Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
Related Material
[Federal Register: March 3, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 41)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10373-10378]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03mr99-13]
[[Page 10373]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-
Depleting Substances; Final Rule
[[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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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:
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> 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
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081026075552im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}