following narrowed use
limits: it may be used
[[Page 4195]]
only in areas that are not normally occupied. This agent is a blend of
halocarbon and other gases.
EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of this blend
and concluded that, by comparison to halon 1301 and other substitutes
for halon 1301, this blend reduces overall risk to the environment. The
components of this blend have negligible ozone-depletion potential.
EPA's review of all of the environmental and human health impacts of
this blend is contained in the public docket for this rulemaking. This
listing decision is summarized in Table 4, below.
Table 4.--Total Flooding Substitutes, Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits, Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding.................. Halotron II....... Acceptable subject Acceptable in See additional
to narrowed use areas that are comments 1, 2, 3,
limits. not normally 4, 5.
occupied only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and
1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the
area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective
equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other
occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
EPA is adding Halotron II to the SNAP lists without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a non-controversial action and
anticipates no adverse comment. We stated in the original SNAP rule
that for substitutes that are deemed acceptable subject to use
restrictions (use conditions and/or narrowed use limits), or for
substitutes deemed unacceptable, we would publish these decisions as
proposals to allow the public opportunity to comment on the decision.
Although EPA is restricting use of this agent to areas that are not
normally occupied, this limitation was requested by the submitter.
Thus, we do not expect adverse comment. By listing Halotron II through
direct final rulemaking, the Agency is expediting the addition of this
agent to the list of acceptable substitutes, thereby providing greater
opportunities for the public to transition from the use of halon to
non-ozone-depleting alternatives.
F. How Is EPA's Decision on the Acceptability of Envirogel (Gelled
Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension) Changing in Today's Rule?
Envirogel (Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension) is a blend of
any of several hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) with an additive. Today EPA is
listing Envirogel as an acceptable substitute for total flooding in the
fire suppression and explosion protection sector, using any of the HFCs
that are addressed by NFPA's 2001 Standard.
EPA previously listed Envirogel as an acceptable substitute subject
to use conditions for halon 1301 as a total flooding agent only in
normally unoccupied areas in the Federal Register on June 13, 1995 (60
FR 31092) under the generic name Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical
Suspension.\1\ Although we used a generic name to list this agent in
the past, today we are listing the agent under its trade name,
Envirogel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Envirogel also was previously listed as an acceptable
substitute for halon 1211 as a streaming agent on August 26, 1994
(59 FR 44240) under the generic name Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical
Suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submitter of this agent originally requested SNAP review for
unoccupied areas only. The submitter of Envirogel later re-submitted
the agent with an ammonium polyphosphate additive for use in occupied
areas. The SNAP program evaluated this agent for use in occupied areas
and has determined that it is acceptable for such use. Thus, in today's
action EPA is determining that Envirogel with the ammonium
polyphosphate additive is acceptable for use in both occupied and
unoccupied areas.
The original SNAP listing for this agent found it acceptable for
use only in unoccupied areas, subject to use conditions on the exposure
concentration and egress time, as discussed above in section II.B of
the preamble (``How is EPA Changing the SNAP Program's Existing
Substitute Listings for Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection to
Coordinate with the NFPA 2001 Standard?''). Today's action rescinds
those use conditions. Although Envirogel itself is not listed in NFPA's
2001 Standard, the hydrofluorocarbon gases that are used in this agent
are addressed by the 2001 Standard. Use of Envirogel should be in
accordance with the exposure limits set forth in NFPA 2001 for the
particular hydrofluorocarbon gas used.
The original SNAP listing for this agent (60 FR 31092; June 13,
1995) included a discussion in the preamble regarding the use of either
of two different additives (ammonium polyphosphate or monoammonium
phosphate) with halocarbon gases. Note that today's decision, which
broadens the acceptability of this agent to include use in occupied
areas, only applies to the ammonium polyphosphate additive. Before this
agent could be used in occupied areas with any additive other than
ammonium polyphosphate, it would need separate review by the Agency.
Envirogel used with monoammonium phosphate additive, when used as a
total flooding agent as a substitute for halon 1301, is still subject
to narrowed use limits.
Consistent with the discussion of CF3I in section II.B
of the preamble above, we are revising the previous listing from
acceptable subject to use conditions (``acceptable for use in normally
unoccupied areas'') to acceptable subject to narrowed use limits (``use
only in normally unoccupied areas''). You can find the revised
regulatory language below in Table 6. The EPA considers this an
administrative revision that has no substantive implication for the use
of Envirogel.
As discussed above, EPA is rescinding the use conditions on
exposure limits for each of the SNAP-listed halocarbon fire protection
agents that are addressed by NFPA's 2001 Standard. Use of Envirogel
(Gelled Halocarbon / Dry Chemical Suspension) should be in accordance
with the exposure limits set forth in the NFPA 2001 Standard, for
whichever HFC gas is employed. The
[[Page 4196]]
listing decisions for Envirogel are summarized in Tables 5 and 6,
below.
Table 5.--Acceptable Total Flooding Substitutes, Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding............... Envirogel with ammonium Acceptable.............. Use of this agent
polyphosphate additive. should be in
accordance with the
safety guidelines
in the latest
additive edition of
the NFPA 2001
Standard for Clean
Agent Fire
Extinguishing
Systems, for
whichever
hydrofluorocarbon
gas is employed.
Envirogel is listed
as a streaming
substitute under
the generic name
Gelled Halocarbon/
Dry Chemical
Suspension.
Envirogel was also
previously listed
as a total flooding
substitute under
the same generic
name.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and
1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the
area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective
equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other
occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
Table 6.--Total Flooding Substitutes, Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits, Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding........ Envirogel with any additive Acceptable subject to narrowed Use only in normally unoccupied Use of this agent should
other than ammonium use limits. areas. be in accordance with the
polyphosphate. safety guidelines in the
latest edition of the
NFPA 2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems,
for whichever
hydrofluorocarbon gas is
employed.
Envirogel is listed as a
streaming substitute
under the generic name
Gelled Halocarbon/Dry
Chemical Suspension.
Envirogel was also
previously listed as a
total flooding substitute
under the same generic
name.
See additional comments 1,
2, 3, 4, 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),
fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
Envirogel (Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension) has already
been listed as an acceptable substitute under SNAP for total flooding
applications. In today's decision, EPA does not impose any additional
restrictions on the use of this agent, but rather is broadening the
scope of its use as a substitute by finding Envirogel with ammonium
polyphosphate additive to be acceptable as a substitute for halon 1301
for use as a total flooding agent in occupied areas. Thus, we do not
expect adverse comment and EPA is giving notice today of our decision
to broaden the scope of the existing SNAP listing for Envirogel without
prior proposal.
G. How Will Today's SNAP Listings Fit in With Previous SNAP Listings in
the Code of Federal Regulations?
Today's action revises many of the existing SNAP listings for total
flooding halon substitutes. EPA is taking this opportunity to explain
how today's listings will fit into the existing SNAP listings in the
CFR, to avoid any confusion that might arise when comparing today's
listings with previous SNAP listings.
The SNAP program has historically published listing decisions in
separate tables depending on decision category. That is, separate
tables have been published for substitutes that are deemed acceptable
with no restrictions, for substitutes deemed acceptable subject to use
conditions, for substitutes deemed acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits, and for unacceptable substitutes. For substitutes that are
subject to both use conditions and narrowed use limits (i.e., HFC-
236fa, C3F8 and C4F10), the
SNAP program has historically included such substitutes in two separate
tables (that is, in a table of substitutes subject to use conditions as
well as in a table of substitutes subject to narrowed use limits).
When the original regulation implementing the SNAP program was
published in March 1994, EPA also published the initial lists of
substitutes (59 FR 13044). In that rulemaking, substitutes deemed
acceptable subject to use restrictions (use conditions or narrowed use
limits) or unacceptable were published in an appendix to the
[[Page 4197]]
regulation itself, and are therefore codified into the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) as appendices to Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82. By
contrast, substitutes that were deemed acceptable with no restrictions
were only listed within the language of the preamble to the rule.
Preamble language does not become codified in the CFR, and thus
listings of substitutes that were deemed acceptable with no
restrictions were not codified in the CFR. However, you can find lists
of acceptable substitutes on the SNAP program web site or you may
obtain a copy from EPA's Stratospheric Protection Hotline, as described
below in the section I. C., ``Where Can I Get Additional Information
about the SNAP Program? ''
Subsequent SNAP listing decisions have been published in the same
manner. That is, acceptable substitutes with no restrictions have
continued to be listed only in preamble language (and thus not codified
in the CFR), while substitutes in all other decision categories have
continued to be published as additional appendices to the SNAP
regulation (and 40 CFR part 82 subpart G has been amended to include
these additional appendices). Each time a SNAP rulemaking has been
published that would add substitutes to the lists of acceptable
substitutes with restrictions or unacceptable substitutes, additional
appendices have simply been added at the end of the existing appendices
in Subpart G. Note that even in cases where a new listing modifies a
previous listing, the new listings have simply been appended to the
existing appendices in Subpart G without removal of previous listings.
Thus, users generally should look to the latest appendices found in
Subpart G to be sure that they are aware of the most current SNAP
requirements for a particular substitute.
By rescinding the use conditions for previously listed halocarbon
and inert gas agents today, many agents that had previously been listed
in Subpart G as acceptable, subject to use conditions, now fall into
the category of acceptable without restrictions. In keeping with the
manner in which SNAP listing decisions have historically been
published, we summarized these substitutes within this preamble (see
Table 1, above). Under past practice, these listings would not become
part of the regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G because they merely
present acceptable substitutes and do not impose any restrictions.
Similarly, in today's rule we are removing from the Code of Federal
Regulations those substitutes for halon 1301 that previously were
subject to use conditions for use as total flooding agents and now are
acceptable without restriction. These are the halocarbons or inert
gases that are listed in the NFPA 2001 standard. As a result, for
appendices A, C, H and I, we are removing the entire table for
substitutes for halons for use as total flooding agents subject to use
conditions. For appendix B, we are revising the table for total
flooding agents subject to use conditions so that it will only include
those total flooding agents that are neither halocarbons nor inert
gases.
Envirogel (Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension) was
previously listed in appendix B of subpart G as an acceptable
substitute subject to use conditions for use as a total flooding agent.
That listing is now being deleted from appendix B. Today we are listing
Envirogel with the ammonium polyphosphate additive as an acceptable
substitute for halon 1301 as a total flooding agent. Because this
listing does not require use conditions or narrowed use limits, it will
not appear in the regulatory language at the end of this action and
will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. We are also issuing
a new listing for Envirogel with any additive other than ammonium
polyphosphate as an acceptable substitute subject to narrowed use
limits for use as a total flooding agent. This listing will appear in
the new appendix J to Subpart G in the regulatory language at the end
of this action and in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Three of the halocarbon substitutes for which the use conditions
have been rescinded today (HFC-236fa, C3F8 and
C4F10) were previously listed as acceptable
subject to both use conditions and narrowed use limits. Although no
longer subject to use conditions, these three substitutes still fall
into the category of acceptable subject to narrowed use limits
(summarized in Table 2, above). The previous listings for these agents
will still appear in appendix H of Subpart G, with revisions to delete
the use conditions and to refer to the NFPA 2001 standard, while
earlier, outdated decisions for C4F10 from
Appendix A and for C3F8 from appendix B will be
removed. The narrowed use limits for these three agents include a
requirement for a demonstration that other alternatives are not
technically feasible. Part of that demonstration references
``applicable use conditions.'' Those use conditions for exposure limits
and egress times are being rescinded in today's rule and replaced with
a recommendation to observe the guidelines in the NFPA 2001 Standard.
Therefore, in our listings in today's rule, we are changing the second
part of the conditions to refer to ``safety guidelines in the latest
edition of the NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems,'' rather than referring to ``applicable use conditions.''
In summary, we are making the following changes in regulatory text:
Deleting the existing tables for total flooding agents
that are acceptable subject to use conditions in appendices A, C, H and
I.
Deleting the existing tables for total flooding agents
that are acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in appendix A.
Revising the existing table for total flooding agents that
are acceptable subject to use conditions in appendix B.
Revising existing tables for total flooding agents that
are acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in appendices B and H.
Adding a new appendix J with tables for total flooding
agents that are acceptable subject to narrowed use limits and for
unacceptable total flooding agents.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Section 204 of the UMRA requires the
Agency to develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal
government officials to provide input in the development of any
[[Page 4198]]
proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. Because this rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal government it is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA
has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments;
therefore, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments under section 203. Finally, because this rule 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 under section 204.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this 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.
C. 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.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
D. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This direct final rule does not have tribal implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This direct final rule will remove regulatory restrictions on the use
of certain fire suppressants and replace them with a recommendation to
use industry standards. These standards are typically already required
by state or local fire codes, and this rule does not require tribal
governments to change their regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing
the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entities are
defined as (1) a small business that produces or uses fire suppressants
as total flooding agents with 500 or fewer employees or total annual
receipts of $5 million or less; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant
[[Page 4199]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Primarily,
the rule removes regulatory restrictions on the use of most fire-
suppressants used as total flooding agents and, instead, defers to the
voluntary consensus standards set by the National Fire Protection
Association. Thus, users of these substitutes are being relieved of
regulatory constraints. For this action, EPA is also changing the
listing of a substitute from acceptable subject to use conditions to
unacceptable. This agent, HBFC-22B1, was phased out of production more
than five years ago, except for a few essential uses. Later, the
manufacturer withdrew it from the market because of its toxicity.
Because this agent is generally unavailable and because of the
potential liability associated with its toxic effects, EPA believes it
is extremely unlikely that anyone is currently using this agent. We
expect that listing this agent as an unacceptable substitute will have
no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. With
respect to EPA's decision on Halotron II, EPA is finding it acceptable
for all uses requested by the manufacturer. Moreover, the manufacturer
of the new fire suppressant, Halotron II, has not yet sold it, so
today's action does not affect, in any way, current usage. For
Envirogel, today's action removes the use conditions and narrowed use
limit on Envirogel with one additive, while maintaining the existing
narrowed use limit on Envirogel used with all other additives. Thus,
EPA is removing several regulatory constraints on the current ability
of any entity, including small entities, to use this substitute. In
addition, today's rule prevents potential conflicts between EPA
regulations and existing state, local and tribal fire code requirements
that incorporate NFPA standards by referring to standards of the NFPA.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. By
introducing new substitutes and removing regulatory restrictions on a
number of acceptable substitutes, today's rule gives additional
flexibility to small entities that are concerned with fire suppression.
EPA also has worked closely together with the National Fire Protection
Association, which conducts regular outreach with, and involves small
state, local, and tribal governments in developing and implementing
relevant fire protection standards and codes.
F. Applicability of 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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. The acceptability listings and the
removal of use conditions on the use of halocarbon and inert gas fire
suppressants in this final rule primarily apply to the workplace, and
thus, do not put children at risk disproportionately. The Agency finds
HCFC-22B1 unacceptable in today's action. This agent is a fetal toxin,
and thus, could be considered to put children at risk
disproportionately. However, because this agent is generally
unavailable and because of the potential liability associated with its
toxic effects, EPA believes it is extremely unlikely that anyone is
currently using this agent. Therefore, our action on this chemical is
not likely to change the risk to children. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 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.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use the NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems,
2000 edition, a voluntary consensus standard developed by the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA). You can obtain copies of this
standard by calling the NFPA's telephone number for ordering
publications at 1-800-344-3555 and requesting order number S3-2003-00.
The NFPA 2001 standard meets the objectives of the rule by setting
scientifically-based guidelines for exposure to halocarbon and inert
gas agents used to extinguish fires. In addition, EPA has worked in
consultation with OSHA to encourage development of technical standards
to be adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
H. 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.''
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It
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. This final rule will
remove regulatory restrictions on the use of certain fire suppressants
and replace them with a recommendation to use industry standards. These
standards are typically already required by state or local fire codes,
and this rule does not require state, local, or tribal governments to
change their regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this rule.
[[Page 4200]]
I. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, EPA finds that these
regulations are of national applicability. Accordingly, judicial review
of the action is available only by the filing of a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within sixty days of publication of the action in the Federal
Register. Under section 307(b)(2), the requirements of this rule may
not be challenged later in the judicial proceedings brought to enforce
those requirements.
J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Primarily, the
rule removes regulatory restrictions on the use of most fire-
suppressants used as total flooding agents and, instead, defers to a
voluntary consensus standard. Thus, users of these substitutes are
being relieved of regulatory constraints. In addition, the rule allows
wider use of substitutes, providing greater flexibility for industry.
For the one substitute not acceptable, EPA believes it is unlikely that
anyone is currently using this agent because this agent is generally
unavailable and because of the potential liability associated with its
toxic effects. Further, we have concluded that this rule is not likely
to have any adverse energy effects.
K. Submittal to Congress and General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 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. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on April 1, 2002.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
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. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
2. Appendix A to Subpart G of part 82 is amended by:
a. Removing the heading and table for ``Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection Total Flooding Agents, Substitutes Acceptable
Subject To Use Conditions.''
b. Removing the heading and table for ``Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection Total Flooding Agents, Substitutes Acceptable
Subject To Narrowed Use Limits.''
3. Appendix B of Subpart G of part 82 is amended by:
a. Amending the table entitled ``Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection--Acceptable Subjects to Use Conditions: Total Flooding
Agents'' by removing the entries ``C3H8'', ``CF3I'' and ``Gelled
Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension'.
b. Adding a sentence to the end of footnote 1 to the table entitled
``Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subjects to Use
Conditions: Total Flooding Agents''.
c. Revising the table entitled ``Fire Suppression And Explosion
Protection-Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding
Agents''.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes
* * * * *
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subjects to
Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents
* * * * *
\1\ * * * You should use clean agents in accordance with the safety
guidelines in the latest edition of the NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean
Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems.
* * * * *
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding........ Sulfurhexafluoride (SF6)...... Acceptable subject to narrowed use May be used as a discharge test This agent has an
in limits. agent in military uses and in atmospheric lifetime
civilian aircraft uses only. greater than 1,000
years, with an estimated
100-year, 500-year, and
1,000-year GWP of
16,100, 26,110 and
32,803 respectively.
Users should limit
testing only to that
which is essential to
meet safety or
performance
requirements.
This agent is only used
to test new Halon 1301
systems.
See additional comments
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Total flooding........ CF3I.......................... Acceptable subject to narrowed use Use only in normally unoccupied Use of this agent should
limits. areas. be in accordance with
the safety guidelines in
the latest edition of
the NFPA 2001 Standard
for Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems.
Manufacturer has not
applied for listing for
use in normally occupied
areas. Preliminary
cardiosensitization data
indicates that this
agent would not be
suitable for use in
normally occupied areas.
See additional comments
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
[[Page 4201]]
1--Must conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),
fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
* * * * *
4. Appendix C to Subpart G of part 82 is amended by removing the
heading and table for ``Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--
Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents.''
5. Appendix H of Subpart G of part 82 is amended by:
a. Removing the heading and table for ``Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions.''
b. Revising the table for ``Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use
Limits'' to read as follows:
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding.............. HFC-236fa................... Acceptable subject to narrowed use Acceptable when Use of this agent should
limits. manufactured using any be in accordance with the
process that does not safety guidelines in the
convert latest edition of the
perfluoroisobutylene NFPA 2001 Standard for
(PFIB) directly to HFC- Clean Agent Fire Systems.
236fa in a single step: Users should observe the
for use in explosion limitations on HFC-236fa
suppression and explosion acceptability by taking
inertion applications, and. the following measures:
for use in fire suppression (i) conduct an evaluation
applications where other of foreseeable conditions
non-PFC agents or of end-use;
alternatives are not (ii) determine that the
technically feasible due physical or chemical
to performance or safety properties, or other
requirements:. technical constraints of
(a) because of their the other available
physical or chemical agents preclude their
properties, or. use; and
(b) where human exposure to (iii) determine that human
the extinguishing agents exposure to the other
may result in failure to alternative extinguishing
meet safety guidelines in agents may result in
the latest edition of the failure to meet safety
NFPA 2001 Standard for guidelines in the latest
Clean Agent Fire edition of the NFPA 2001
Extinguishing Systems.. Standard for Clean Agent
Fire Extinguishing
Systems.
........................... Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review upon
request.
The principal
environmental
characteristic of concern
for HFC-236fa is its high
GWP of 9400 and long
atmospheric lifetime of
226 years. Actual
contributions to global
warming depend upon the
quantities emitted.
See additional comments 1,
2, 3, 4, 5.
Total flooding.............. C3F8........................ Acceptable subject to narrowed use Acceptable for Use of this agent should
limits. nonresidential uses where be in accordance with the
other alternatives are not safety guidelines in the
technically feasible due latest edition of the
to performance or safety NFPA 2001 Standard for
requirements:. Clean Agent Fire
(a) because of their Extinguishing Systems.
physical or chemical Users should observe the
properties, or. limitations on PFC
(b) where human exposure to acceptability by taking
the extinguishing agents the following measures:
may result in failure to (i) conduct an evaluation
meet safety guidelines in of foreseeable conditions
the latest edition of the of end-use;
NFPA 2001 Standard for (ii) determine that the
Clean Agent Fire physical or chemical
Extinguishing Systems.. properties or other
technical constraints of
the other available
agents preclude their
use; and
[[Page 4202]]
(iii) determine that human
exposure to the other
alternative extinguishing
agents may result in
failure to meet safety
guidelines in the latest
edition of the NFPA 2001
Standard for Clean Agent
Fire Extinguishing
Systems.
Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review upon
request.
The principal
environmental
characteristic of concern
for PFCs is that they
have high GWPs and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
Actual contributions to
global warming depend
upon the quantities of
PFCs emitted.
See additional comments 1,
2, 3, 4, 5.
Total flooding.............. C4F10....................... Acceptable subject to narrowed use Acceptable for Use of this agent should
limits. nonresidential uses where be in accordance with the
other alternatives are not safety guidelines in the
technically feasible due latest edition of the
to performance or safety NFPA 2001 Standard for
requirements: Clean Agent Fire
(a) because of their Extinguishing Systems.
physical or chemical Users should observe the
properties, or. limitations on PFC
(b) where human exposure to acceptability by taking
the extinguishing agents the following measures:
may result in failure to (i) conduct an evaluation
meet safety guidelinesin of foreseeable conditions
the latest edition of the of end-use;
NFPA 2001 Standard for (ii) determine that the
Clean Agent Fire physical or chemical
Extinguishing Systems. properties or other
technical constraints of
the other available
agents preclude their
use; and
(iii) determine that human
exposure to the other
alternative extinguishing
agents may result in
failure to meet safety
guidelines in the latest
edition of the NFPA 2001
Standard for Clean Agent
Fire Extinguishing
Systems
Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review upon
request.
The principal
environmental
characteristic of concern
for PFCs is that they
have high GWPs and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
Actual contributions to
global warming depend
upon the quantities of
PFCs emitted.
See additional comments 1,
2, 3, 4, 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),
fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
* * * * *
6. Appendix I to Subpart G of part 82 is amended by removing the
heading and table for ``Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--
Total Flooding Agents [Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions].''
7. Subpart G of part 82 is amended by adding Appendix J to read as
follows: Appendix J to Subpart G of Part 82-Substitutes listed in the
January 29, 2002 Final Rule, effective April 1, 2002.
[[Page 4203]]
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector--Total Flooding Substitutes--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding........ Halotron II..................... Acceptable subject to narrowed Acceptable in areas that are not See additional comments 1,
use limits. normally occupied only. 2, 3, 4, 5.
Total flooding........ Envirogel with any additive Acceptable subject to narrowed Acceptable in areas that are not Use of this agent should
other than ammonium use limits. normally occupied only. be in accordance with the
polyphosphate. safety guidelines in the
latest edition of the
NFPA 2001 Standard for
Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems,
for whichever
hydrofluorocarbon gas is
employed.
Envirogel is listed as a
streaming substitute
under the generic name
Gelled Halocarbon / Dry
Chemical Suspension.
Envirogel was also
previously listed as a
total flooding
substitutes under the
same generic name.
EPA has found Envirogel
with the ammonium
polyphosphate additive to
be acceptable as a total
flooding agent in both
occupied and unoccupied
areas.
See additional comments 1,
2, 3, 4, 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),
fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector--Total Flooding Substitutes--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-Use Substitute Decision Further Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301...................... HBFC-22B1................. Unacceptable.............. HBFC-22B1 is a Class I
ozone depleting
substance with an
ozone depletion
potential of 0.74.
Total Flooding Agents........... .......................... .......................... The manufacturer of
this agent terminated
production of this
agent January 1,
1996, except for
critical uses, and
removed it from the
market because it is
a fetal toxin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-1495 Filed 1-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P