Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 24387

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the nager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

May 31, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10289 Filed 4–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206

RIN 1010–AC09

Training Sessions on the New Federal

Oil Valuation Regulations

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of training sessions.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) is offering five 1-day

payor training sessions on its revised

Federal oil valuation regulations that are

effective June 1, 2000.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for training dates.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for training locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronda Gray, Royalty Valuation Division,

Royalty Management Program, Minerals

Management Service, P.O. Box 25165,

MS 3152, Denver, Colorado 80225–

0165, telephone number (303) 275–7259

or fax number (303) 275–7227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The dates

and locations of the training sessions are

as follows:

1. Denver, CO: May 18, 2000, 8:30 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Mountain time. Denver

Federal Center, Building 810, (S29,

southwest side entrance), Denver,

Colorado, 80225; telephone number

(303) 202–4852

2. Tulsa, OK: May 23, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to

4 p.m., Central time. Radisson Inn—

Tulsa Airport, 2201 North 77 East

Ave., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115;

telephone number (918) 835–9911

3. Houston, TX: May 24, 2000, 8:30 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Central time. Minerals

Management Service Office, 4141

North Sam Houston Parkway East,

Houston, Texas; telephone number

(281) 987–6802

4. Bakersfield, CA: May 24, 2000, 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Pacific time. Bureau of

Land Management, Bakersfield

District Office, 3801 Pegasus Drive,

Bakersfield, California; telephone

number (661) 391–6000

5. Albuquerque, NM: May 31, 2000, 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Mountain time. Bureau

of Land Management, Albuquerque

District Office, 435 Montano Road,

Albuquerque, New Mexico; telephone

number (505) 761–8700.

These classes are offered at no cost to

representatives of the oil and gas

industry and members of the public

who have an interest in the valuation of

oil produced from Federal lands. To

assure a reservation at any of the

training sessions, please contact Ms.

Ronda Gray (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above)

because seating is limited for these

training sessions. Reservations will be

made on a first-come, first-served basis.

You must make your own travel and

hotel reservations for the training. MMS

will not reserve blocks of rooms. Travel

and related expenses will not be

reimbursed by MMS.

MMS published its revised Federal oil

valuation regulations in the Federal

Register on March 15, 2000 (65 FR

14022), effective June 1, 2000. The

primary changes in the revised

regulations affect lessees who value oil

not sold at arm’s length. The following

topics will be explained in the training

sessions:

• New definitions

• How to value Federal oil sold at

arm’s-length

• How to value Federal oil not sold at

arm’s length by region (California/

Alaska, Rocky Mountain Region, and

elsewhere)

• How to make location and quality

adjustments to index prices

• How to calculate a transportation

allowance

• How to request a binding valuation

determination

• Other new items in the rule

We encourage payors of Federal oil

royalties to attend one of the training

sessions, especially if you do not sell

your Federal oil production at arm’s

length.

Dated: April 21, 2000.

Harry Corley,

Acting Associate Director for Royalty

Management.

[FR Doc. 00–10430 Filed 4–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–6585–3]

RIN 2060–AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action lists two

substitutes for ozone-depleting

substances (ODSs) in the fire

suppression and explosion protection

sector as acceptable (subject to use

restrictions) under the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP

implements section 612 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1990, which

requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for

the ODSs to reduce overall risk to

human health and the environment.

Through these evaluations, SNAP

generates lists of acceptable and

unacceptable substitutes for each of the

major industrial use sectors. The

intended effect of the SNAP program is

to expedite movement away from ozonedepleting compounds while avoiding a

shift into substitutes posing other

environmental problems.

On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated

a final rulemaking setting forth its plan

for administering the SNAP program (59

FR 13044), and has since issued

decisions on the acceptability and

unacceptability of a number of

substitutes. In this Final Rulemaking

(FRM), EPA is issuing its decisions on

the acceptability of halon substitutes in

the fire suppression and explosion

protection sector that were included in

a notice of proposed rulemaking

published on February 18, 1999 (64 FR

8038) and a correction to the February

18 proposal that was published on

24388 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14417). To arrive

at determinations on the acceptability of

substitutes, the Agency completed a

cross-media evaluation of risks to

human health and the environment by

sector end-use.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Information relevant to this

rulemaking is available in Docket A–91–

42, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, OAR Docket and Information

Center, 401 M Street, S.W., Room M–

1500, Mail Code 6102, Washington, D.C.

20460. The docket may be inspected

between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on

weekdays. Telephone (202) 260–7548;

fax (202) 260–4400. As provided in 40

CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be

charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meg

Victor at (202) 564–9193 or fax (202)

565–2096, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Stratospheric

Protection Division, Mail Code 6205J,

Washington, D.C. 20460. Overnight or

courier deliveries should be sent to the

office location at 501 3rd Street, NW,

Washington, DC, 20001. The

Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800)

296–1996. EPA’s Ozone Depletion

World Wide Web site at ‘‘http://

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

action is divided into four sections:

I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

II. Listing of Substitutes

III. Administrative Requirements

IV. Additional Information

I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) authorizes EPA to develop a

program for evaluating alternatives to

ozone-depleting substances. EPA is

referring to this program as the

Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program. The major provisions

of section 612 are:

• Rulemaking—Section 612(c)

requires EPA to promulgate rules

making it unlawful to replace any class

I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform,

methyl bromide, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II

(hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance

with any substitute that the

Administrator determines may present

adverse effects to human health or the

environment where the Administrator

has identified an alternative that (1)

reduces the overall risk to human health

and the environment, and (2) is

currently or potentially available.

• Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable

Substitutes—Section 612(c) also

requires EPA to publish a list of the

substitutes unacceptable for specific

uses. EPA must publish a corresponding

list of acceptable alternatives for

specific uses.

• Petition Process—Section 612(d)

grants the right to any person to petition

EPA to add a substitute to or delete a

substitute from the lists published in

accordance with section 612(c). The

Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a

petition. Where the Agency grants the

petition, EPA must publish the revised

lists within an additional six months.

• 90-day Notification—Section 612(e)

directs EPA to require any person who

produces a chemical substitute for a

class I substance to notify the Agency

not less than 90 days before new or

existing chemicals are introduced into

interstate commerce for significant new

uses as substitutes for a class I

substance. The producer must also

provide the Agency with the producer’s

health and safety studies on such

substitutes.

• Outreach—Section 612(b)(1) states

that the Administrator shall seek to

maximize the use of federal research

facilities and resources to assist users of

class I and II substances in identifying

and developing alternatives to the use of

such substances in key commercial

applications.

• Clearinghouse—Section 612(b)(4)

requires the Agency to set up a public

clearinghouse of alternative chemicals,

product substitutes, and alternative

manufacturing processes that are

available for products and

manufacturing processes which use

class I and II substances.

B. Regulatory History

On March 18, 1994, EPA published a

final rule (59 FR 13044) which

described the process for administering

the SNAP program and issued EPA’s

first acceptability lists for substitutes in

the major industrial use sectors. These

sectors include: refrigeration and air

conditioning; foam blowing; solvents

cleaning; fire suppression and explosion

protection; sterilants; aerosols;

adhesives, coatings and inks; and

tobacco expansion. These sectors

comprise the principal industrial sectors

that historically consumed large

volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.

The Agency defines a ‘‘substitute’’ as

any chemical, product substitute, or

alternative manufacturing process,

whether existing or new, that could

replace a class I or class II substance.

Anyone who produces a substitute must

provide the Agency with health and

safety studies on the substitute at least

90 days before introducing it into

interstate commerce for significant new

use as an alternative. This requirement

applies to chemical manufacturers, but

may include importers, formulators, or

end-users when they are responsible for

introducing a substitute into commerce.

II. Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable

and acceptable substitutes, EPA

conducts screens of health and

environmental risk posed by various

substitutes for ozone-depleting

compounds in each use sector. The

outcome of these risk screens can be

found in the public docket, as described

above in the ADDRESSES portion of this

document.

Under section 612, the Agency has

considerable discretion in the risk

management decisions it can make in

SNAP. The Agency has identified four

possible decision categories: acceptable;

acceptable subject to use conditions;

acceptable subject to narrowed use

limits; and unacceptable. Fully

acceptable substitutes, i.e., those with

no restrictions, can be used for all

applications within the relevant sector

end-use. Conversely, it is illegal to

replace an ODS with a substitute listed

by SNAP as unacceptable.

After reviewing a substitute, the

Agency may make a determination that

a substitute is acceptable only if certain

conditions of use are met to minimize

risk to human health and the

environment. Such substitutes are

described as ‘‘acceptable subject to use

conditions.’’ Use of such substitutes

without meeting associated use

conditions renders these substitutes

unacceptable and subjects the user to

enforcement for violation of section 612

of the Clean Air Act.

Even though the Agency can restrict

the use of a substitute based on the

potential for adverse effects, it may be

necessary to permit a narrowed range of

use within a sector end-use because of

the lack of alternatives for specialized

applications. Users intending to adopt a

substitute acceptable with narrowed use

limits must ascertain that other

acceptable alternatives are not

technically feasible. Companies must

document the results of their evaluation,

and retain the results on file for the

purpose of demonstrating compliance.

This documentation shall include

descriptions of substitutes examined

and rejected, processes or products in

which the substitute is needed, reason

for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,

performance, technical or safety

standards, and the anticipated date

other substitutes will be available and

projected time for switching to other

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 24389

available substitutes. Use of such

substitutes in applications and end-uses

which are not specified as acceptable in

the narrowed use limit renders these

substitutes unacceptable.

EPA does not believe that notice and

comment rulemaking procedures are

required to list alternatives as

acceptable with no restrictions. Such

listings do not impose any sanction, nor

do they remove any prior license to use

a substitute. Consequently, EPA adds

substitutes to the list of acceptable

alternatives without first requesting

comment on new listings. Updates to

the acceptable lists are published as

separate Notices of Acceptability in the

Federal Register.

In this final rule, EPA is issuing its

decision on the acceptability (subject to

use restrictions) of certain substitutes in

the fire suppression and explosion

protection sector. Today’s rule

incorporates decisions that were

proposed on February 18, 1999 at 64 FR

8038 (referred to hereinafter as ‘‘the

proposal’’). A correction to the proposal

was published on March 25, 1999 (64

FR 14417). As described in the original

March 18, 1994 rule for the SNAP

program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes

that notice-and-comment rulemaking is

required to place any alternative on the

list of prohibited substitutes, to list a

substitute as acceptable only under

certain use conditions or narrowed use

limits, or to remove an alternative from

either the list of prohibited or

acceptable substitutes.

The section below presents a detailed

discussion of the fire suppression and

explosion protection substitute listing

determinations that are finalized in

today’s Final Rule. Tables summarizing

these listing decisions are in Appendix

I. The comments contained in Appendix

I provide additional information on

substitutes determined to be either

unacceptable, acceptable subject to

narrowed use limits, or acceptable

subject to use conditions. Since the

comments contained in the appendix

are not part of the regulatory decision,

they are not mandatory for use of a

substitute. Nor should such comments

be considered comprehensive with

respect to other legal obligations

pertaining to the use of the substitute.

However, EPA encourages users of

substitutes to apply all such comments

in their application of these substitutes,

regardless of any regulatory

requirements. In many instances, these

comments simply allude to sound

operating practices that have already

been identified in existing industry and/

or building-code standards. Thus, many

of these comments, if adopted, would

not require significant changes in

existing operating practices for the

affected industry.

A. Listing Decisions—Fire Suppression

and Explosion Protection

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Total Flooding Agents. IG–100 is

acceptable as a halon 1301 substitute

for total flooding applications. IG–100,

which is composed of 100% nitrogen, is

designed to lower the oxygen level in a

protected area to a level that does not

support combustion. Typically most

combustibles will not burn once the

oxygen concentration reaches 15% or

below. Since the oxygen level during

fire suppression is designed to be lower

than atmospheric, EPA is applying

specific use conditions designed to

protect employees and workplace

personnel who may be present in areas

where IG–100 is discharged. The

conditions specify design requirements

for IG–100 systems that are meant to

assure that sufficient oxygen will be

available to workplace personnel.

These precautionary requirements are

supported by medical specialists who

have investigated human responses to

inert gas fire suppression systems. They

are consistent with conditions EPA has

specified in approving other inert gas

total flooding agents under the SNAP

program. They are also consistent with

worker safety conditions required by the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) and standards

developed by the National Fire

Protection Association: NFPA 2001

Standard on Clean Agent fire

Extinguishing Systems. (NFPA is a nonregulatory organization that publishes

consensus codes and standards on fire

safety issues for voluntary use.

The use conditions referenced here,

which are conditions of acceptability

under SNAP, are intended to protect

worker safety in the absence of OSHA

and other workplace limits. EPA has no

intention of duplicating or displacing

OSHA coverage related to the use of

personal protective equipment (e.g.,

respiratory protection), fire protection,

hazard communication, worker training

or any other occupational safety and

health standard. As suggested by the

court in Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v.

Usery, 539 F.2nd 386 (5th Cir.1976),

‘‘the scope of the exemption created by

[OSHA] Section 4(b)(1) is determined by

the [Agency’s] intent.’’

In accordance with the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d),

EPA has worked in consultation with

OSHA to encourage development of

technical standards to be adopted by

voluntary consensus standards setting

bodies.

In the original March 18, 1994 SNAP

rulemaking (59 FR 13099), the Agency

made clear that in cases like this (where

EPA finds acceptable the use of an agent

only under certain conditions), EPA has

sought to avoid overlap with other

existing regulatory authorities. In setting

conditions for the safe use of halon

substitutes in the workplace under

SNAP, EPA has specifically deferred to

OSHA’s other regulations that govern

workplace safety. As stated in the

preamble to the original SNAP rule at 59

FR 13099, ‘‘EPA has no intention to

assume responsibility for regulating

workplace safety especially with respect

to fire protection, nor does the Agency

intend SNAP regulations to bar OSHA

from regulating under its Public Law

91–596 authority.’’

2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use

Limits

a. Streaming Agents. HCFC Blend E is

acceptable as a halon 1211 substitute

for streaming agent uses in

nonresidential applications. This agent

is a blend of an HCFC, an HFC, and an

additive. The primary constituent, an

HCFC, is currently listed as acceptable

for use in non-residential streaming

applications. The secondary constituent,

an HFC, is listed acceptable as a

flooding agent subject to use conditions.

Halocarbon fire extinguishing agents

(including HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs and

CF3I) break down into hazardous

decomposition products as they are

exposed to a fire. Halogen acids, in

particular hydrogen fluoride, are the

decomposition products of most

concern because of their potential

toxicity to humans. Users should avoid

breathing gases produced by thermal

decomposition of the agents, and

evacuate and ventilate the area

immediately after use. As with other

halocarbon agents, EPA recommends

that the potential human health risks

associated with the use of HCFC Blend

E, as well as handling procedures to

reduce such risk, be clearly labeled on

each extinguisher containing this blend.

See the extinguisher marking

requirements in Underwriters

Laboratories Inc. Standard for Safety for

Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire

Extinguishers (UL 2129).

Additionally, section 610(d) of the

Clean Air Act and its implementing

regulations prohibit the sale and

distribution of HCFCs in fire

extinguishers for residential

applications. (See 61 FR 64424,

December 4, 1996, and 58 FR 69637,

December 30, 1993.)

24390 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA has reviewed the potential

environmental impacts of this blend and

has concluded that, by comparison to

halon 1211, it significantly reduces

overall risk to the environment,

particularly with respect to its ozonedepletion potential. The ozonedepletion potential of the HCFC in this

blend is 0.02; no other constituent in the

blend has ozone-depleting

characteristics. Although there are clean

agent substitutes acceptable for halon

1211, there are no commercially

available alternatives for this end-use

with zero ozone-depletion potential,

low toxicity, and low global warming

potential that provide ample fire

suppression capabilities. EPA’s review

of environmental and human health

impacts of this blend is contained in the

public docket for this rulemaking.

B. Response to Comments

No comments were received on the

proposal (64 FR 8038; February 18,

1999) or the correction to the proposal

(64 FR 14417; March 25, 1999).

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735; October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, OMB notified EPA that it

considers this a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order and EPA submitted this

action to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the Agency prepare a budgetary

impact statement before promulgating a

rule that includes a Federal mandate

that may result in expenditure by state,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the Agency to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule. Section 204 requires the Agency to

develop a process to allow elected state,

local, and tribal government officials to

provide input in the development of any

action containing a significant Federal

intergovernmental mandate. Under

section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Act, the Agency must identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement is prepared.

The Agency must select from those

alternatives the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the Agency explains

why this alternative is not selected or

the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this final rule is estimated to

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments or the private

sector of less than $100 million in any

one year, the Agency has not prepared

a budgetary impact statement or

specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative. Because

small governments will not be

significantly or uniquely affected by this

rule, the Agency is not required to

develop a plan with regard to small

governments. Finally, because this FRM

does not contain a significant

intergovernmental mandate, the Agency

is not required to develop a process to

obtain input from elected state, local,

and tribal officials.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

rule would not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities

because costs of the SNAP requirements

as a whole are expected to be minor. In

fact, this rule offers regulatory relief to

small businesses by providing

alternatives to phased-out ozonedepleting substances. EPA has

determined that it is not necessary to

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

in connection with this final rule. The

actions herein may well provide

benefits for small businesses anxious to

examine potential substitutes to any

ozone-depleting class I and class II

substances they may be using, by

requiring manufacturers to make

information on such substitutes

available. Therefore, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has determined that this final

rule contains no information

requirements subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

that are not already approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). OMB has reviewed and

approved two Information Collection

Requests (ICRs) by EPA which are

described in the March 18, 1994

rulemaking (59 FR 13044, at 13121,

13146–13147) and in the October 16,

1996 rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at

54038–54039). These ICRs included five

types of respondent reporting and

record-keeping activities pursuant to

SNAP regulations: submission of a

SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA

Addendum, notification for test

marketing activity, record-keeping for

substitutes acceptable subject to

narrowed use limits, and record-keeping

for small volume uses. The OMB

Control Numbers are 2060–0226 and

2060–0350.

E. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 24391

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

F. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to the

Executive Order because it is not

economically significant as defined in

E.O. 12866, and because the Agency

does not have reason to believe the

environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children, as the

exposure limits and acceptability

listings in this final rule primarily apply

to the workplace.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments, because this

regulation applies directly to facilities

that use these substances and not to

governmental entities. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

The National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA), section 12(d), Public Law

104–113, requires federal agencies and

departments to use technical standards

that are developed or adopted by

voluntary consensus standards bodies,

using such technical standards as a

means to carry out policy objectives or

activities determined by the agencies

and departments. If use of such

technical standards is inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical,

a federal agency or department may

elect to use technical standards that are

not developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies if the head

of the agency or department transmits to

the Office of Management and Budget

an explanation of the reasons for using

such standards.

This rule does not mandate the use of

any technical standards; accordingly,

the NTTAA does not apply to this rule.

However, this rule does make use of the

NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent

Fire Extinguishing Systems. EPA has

worked in consultation with OSHA to

encourage development of technical

standards to be adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies.

IV. Additional Information

For copies of the comprehensive

SNAP lists or additional information on

SNAP, contact the Stratospheric

Protection Hotline at (800) 296–1996,

Monday-Friday, between the hours of

10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST).

For more information on the Agency’s

process for administering the SNAP

program or criteria for evaluation of

substitutes, refer to the SNAP final

rulemaking published in the Federal

Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR

13044). Notices and rulemakings under

the SNAP program, as well as EPA

publications on protection of

stratospheric ozone, are available from

EPA’s Ozone Depletion World Wide

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

/title6/snap/’’ and from the

Stratospheric Protection Hotline number

as listed above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 20, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as

follows:

PART 82—PROTECTION OF

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for Part 82

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414, 7601,

7671—7671q.

2. Subpart G is amended by adding

the following Appendix I to read as

follows:

24392 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart G—Significant New

Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix I to Subpart G—Substitutes

Subject to Use Restrictions, Listed in

the April 26, 2000, Final Rule, Effective

May 26, 2000

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION—TOTAL FLOODING AGENTS

[Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions]

End Use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

Halon 1301 Total Flooding Systems.IG–100 Acceptable ......... IG–100 systems should be designed to

maintain an oxygen level of 10%. A

design concentration of less than

10% may only be used in normally

unoccupied areas and in areas where

egress is possible within 30 seconds.

If it is not possible to egress an area

within one minute, IG–100 systems

must be designed to maintain an oxygen level of 12%

If the possibility exists for oxygen levels

to drop below 10%, employees must

be evacuated prior to such oxygen

depletion.

IG–100 systems must include alarms

and warning mechanisms.

Workplace personnel and employees

should not remain in or re-enter the

area after system discharge (even if

such discharge is accidental) without

appropriate personal protective equipment.

See additional comments 1, 2, 3.

Additional Comments: 

1. Should conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.

2. Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel must re-enter the area.

3. EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to EPA’s regulation of halon substitutes.

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION—STREAMING AGENTS

[Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits]

End Use Substitute Decision Limitations Comments

Halon 1211 Streaming

Agents.

HCFC Blend E ... Acceptable ......... Nonresidential uses only As with other streaming agents, EPA recommends that potential risks of combustion byproducts be labeled on the extinguisher (see

UL 2129).

See additional comments 1, 2.

Additional Comments: 

1. Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.

2. The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or

destroyed.

[FR Doc. 00–10422 Filed 4–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300992; FRL–6554–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

Fenpropathrin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

tolerance for residues of fenpropathrin

in or on the cucumber/squash crop

subgroup. The Interregional Research

Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested this

tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended

by the Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April

26, 2000. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number OPP–300992, must be received

by EPA on or before June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–300992 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

308–3194; and e-mail address:

brothers.shaja@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

Industry 111 Crop production.

112 Animal production.