Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58903

most reasonable available estimate, or 

should indicate ‘‘not applicable’’ if they 

have no information they wish to be 

considered for a requested item. 

Western is not responsible for errors in 

data or missing pages. All items of 

information in the APD should be 

answered as if prepared by the entity 

seeking the allocation. The APD shall 

consist of the following: 

1. Applicant: 

a. Applicant’s (entity requesting a 

new allocation) name and address. 

b. Person(s) representing applicant: 

Please provide the name, title, address, 

telephone and fax number, and e-mail 

address of such person(s). 

c. Type of organization: For example, 

Federal or state agency, irrigation 

district, municipal, rural, or industrial 

user, municipality, Native American 

tribe, public utility district, or rural 

electric cooperative. Please provide a 

brief description of the organization that 

will interact with Western on contract 

and billing matters and whether the 

organization owns and operates its own 

electric utility distribution system. 

d. Parent organization of applicant, if 

any. 

e. Name of members or suballottees, if 

any. 

f. Applicable law under which the 

organization was established. 

g. Taxpayer Identification Number 

(TIN). 

h. Applicant’s geographic service 

area: If available, submit a map of the 

service area, and indicate the date 

prepared. 

2. Loads: 

a. All Applicants: 

I. If applicable, number and type of 

customers served in calendar year 2003; 

e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, 

military base, agricultural. 

II.The actual monthly maximum 

demand (in kilowatts) and energy use 

(in kilowatt hours) experienced in 

calendar year 2003.

III. For Native American tribe 

applicants, if actual demand and energy 

data is not available, provide estimated 

monthly demand (in kilowatts) with a 

description of the method and basis for 

this estimated demand. 

3. Resources: 

a. A list of current power supplies, 

including the applicant’s own 

generation and purchases from others. 

For each supply, provide capacity and 

location. 

b. Status of power supply contract(s), 

including a contract termination date. 

Indicate whether power supply is on a 

firm basis or some other type of 

arrangement. 

4. Transmission: 

a. Point(s) of delivery: Provide the 

preferred point(s) of delivery on 

Western’s P–DP system or a third party’s 

system and the required service voltage. 

b. Transmission arrangements: 

Describe the applicant’s transmission 

arrangements necessary to deliver firm 

power to the requested points of 

delivery beyond Western’s P–DP 

system. Provide a single-line drawing of 

applicant’s system, if one is available. 

5. Other Information: The applicant 

may provide any other information 

pertinent to receiving an allocation. 

6. Signature: The signature and title of 

an appropriate official who is able to 

attest to the validity of the APD and 

who is authorized to submit the request 

for allocation is required. 

B. Western’s Consideration of 

Applications 

1. Upon receiving the APD, Western 

will verify that the applicant meets the 

general eligibility criteria in Section II, 

and that the application contains all 

items requested in the APD. 

a. Western may request in writing 

additional information from any 

applicant whose APD is determined to 

be deficient. The applicant will have 15 

days from the date on Western’s letter 

of request to provide the information. 

b. If Western determines the applicant 

does not meet the general eligibility 

criteria, Western will send a letter 

explaining why the applicant did not 

qualify. 

c. If the applicant has met the 

eligibility criteria, Western, through the 

public process, will determine the 

amount of firm power, if any, to allocate 

in accordance with the general 

allocation criteria in Section III. Western 

will send a draft contract to the 

applicant that identifies the terms and 

conditions of the offer and the amount 

of firm power allocated to the applicant. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires Federal 

agencies to perform a regulatory 

flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

and there is a legal requirement to issue 

a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Western has determined 

that this action does not require a 

regulatory flexibility analysis since it is 

a rulemaking of particular applicability 

involving rates or services applicable to 

public property. 

VII. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

Western has determined that this rule 

is exempt from congressional 

notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 

801 because the action is a rulemaking 

of particular applicability relating to 

rates or services and involves matters of 

procedure. 

VIII. Determination Under Executive 

Order 12866 

Western has an exemption from 

centralized regulatory review under 

Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no 

clearance of this notice by the Office of 

Management and Budget is required. 

IX. Environmental Compliance 

Western has completed an 

environmental impact statement on the 

Program, pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Record of Decision was 

published in 60 FR 53181, October 12, 

1995. Western’s NEPA review assured 

all environmental effects related to these 

actions have been analyzed.

Dated: September 16, 2004. 

Michael S. Hacskaylo, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–22050 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[OAR–2003–0118; FRL–7822–1] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Notice 19 for Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of acceptability.

SUMMARY: This Notice of Acceptability 

expands the list of acceptable 

substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS) under the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program. The substitutes 

are for use in the following sectors: 

Refrigeration and air conditioning, foam 

blowing, fire suppression and explosion 

protection, and sterilants. This 

document also clarifies the status of the 

use of a hydrochlorofluorocarbon as an 

aerosol solvent, revises the global 

warming potential for a substitute 

previously listed as acceptable for use in 

fire suppression and explosion 

protection based on new information, 

and clarifies a statement from the 

previous SNAP notice of acceptability of 

August 21, 2003, regarding a refrigerant.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0118 (continuation of 

Air Docket A–91–42). All electronic 

documents in the docket are listed in 

58904 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

the EDOCKET index at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the EPA Air Docket (No. A–91–

42), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Sheppard by telephone at 

(202) 343–9163, by facsimile at (202) 

343–2338, by e-mail at 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov, or by mail 

at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or 

courier deliveries should be sent to the 

office location at 1310 L Street, NW., 8th 

floor, Washington, DC 20005. 

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the original SNAP 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 

13044). Notices and rulemakings under 

the SNAP program, as well as other EPA 

publications on protection of 

stratospheric ozone, are available from 

EPA’s Ozone Depletion World Wide 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

including the SNAP portion at http://

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes 

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

B. Foam Blowing 

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion 

Protection 

D. Sterilants 

II. Clarification of Status of HCFC–142b in 

Aerosols under SNAP 

III. Revised Global Warming Potential of C6-

Perfluoroketone Based on New Data 

IV. Clarification for RS–44

V. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Regulatory History 

Appendix A—Summary of Acceptable 

Substitutes 

Appendix B—New Information Available

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes 

This section presents EPA’s most 

recent acceptable listing decisions for 

substitutes in the following industrial 

sectors: Refrigeration and air 

conditioning, foam blowing, fire 

suppression and explosion protection, 

and sterilants. For copies of the full list 

of SNAP decisions in all industrial 

sectors, visit EPA’s Ozone Depletion 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

snap/lists/index.html.

The sections below discuss each 

substitute listing in detail. Appendix A 

contains a table summarizing today’s 

listing decisions for new substitutes. 

The statements in the ‘‘Further 

Information’’ column in the table 

provide additional information, but are 

not legally binding under section 612 of 

the Clean Air Act. In addition, the 

‘‘Further Information’’ may not be a 

comprehensive list of other legal 

obligations you may need to meet when 

using the substitute. Although you are 

not required to follow recommendations 

in the ‘‘Further Information’’ column of 

the table to use a substitute, EPA 

strongly encourages you to apply the 

information when using these 

substitutes. In many instances, the 

information simply refers to standard 

operating practices in existing industry 

and/or building-code standards. Thus, 

many of these statements, if adopted, 

would not require significant changes to 

existing operating practices.

Submissions to EPA for the use of the 

substitutes listed in this document may 

be found under category VI–D of EPA 

air docket A–91–42 at the address 

described above under ADDRESSES. You 

can find other materials supporting the 

decisions in this action under category 

IX–B of EPA docket A–91–42 and in edocket OAR–2003–0118 at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket/.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

1. ISCEON 79

EPA’s decision: ISCEON 79 [R–125/

134a/600a (85.1/11.5/3.4)] is acceptable 

for use in new and retrofit equipment as 

a substitute for R–502, HCFC–22, and 

other HCFC blends including but not 

limited to R–401A, R–401B, R–402A, R–

402B, R–406A, R–408A, R–409A, R–

411A, R–411B, R–411C, R–414A, R–

414B and R–416A in: 

• Industrial process refrigeration; 

• Retail food refrigeration; 

• Cold storage warehouses; 

• Refrigerated transport; 

• Commercial ice machines; 

• Ice skating rinks; 

• Household refrigerators and 

freezers. 

ISCEON 79 is a blend of 85.1% by 

weight HFC–125 (pentafluoroethane, 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CAS ID #354–33–6), 11.5% by 

weight HFC–134a (1,1,1,2-

tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID #811–97–2), 

and 3.4% by weight HC–600a 

(isobutane, 2-methyl-propane, CAS ID 

#75–28–5). You may find the 

submission under EPA Air Docket A–

91–42, item VI–D–302 (or see e-docket 

OAR–2003–0118). 

Environmental information: The 

ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 

ISCEON 79 is zero. The Global Warming 

Potentials (GWPs) of HFC–125 and 

HFC–134a are 3450 and 1320, 

respectively (relative to carbon dioxide, 

using a 100-year time horizon (United 

Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP) and World Meteorological 

Organization (WMO) Scientific 

Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002).) 

The atmospheric lifetimes of these 

constituents are 29 and 14.0 years, 

respectively. 

HFC–125 and HFC–134a are excluded 

from the definition of volatile organic 

compound (VOC) under Clean Air Act 

regulations addressing the development 

of State implementation plans (SIPs) to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. 40 CFR 

51.100(s). 

Flammability information: While 

isobutane is flammable, the blend as 

formulated and under worst case 

fractionated formulation scenarios is not 

flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: HFC–125 

and HFC–134a have 8 hour/day, 40 

hour/week workplace environmental 

exposure limits (WEELs) of 1000 ppm 

established by the American Industrial 

Hygiene Association (AIHA). Isobutane 

has a 10 hour/day, 40 hour/week 

recommended exposure limit (REL) 

established by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) of 800 ppm. EPA expects users 

to follow all recommendations specified 

in the Material Safety Data Sheet 

(MSDS) for the blend and the individual 

components and other safety 

precautions common in the refrigeration 

and air conditioning industry. We also 

expect that users of ISCEON 79 will 

adhere to the AIHA’s WEELs and the 

ACGIH’s TLV and other specified 

exposure limits. 

Comparison to other refrigerants:

ISCEON 79 is not an ozone depleter; 

thus, it poses a lower risk for ozone 

depletion than R–502, a blend of HCFC–

22 and CFC–115; HCFC–22; and HCFC 

blends, the ODSs ISCEON 79 replaces. 

ISCEON 79 has a comparable or lower 

GWP than most other common 

substitutes for R–502, HCFC–22, and 

HCFC blends. Flammability and toxicity 

risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, 

we find that ISCEON 79 is acceptable 

because there are no other substitutes 

that are currently or potentially 

available and that provide a 

substantially lower risk to public health 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58905

and the environment in the end uses 

listed. 

2. R–420A 

EPA’s decision: R–420A is acceptable 

for use in new and retrofit equipment as 

a substitute for R–500 and CFC–12 in: 

• Retail food refrigeration; 

• Cold storage warehouses; 

• Commercial ice machines; 

• Ice skating rinks; 

• Water coolers; 

• Vending machines;

• Residential dehumidifiers; 

• Industrial process refrigeration; 

• Industrial process air conditioning; 

• Reciprocating chillers; 

• Screw chillers; 

• Centrifugal chillers; 

• Household refrigerators and 

freezers. 

R–420A is a blend of 88% by weight 

HFC–134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, 

CAS ID #811–97–2), and 12% by weight 

HCFC–142b (1-chloro-1,1-

difluoroethane, CAS ID #75–68–3). A 

common trade name for this refrigerant 

blend is Choice refrigerant. You may 

find the submission under EPA Air 

Docket A–91–42, item VI–D–302 (or see 

e-docket OAR–2003–0118). 

Environmental information: The 

ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 

HCFC–142b is 0.065 and HFC–134a has 

an ODP of zero. The GWPs of HCFC–

142b and HFC–134a are 2400 and 1320, 

respectively (relative to carbon dioxide, 

using a 100-year time horizon (United 

Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP) and World Meteorological 

Organization (WMO) Scientific 

Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002).) 

The atmospheric lifetimes of these 

constituents are 17.9 and 14.0 years, 

respectively. 

Because R–420A contains an ODS, 

regulations on its use apply, including 

the requirements for technician 

certification, mandatory recovery of 

refrigerant during service of equipment 

containing R–420A, a requirement that 

sales of the refrigerants be made only to 

EPA-certified technicians, and the 

statutory prohibition under section 

608(c) of the Clean Air Act against 

knowingly venting refrigerants. 

Production of HCFC–142b will be 

subject to further control beginning in 

2010, so blends containing HCFC–142b 

such as R–420A are only transitional 

substitutes. 

HCFC–142b and HFC–134a are 

excluded from the definition of volatile 

organic compound (VOC) under Clean 

Air Act regulations addressing the 

development of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards. 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

Flammability information: Although 

HCFC–142b is moderately flammable, 

the blend is not flammable as 

formulated or under worst case 

fractionated formulation scenarios. 

Toxicity and exposure data: HCFC–

142b and HFC–134a have 8 hour/day, 

40 hour/week WEELs of 1000 ppm 

established by the AIHA. EPA expects 

users to follow all recommendations 

specified in the MSDS for the blend and 

the individual components and other 

safety precautions common in the 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

industry. We also expect that users of 

R–420A will adhere to the AIHA’s 

WEELs. 

Comparison to other refrigerants: R–

420A has a lower ODP than the Class I 

ODSs it replaces, CFC–12 or R–500, a 

blend containing CFC–12. R–420A has a 

comparable GWP to that of most other 

substitutes for R–500 and CFC–12. 

Flammability and toxicity risks are low, 

as discussed above. Thus, we find that 

R–420A is acceptable as a substitute for 

Class I ODS in the end uses listed. 

3. HFC–134a 

EPA’s decision: HFC–134a is 

acceptable for use in new and retrofit 

equipment as a substitute for HCFC–22 

in motor vehicle air conditioning for 

buses and passenger trains. 

HFC–134a is also known as 1,1,1,2-

tetrafluoroethane (CAS ID #811–97–2). 

Environmental information: See the 

decision above in section I.A.1for 

ISCEON 79 for environmental 

information about HFC–134a. 

Toxicity and exposure data: See the 

decision above in section I.A.1 for 

ISCEON 79 for toxicity and exposure 

data about HFC–134a. 

Flammability information: HFC–134a 

is non-flammable. 

Comparison to other refrigerants:

HFC–134a has no ozone depletion 

potential and thus, poses a lower risk in 

ozone depletion then HCFC–22, the 

ODS it replaces. HFC–134a has a 

comparable or lower GWP than HCFC–

22 and blends previously found 

acceptable as a substitute for HCFC–22 

in bus air conditioning. Flammability 

and toxicity risks are low, as discussed 

above. Therefore, we find HFC–134a 

acceptable in motor vehicle air 

conditioning for buses and passenger 

trains. 

4. R–407C 

EPA’s decision: R–407C is acceptable 

for use in new and retrofit equipment as 

a substitute for HCFC–22 in motor 

vehicle air conditioning for buses and 

passenger trains. 

R–407C is a blend of 23% by weight 

HFC–32 (difluoromethane, CAS ID #75–

10–5), 25% by weight HFC–125 

(pentafluoroethane, CAS ID #354–33–6) 

and 52% by weight HFC–134a (1,1,1,2-

tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID #811–97–2).

EPA previously listed R–407C as an 

acceptable alternative for HCFC–22 and 

CFCs (February 8, 1996; 61 FR 4736), for 

HCFC blends (December 20, 2002; 67 FR 

77927), and for R–502 (August 21, 2003; 

68 FR 50533) in various end uses for 

refrigeration and air conditioning. 

Environmental information: The ODP 

of R–407C is zero. The GWPs of HFC–

125, HFC–32 and HFC–134a are 3450, 

543, and 1320, respectively (relative to 

carbon dioxide, using a 100-year time 

horizon). HFC–32 is the only 

component of this blend that is a VOC 

under Clean Air Act regulations. 

Flammability information: While 

HFC–32 is moderately flammable, the 

blend is not flammable as formulated or 

under worst case fractionated 

formulation scenarios. 

Toxicity and exposure data: All 

components of the blend have WEELs of 

1000 ppm established by the AIHA. EPA 

expects users to follow all 

recommendations specified in the 

MSDS for the blend and the individual 

components and other safety 

precautions common in the refrigeration 

and air conditioning industry. We also 

expect that users of R–407C will adhere 

to the AIHA’s WEELs. 

Comparison to other refrigerants: R–

407C is not an ozone depleter; thus, it 

reduces risk from ozone depletion 

compared to HCFC–22 and blends 

containing HCFCs. R–407C has a 

comparable or lower GWP than that for 

HCFC–22 and blends previously found 

acceptable as a substitute for HCFC–22 

in bus air conditioners. Flammability 

and toxicity risks are low, as discussed 

above. Thus, we find that R–407C is 

acceptable because it reduces overall 

risk to public health and the 

environment in motor vehicle air 

conditioning in buses and passenger 

trains. 

5. R–410A 

EPA’s decision: R–410A is acceptable 

for use in new equipment as a substitute 

for HCFC–22 in motor vehicle air 

conditioning for buses and passenger 

trains. 

R–410A is a blend of 50% by weight 

HFC–32 (difluoromethane) and 50% by 

weight HFC–125 (pentafluoroethane). 

Due to the high operating pressures 

typical of R–410A systems, this blend is 

acceptable only in new equipment and 

not in retrofit equipment. 

EPA previously listed R–410A as an 

acceptable alternative for HCFC–22 and 

CFCs (February 8, 1996; 61 FR 4736) 

and for HCFC blends (December 20, 

2002; 67 FR 77927) in various end uses 

for refrigeration and air conditioning. 

58906 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

Environmental information: The ODP 

of R–410A is zero. For environmental 

information about HFC–125, see section 

I.A.1 above for ISCEON 79; for 

environmental information about HFC–

32, see section I.A.5 above for R–407C. 

Flammability information: While 

HFC–32 is moderately flammable, the 

blend is not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: For 

toxicity and exposure data on HFC–125 

and HFC–32, see section I.A.5 above for 

R–407C. We expect that users of R–

410A will adhere to the AIHA’s WEELs. 

Comparison to other refrigerants: R–

410A is not an ozone depleter; thus, it 

reduces risk from ozone depletion 

compared to HCFC–22 and blends 

previously found acceptable as a 

substitute for HCFC–22 in bus air 

conditioners. Flammability and toxicity 

risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, 

we find that R–410A is acceptable 

because it reduces overall risk to public 

health and the environment in motor 

vehicle air conditioning in buses and 

passenger trains. 

B. Foam Blowing 

1. EcomateTM

EPA’s decision: EcomateTM is 

acceptable as a substitute for CFCs and 

HCFCs in polyurethane spray foam. 

This decision corresponds with the 

SNAP decision published in Notice 18, 

August 21, 2003 (68 FR 50533) for other 

foam blowing end-uses. 

The submitter, Foam Supplies, claims 

that the composition of EcomateTM is 

confidential business information (see 

docket A–91–42, item VI–D–296 or see 

e-docket OAR–2003–0118). 

Environmental information:

EcomateTM has no ODP and very low or 

zero global warming potential (GWP). 

Users should be aware that EcomateTM

is not excluded from the definition of 

volatile organic compound (VOC) under 

Clean Air Act regulations addressing the 

development of State implemention 

plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

40 CFR 51.100(s). For more information 

refer to the manufacturer of EcomateTM, 

EPA regulations, and your state or local 

air quality agency. Also, because 

EcomateTM is considered hazardous, 

spills and disposal should be handled in 

accordance with requirements of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA).

Flammability information: EcomateTM

is flammable and should be handled 

with proper precautions. Use of 

EcomateTM will require safe handling 

and shipping as prescribed by the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and the 

Department of Transportation (for 

example, using personal safety 

equipment and following requirements 

for shipping hazardous materials at 49 

CFR parts 170 through 173). However, 

when blended with fire retardant, the 

flammability of EcomateTM can be 

reduced to make a formulation that is 

either combustible or non-flammable 

(refer to the manufacturer of EcomateTM

for more information). The 

manufacturer of EcomateTM has 

prepared for safety training for use of 

this flammable blowing agent in spray 

foam (see docket A–91–42, item VI–D–

307 or e-docket OAR–2003–0118). 

Toxicity and exposure data:

EcomateTM should be handled with 

proper precautions. EPA anticipates that 

EcomateTM will be used consistent with 

the recommendations specified in the 

manufacturers’ Material Safety Data 

Sheets (MSDSs). OSHA established a 

permissible exposure limit for the main 

component of EcomateTM of 100 ppm 

for a time-weighted average over an 

eight-hour work shift. 

Comparison to other foam blowing 

agents: EcomateTM is not an ozone 

depleter; thus, it reduces risk overall 

compared to the ODS it replaces. 

EcomateTM has a comparable or lower 

GWP than the other substitutes for CFCs 

and HCFCs in these end uses. Although 

EcomateTM is flammable, we find that 

the manufacturer’s recommended 

precautions for safety are sufficient so 

that the risks will not be significantly 

higher than for other available or 

potentially available substitutes in this 

end use. Meeting federal exposure 

requirements allows EcomateTM to be 

used with no greater risk of toxicity than 

for other available or potentially 

available substitutes in this end use. 

Thus, we find that EcomateTM is 

acceptable because there are no other 

substitutes that are currently or 

potentially available and that provide a 

substantially lower risk to public health 

and the environment in polyurethane 

spray foam. 

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion 

Protection 

1. HFC–227ea With 0.15% d-Limonene 

(NAF S 227) 

EPA’s decision: NAF S 227 is 

acceptable for use as a substitute for 

halon 1301 in the total flooding end use 

in both normally occupied and 

unoccupied spaces. 

NAF S 227 is a mixture of HFC–

227ea, also known as 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane, (CAS ID #431–89–

0), and 0.15% d-limonene, also known 

as 4-isopropenyl-1-methycyclohexene 

(CAS ID #5989–27–5), by weight. You 

may find the submission under Docket 

A–91–42, item VI–D–305 (or see edocket OAR–2003–0118). 

EPA’s decision is that NAF S 227 is 

acceptable for use as a substitute for 

halon 1301 in the total flooding end use 

in both normally occupied and 

unoccupied spaces. EPA finds the blend 

acceptable as submitted; however, 

blends containing more than 0.15% dlimonene are not addressed by today’s 

decision. EPA previously found HFC–

227ea acceptable in total flooding 

(January 29, 2002; 67 FR 4185). This 

decision is similar to the SNAP decision 

published in Notice 18, August 21, 2003 

(68 FR 50533) concerning HFC–125 

with 0.15% d-limonene (NAF S 125). 

Environmental information: Both of 

the components of NAF S 227 have an 

ozone depletion potential of zero. HFC–

227ea has a global warming potential 

(GWP) of 3660 and d-limonene has a 

GWP of 10. These values are lower than 

the GWP of halon 1301 (6900). 

HFC–227ea is currently defined as a 

VOC, although EPA has proposed that it 

be excluded from the definition of 

volatile organic compound (VOC) under 

Clean Air Act regulations addressing the 

development of State implementation 

plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(September 3, 2003; 68 FR 52373). 40 

CFR 51.100(s). d-limonene is a VOC. 

Flammability: Although d-limonene is 

flammable, the blend is non-flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: As with 

other fire suppressants, EPA 

recommends that you minimize 

exposure to this agent. If personnel are 

exposed to the agent, they should exit 

the area within five minutes or less. 

EPA recommends that unnecessary 

exposure to fire suppression agents and 

their decomposition products be 

avoided and that personnel exposure be 

limited to no more than 5 minutes. This 

minimizes the risk of effects on the 

heart (irregular heartbeats) from HFC–

227ea and other halocarbons. 

In order to keep exposure levels as 

low as possible, EPA recommends the 

following for establishments installing 

and maintaining total flooding systems: 

—Put adequate ventilation in place. If 

ventilation is suspected to be 

inadequate, self-contained breathing 

apparatus (SCBA) should be available; 

—Wear proper personal protection 

equipment (impervious butyl gloves, 

eye protection, chemical resistant 

aprons, long sleeves, and safety shoes); 

—Clean up all spills immediately in 

accordance with good industrial 

hygiene practices; and 

—Provide training for safe handling 

procedures to all employees that would 

be likely to handle the containers of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58907

NAF S 227 or extinguishing units filled 

with the material. 

Use of this agent should conform with 

relevant Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requirements, 

including 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L, 

§ 1910.160 for fixed fire extinguishing 

systems, § 1910.162 for gaseous agents 

and § 1910.165 for predischarge 

employee alarms. Per OSHA 

requirements, protective gear (SCBA) 

should be available in the event that 

personnel reenter the area. In addition, 

users should also observe the guidelines 

in the latest edition of the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 2001 

Standard on Clean Agent Fire 

Extinguishing Systems for use of HFC–

227ea. 

Comparison to other fire 

suppressants: NAF S 227 has no ODP; 

thus, it reduces risk overall compared to 

halon 1301, the ODS it replaces. EPA 

has already found acceptable HFC–

227ea, the main ingredient in NAF S 

227. The components of NAF S 227 

have a GWP comparable with or lower 

than that of many other acceptable 

substitutes for halon 1301. Thus, we 

find that NAF S 227 is acceptable 

because it does not present a greater risk 

to public health and the environment in 

the end use listed than other substitutes 

that are available. 

D. Sterilants 

1.–3. IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, and 

6 

EPA’s decision: IoGasTM 1 Sterilant, 

IoGasTM 3 Sterilant, and IoGasTM 6 

Sterilant are acceptable as substitutes 

for CFC–12, HCFC–22, HCFC–124, and 

blends thereof in ethylene oxide blends 

for sterilization. The IoGasTM Sterilant 

Blends are all blends of ethylene oxide, 

carbon dioxide (CO2), and 

trifluoroiodomethane (CF3I). CF3I, CAS 

ID #2314–97–8, is also called FIC–13I1 

or trifluoromethyl iodide. EPA 

previously found ethylene oxide alone 

and blends of CO2 and ethylene oxide 

acceptable as substitutes for CFC–12 in 

blends with ethylene oxide (59 FR 

13044, March 18, 1994). You may find 

the submission under EPA Air Docket 

A–91–42 item VI–D–304 or see e-docket 

OAR–2003–0118.

Environmental information: The 

ozone depletion potential (ODP) of CF3I 

is less than 0.0025, and ethylene oxide 

and CO2 have an ODP of zero. The 

Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of 

CF3I and CO2 are less than 1 and 1 

respectively (relative to carbon dioxide, 

using a 100-year time horizon (United 

Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP) and World Meteorological 

Organization (WMO) Scientific 

Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002).) 

The atmospheric lifetime of CF3I is 

approximately 0.007 years. 

CF3I and ethylene oxide are volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). CO2 is 

excluded from the definition of VOC 

under Clean Air Act regulations 

addressing the development of State 

implementation plans (SIPs) to attain 

and maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards. 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

Ethylene oxide is a hazardous air 

pollutant under section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act. A National Emission Standard 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants applies to 

commercial sterilization and fumigation 

operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart O). 

Flammability information: Although 

ethylene oxide is flammable, the blends 

as formulated are not flammable. 

Toxicity and exposure data: Ethylene 

oxide has a permissible exposure limit 

(PEL) of 1 ppm on an 8-hour timeweighted average from the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). EPA recommends an 

acceptable exposure limit of 150 ppm 

on an 8-hour time-weighted average for 

CF3I, with an exposure ceiling of no 

more than 2,000 ppm. EPA expects 

users to follow all recommendations 

specified in the Material Safety Data 

Sheet (MSDS) for the blend and the 

individual components and other safety 

precautions common in the medical 

sterilization industry. We also expect 

that users of IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 

will adhere to EPA’s recommended 

exposure limit. 

Comparison to other sterilants:

IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, and 6 

have an ODP of less than 0.001; thus, 

they pose a lower risk for ozone 

depletion than CFC–12, HCFC–22, or 

HCFC–124, the ODSs they replace. 

IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, and 6 

have a comparable or lower GWP than 

most other substitutes for CFC–12, 

HCFC–22, or HCFC–124. Flammability 

risks are low, as discussed above. The 

toxicity of the sterilant blends is less 

than that of ethylene oxide alone, which 

is also an acceptable substitute. Thus, 

we find IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, 

and 6 acceptable because there are no 

other substitutes that are currently or 

potentially available and that provide a 

substantially lower risk to public health 

and the environment in the end uses 

listed. 

II. Clarification of Status of HCFC–142b 

in Aerosols under SNAP 

Some individuals have inquired 

whether HCFC–142b may be sold in 

aerosol products as a substitute for 

HCFC–141b, particularly as a solvent to 

assist in mold release of plastics. 

Substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances are required to be submitted 

to the SNAP program for review before 

they may be sold, with minor 

exceptions (see 40 CFR 82.174(a) and 

82.176; Clean Air Act section 612(e)). 

No one has submitted information on 

this substitute in this end use to EPA, 

and therefore, we conclude that HCFC–

142b is not currently legal to sell as an 

aerosol solvent as a substitute for 

HCFC–141b or CFC–113. If any 

manufacturer or distributor is interested 

in selling such a product, they should 

complete a submission form for review 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

snap/submit/index.html). 

III. Revised Global Warming Potential 

of C6–Perfluoroketone Based on New 

Data 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

published in the Federal Register of 

December 20, 2002 (67 FR 77927), a 

Notice of Acceptability related to the 

SNAP program. We also published a 

rule under the SNAP program on fire 

suppressant alternatives to halon on 

January 27, 2003 (68 FR 4004). After 

publication of these documents, EPA 

received updated information related to 

the calculation of the environmental 

impact of C6-perfluoroketone, also 

known as FK–5–1–12mmy2, a fire 

suppression substitute that was listed as 

an acceptable total flooding agent in the 

Notice and as an acceptable streaming 

agent, subject to narrowed use limits, in 

the rule. Based on this new information, 

EPA published two correction notices in 

the Federal Register of April 7, 2003 (68 

FR 16728 and 68 FR 16729), listing a 

GWP for C6-perfluoroketone of between 

four and seven, relative to CO2 over a 

100-year time horizon. Since then, new 

information found in the literature was 

recently made available to EPA. Based 

on this additional, new information, 

EPA is correcting the GWP listed for C6-

perfluoroketone to between 0.6 and 1.8, 

relative to CO2 over a 100-year time 

horizon. This range includes both the 

direct GWP and the indirect GWP. The 

corrected values are also listed in 

Appendix B of this document. 

EPA’s evaluation of this new 

information is available in EPA air 

docket A–2002–08 at the address 

described above under ADDRESSES. This 

correction does not change EPA’s 

finding of acceptability for use of C6-

perfluoroketone as a substitute for halon 

1301 in total flooding fire suppression 

applications in both normally occupied 

and unoccupied areas or our finding 

that C6-perfluoroketone is acceptable for 

use as a substitute for halon 1211 as a 

streaming agent in non-residential areas. 

58908 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

IV. Clarification for RS–44 

EPA published a Notice of 

Acceptability related to the SNAP 

Program in the Federal Register of 

August 21, 2003 (68 FR 50533, Notice 

18). In FR Doc. 03–75472, published on 

August 21, 2003, a typographical error 

was made inadvertently. 

EPA decided in that notice of 

acceptability that RS–44, a refrigerant, is 

acceptable for use in new and retrofit 

equipment as a substitute for HCFC–22 

in a number of end uses for refrigeration 

and air conditioning. However, on page 

50535 in the first column immediately 

after the heading, ‘‘Comparison to other 

refrigerants,’’ the document incorrectly 

stated that RS–44 was a substitute for 

CFC–12. Instead, it is a substitute for 

HCFC–22, as stated elsewhere in that 

document and in the accompanying 

table. Therefore, that first sentence in 

the first column on page 50535 should 

read as follows: ‘‘RS–44 is not an ozone 

depleter; thus, it reduces risk from 

ozone depletion compared to HCFC–22, 

the ODS it replaces.’’

V. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 

authorizes EPA to develop a program for 

evaluating alternatives to ozonedepleting substances. We refer 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, 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 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 substance to or delete a 

substance 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, it must publish the revised lists 

within an additional six months. 

• 90-day Notification—Section 612(e) 

directs EPA to require any person who 

produces a chemical substitute for a 

class I substance to notify the Agency 

not less than 90 days before new or 

existing chemicals are introduced into 

interstate commerce for significant new 

uses as substitutes for a class I 

substance. The producer must also 

provide the Agency with the producer’s 

unpublished health and safety studies 

on such substitutes. 

• Outreach—Section 612(b)(1) states 

that the Administrator shall seek to 

maximize the use of federal research 

facilities and resources to assist users of 

class I and II substances in identifying 

and developing alternatives to the use of 

such substances in key commercial 

applications. 

• Clearinghouse—Section 612(b)(4) 

requires the Agency to set up a public 

clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, 

product substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

B. Regulatory History 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published 

the rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which 

described the process for administering 

the SNAP program. In the same notice, 

we issued the 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 compose the principal 

industrial sectors that historically 

consumed the largest volumes of ozonedepleting compounds. 

As described in this original rule for 

the SNAP program, EPA does not 

believe that rulemaking procedures are 

required to list alternatives as 

acceptable with no limitations. Such 

listings do not impose any sanction, nor 

do they remove any prior license to use 

a substance. Therefore, by this notice we 

are adding substances to the list of 

acceptable alternatives without first 

requesting comment on new listings. 

However, we do believe that noticeand-comment rulemaking is required to 

place any substance on the list of 

prohibited substitutes, to list a 

substance as acceptable only under 

certain conditions, to list substances as 

acceptable only for certain uses, or to 

remove a substance from the lists of 

prohibited or acceptable substitutes. We 

publish updates to these lists as separate 

notices of rulemaking in the Federal 

Register. 

The Agency defines a ‘‘substitute’’ as 

any chemical, product substitute, or 

alternative manufacturing process, 

whether existing or new, intended for 

use as a replacement for a class I or class 

II substance. Anyone who produces a 

substitute must provide EPA 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 substitute 

manufacturers, but may include 

importers, formulators, or end-users, 

when they are responsible for 

introducing a substitute into commerce. 

You can find a complete chronology 

of SNAP decisions and the appropriate 

Federal Register citations from the 

SNAP section of EPA’s Ozone Depletion 

World Wide Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/

chron.html. This information is also 

available from the Air Docket (see

ADDRESSES section above for contact 

information).

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

Edward Callahan, 

Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.

Note: This appendix will not appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix A: Summary of Acceptable 

Decisions

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Motor vehicle air conditioning for buses 

and passenger trains (new).

R–410A as a substitute for HCFC–22 ... Acceptable ........

Motor vehicle air conditioning for buses 

and passenger trains (retrofit and 

new).

HFC–134a as a substitute for HCF–22 Acceptable ........

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58909

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

R–407C as a substitute for HCFC–22 ... Acceptable ........

Industrial process refrigeration (retrofit 

and new).

ISCEON 79 as a substitute for R–502, 

HCFC–22 and HCFC blends.

Acceptable ........ See note.1

R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Industrial process air conditioning (retrofit and new).R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Ice skating rinks (retrofit and new) .......... ISCEON 79 as a substitute for R–502, 

HCFC–22 and HCFC blends.

Acceptable ........ See note.1

R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Cold storage warehouses (retrofit and 

new).

ISCEON 79 as a substitute for R–502, 

HCFC–22 and HCFC blends.

Acceptable ........ See note.1

R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Refrigerated transport (retrofit and new) ISCEON 79 as a substitute for R–502, 

HCFC–22 and HCFC blends.

Acceptable ........ See note.1

Retail food refrigeration (retrofit and 

new).

ISCEON 79 as a substitute for R–502, 

HCFC–22 and HCFC blends.

Acceptable ........ See note.1

R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Vending machines (retrofit and new) ...... R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Water coolers (retrofit and new) ............. R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Commercial ice machines (retrofit and 

new).

ISCEON 79 as a substitute for R–502, 

HCFC–22 and HCFC blends.

Acceptable ........ See note.1

R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Household refrigerators and freezers 

(retrofit and new).

ISCEON 79 as a substitute for R–502, 

HCFC–22 and HCFC blends.

Acceptable ........ See note.1

R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Centrifugal chillers (retrofit and new) ...... R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Reciprocating chillers (retrofit and new) R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Screw chillers (retrofit and new) ............. R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

Residential dehumidifiers (retrofit and 

new).

R–420A as a substitute for R–500 and 

CFC–12.

Acceptable ........

1 Note: HCFC blends include, but are not limited to, R–401A, R–401B, R–402A, R–402B, R–406A, R–408A, R–409A, R–411A, R–411B, R–

411C, R–414A, R–414B, and R–416. 

FOAM BLOWING

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Rigid polyurethane spray foam ............... Ecomate as a substitute for CFCs and 

HCFCs.

Acceptable ........ Use of the agent should be in accordance with the manufacturers’ Material 

Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). 

See note.1

1 Note: OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for the main component of EcomateTM of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an 

eight-hour work shift. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Total flooding ........................................... NAF S 227 as substitute for Halon 1301 Acceptable ........ Use of the agent should be in accordance with the safety guidelines in the 

latest edition of the NFPA 2001 

Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems. 

Extinguisher bottles should be clearly 

labeled with the potential hazards associated with the use of HFC–227ea 

and d-limonene, as well as handling 

procedures to reduce risk resulting 

from these hazards. 

58910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

See additional notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Additional notes: 

1. Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L, §§ 1910.160, 1910.161 (dry chemicals and 

aerosols) and 1910.162 (gaseous agents). 

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. 

STERILANTS

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Sterilants .................................................. IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, and 6 as 

substitutes for CFC–12, HCFC–22, 

HCFC–124, in sterilant blends with 

ethylene oxide.

Acceptable ........

Note: This appendix will not appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix B: New Information 

Available

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION

End-use Substitute Information available 

Total flooding ................................... C6-perfluoroketone (FK–5–1–

12mmy2, CAS Reg. No. 756–

13–8).

EPA reviewed three additional papers on C6-perfluoroketone photolysis. The new information recently made available in the literature supports revising the global warming potential of C6-

perfluoroketone to be between 0.6 and 1.8, relative to CO2 on a 

100-year time horizon. See Docket A–91–42, item IX–B–93 or edocket OAR–2003–0118–0049. 

Streaming ........................................ C6-perfluoroketone (FK–5–1–

12mmy2, CAS Reg. No. 756–

13–8).

EPA reviewed three additional papers on C6-perfluoroketone photolysis. The new information recently made available in the literature supports revising the global warming potential of C6-

perfluoroketone to be between 0.6 and 1.8, relative to CO2 on a 

100-year time horizon. 

See Docket A–91–42, item IX–B–93 or e-docket OAR–2003–0118–

0049. 

[FR Doc. 04–21928 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6656–3] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under Section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

(202) 564–7167. An explanation of the 

ratings assigned to draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) was published 

in the Federal Register dated April 2, 

2004 (69 FR 17403). 

Draft EISs 

ERP No. D–SFW–L64050–00 Rating 

EC2, Caspian Tern (sterna caspia) 

Management to Reduce Predation of 

Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia 

River Estuary, To Comply with the 2002 

Settlement Agreement, Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), Columbia River, WA, 

OR, ID, and CA.

Summary: EPA raised concerns about 

tern consumption of ESA-listed 

salmonids in the vicinity of proposed 

nesting sites, the need for alternative 

nesting sites and water quality impacts 

from the creation, enhancement and 

maintenance of tern nesting habitat.

ERP No. DB–NOA–E91007–00 Rating 

LO, South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery 

Management Plan, Amendment 6, 

Propose to Amend the Bycatch 

Reduction Device (BRD) Testing 

Protocol System, South Atlantic Region. 

Summary: While EPA has no 

objection to the preferred alternatives, 

EPA requested clarification on why 

some alternatives only apply to either 

penaeid or rock shrimp, rather than to 

both. 

Final EISs 

ERP No. F–AFS–G65085–NM, 

Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis 

Grazing Allotments, Authorization of 

Livestock Grazing Activities, Lincoln 

National Forest, Sacramento Ranger 

District, Otero County, NM.

Summary: The Final EIS adequately 

responded to EPA’s comments on the 

Draft EIS. EPA has no objection to the 

preferred action.

ERP No. F–COE–E39063–AL, 

Choctaw Point Terminal Project, 

Construction and Operation of a