[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10374-10378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5237]



[[Page 10373]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-
Depleting Substances; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 10374]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-6237-5]
RIN: 2060-AG12


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action prohibits certain substitutes for ozone-depleting 
substances (ODSs) under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP 
implements section 612 of the amended Clean Air Act of 1990, which 
requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for the ODSs to reduce overall 
risk to human health and the environment. Through these evaluations, 
SNAP generates lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for 
each of the major industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the 
SNAP program is to expedite movement away from ozone depleting 
compounds while avoiding a shift into substitutes posing other 
environmental problems.
    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on 
the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of substitutes. In 
this final rule, EPA is issuing its decisions on the acceptability of 
certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. 
Specifically, this action lists as unacceptable the use of two gases as 
refrigerants in ``self-chilling cans'' because of unacceptably high 
greenhouse gas emissions which would result from the direct release of 
the cans' refrigerants to the atmosphere.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 1999. A public hearing will be held if 
requested in writing. If a public hearing is requested, EPA will 
provide notice of the date, time and location of the hearing in a 
subsequent Federal Register notice. For further information, please 
contact Kelly Davis at the address listed below under ``For Further 
Information.''

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data are 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: Kelly Davis at (202) 564-2303 or fax 
(202) 565-2096, Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection 
Division, Mail Code 6205J, Washington, D.C. 20460. Overnight or courier 
deliveries should be sent to our 501 3rd Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20001 location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is divided into four sections:

I. Section 612 Program
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Regulatory History
II. Listing of Substitutes--Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning
III. Administrative Requirements
IV. Additional Information

I. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act 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) requires EPA to 
require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I 
substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or 
existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for 
significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The 
producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's health and 
safety studies on such substitutes.
     Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator 
shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and 
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying 
and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key 
commercial applications.
     Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to 
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product 
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available 
for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II 
substances.

B. Regulatory History

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (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; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and 
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and 
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal 
industrial sectors that historically consume 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--Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning

    To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, 
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various 
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The 
outcome of these risks 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

[[Page 10375]]

management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has identified 
five possible decision categories: acceptable; acceptable subject to 
use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; 
unacceptable; and pending. 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. A pending listing 
represents substitutes for which the Agency has not received complete 
data or has not completed its review of the data.
    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 risks to human health and the environment. Such 
substitutes are placed on the acceptable subject to use conditions 
lists. Use of such substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such 
use conditions renders these substitutes unacceptable.
    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 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.
    In this final rule, EPA is issuing its decision on the 
acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the 
Agency. Specifically, this final rule lists as unacceptable the use of 
two gases--HFC-134a and HFC-152a--as refrigerants in self-chilling cans 
because of unacceptably high greenhouse gas emissions that would result 
from the direct release of the cans' refrigerants to the atmosphere. 
Today's rule incorporates decisions proposed on May 21, 1997, at 62 FR 
27873 and on February 3, 1998, at 63 FR 5491. As described in the final 
rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-
comment rulemaking as a general matter 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.
    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 
substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the list of 
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new 
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as 
separate Notices of Acceptability in the Federal Register.
    Part A below presents a detailed discussion of the substitute 
listing determinations by major use sector. Tables summarizing listing 
decisions in this Federal Register are in appendix G. The comments 
contained in appendix G to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82, provide 
additional information on a substitute. Since these comments are not 
part of the regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a 
substitute. Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with 
respect to other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the 
substitute. However, EPA encourages users of acceptable substitutes to 
apply all comments in their application of these substitutes. In many 
instances, the comments simply allude to sound operating practices that 
have already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code 
standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require 
significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected 
industry.

Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning

1. Listing Decisions
    Self-chilling Cans Using HFC-134a or HFC-152a. Self-chilling cans 
using HFC-134a or HFC-152a are unacceptable substitutes for CFC-12, R-
502, and HCFC-22 in the following end-uses: household refrigeration, 
transport refrigeration, vending machines, cold storage warehouses, and 
retail food refrigeration, Retrofit and New. This technology represents 
a product substitute intended to replace several types of refrigeration 
equipment. A self-chilling can includes a heat transfer unit that 
performs the same function as one half of the traditional vapor-
compression refrigeration cycle. The unit contains a charge of 
pressurized refrigerant that is released to the atmosphere when the 
user activates the cooling unit. As the refrigerant's pressure drops to 
atmospheric pressure, it absorbs heat from the can's contents and 
evaporates, cooling the can. Because this process provides the same 
cooling effect as household refrigeration, transport refrigeration, 
vending machines, cold storage warehouses, or retail food 
refrigeration, it is a substitute for CFC-12, R-502, or HCFC-22 in 
these systems.
    HFCs have played a major role in the phaseout of CFC refrigerants, 
and EPA expects this responsible use to continue. HFC-134a is an 
acceptable substitute for ozone-depleting refrigerants in a wide 
variety of refrigeration systems. In addition, both HFC-134a and HFC-
152a are components in refrigerant blends that are themselves 
acceptable substitutes. These refrigeration systems, however, are 
closed, meaning that refrigerant recirculates, and there are EPA 
regulations requiring their recovery and reuse. The only source of 
refrigerant emissions from these systems is leaks, and EPA regulations 
require the repair of large leaks from these non-emissive systems. In 
contrast, however, self-chilling cans are by definition emissive, i.e., 
releasing refrigerant is integral to their function.
    In assessing the risks of proposed substitutes under the SNAP 
program, EPA considers all environmental impacts that a substitute may 
produce. HFC-134a and HFC-152a have no ozone depletion potential, are 
low in toxicity, and are not volatile organic compounds. HFC-152a is 
mildly flammable, but the primary area of concern for both HFC-134a and 
HFC-152a is their potential to contribute to increased greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    The proposal to this final rule described an assessment made by EPA 
of the possible contribution of self-chilling can technology to U.S. 
emissions of global warming gases when HFC-134a and HFC-152a are used. 
The proposed rule also describes an analysis of the effect of replacing 
systems with new equipment using new refrigerants in the end-uses 
listed above with self-chilling cans. As the analysis demonstrates, 
because the total U.S. market for beer and soft drinks is significant, 
even a small market penetration could substantially increase U.S. 
emissions of greenhouse gases. One scenario, a 5% market penetration of 
cans using HFC-134a, resulted in greenhouse gas emissions of 96 million 
metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE), which would be 25% higher

[[Page 10376]]

than the 76 MMTCE of total expected reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions currently estimated in the year 2000 under President 
Clinton's 1993 Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). At 30% market 
penetration of cans using HFC-134a, emissions would be 575 MMTCE, more 
than total CO2 emissions from all U.S. electric utilities' 
burning of fossil fuels. Interested parties can find more information 
about this analysis in the February 3, 1998 proposal to this final rule 
(63 FR 5491). For all of these reasons, EPA is listing self-chilling 
cans using HFC-134a or HFC-152a as unacceptable substitutes for CFC-12, 
R-502, or HCFC-22 in the end-uses listed above.
2. Response to Comments
    Commenters identified three issues, discussed in turn:
     EPA does not have legislative authority to use concerns 
about high greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for the decision to list 
as unacceptable the use of HFC-134a and HFC-152a as refrigerants in 
self-chilling cans;
     EPA did not sufficiently consider differences between the 
global warming potentials of HFC-134a and HFC-152a, and a decision to 
list as unacceptable the use of HFC-152a as refrigerants in self-
chilling cans may deter the use of HFC-152a in other unrelated 
applications; and
     The use of HFC-134a and HFC-152a in self-chilling cans may 
not be regulated under EPA's SNAP program because EPA never made a 
finding that self-chilling cans have used class I or II refrigerants.
    a. EPA's Authority under Title VI of the Clean Air Act. Both 
commenters stated that EPA does not have authority to use concerns 
about high greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for the decision to list 
as unacceptable the use of HFC-134a and HFC-152a as refrigerants in 
self-chilling cans. In taking action on self-chilling cans, EPA is 
carrying out its responsibility under Title VI of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act, as part of the phaseout of chemicals that deplete the 
stratospheric ozone layer, to review the health and the environmental 
effects of replacement chemicals and products. Section 612(c) prohibits 
the introduction of any replacement that may present adverse effects to 
human health or the environment if EPA concludes there is an 
alternative available that ``reduces overall risk to human health and 
the environment.'' Section 608(c) also makes it illegal to knowingly 
vent or release a replacement refrigerant from a product into the air 
unless EPA determines that the release of the refrigerant ``does not 
pose a threat the environment.'' The Agency has included climate change 
among the environmental risks it considers in implementing section 612 
since the inception of the SNAP program. The original SNAP rule 
promulgated in March, 1994 (59 FR 13044) included ``atmospheric effects 
and related health and environmental impacts'' as criteria for 
evaluating substitutes. Public comment on the original SNAP rule failed 
to identify any definition of overall risk that warranted excluding 
these effects.
    b. Differences between HFC-134a and HFC-152a global warming 
potentials. The text of the preamble in the proposed rule distinguished 
between non-emissive uses of class I and II substitutes, such as in 
retail food refrigeration, and emissive uses, such as in self-chilling 
cans and aerosol propellants. One commenter stated that the preamble to 
the proposed rule should have further distinguished within the 
discussion of emissive uses between the use of HFC-134a and the use of 
HFC-152a, since HFC-134a has a global warming potential of 1300, and 
HFC-152a has a global warming potential of 140. The commenter expressed 
concern that a failure to make any distinction between these gases will 
deter the use of HFC-152a in emissive uses other than self-chilling 
cans, such as in personal care products.
    In the course of evaluating class I and II substitutes under SNAP, 
the Agency does not consider the relative criteria of substitutes as 
they are used in different industrial sectors, or in different end-uses 
within a single sector. Instead, SNAP evaluation of a potential 
alternative involves comparing it with the original ODS it is 
substituting for in that end-use, and with other alternatives that are 
available in that end-use. Today's decision therefore has no bearing on 
the acceptability under SNAP of HFC-152a as a substitute under any 
other refrigeration and air-conditioning end-use or within any other 
industrial sector.
    The commenter also stated that the impact of HFC-152a as a global 
warmer may not be sufficient to warrant direct regulation under SNAP. 
EPA disagrees; Section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act mandates that EPA 
shall make it unlawful to replace any class I or II substance with a 
substitute that EPA determines may present adverse effects to human 
health or the environment, if another alternative(s) to such 
replacement has been identified that: (a) reduces overall risk to human 
health and the environment; and (b) is currently or potentially 
available. There are, in fact, other substitutes within the 
refrigeration end-uses listed below that reduce overall risk to human 
health and the environment relative to the use of HFC-152a in self-
chilling cans.
    c. Class I or II refrigerants not present in self-chilling cans. 
One commenter believes that since a class I or II substance has never 
been used in self-chilling cans, EPA may not regulate the use of class 
I or II substitutes in self-chilling cans. The commenter stated that 
EPA lacks authority to regulate anything that does not involve direct 
replacement of a class I or II substance in a piece of equipment.
    In essence, the commenter asserts that self-chilling cans are not 
subject to SNAP review because they are a different end-use from 
established refrigeration and air-conditioning end-uses that are 
subject to the SNAP program. EPA believes, however, that self-chilling 
cans are not a different end-use, but rather a substitute technological 
application within the refrigeration and air-conditioning end-uses 
subject to SNAP.
    The original SNAP rule defines ``end-use'' as a process or class of 
specific applications within a major industrial sector where a 
substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance. Within the 
refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, some of the end-uses that 
rely on ozone-depleting substances are CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 
household refrigeration, transport refrigeration, vending machines, 
cold storage warehouses, and retail food refrigeration. With respect to 
beverages, self-chilling cans perform the same function that the 
traditional equipment, processes and systems in these end-uses do: they 
make a chilled beverage available to the consumer. Therefore, self-
chilling cans are a separate technological application intended to 
replace existing equipment used within these refrigeration and air-
conditioning end-uses, rather than a completely different refrigeration 
and air-conditioning sector end-use.
    Since the inception of the SNAP program, SNAP review has included 
evaluations not only of direct chemical replacements within a 
particular system or process, but also of product substitutes, process 
changes and alternative technologies such as the use of evaporative and 
absorption chillers in refrigeration and air conditioning, and the use 
of no-clean fluxes in electronics manufacturing processes that 
currently use class I or II compounds as cleaning and drying solvents.

    As stated in the response to comments in the original March 18, 
1994 SNAP rule, ``EPA believes it appropriate to consider substitute 
processes and products for review under the

[[Page 10377]]

SNAP program, since many of these alternatives are viable 
substitutes and could reduce overall risks to human health and the 
environment. EPA believes that such alternative products and 
processes, therefore, fall within the definition of substitutes 
under section 612'' (59 FR 13052).

    Similarly, new production techniques and/or processing equipment 
are important developments that can minimize environmental risk. 
Accordingly, alternative manufacturing processes are also examined 
under section 612 in the context of use and emissions of substitutes. 
EPA believes that section 612's reference to ``alternative,'' instead 
of ``alternative substance,'' or ``alternative chemical,'' implies a 
statutory intent that ``alternative'' be read broadly. This reading of 
the statutory intent furthers the Congressional mandate to shift use to 
alternatives that reduce overall risk.

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 
have been documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
EPA to 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 
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by 
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be 
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact 
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative 
is not selected or 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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also 
determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency is aware 
of only one entity that has expressed interest in manufacturing self-
chilling cans, and that entity has informed EPA that it is pursuing 
manufacturing the cans using other refrigerants. 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 by EPA which are described in the March 18, 1994 rulemaking 
(59 FR 13044, 13121, 13146-13147) and in the October 16, 1996 
rulemaking (61 FR 54030, 54038-54039). 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 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective April 2, 1999.

F. Applicability of E.O. 13045: Children's Health Protection

    This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on 
environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately 
affect children.

G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of

[[Page 10378]]

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

H. 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 final rule does not mandate the use of any technical 
standards; accordingly, the NTTAA does not apply to this rule.

I. 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.''

IV. Additional Information

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional 
information on SNAP, contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
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 atmospheric ozone, are 
available from EPA's Ozone World Wide Web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/
ozone/title6'' 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: February 25, 1999
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 G to read 
as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *
    Appendix G to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 
and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the March 3, 1999, Final rule, 
Effective April 2, 1999.

                                      Refrigerants Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute                  Decision                  Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22           Self-Chilling Cans-     Unacceptable...............  Unacceptably high
 Household Refrigeration, Transport   Using HFC-134a or HFC-                               greenhouse gas
 Refrigeration, Vending Machines,     152a.                                                emissions from direct
 Cold Storage Warehouses, and                                                              release of
 Retail Food Refrigeration,                                                                refrigerant to the
 Retrofit and New.                                                                         atmosphere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-5237 Filed 3-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P