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

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