Jump to main content.


 
Vol. 58 No. 236 Friday, December 10, 1993  p 65018 (Rule)          
    1/8006  
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[FRL-4810-7] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is amending the schedule for 
the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals that is specified 
in section 604 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the 
Act). This action responds to several petitions and comments 
submitted by environmental organizations and industry groups 
seeking an accelerated phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, 
as authorized under section 606 of the Act. Today's action also 
establishes regulations implementing the amendments, adjustments 
and decisions adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer at their November 
1992 meeting. In this action, EPA adds methyl bromide to the 
list of class I substances, in response to new scientific
information, 
a petition submitted under section 602 of the Act, and the decision

of the Protocol Parties to classify methyl bromide as a controlled 
substance with an ozone-depleting potential (ODP) of 0.7. EPA 
is also adding hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the list of 
class I substances. In addition, in accordance with trade
provisions 
in Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol, EPA is banning specified 
trade between the U.S. and foreign states not party to, nor 
complying with the Protocol. Finally, this regulation modifies 
several recordkeeping and reporting requirements to streamline 
the reporting burden, and facilitate compliance. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this rule is January 1, 
1994, except that appendix A of subpart A of 40 CFR part 82, 
sections E. & G. (the addition of Methyl bromide and the HBFCs 
to the list of class I substances) is effective December 10, 
1993 and  82.4(d) is effective January 10, 1994. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document for reasons why a 30 day 
notice is neither necessary nor appropriate. 

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained 
in Air Docket No. A-92-13 at: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The public 
docket room is located in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground 
Floor). Materials may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. until noon 
and from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. A 
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket materials. 
Information on this rulemaking can also be obtained from the 
Stratospheric Protection Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Protection 
Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 or Peter Voigt, U.S. EPA, 
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 
Office of Air and Radiation, 6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460, (202) 233-9185. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


Additional Information on the Effective Date 

   The effective date of this rule is January 1, 1994. Methyl 
bromide and the HBFCs are added to the list of class I substances 
as of the date of publication. Section 602(d) of the Clean Air 
Act specifies that extension of the phaseout schedule for a 
newly listed substance may not extend the date for termination 
of production for any class I substance to a date more than 
7 years after January 1 of the year after the year in which 
the substance is added to the list of class I substances. EPA 
believes Congress intended the seven years to be tolled from 
no later than the date of publication of the listing, and that 
30 days notice before the listing becomes effective for this 
purpose is neither necessary nor appropriate. 
   EPA believes that the time between publication and January 
1, 1994 is sufficient for industry to comply with the annual 
production and consumption limits beginning January 1, 1994. 
The Agency believes this is a reasonable amount of notice for 
this kind of regulation. Compliance with the annual production 
period controls necessitates less advance notice than regulations 
for which compliance is measured over a shorter period. Also, 
since title VI controls of production and consumption are
implemented 
on an annual basis, implementation on January 1, 1994 is necessary 
to avoid delaying the implementation of control until January 
1, 1995. EPA believes that the environmental benefits associated 
with the 1994 controls warrant this action. Moreover, the Agency 
notes that 1994 restrictions on class I substances (other than 
methyl bromide) are necessary for compliance with the Montreal 
Protocol. Other regulatory provisions in this rule are tied 
to the production and consumption phaseout. (The class II
restrictions 
do not take effect until much later). Finally, EPA has taken 
steps to provide notice of this final action to the regulated 
industry upon signature of the rule and prior to publication. 
For these reasons, EPA believes that the amount of time provided 
before the rule becomes effective is reasonable. 
   EPA notes that the general requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) 
(the Administrative Procedure Act), that publication or service 
of a substantive rule be made not less than 30 days before its 
effective date does not apply here. Section 307(d)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act specifically applies to regulations under title 
V of the Clean Air Act and provides that ``[t]he provisions 
of sections 553 through 557 and section 706 of title VI shall 
not, except as expressly provided in this subsection, apply 
to actions to which this subsection applies.'' Nowhere does 
subsection 307(d) expressly provide that section 553(d) of title 
V applies. Even if section 553(d) were to apply, EPA believes 
that, for the reasons described above, there is good cause under 
section 553(d)(3) of title V to provide less than 30 days notice 
following publication. 
   The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following 
outline:

I. Background 
II. Accelerated Phaseout of Class I Controlled Substances 

  A. Summary of Proposal 

  B. Comments on Proposal 

  C. Final Schedule 

  D. Legal Authority 
III. Accelerated Phaseout of Class II Controlled Substances 

  A. Statutory Authority 

  B. Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol 

  C. CAA Petitions 

  1. NRDC/FOE/EDF 

  2. CFC Alliance Petition 

  3. IEER Petition 

  4. EPA's Proposed Action 

  5. Response to IEER Petition 

  6. Today's Final Action 
IV. Addition of Methyl Bromide to List of Class I Substances 
    and Phaseout Schedule 

  A. Summary 

  B. Legal Authority 

  1. CAA Legal Authority 

  2. Public Comments on Legal Issues 
C. Background 

  1. Initial Identification of Risks of Methyl Bromide 

  2. Petition to List 

  3. Montreal Protocol Actions 

  4. Domestic Regulatory Action 

  D. Today's Final Action 

  1. Summary 

  2. Decision to List 

  3. Scientific Issues Related to Methyl Bromide 

  a. Faster Formation of HOBr 

  b. HBr Branching 

  c. Other Sinks for Methyl Bromide 

  d. Natural and Man-made Emissions 

  e. Summary of ODP Discussion 

  4. Uses and Substitutes for Methyl Bromide 

  a. The NAPIAP Study 

  b. Comments 

  c. Soil Fumigation 

  d. Commodity Fumigation 

  e. Structural Fumigation 

  5. Analysis of Costs and Benefits 

  6. Group Assignment and Baseline Year 

  7. Interim Reductions and Phaseout Schedule 

  8. Labeling 

  9. Essential Uses 
V. Additional of Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the List 
    of Class I Substances and to the Phaseout Schedule 
VI. Trade Restrictions 

  A. Description of Proposed and Final Requirements 

  B. Response to Major Comments 

  C. Legal Authority 

  D. Definitions 

  E. Foreign States not Party to the Protocol 
VII. Changes in Definition of Production 

  A. Definition of Production 

  1. Transformation 

  a. Changes in Treatment of Transformation 

  b. Recordkeeping and Reporting Changes Relative to Transformation


  2. Destruction 

  a. Elimination of Coincidental Unavoidable Byproducts Provision 

  b. Destruction-Background 

  c. Definition of Destruction/Change in Definition of Production 

  d. Treatment of Destruction 

  e. Response to Major Comments 

  f. Degree of Exemption/Credit Afforded for Destruction 

  g. Standards for Destruction 

  h. Comments on Reporting and Recordkeeping Associated with 
    Destruction 

  3. Spills 

  B. Imports 

  C. International Issues 

  1. Exports 

  2. Transfers of Production Rights Between Nations 

  D. Insignificant Quantities 

  1. Insignificant Quantities of Substances Other than Methyl 
    Bromide 

  2. Insignificant Production of Methyl Bromide 
VIII. Other Issues 

  A. Definition of Importer 

  B. Tracking Essential Uses 

  C. Addition of HCFCs to the EPCRA Section 313 List 

  D. Environmental Impact Statement 

  E. Recycled and Used Controlled Substances 

  F. Transhipments 

  G. Publication of the Regulatory Text 
IX. Changes from the Proposal and Current Program 
X. Impact of Final Action 
XI. Additional Information 

  A. Executive Order 12866 

  B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

  C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

I. Background 

   A broad scientific consensus has emerged that continuing 
depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer will lead to increased 
penetration of harmful UV-B radiation to the earth's surface, 
resulting in potential damage to human health and the environment. 
The risks from ozone depletion include increases in skin cancer 
and cataracts, suppression of the human immune response system, 
damage to crops and aquatic organisms, increased formation of 
ground-level smog, and accelerated weathering of outdoor plastics. 
   Several national and international assessments have been 
conducted over the past years and provide useful summaries of 
the information supporting the linkage between emissions of 
certain chlorine and bromine-containing substances, depletion 
of the earth's protective ozone layer, and damage to human health 
and the environment. See for example, ``Assessing the Risks 
of Stratospheric Ozone'' EPA (1985); ``Scientific Assessment 
of Ozone Depletion'' WMO/UNEP (1989 and 1991); ``Health and 
Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion'' UNEP (1989 and 1991), 
and ``Methyl Bromide: Its Atmospheric Science, Technology, and 
Economics.'' 
   While considerable uncertainties remain in fully understanding 
the complex reactions that occur in the atmosphere that cause 
depletion of the ozone layer, scientific research has made
remarkable 
progress since 1974 in understanding the atmospheric processes 
that lead to depletion of the ozone layer both in the polar 
regions and globally. In response to the growing body of evidence 
that links chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other chlorinated 
and brominated compounds to ozone depletion, the international 
community reached agreement in 1987 on a landmark treaty. 
   The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 
Layer (Montreal Protocol) initially called for a fifty percent 
reduction in CFC production and consumption by the year 1998 
and a freeze in halon production and consumption. When originally 
negotiated in 1987, it had been signed by 23 nations and the 
European Community. 
   In the six years since its initiation, the Protocol has evolved 
rapidly in response to new scientific and technology developments. 
As new evidence was developed suggesting that the risk of ozone 
depletion from CFCs and other compounds was greater than had 
previously been thought, nations of the world responded by
strengthening 
the Protocol first in 1990 and again in 1992. 
   As the treaty currently stands, the number of Parties has 
grown to over 125 nations. Instead of a reduction of 50% in 
CFCs by 1998, the Protocol now calls for a phaseout in 1996 
with the possible exception for critical uses. In the case of 
halons, the Protocol calls for their phaseout by the end of 
1993. In addition to the originally controlled compounds,
additional 
compounds were added first in 1990 when methyl chloroform and 
carbon tetrachloride were added by the Parties and scheduled 
for phaseout. The phaseout date for both of these compounds 
is now 1996. In addition, at their meeting in 1992, the Parties 
adopted an amendment calling for controls and the eventual phaseout

of HCFCs and a freeze on production and consumption of methyl 
bromide (except quarantine and preshipment uses). 
   The accelerated phaseout and expanded scope of compounds 
covered by the Montreal Protocol were in response to a series 
of reports from the scientific community stating that ozone 
depletion in Antarctica appears to be directly the result of 
increased concentrations of man-made chlorinated and brominated 
compounds, that the potential exists for more significant depletion

in the Arctic region, and that mid-latitude concentrations of 
ozone have also been reduced over the past decade or so. A more 
detailed description of recent scientific evidence is included 
in EPA's March notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (March 18, 
1993, 58 FR 15014). 
   The most recent scientific reports on ozone depletion were 
completed after the publication of the March proposal and show 
that ozone values over mid-latitudes have been substantially 
lower in the winter of 1992 and spring of 1993 than had been 
previously recorded for these times of the year. On April 23, 
1993, a paper by Gleason et al. was published in Science and 
included data from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) 
instrument on-board the Nimbus 7 satellite which showed that 
global ozone levels were 2-3% lower than any previous year for 
these months and 4% lower than normal. Ozone levels for the 
northern mid-latitudes were about 10% lower than historical 
averages for this time of the year for this region and appear 
to have continued at these low levels through the early part 
of the summer. While the precise cause of these low ozone values 
cannot yet be determined, it may well prove that they are the 
result of the indirect effects from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo 
in June 1991. These effects could result from the injection 
of aerosol particles into the stratosphere which provide surfaces 
for accelerated depletion of ozone by chlorine or bromine species 
or which increase stratospheric temperatures and, therefore, 
lead to faster reactions involving chlorinated and brominated 
species resulting in more depletion. Investigations continue 
into better defining the exact role of the sulfur particles 
from the volcano in the recent increase in depletion. 

II. Accelerated Phaseout of Class I Controlled Substances


A. Summary of Proposal 

   EPA considered several schedules in the March 18 proposal 
to accelerate the phaseout of class I controlled substances. 
The Agency had received prior to the proposal two petitions 
to accelerate the phaseout, as well as several industry comments 
on those petitions, submitted under section 606 of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments. These two petitions laid out recommended 
schedules to complete the phaseout sooner than the year 2000, 
the date required under section 604 of the Clean Air Act. The 
Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy (the Alliance) petitioned 
the Agency to complete the phaseout by 1996, allowing for a 
limited volume of CFC production until 2000 to service existing 
refrigerator and air-conditioning systems. The Alliance suggested 
a cut of 50 percent of 1986 production levels for 1993, with 
subsequent cuts to 40 percent and 25 percent in 1994 and 1995, 
respectively. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friends 
of the Earth, and the Environmental Defense Fund (NRDC/FOE/EDF) 
requested more drastic reductions in 1992, 1993 and 1994 of 
40 percent, 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively, with a 
complete phaseout by the end of 1994 for CFCs. The environmental 
groups also requested that the production of halons and carbon 
tetrachloride stop as of 1992, with a 50 percent of baseline 
cut for methyl chloroform in 1992, and its complete phaseout 
by 1993. 
   In November of 1992, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
met and agreed to a set of ``adjustments'', or changes to the 
phaseout schedules for the existing controlled substances. The 
Parties agreed to phase out all CFCs by 1996, allowing for
production 
and consumption of 25 percent of baseline level in 1994 and 
1995. The Parties also agreed to cut carbon tetrachloride to 
15 percent of baseline levels in 1995, and to complete its phaseout

by 1996. Methyl chloroform was to be eliminated by 1996 also, 
with a cut to 50 percent of baseline in 1994 and 1995. The Parties 
agreed to phase out the production of halons by the end of 1993. 
In order to facilitate these expedited reduction schedules, 
the Parties also established criteria for exempting essential 
uses from the production phaseout. 
   In response to the two petitions and the agreement reached 
by the Parties in Copenhagen, the Agency proposed in the March 
18 NPRM to cut CFC production and consumption to 25 percent 
of baseline in 1994, with a subsequent cut to 15 percent by 
1995. The Agency proposed to phase out CFCs by 1996, with no 
production extending beyond that date to service existing
equipment, 
as had been requested by the Alliance, but discussed criteria 
established under the Montreal Protocol for granting essential 
use exemptions. Since the publication of the March 18 NPRM, 
the Agency came to believe that the 15 percent level it had 
proposed for 1995 would be too stringent for the sectors that 
rely on CFCs. Although CFC use has dropped significantly over 
the last few years, a reduction to 15 percent of baseline levels 
for CFCs in 1995 could hurt certain sectors, where alternatives 
are not yet feasible (e.g. metered dose inhalers, possibly
household 
refrigerators), or where CFCs are required for servicing equipment 
with long useful lifetimes such as the automobile air conditioner 
and comfort cooling sectors. Since retrofits for existing equipment

are still being evaluated and tested for several large use sectors,

the Agency believed that the proposed level of 15 percent in 
1995 could deleteriously affect consumers and these user groups. 
EPA asked for comments at the public hearing on changing the 
1995 limit to 25 percent and published a separate notice requesting

comment on this issue (58 FR 25793, April 28, 1993). 
   After its proposed regulation was initially signed by the 
EPA Administrator, DuPont announced its intent to phase out 
its production of CFCs by the end of 1994. Since DuPont has 
historically been allocated about half of all allowances (based 
on the 1986 base year), its decision to stop production a year 
ahead of the schedule proposed by EPA has potentially significant 
consequences. EPA also requested comments at the public hearing 
on the possible implications of DuPont's action on sectors
requiring 
CFCs. 
   With respect to class I substances other than CFCs, the Agency 
proposed to phase out production of carbon tetrachloride and 
methyl chloroform by January 1, 1996 also, with interim reductions 
of 50 percent and 15 percent of baseline for carbon tetrachloride 
in 1994 and 1995, and 50 percent and 30 percent of baseline 
cuts for methyl chloroform for those years. 

B. Comments on Proposal 

   EPA received eight comments supporting the proposed accelerated 
schedule with the modified 1995 limit of 25% baseline production 
and consumption. These commenters, primarily CFC and methyl 
chloroform users, believed the proposed schedule feasible, and 
that many were on the way to completing the phaseout. However, 
several of these companies warned that any further acceleration 
would jeopardize phaseout plans and would possibly force the 
use of unsafe substitutes. Many agreed that the United States 
must adhere to the international phaseout dates set in the Montreal

Protocol, but that it should not unilaterally expedite the
phaseout. 
   Two environmental groups objected to the proposed scheduling, 
both arguing that a faster accelerated schedule was possible 
and that CFC production should cease as of January 1, 1995. 
One commenter cited DuPont's and the European Community's
announcements 
to stop production as of that date as proof that such a phaseout 
is possible. Both commenters believe that methyl chloroform 
could be phased out in 1995, and that carbon tetrachloride could 
be phased out by January 1, 1994. 
   In addition, EPA received several comments on the issue of 
Dupont's decision not to produce CFCs in 1995. Several major 
industry groups stated that full production of the 25 percent 
allowance is critical to the smooth transition out of CFCs and 
that without this quantity available in 1995 severe shortages 
are likely to exist and significant economic hardship to consumers 
and equipment owners is likely to result. One commenter opposed 
any Agency action on this issue, suggesting that DuPont's decision 
is better for the environment. DuPont in its comments reiterated 
that it believes that demand will drop off to such a degree 
in 1995 that its allocation will not be necessary, but that 
if the Agency believes that production of the full 25 percent 
of baseline levels for 1995 is necessary it would not object 
if the Agency were to take action to facilitate this production. 
   Based on its current view of the marketplace, EPA expects 
that almost all major uses of CFCs in new equipment will have 
shifted by January 1, 1995, with the possible exception of metered 
dose inhalers and some lines of home refrigerators. Thus, the 
major source of demand for CFCs in 1995 will be to service existing

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. 
   To reduce future demand by those sectors, EPA has initiated 
a number of activities to implement its mandatory recycling 
and recovery and disposal rules, to minimize leaks from equipment, 
and to encourage retrofits and replacements of existing air-
conditioning and refrigeration systems. However, in the absence 
of a drop-in refrigerant to service existing CFC-12 vehicles, 
the Agency has determined that the Protocol allowable production 
and consumption of 25% in 1995 is necessary to minimize economic 
disruption and to facilitate a smoother transition out of CFCs 
on the accelerated schedule adopted today. Furthermore, as
explained 
below in the section on essential uses, EPA denied several such 
applications related to servicing air conditioning and
refrigeration 
equipment on the assumption that steps will be taken to ensure 
that full production of CFCs is permitted in 1994 and 1995 to 
provide additional supplies beyond 1995 in order to minimize 
the costs of the phaseout to vehicle and equipment owners. As 
a result, the rulemaking contains the legally permissible 25 
percent allowable production level in 1995 and the Agency intends 
to follow-up on the issue to ensure that this level of production 
is made available. 

C. Final Schedule 

   In today's rule, the Agency has finalized the following schedule

for the accelerated phaseout of the class I, groups I through 
V controlled substances. This is the schedule originally proposed 
in the March 18 notice, with the exception of the 25 percent 
level for CFCs in 1995, which is the level on which the Agency 
requested comment in its April 28, 1993, Federal Register Notice. 


    Final Schedule for Class I Controlled Substances, Groups I, II,
III, IV   
                                     and V                         
          
          [Percent Allowable of Baseline Production and
Consumption]          
                                                                   
          
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴
                                       CFCs          
  Carbon   Methyl   
                                      (Group   Halons
 tetrac  chloro   
      Year (beginning Jan. 1)         I and    (Group
 hloride  form    
                                       III)     II)  
  (Group   (Group   
                                                     
   IV)       V)     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴
                                                     
                    
1994 ..............................       25        0
      50       50   
1995 ..............................       25        0
      15       30   
1996 ..............................        0        0
       0        0   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴

   The Agency has decided on this accelerated schedule for several 
reasons. First, with one exception discussed below, this is 
the schedule that the Parties agreed to in Copenhagen in November 
of 1992. The United States agreed to this schedule at that time, 
and believe that the schedule appropriately reflects the fastest 
technological and economically feasible reduction schedule. 
The United States, as well as the majority of the Parties, believes

that a 1996 phaseout is possible, but that an earlier phaseout 
would exceed technological capabilities and result in excessive 
economic costs. Without international commitment to a phaseout 
date, this unilateral action by the United States to phase out 
earlier would pose significant costs, but would yield few benefits.

It is true that despite the agreed-to 1996 phaseout, the European 
Community and several other countries party to the Protocol 
have decided to phase out of the class I chemicals one year 
earlier (i.e., January 1, 1995). However, EPA understands that 
the European Community and other countries pursuing an earlier 
phaseout are not as dependent on CFCs for refrigeration and 
air-conditioning as the United States. Consequently, the financial 
cost of such a phaseout by the European Community is not nearly 
as great as it would be for the United States (see cost
implications 
below). EPA believes that the schedule set in Copenhagen is 
sufficient to allow an orderly transition out of class I chemicals 
without significantly further degrading the ozone layer. However, 
EPA believes that a faster schedule for the reduction in 1995 
of methyl chloroform in the United States is both technically 
and economically feasible and environmentally desirable. As 
a result, EPA proposed and is today finalizing the proposed 
reduction to 30 percent of baseline levels for this compound 
compared to the 50 percent reduction required by the Montreal 
Protocol for 1995. 
   Recent analysis indicates that substantial costs to U.S. 
industry and consumers would occur if the U.S. were to accelerate 
further the phaseout for CFCs to 1995, rather than 1996. Much 
of this cost would fall on consumers and equipment owners in 
the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector. Unlike other 
sectors, such as solvents and foam blowing, the switch to
alternatives 
has been complicated by the search for refrigerants that could 
be used to service existing equipment and would not diminish 
the efficiency and capacity of existing equipment, and by the 
search for refrigerant-compatible lubricating oils. Although 
alternatives have been developed for new equipment, the issue 
of servicing existing equipment with useful lifetimes well
exceeding 
the 1995 phaseout is substantially more complicated. In many 
cases, owners of existing equipment must make modifications 
to accommodate possible alternatives. This problem is complicated 
by the large amount of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment

in existence. EPA and industry estimates that over 100 million 
mobile air-conditioners currently require CFC-12 as a refrigerant. 
Some percentage of these will need to be retrofitted if CFC-
12 is not available past the phaseout. Although refrigerant 
recycling and recovery at disposal sites will supply this sector 
some CFC-12 past 1995, the required volume of refrigerant will 
exceed the supply of recycled CFC-12, even with 1995 production 
at 25% of baseline. (EPA could not allow production at greater 
than 25% level, however, because the Protocol establishes the 
level of 25% for 1995.) 
   For stationary refrigeration sectors, EPA estimates that 
more than 67,000 CFC chillers, as well as 7,000 industrial process 
chillers are currently operating in the United States. This 
equipment has a useful life of 30 years or longer. Although 
owners are beginning to retrofit and replace these chillers, 
the pace of these activities has been slow, and it is not clear 
that there will be sufficient recycled refrigerant past 1995. 
Retrofits are available, but costs vary significantly by sector 
and even within sectors by type of equipment. 
   The Agency had proposed in its March 18 NPRM to limit production

and consumption to only 15 percent of baseline in 1995. However, 
EPA requested comment on whether the less stringent reduction 
to 25 percent baseline would be more appropriate (58 FR 25793). 
In today's final action, EPA is allowing the 25 percent baseline 
production to be consistent with the provisions of the Copenhagen 
agreement by the Parties, and because consumers and equipment 
owners would face significant retrofit costs if production levels 
were further reduced in 1995. The need for full allowable
production 
under the Montreal Protocol in 1995 is even more critical given 
the limited essential uses likely to be granted under the Montreal 
Protocol for production after that date. 
   EPA is limiting carbon tetrachloride to 50 percent of baseline 
in 1994, with a subsequent cut to 15 percent of baseline in 
1995, and no production in 1996, consistent with the Protocol. 
Environmentalists, in their comments on the proposal, requested 
a carbon tetrachloride phaseout date of January 1, 1994. In 
response, the Agency believes that significant steps have been 
taken to eliminate the use of this chemical for both health 
and environmental reasons. However, the remaining uses are often 
unique applications for which the industry continues to search 
for substitutes. EPA believes that this remaining 15 percent 
of production and consumption for carbon tetrachloride is necessary

to assist the industry in the transition to a complete phaseout. 
   EPA intends to limit methyl chloroform to 50 percent of baseline

allowances in 1994, and to further reduce consumption and
production 
of this chemical to 30 percent of baseline in 1995, with a complete

phaseout in 1996 also. Environmentalists commented that EPA 
should phase out this chemical in 1995. In response, EPA believes 
that the 1996 phaseout is more appropriate. This user sector 
has been subjected to more immediate and drastic reductions 
than the other major controlled substances over the last three 
years, and to phase out one year earlier than required under 
the Montreal Protocol would place an undue burden on a sector 
that involves many small users and has faced continually changing 
reduction schedules. Despite this, EPA is only allowing production 
and consumption equal to 30 percent of baseline, due to the 
advancements made by the user sector rather than the 50 percent 
allowed under the Protocol. EPA believes that this level is 
a feasible one. 
   EPA performed a comprehensive review of all costs and benefits 
of the phaseout of class I chemicals associated with the various 
proposed schedules. However, the quantification of benefits 
is difficult. In the past, scientists have generally underpredicted

the extent of ozone depletion caused by these chemicals. For 
this reason, scientists and policymakers have relied more on 
chlorine loading calculations as a surrogate for risk of ozone 
depletion than predictions of ozone depletion. Policymakers 
have set a target concentration of 2 parts per billion (ppb) 
of chlorine as the level that existed prior to the Antarctic 
ozone hole. All policies are directed toward reducing the peak 
chlorine levels and minimizing the length of time that
concentrations 
exceed 2 ppb. 
   EPA examined the impact on chlorine levels under the schedules 
proposed by the environmental groups and by industry as well 
as their suggested schedules submitted in their comments on 
the proposal. According to this analysis, all three schedules 
would return chlorine concentrations to below 2 ppb at the same 
time over the next 100 years. As for ``peak'' concentrations, 
the environmental groups' schedule limited peak concentrations 
to little over 4.0 ppb by the turn of the century, with the 
concentrations under the schedules announced here also peaking 
at this time, but at approximately 4.1 ppb. The chlorine loadings 
for the industry schedule rose to about 4.2 ppb, but peaked 
at a later date than either the final rule schedule or the
environmentalists' 
schedule. Under all schedules, chlorine concentrations would 
decrease from the peak level several years after the 1995 phaseout 
and again following the HCFC ban. Although chlorine concentrations 
under the environmentalists' schedules do peak at the lowest 
level of the chlorine concentrations of the three schedules, 
EPA believes that the total volume of additional chlorine loading 
from the final rule schedule over the earlier phaseout of
environmentalists' 
schedule is not significant, especially when considered over 
the next century. 
   EPA calculated the benefits for the various accelerated
schedules 
and compared those benefits with their corresponding costs through 
a more traditional cost-benefit analysis. In past analysis of 
the benefits of reducing production and consumption of ozone-
depleting chemicals, the Agency has monetized many of the health 
and environmental benefits (skin cancer and cataract cases avoided,

crop loss, materials damage, etc.) due to the protection of 
the ozone layer. Social costs reflect the expenses incurred 
from the transition to alternatives. 
   The table below presents the costs and benefits for the phaseout

schedules analyzed for the rulemaking. 


   Incremental Costs and Benefits of the Accelerated Class I
Phaseouts Over   
      the 2000 Phaseout (Methyl Bromide Not Included; Costs and
Benefits      
                       Discounted at a 2% Discount Rate)           
          
     [In Billions of Dollars-Cumulative Costs: 1989-2075 in 1985
Dollars]     
                                                                   
          
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴
                   Scenario                   쿍enefits 
 Costs     Net     
                                                       
        쿫enefits   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                   
Final rule ..................................   48-189 
      7   41-182   
NRDC ........................................   56-221 
     29   27-192   
Alliance {1} ................................   39-152 
      1   38-151   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴
  {1} The ``Alliance'' is the Alliance for a Responsible CFC
Policy, an       
  industry lobby group representing producers and users of these
chemicals.   


   The table does not reflect the large number of uncertainties 
associated with such an analysis. The numerical value of benefits 
varies depending on the assumed value of life, while costs reflect 
social costs and not necessarily the actual costs faced by
companies. 
However, despite these uncertainties, the analysis does provide 
a range of net benefits for the phaseout of class I chemicals, 
and indicates that these net incremental benefits range from 
approximately $37 to $192 billion. The NRDC phaseout achieves 
the highest net benefit under one set of benefit assumptions, 
but the lower end of its net benefit range is below the range 
for both the Alliance and the final rule schedule. This is because 
of the relatively high cost of the NRDC phaseout. (The Agency 
analyzed the reduction schedule suggested in NRDC's response 
to the proposed rule. EPA's analysis indicates that, although 
costs are lowered, the net incremental benefits are approximately 
the same as those of the schedule proposed in their petition.) 
Both the final rule schedule and the Alliance schedule have 
similar net benefits, but the upper range of the benefits of 
the final rule schedule exceeds the benefits range for the Alliance

schedule. For these reasons, the Agency believes it appropriate 
to set the reduction schedules as specified in this final rule. 
   In performing this analysis, the Agency examined the necessary 
reductions to meet the production and consumption targets of 
this rule. For CFCs, the final rule schedule requires a 75% 
reduction in the 1986 baseline in both 1994 and 1995. For the 
air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors, EPA assumes that 
there is full implementation of recovery of refrigerant at
servicing 
and disposal. Also, the Agency assumes that all new equipment 
in these sectors contain such alternatives as HFC-134a, HCFC-
123, ternary blends and ammonia, and that high-efficiency purges 
have been installed on half of the existing chillers by the 
end of 1995. 
   For the foam sector in 1994 and 1995, the Agency estimates 
that more than 23% of the rigid polyurethane boardstock market 
will have shifted to product substitutes, and that the remaining 
share of that sector will shift to HCFC substitutes. One commenter 
did note that the appliance manufacturers would not completely 
shift to HCFC replacements by the end of 1993, as had been noted 
in the proposal. All other foams have shifted to water blown 
foams or product substitutes. With the exception of appliance 
foam, EPA expects all uses of CFCs in this sector will have 
been eliminated by the end of 1993. 
   EPA expects that both the solvent and sterilant sectors will 
continue to use engineering and housekeeping controls to limit 
use of CFCs and shift to alternatives or process changes. Aqueous, 
semi-aqueous cleaning, and ``no clean'' technologies continue 
to penetrate the new equipment market, while existing equipment 
adopts drop-in replacements. Many of the aerosol products have 
already moved to alternative propellants and delivery systems. 
EPA expects that all uses of CFCs in these sectors will be
eliminated 
by the end of 1995. 
   By the beginning of 1996 all CFC use sectors, except for 
certain essential uses, will have made the transition to
alternative 
chemicals and products. However, as noted earlier, existing 
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment will require utilizing

some combination of existing CFC inventories, maximum recycling 
and recovery at disposal, retrofits, actions to minimize leaks, 
and replacement of older, less energy efficient equipment. 
   The final rule schedule calls for a 50% reduction in 1989 
baseline use of methyl chloroform in 1994, with an additional 
20 percent reduction in 1995. The Agency believes that this 
sector may accomplish these reductions in 1994 through
implementation 
of engineering and housekeeping controls in all solvent equipment, 
and by industry beginning to use aqueous cleaning in cold cleaning 
and conveyorized vapor degreasers. The adhesives sector will 
continue implementation of water-based adhesives, and begin 
to use hot melts and other solvent based adhesives, while the 
coatings and inks sector will continue to use powder coatings, 
and expand use of water based coatings. 
   The 1995 target of 30% of baseline may be achieved by
implementation 
of additional alternative solvents in new and existing cold 
cleaning, conveyorized and open-top equipment. In addition, 
methyl chloroform aerosol producers and users will begin to 
adopt petroleum distillates and water based applications. The 
industry will completely phase out of methyl chloroform by the 
full penetration of these technologies by 1996 except possibly 
for limited essential uses. 
   The schedule in today's final rule requires the complete 
phaseout of halons by January 1, 1994. Indeed the Agency
understands 
that all manufacturers in the United States will soon have stopped 
production of these compounds. The fire prevention community 
has successfully completed the transition by adopting alternatives 
as well as minimizing the emission of halons during training, 
and increased recycling through the recent establishment of 
halon banks. EPA commends the halon user sector for their efforts 
in the elimination of their use of new, virgin halon. Efforts 
to establish halon banks are now underway and should provide 
adequate supplies of recycled halons for all critical uses well 
into the future. The cooperation of this industry and its resolve 
to minimize emissions represents a model for the remaining sectors 
to achieve the same results. 
   In the March proposal, EPA also discussed in detail the
essential 
use provision provided for in a decision taken by the Parties 
to the Montreal Protocol at their 1992 meeting in Copenhagen. 
The proposal discussed the criteria established by the Parties 
for granting essential uses, noted that any uses granted under 
domestic rules must be consistent with actions taken by the 
Parties, and stated that EPA would be requesting essential use 
nominations through separate Federal Register announcements. 
   EPA has published two such announcements in the past six 
months. The initial announcements dealt with essential use
nominations 
for halons for 1994 (58 FR 6788). Following that, EPA issued 
a second announcement (58 FR 29410) covering CFCs, carbon
tetrachloride, 
methyl chloroform, and HBFCs for production in 1996. 
   In the case of halons, EPA received a number of applications 
for essential uses, but was able to cooperate with each of the 
applicants to address their short-term needs, and therefore 
the United States did not nominate any essential uses for halons 
for 1994. Nominations were, however, submitted by about a dozen 
other nations. As a first step in the review process, these 
nominations were examined by the halon committee of the Technology 
and Economic Assessment Panel under the Montreal Protocol. This 
panel concluded that either adequate substitutes existed for 
each of these applications or adequate supplies existed in the 
halon bank, and therefore recommended against any additional 
production in 1994 for halon essential uses. This recommendation 
was unanimously supported at the Open-Ended Working Group which 
met in August 1993 in Geneva. The final decision will be taken 
this year by the Parties at their meeting in Thailand. 
   In the case of the other compounds, EPA received approximately 
twenty. In evaluating whether additional production would be 
needed in 1996, one important consideration is whether adequate 
supplies will exist, either from recycled or recovered sources 
or from production allowed in 1995 or before, that might be 
available for use in 1996 and beyond. To the extent that supplies 
are available from any of these sources, then the criteria of 
``no available supply'' necessary for granting an essential 
use would not be satisfied. 
   The United States Government reviewed these applications 
and forwarded to the Protocol's Secretariat nominations for 
production after 1995 for use in: Metered dose inhalers and 
other specified medical applications; a bonding agent for the 
Space Shuttle; aerosol wasp killers; a limited use in a specified 
bonding application and specified polymer application; and a 
general nomination for laboratory uses under specified limitations.

The United States did not forward applications submitted in 
the area of servicing automobile air conditioners and building 
chillers. These were rejected because the government believed 
that by taking all economically feasible steps including shifting 
to alternatives, initiating retrofits, reducing emissions and 
utilizing 1994 and 1995 productions of CFCs, adequate supplies 
would exist for servicing for 1996 and for the same period beyond. 
However, in putting forward its nominations, the United States 
discussed its continued concern about the potential costs if 
a significant number of expensive retrofits are required. It 
reserved the right in future years to submit nomination in areas 
other than those submitted for 1996. The decision by the Parties 
on essential uses for CFCs, MCF, carbon tetrachloride and HBFCs 
for 1996 will be taken at the 1994 Meeting of the Parties. EPA 
will periodically inform the public through Federal Register 
notices of the schedule for future essential use nominations 
and the outcome and decisions by the Parties of past nominations. 

D. Legal Authority 

   Section 606 of the Act provides the Administrator with authority

to accelerate the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances. That 
section authorizes the Administrator to promulgate regulations 
that ``establish a schedule for phasing out the production and 
consumption of class I and class II substances (or use of class 
II substances) that is more stringent than set forth in section 
604 or 605, or both, if: 
   (1) Based on an assessment of credible current scientific 
information (including any assessment under the Montreal Protocol) 
regarding harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer
associated 
with a class I or class II substance, the Administrator determines 
that more stringent schedule may be necessary to protect human 
health and the environment against such effects, 
   (2) Based on the availability of substitutes for listed
substances, 
the Administrator determines that such a more stringent schedule 
is practicable, taking into account technological achievable, 
safety, and other relevant factors, or 
   (3) The Montreal Protocol is modified to include a schedule 
to control or reduce production, consumption, or use of any 
substance more rapidly than the applicable schedule under this 
title. In making any determination under paragraphs (1) and 
(2), the Administrator shall consider the status of the period 
remaining under the applicable schedule under this title.'' 
   As explained above, section 606(a) of the Act sets forth 
the criteria on which EPA is to base a decision to accelerate 
the phaseout schedule for ozone-depleting substances. The
accelerated 
schedules established today are justified under both sections 
606(a)(1) (necessary to protect human and the environment) and 
606(a)(2) (technologically feasible). 
   Recent scientific evidence, including the latest of the Montreal

Protocol assessments, provide ample ``credible'' evidence of 
the need for further reductions. As discussed above, the latest 
scientific evidence provided by NASA, NOAA, and the UNEP assessment

demonstrates that ozone depletion is occurring at a far more 
rapid rate than was thought to be the case at the time of the 
enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This evidence 
clearly warrants an acceleration of the phaseout schedule. With 
respect to section 606(a)(2), the substantial reductions in 
production of class I substances highlight the progress being 
made in shifting to alternatives. Furthermore, the latest UNEP 
Technology Assessment provides adequate documentation of the 
technological availability of accelerating the phaseout of these 
chemicals. 
   Section 606(a)(3) also provides authority for implementing 
the adjustments to the Protocol agreed to at the Fourth Meeting 
of the Parties, i.e., the acceleration of the phaseouts of CFCs, 
halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. Unlike 
amendments, adjustments do not need to be ratified by a specified 
number of Parties before they enter into force. The adjustments 
entered into force on September 22, 1993, prior to the promulgation

of this phaseout rule. Thus, EPA believes that section 606(a)(3) 
provides additional authority for accelerating the phaseout 
of class I substances at this time. 
   With respect to amendments approved by the Parties to the 
Protocol that accelerate the phaseout of substances listed under 
the CAA, such as HCFCs, section 606(a)(3) provides additional 
authority for the acceleration of their phaseout schedules once 
the amendments have been ratified by the necessary 20 Parties; 
all that remains is the passage of time before the amendments 
enter into force. 
   EPA also notes that section 614(b) of the CAA provides that 
in the case of a conflict between title VI of the CAA and the 
Protocol, the more stringent provision shall govern. Thus, the 
Act requires the Agency to establish phaseout schedules at least 
as stringent as the accelerated ones agreed to by the Parties. 
The phaseout schedules that the Agency is establishing today 
are at least as stringent as those required by the adjustments 
to the Protocol. The final phaseout dates that are required 
for all Class I substances are the same as those in the new 
adjustments. The interim reductions required for CFCs in 1994 
and 1995, for methyl chloroform in 1994, and for carbon
tetrachloride 
in 1995 are also identical to those contained in the adjustments. 
The other required interim reductions are more stringent than 
those contained in the adjustments. These are being established 
under the authority granted in section 606(a) (1) and (2), as 
explained in the NPRM (58 FR 15021-22). 
   EPA believes that an acceleration of the phaseout can be 
justified under either paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of section 
606(a), but that even if EPA determines that an accelerated 
schedule is warranted based solely on an assessment of credible 
scientific information under paragraph (1), it can take into 
account the availability of substitutes in determining the specific

accelerated schedule that it promulgates. 
   EPA believes that this view is reasonable and supported by 
both the language and the legislative history of the 1990 Clean 
Air Act Amendments. The last sentence of section 606(a) provides 
that in making any determination under paragraphs (1) and (2), 
the Administrator shall consider the status of the period remaining

under the applicable schedule under this title. Implicit in 
the sentence is the notion that EPA will consider both
environmental 
need and technological achievability in making ``any''
determination 
to accelerate the phaseout schedule. On its face, the sentence 
provides that even when making a decision regarding acceleration 
pursuant to paragraph (1), EPA is to ``consider the status of 
the period remaining under the applicable schedule.'' This connotes

that EPA is to consider the practicality of an accelerated
schedule, 
including the availability of substitutes. 
   Even apart from the language at the end of section 606(a), 
which was added during the House-Senate Conference on the 1990 
Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA believes it has the authority 
to take into account the technological achievability of a specific 
schedule in accelerating a phaseout schedule on the basis of 
scientific findings. Congress itself recognized the linkage 
between the need to phase out the production and consumption 
of ozone-depleting chemicals to protect the environment and 
human health and the availability of substitutes for those
chemicals. 
Even though Congress understood that any delay in phasing out 
ozone-depleting substances would delay a return to normal ozone 
levels, Congress did not require an immediate phaseout. Instead, 
Congress established a schedule phasing out the chemicals over 
a period of several years to allow time for substitutes to be 
developed and for affected industries to adjust. 
   The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee noted that 
the ``importance of accelerating the phaseout schedule is reflected

in the estimate, presented by expert witnesses, that a three 
to five year delay in the phaseout deadline translates into 
an additional 20 to 30 years of elevated chlorine levels in 
the atmosphere. An additional 20 years of elevated chlorine 
levels presents an unacceptable risk that must be avoided if 
it is at all possible to do so.'' (S. Comm. Rep. No. 101-228 
at 394). Furthermore, with respect to a provision concerning 
the phaseout of HCFCs, the Committee Report stated that it must 
be recognized ``that the goal of eliminating the potent, long-
lived CFCs as rapidly as possible is, to some extent, dependent 
on the near-term availability of HCFCs as intermediate substitutes 
* * *.'' (Id. at 395) Thus, the Senate clearly recognized that 
the availability of substitutes had to be taken into account 
in determining how quickly CFCs could be phased out,
notwithstanding 
the environmental benefits that would result from an even more 
rapid phaseout. 
   Moreover, in explaining the provision of the Senate Committee 
Report concerning the acceleration of the phaseout schedule, 
which provided for EPA to accelerate the schedule if any of 
three criteria substantially identical to those in the Amendments 
were met, the Committee stated that ``[i]n keeping with the 
national policy of eliminating the production before the year 
2000, to the maximum extent practicable, the Administrator is 
directed to determine no less often than every 18 months whether 
any of three conditions requiring acceleration of the schedule 
has been satisfied.'' (S. Comm. Rep. No. 101-228, Dec. 20, 1989, 
at 393., emphasis added). The Committee's use of the terms, 
``as rapidly as possible'' and ``to the maximum extent
practicable,'' 
demonstrates its recognition of the role of considerations other 
than strictly scientific ones in the application of section 
606(a). 
   In taking the availability of substitutes into account, the 
Administrator may consider the future potential for substitutes, 
as well as the cost of the substitutes, and adopt a phaseout 
schedule that will be technology-forcing by inducing the
development 
of substitutes on a more accelerated pace than would otherwise 
have been the case. This is confirmed by the same Senate Committee 
Report that indicated a role for technological factors in the 
establishment of a phaseout schedule. The report notes that 
a unilateral acceleration of the phaseout schedule by the
Administrator 
may be necessary ``to accelerate technological developments.'' 
(Id. at 393). 
   EPA believes that the accelerated phaseout schedules for 
class I substances are fully justified and within its authority. 

III. Accelerated Phaseout of Class II Controlled Substances 

   In today's final rule, EPA accelerates the phaseout of
production 
and consumption of HCFC-22, HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b, three
relatively 
high ODP-weighted HCFCs. The Agency believes that this approach 
will meet the requirements of the Copenhagen Amendments, as 
well as comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Specifically, 
the Agency will ban the production and consumption of HCFC-141b 
as of January 1, 2003. The production and consumption of HCFC-
142b and HCFC-22 will be frozen at baseline levels in 2010, 
with a complete phaseout of these chemicals by January 1, 2020. 
Production and consumption of these chemicals between 2010 and 
2020 can only be for the purpose of servicing equipment
manufactured 
prior to January 1, 2010. Production and consumption of the 
remaining HCFCs will be frozen at baseline levels beginning 
January 1, 2015, with all uses of virgin production of these 
materials banned except for use as a feedstock or as a refrigerant 
in appliances manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. The final 
category of HCFCs would be phased out by January 1, 2030. 
   The Agency has not established a baseline year or corresponding 
levels for these HCFCs at this time. EPA will continue to monitor 
the production and consumption of these chemicals to determine 
the appropriate baseline to ensure that the requirements of 
the Copenhagen Amendments and the Clean Air Act are met. Although 
a baseline level may be required in order to establish the
appropriate 
freeze levels in 2010 and 2015 as required under section 605(d) 
of the Clean Air Act, the Agency believes that action so far 
in advance of these dates is neither necessary nor desirable. 

A. Statutory Authority 

   Today's final rule accelerates the phaseout of production 
and consumption of specified HCFCs. The revised schedule for 
phasing out these compounds modifies the schedule contained 
in section 605 of the CAA, which states: ``(a) That effective 
January 1, 2015, it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce 
into interstate commerce or use any class II substance unless 
such substance-(1) has been used, recovered, or recycled; (2) 
is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) 
in the production of other chemicals; or (3) is used as a
refrigerant 
in appliances prior to January 1, 2020, and (b) that effective 
January 1, 2015, it shall be unlawful for any person to produce 
any class II substance in an annual quantity greater than the 
quantity of such substance produced by such person during the 
baseline year. Effective January 1, 2030, it shall be unlawful 
for any person to produce any class II substance.'' 
   The authority to accelerate the phaseout of HCFCs is contained 
in section 606 of the CAA, which has been discussed above in 
the context of the accelerated phaseout of class I substances. 
As part of the petitions submitted to the Agency under section 
606 of the CAA, both NRDC/FOE/EDF and the CFC Alliance proposed 
modified dates for the phaseout of certain HCFCs. In addition, 
the Agency received a third petition dealing with class II
substances 
submitted by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research 
(IEER). The Agency responded to the first two sections in the 
March 18 proposal while the Agency's response to the IEER petition 
is discussed in detail below. 

B. Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol 

   At the Fourth Meeting of Montreal Protocol in Copenhagen 
in November 1992, the Parties agreed to amend the Protocol to 
include a control regime restricting the consumption of HCFCs. 
The measures adopted by the Parties place an overall cap on 
consumption of these compounds based on their ozone-depleted 
weights, and gradually reduce the permissible amount allowed 
under this cap. The regime also calls for a phaseout of consumption

in 2030. The consumption cap for each of the developed countries 
is equal to the sum of 3.1 percent of the country's 1989 ODP-
weighted consumption of CFCs in Group 1 of Annex A and the ODP-
weighted level of HCFCs also consumed in that year. The HCFC 
restrictions are to begin in 1996, assuming that the Copenhagen 
Amendments have entered into force by that date. The amendments 
further call for a 35% reduction under the cap in 2004, followed 
by a 65% reduction in 2010, a 90% reduction in 2015, a 99.5% 
reduction in 2020, and a total phaseout in 2030. 
   Under a separate Federal Register notice (58 FR 40048), EPA 
has requested the 1989 HCFC and CFC data it needs to establish 
the exact level of the cap that would be applicable to the United 
States under the Protocol amendments. Once EPA has calculated 
the United States' baseline, the Agency shall publish in the 
Federal Register the consumption baseline for the purposes of 
the Montreal Protocol. 

C. CAA Petitions 


1. NRDC/FOE/EDF 

   The NRDC/FOE/EDF petition requested, among other things, 
that the Agency accelerate the phaseout of certain HCFCs, with 
the earliest phaseout dates proposed for those compounds with 
the highest ODP. Specifically, the petitioners requested that 
the production and consumption of HCFC-22, HCFC-141b, and HCFC-
142b be prohibited from use in new equipment by January 1, 2000. 
The environmentalist would allow these compounds to be available 
for an additional 5 years, until January 1, 2005, to service 
existing equipment. 

2. CFC Alliance Petition 

   The CFC Alliance Petition proposed an acceleration of the 
same compounds identified in the NRDC/FOE/EDF petition, but 
requested different phaseout dates. It suggested a January 1, 
2010 ban on the production and use of HCFC-22, HCFC-141b, and 
HCFC-142b in new equipment, with a total phaseout of these
compounds 
in 2020. The petition submitted by the CFC Alliance was generally 
supported in comments provided by the Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers and the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute.


3. IEER Petition 

   IEER also submitted a petition dated April 23, 1992 that 
relates to the issue of controls on class II substances. IEER 
requested that EPA: (1) Reclassify HCFC-22, HCFC-141b, HCFC-
142b as class I substances; (2) recalculate the ozone depletion 
potential of any partially halogenated substance with an
atmospheric 
lifetime of six months or more based on its peak contribution 
to atmospheric chlorine relative to CFC-11 following an
instantaneous 
release of each; and (3) survey all chlorine-containing substances 
with an atmospheric lifetime greater than one month and list 
as a class II substance any such compound that contributes greater 
than three parts per trillion to atmospheric chlorine. 
   The IEER petition argues that the use of ``steady state'' 
ODPs are an inappropriate basis for dealing with the risks
associated 
with various compounds. The calculation of an ODP is based on 
its contribution to ozone depletion compared to that of CFC-
11 over a period of roughly 200 years, which is based on the 
length of time that CFC-11 would contribute to ozone depletion. 
This is referred to as the ``steady state'' ODP. Since the HCFCs 
have a considerably shorter atmospheric lifetime, their
contribution 
to the risks of ozone depletion occurs over a period of a few 
years to several decades, a period far shorter than that of 
CFC-11. The IEER petition argues that using the ``steady state'' 
period of roughly 200 years for analyzing the impact of the 
HCFCs is inappropriate and masks their near-term impact. IEER 
contends that, most importantly, since the risks of ozone depletion

are greatest over the next decade or so when atmospheric chlorine 
and bromine levels are likely to peak and then begin to decline, 
EPA should alter its method of calculating ODPs to that proposed 
by the petitioner and list compounds as class I or II substances 
based on this modified approach. 

4. EPA's Proposed Action 

   In its proposal, EPA addressed both the Copenhagen Amendments 
and the issues raised in the NRDC/FOE/EDF and CFC Alliance
petitions. 
The proposal incorporated several key concepts contained in 
these petitions, including distinguishing among HCFCs based 
on their ODP and phasing out use in new equipment prior to use 
for servicing existing equipment. The proposal did not explicitly 
follow the cap approach adopted internationally under the
Copenhagen 
Amendments, but instead contained specific timetables for the 
phaseouts of each compound that EPA expects will result in full 
compliance with the phased reductions called for by the Protocol 
Amendment. 
   The proposal set forth the following schedule for HCFC
reductions: 
by January 1, 2003, all production and consumption of HCFC-141b 
would be eliminated; by January 1, 2010, production and consumption

of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b would be frozen at baseline levels 
and virgin material could only be used only as a feedstock or 
as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to January 
1, 2010; by January 1, 2015, baseline production and consumption 
of all other HCFCs would be frozen and all uses of virgin
production 
of these materials would be banned except for use as a feedstock 
or as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to January 
1, 2020; by January 1, 2020, production and consumption of HCFC-
22 and HCFC-142b would be prohibited; and by January 1, 2030, 
production and consumption of all other HCFC substances would 
be banned. 
   In this proposal, the Agency discussed at length the basis 
for accelerating the phaseout of HCFCs to respond to increased 
risks of ozone depletion. It also described its rationale for 
rejecting the earlier phaseout dates requested in the NRDC/FOE/EDF 
petition. EPA's rationale focused primarily on the fact that 
alternatives to many of the HCFCs have not yet been developed 
to the point that the Agency could determine that commercialization

would be feasible on a faster timetable. The Agency views HCFCs 
as important interim substitutes that will allow for the earliest 
possible phaseout of CFCs and other Class I substances. However, 
the Agency believes that the use of HCFCs should be limited 
to only those applications where other environmentally acceptable 
alternatives do not exist. EPA has proposed limitations under 
its section 612 rulemaking (Significant New Alternatives Policy 
Program) to implement this approach. 58 FR 28094 (May 12, 1993). 
   By distinguishing between HCFCs based on their relative
contributions 
to ozone depletion, the Agency has also sought to minimize risks 
associated with the use of HCFCs. In particular, the early phaseout

date for HCFC-141b was proposed because its ODP is substantially 
greater than any other of the HCFCs. Similarly, in allowing 
until 2030 for the phaseout of HCFC-123 and other HCFCs with 
very low ODPs, the Agency's proposed action reflected the fact 
that these compounds will contribute substantially less to the 
risks of ozone depletion. 
   The Agency's proposal also explained in detail the rationale 
behind implementing a regulatory scheme that differed in approach 
from that adopted by the Protocol. The Agency explained that 
the cap approach adopted in the Protocol could create unworkable 
administrative problems in allocating allowances and that its 
proposed regime built on activities (e.g., HCFC production and 
use plans) already well underway and would be less disruptive 
and provide greater certainty for industries moving aggressively 
out of class I substances. 
   Most importantly, the proposal explained the basis for the 
Agency's belief that its regulatory scheme would ensure compliance 
with the United States' obligations under the Montreal Protocol. 
The Agency presented detailed, sector-by-sector, analysis of 
likely uses of HCFCs and determined that based on conservative 
assumptions, total use within the United States under its proposal 
would not exceed the limits established in the Protocol. 

5. Response to IEER Petition 

   While EPA's March 18, 1993 proposal on class II substances 
addresses many of the issues raised in the IEER petition, the 
Agency did not explicitly respond to the petition in the context 
of that proposal. In doing so here, the Agency believes it is 
important to address directly the issues raised by IEER concerning 
the listing of several HCFCs as class I substances and the method 
of calculating ODPs. 
   As discussed above, the IEER petition requested that the 
Agency shift its methodology in calculating ODPs from the ``steady 
state'' calculations that have traditionally been used by EPA 
under the Clean Air Act and under the Montreal Protocol to a 
calculation based on the ODP at the time of a compound's peak 
contribution to atmospheric chlorine or bromine. The rationale 
behind this proposal is that an ODP calculated in this manner 
better represents the risks of ozone depletion associated with 
compounds that have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes and 
that this approach is particularly appropriate given that
atmospheric 
chlorine levels, and therefore health and environmental risks, 
are likely to peak around the turn of the century. The table 
below contains ODP calculations for different periods of time 
that have recently been published in the scientific literature. 
It demonstrates the general point made in the IEER petition 
that ODPs for all of the HCFCs are substantially higher over 
the short- than over the longterm. 


                Semi-Empirical Polar Ozone Depletion Potentials    
          
                                                                   
          
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                  Time
horizon (yrs.)        
                                           
쳐컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴
                                               10    
20    100    500    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴탠컴컴컴탠컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                  
HCFC-22 ...................................   0.17  
0.14   0.07   0.05   
HCFC-141b .................................   0.45  
0.33   0.13   0.11   
HCFC-123 ..................................   0.19  
0.08   0.03   0.02   
HCFC-142b .................................   0.16  
0.14   0.08   0.07   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴좔컴컴컴좔컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴
  Source: Solomon and Albritton (1992).                            
          


   The Agency believes that the need to consider the short-term 
impacts of HCFCs on ozone depletion is important in its decisions 
to set various control measures for controlled substances required 
for phaseout. The decision to accelerate the phaseout of Class 
II substances and to require a faster phaseout of those HCFCs 
with a higher ODP reflects the Agency's response to this concern. 
Indeed, EPA's modeling analysis accounts for short term effects. 
Thus, this consideration supports the Agency's decision to phase 
out HCFC-141b before any other HCFC. 
   While recognizing the importance of short-term impacts on 
ozone depletion in its regulatory decisions, the Agency has 
decided not to modify the manner in which it calculates ODPs 
for the purposes of regulating compounds under the CAA. The 
Agency believes it has adequate authority to consider a compound's 
short-term impact in shaping its regulatory policy without such 
a change. For example, in calculating the risks associated with 
different phaseout schedules and interim reduction targets, 
the Agency's analytical tools (e.g., modeling of chlorine and 
ozone depletion) take into consideration both the near-term 
and longer-term impacts associated with each compound. Indeed 
publication of an atmospheric lifetime and halogen loading
potential 
reveals these impacts, when considered together with the steady 
state ODP. The Agency has authority under section 602 to add 
substances to the class I and II lists based on their overall 
harm to the ozone layer and under section 606 to accelerate 
the phaseout of class II substances in the light of these impacts. 
   The Agency believes that changing the calculation methodology 
for ODPs as IEER suggests would conflict with the Agency's goals 
in protecting against ozone depletion which reach beyond simply 
reducing the near-term risks. The Agency and the Montreal Protocol 
also have as an important goal restoring ozone to the levels 
existing before the onset of the Antarctic ozone hole. To achieve 
this goal, it is necessary to also reduce the use of the compounds 
with longer atmospheric lifetimes and very high ODPs, including 
the CFCs and carbon tetrachloride. To the extent that the
availability 
of HCFCs allows for the accelerated phaseout of CFCs, their 
use contributes to this important objective. (For several important

uses of CFCs, HCFCs are currently the only available alternatives.)

Changing the method for calculating ODPs could limit the Agency's 
flexibility to allow continued use of certain HCFCs as transitional

substitutes for the CFCs. 
   Furthermore, the Agency has decided not to modify its method 
for calculating ODPs because of two potentially important
inconsistencies 
that such a change would create. First, the 0.2 threshold in 
section 602 for listing a class I substance was specified by 
Congress on the basis of a steady state ODP. Since this level 
is fixed in the CAA, shifting to short-term ODPs for determining 
whether a compound should be listed would produce unintended 
results. While the Agency always has the flexibility to add 
substances to the class I list based on significant contribution 
to ozone depletion, considering all relevant information, the 
Agency believes the 0.2 mandatory listing threshold was established

with a steady-state ODP concept in mind. Congress itself assigned 
steady state ODPs in section 602, Table 1. While the Agency 
is authorized to adjust the Table 1 ODPs. The numbers Congress 
assigned indicates that the 0.2 threshold was intended to represent

a steady state ODP. Furthermore, Congress explicitly called 
on the Agency to use steady state ODPs as the basis for evaluating 
impacts instead of using chlorine loading potentials, even though 
the concept of chlorine loading was recognized at the time the 
legislation was adopted and EPA is required to publish a compound's

chlorine loading potential under section 602(e). 
   Congress' understanding that ODPs are calculated as a ``steady 
state'' is clearly reflected in the legislative history, as 
is Congress's intent that chlorine and bromine loading potentials 
be published to allow analysis of ``future peaks and rates of 
increase or decline.'' See Senate Committee Report, Report No. 
101-228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., at 389 (December 20, 1989) 
(hereinafter ``Senate Report'') (``ODPs * * * reflect the relative 
chronic ozone destruction * * * of a substance after nearly 
constant emissions for a century. ODPs * * * do not clearly 
reflect the contribution of different halocarbons to the amount 
of chlorine in the atmosphere over the next decade and beyond.'').
   The second reason the Agency has elected not to modify the 
way it calculates ODPs is that section 602(e) of the CAA requires 
that the ODPs used by the Agency be consistent with the Montreal 
Protocol. The Agency, therefore, believes the steady state approach

must be used to assign ODPs under the CAA in order to be consistent

with the steady state approach used under the Montreal Protocol's 
Copenhagen Amendments, at least when those Amendments to the 
Protocol enter into force (likely sometime in 1994). Even before 
the Amendments enter into force, the Agency believes it would 
be inappropriate for EPA to adopt one set of values now only 
to have to change them within the next several months when the 
Copenhagen Amendments entered into force for the United States. 
   Short-term ODPs were discussed as part of the Scientific 
Assessment report to the Montreal Protocol Parties and therefore 
were before the Parties as an option to be adopted. However, 
neither the Scientific Assessment Panel nor the Parties themselves 
recommended or even considered any proposal to shift the
calculation 
of ODPs from a steady-state to a short-term basis. Despite being 
explicitly included in the Scientific Assessment report the 
Parties rejected a shift to short-term ODPs primarily because 
they view as the objective of the Protocol both the near-term 
reduction of risks and the longer-term return of the atmosphere 
to pre-Antarctic ozone hole conditions. A shift to short-term 
ODPs might compromise the longer-term objective. 
   EPA believes, for the reasons discussed above, that to adopt 
an approach to ODPs that the Scientific Assessment Panel and 
the Parties rejected would be ``inconsistent'' with the Montreal 
Protocol and therefore in these circumstances in conflict with 
section 602(e). 
   While EPA has rejected IEER's request for modifying the way 
it defines and calculates ODPs for assignment under the CAA, 
the Agency notes that if it had done so, very little would change 
in its regulatory program. Of the three compounds that IEER 
requested be shifted to class I status (HCFC-22, -141b, -142b), 
only HCFC-141b would appear to exceed 0.2 based on the 10-20 
year lifetimes calculated in the scientific literature and based 
on the calculations made by IEER using its ``peak'' approach. 
Thus, if the Agency were to proceed today to propose listing 
HCFC-141b and allowed the full seven years extension time permitted

under section 602(d) based on what is attainable, it would require 
a phaseout in 2002, only one year earlier than today's final 
action provides. The other compounds (HCFC-22 and -142b) have 
short-term ODPs below 0.2 based on the calculation contained 
in the scientific literature and therefore would not have to 
be added to the class I list based on the assigned ODP alone. 
   EPA also does not believe that the addition of these HCFCs 
to the class I list can be justified independently on the basis 
that they ``contribute significantly'' to ozone depletion. EPA 
believes that the use of these HCFC compounds will allow for 
the accelerated phaseout of CFCs in several important sectors 
and therefore facilitates rather than increases reduction in 
both short-term and to a greater extent long-term risks of
depletion. 
   The final request in the IEER petition involves a review 
of other partially halogenated substances to determine if they 
contribute to ozone depletion and if they should be listed as 
class II substances. While EPA has not conducted an exhaustive 
review of all other halogenated compounds, it believes that 
the limited data available for such high-volume chlorinated 
compounds as perchloroethylene and methylene chloride support 
the view that these compounds have very short atmospheric lifetimes

(e.g., much shorter lifetime than any of the HCFCs) and therefore 
do not contribute in any significant way to ozone depletion. 

6. Today's Final Action 

   HCFC restrictions and the approach included in today's final 
rule have not changed from those proposed by the Agency in March. 
EPA received comments from several groups on different aspects 
of its proposal. In general, these comments supported the general 
approach taken by the Agency in implementing the Montreal
Protocol's 
restrictions on HCFCs. These comments supported the Agency's 
proposal to phase out compounds based on their relative ODPs 
with the compounds with higher ODPs phased out earlier than 
those with lower ODPs. Comments also generally supported the 
decision to phase out consumption in new equipment prior to 
that for servicing existing equipment. Comments strongly opposed 
using an allowance allocation or auction to more directly implement

the cap approach adopted in the Protocol. 
   Several commenters, however, argued for earlier phaseout 
dates for several of the HCFCs. These commenters argued that 
EPA's proposal would allow too long a period for the use of 
HCFCs. For example, these comments suggested that HCFC-141b 
could be phased out earlier in foam and HCFC-22 could be eliminated

at an earlier date in refrigeration applications. Other commenters 
argued that while alternatives might be feasible by the proposed 
dates, it was still too early to tell if they would be and that 
the Agency should build in additional flexibility to allow use 
to continue for a longer period of time in the event alternatives 
do not become available. While EPA intends to monitor closely 
the development of alternatives, it has decided against either 
requiring an earlier phaseout date for these HCFCs or allowing 
greater flexibility by extending the dates. The Agency believes 
that critical research into alternatives, particularly for HCFC-
141b in foam and in limited solvent applications and HCFC-22 
in refrigeration and airconditioning is currently on-going and 
should result in the availability of substitutes by the dates 
contained in the HCFC phaseout schedule. While promising
alternatives 
for these compounds are currently in early stages of evaluation, 
considerably more product testing and energy efficiency evaluations

are required. Any conclusions concerning earlier availability 
or commercialization of those alternatives would currently be 
premature. 
   Issues related to HCFCs are also undergoing further review 
by the Parties to the Protocol. A new scientific and technical 
assessment of relevant issues should be available in late 1994 
and will be used by the Parties in reviewing its current HCFC 
limitations in 1995. EPA believes that any further actions
regarding 
HCFCs should await the outcome of that process. 
   Finally, in the proposed regulation, EPA restricted both 
the production and consumption of the specific HCFC compounds 
at specified dates. The Agency received comments stating that 
the Montreal Protocol provision on HCFCs restricted only
consumption 
of HCFCs, defined in the Protocol as the amount produced plus 
the amount imported minus the amount exported and that EPA should 
similarly restrict only consumption. 
   Section 602(c) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA restrict 
production and consumption of class II substances on the same 
schedule. Furthermore, EPA believes that, even if authorized 
by the Act, it could not adopt final rules restricting only 
consumption without requesting public comment on the approach 
since it would represent a significant departure from the proposal,

which dealt with both production and consumption. 
   Moreover, EPA notes that, notwithstanding the production 
phaseout, section 605(d)(2) of the CAA allows for continued 
export of HCFCs to developing countries that are Party to the 
Protocol for their basic domestic needs through 2040. While 
the section provides a cap on the amount beyond the baseline 
permitted for such experts, as noted earlier, EPA is deferring 
for now the establishment of any specific baseline levels for 
HCFCs. 
   EPA proposed quarterly reporting of all HCFC production and 
use in order to monitor compliance with the Montreal Protocol. 
Several commenters objected to quarterly reporting, stating 
that such reporting was burdensome. However, EPA continues to 
believe that quarterly reporting is necessary. EPA has developed 
an approach to limit HCFCs by targeting for phaseout the high 
ODP-weighted HCFCs. By accelerating the phaseout of HCFC-141B, 
HCFC-142B and HCFC-22, EPA believes it will meet its obligations 
to the Montreal Protocol. However, the Agency must receive HCFC 
production and consumption data (i.e., imports and exports) 
quarterly to ensure U.S. compliance. If it should appear that 
the United States is to exceed its limits, EPA may act to ensure 
that compliance is maintained. Although there may be several 
approaches that EPA may use to control production and consumption 
under these circumstances, it is likely that EPA would resort 
to rulemaking during this period, including the use, if necessary, 
of a direct or interim final rule. For this reason, EPA will 
require quarterly reporting of production imports and exports 
of HCFCs. With this data EPA can monitor national consumption 
of these data. (EPA does note that to date companies have always 
significantly underproduced their allowable level). 
   Although the March 18 Notice stated that EPA proposed to 
require use data, the Agency will not require information on 
use from the user sectors. EPA believes that only data on
production 
imports and exports are required at this time. 

IV. Addition of Methyl Bromide to List of Class I Substances 
and Phaseout Schedule 

A. Summary 

   Based on recent scientific assessments and the most recent 
actions by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, EPA proposed 
on March 18, 1993 to list methyl bromide as a class I substance 
under section 602(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act; and to phase out 
production and consumption of this substance by the year 2000. 
This was in response to a petition filed on December 3, 1991 
by Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, 
and the Environmental Defense Fund (hereafter referred to as 
NRDC/FOE/EDF petition). 
   As part of that proposal, EPA rejected the more stringent 
phaseout schedule proposed by the petitioners, based on the 
lack of available substitutes in the near-term. Instead, EPA 
proposed a freeze in production and consumption of methyl bromide 
beginning on January 1, 1994 at 1991 levels, no interim reductions,

and a phaseout by the year 2000. In addition, the Agency proposed 
that ozone depletion warning labels required under section 611 
of the Clean Air Act for products ``manufactured with'' ozone-
depleting substances does not apply to agricultural products, 
such as fruits and vegetables. See, Response to Comments on 
section 611 labeling rulemaking. 
   EPA received 560 comments on the methyl bromide aspects of 
its March 18th proposal. The large majority of comments were 
from members of the agricultural community and generally raised 
scientific issues regarding the ozone depletion potential (ODP) 
of methyl bromide, the lack of alternatives, and the economic 
impact of phasing out the production of this compound. 
   Today's final action examines in detail the issues raised 
by these comments, and adopts an approach that, consistent with 
the ozone layer protection requirements of the Clean Air Act, 
responds to the current state of scientific understanding
concerning 
this compound. The regulatory schedule (freeze without interim 
reductions followed by the required phaseout of the compound), 
fully utilizes the limited flexibility permitted by the statute. 
   Specifically, today's final action lists methyl bromide as 
a class I substance with an ODP of 0.7 as specified in the latest 
Montreal Protocol international scientific assessment and as 
agreed to by the Parties to the Protocol at their meeting in 
Copenhagen in November 1992. The final rule does not require 
any interim reductions and provides the longest possible period 
(7 years or until January 1, 2001) allowed under section 602 
for the phaseout. Finally, for the reasons explained in the 
proposal, EPA is interpreting ``manufactured with'' in section 
611 to mean ``the mechanical or chemical transformation of
materials 
into new products or to assemble component products'' and to 
exclude agricultural processes. Agricultural products for which 
methyl bromide is used thus need not be labeled under section 
611. 

B. Legal Authority 


1. CAA Legal Authority 

   Under section 602(a), EPA is to add to the list of class 
I substances any substance that the Administrator finds causes 
or contributes significantly to harmful effects on the
stratospheric 
ozone layer, including all substances that the Administrator 
determines have an ozone depletion potential of 0.2 or greater. 
   Under section 602(e), simultaneously with any addition to 
the class I list, the Administrator shall assign to each listed 
substance a numerical value representing the substance's ozone 
depletion potential. In addition, the Administrator shall publish 
the chlorine and bromine loading potential and the atmospheric 
lifetime of each listed substance. Section 601(10) of the Act 
defines ODP as ``a factor established by the Administrator to 
reflect the ozone depletion potential of a substance on a mass 
per kilogram basis, as compared to chlorofluorocarbon-11 (CFC-
11),'' and goes on to state that ``such factor shall be based 
upon the substance's atmospheric lifetime, the molecular weight 
of bromine and chlorine, and the substance's ability to be
photolytically 
disassociated, and upon other factors determined to be an accurate 
measure of relative ozone depletion potential.'' 
   Section 602(e) also states that ``[w]here the ozone depletion 
potential of a substance is specified in the Montreal Protocol, 
the ozone depletion potential specified for that substance under 
the subsection shall be consistent with the Montreal Protocol.'' 
When the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal Protocol, which 
include the ODP for methyl bromide as 0.7, enter into force 
for the United States, this statutory provision will apply for 
methyl bromide. 
   Under section 602(c)(3), any person may petition the
Administrator 
to add a substance to the list of class I substances. Such a 
petition is to include a showing by the petitioner that there 
are data on the substance adequate to support the petition. 
   Also, section 604 authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations 
phasing out the production of class I substances from baseline 
levels, in accordance with the schedule specified in that section. 
The ``baseline year'' is defined in section 601(2)(C) to mean 
a representative calendar year selected by the Administrator 
in the case of substances added to the class I list. Section 
607 authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations providing for
production 
and consumption allowances of class I substances. 
   Under section 602(d), for a newly listed class I substance 
(such as methyl bromide), the Administrator may extend any schedule

or compliance deadline contained in section 604 if that schedule 
is unattainable considering when it is added to the list. But 
the provision specifies that no extension under that subsection 
may extend the phaseout to a date more than 7 years after January 
1 of the year after the year in which the substance is added 
to the class I list. As EPA is adding methyl bromide to the 
class I list in 1993, the phaseout date may not be extended 
beyond January 1, 2001. 

2. Public Comments on Legal Issues 

   While many commenters argued that EPA should delay action 
until scientific uncertainties are resolved, the Agency received 
few comments specifically questioning its legal authority to 
act under title VI of the CAA. 
   The Methyl Bromide Working Group (MBWG) provided the only 
extensive comments questioning the Agency's legal authority 
to list methyl bromide. Its comments stated that EPA's only 
nondiscretionary action was to respond to the petition by
NRDC/EDF/FOE 
and that a more appropriate response would be to deny the petition 
on the basis of scientific uncertainty and instead to issue 
a ``tentative, non-binding ODP range for methyl bromide-without 
listing it as a class I substance''. 
   In making this argument, the MBWG argued that the ODP listed 
in the report issued by the Montreal Protocol assessment panel 
(Methyl Bromide: Its Atmospheric Science, Technology and Economics,

Montreal Protocol Assessment Update, June 1992; hereafter referred 
to as Assessment Update) should not be the basis for U.S. domestic 
regulatory action and that EPA is required to undertake its 
own evaluation of this compound's ODP. 
   EPA has thoroughly reviewed the issue of whether a range 
of values for the ODP would be more appropriate than the 0.7 
value contained in its proposal. As explained in detail below, 
in the context of this review the Agency has considered the 
statutory language and treatment of ODPs, the actions taken 
by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the Scientific Assessment 
Update, and other relevant scientific information. Based on 
this review, the Agency has determined that a listing of methyl 
bromide with an ODP of 0.7 is warranted. 
   Section 602(e) of the Clean Air Act addresses the impact 
of the Protocol's ODP on EPA's regulatory obligations. When 
the Protocol enters into force, EPA must assign an ODP ``consistent

with the Montreal Protocol.'' The commenter argued that a range 
of values including the one adopted by the Protocol would be 
legally valid. The Agency notes, however, that the Parties to 
the Montreal Protocol expressly considered adopting a range 
of values for the ODP of methyl bromide and rejected this approach.

EPA believes that adoption of such a range would, under these 
circumstances, be inconsistent with their action. 
   The Protocol's Scientific Assessment Update on methyl bromide 
also considered a range of values (from .25 to 1.11) for the 
ODP but offered in their report a single value for the ozone 
depleting potential for methyl bromide. While both the experts 
involved in the assessment panel and the Parties to the Protocol 
recognize that the calculation of ODPs for all controlled
substances 
involves some degree of uncertainty, the Parties have nonetheless 
always adopted a single value for each specific compound. This 
approach has historically been used because of the need to use 
the ``calculated level'' of production and consumption for a 
group of compounds, but has also been adopted in the case of 
methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride, which are single 
compounds in distinct groups similar to methyl bromide. 
   Section 602(e) of the CAA also provides single values for 
the ODP of each listed substance in Table 1 and states that 
the Agency shall assign ``a numerical value representing the 
substance's ozone depletion potential.'' (Emphasis added)
Scientific 
uncertainty is inherent in assigning any ODP, and EPA has concluded

that scientific uncertainty in the case of methyl bromide does 
not warrant a different approach to assigning ODP. 
   The Parties to the Protocol will reconsider the ODP of methyl 
bromide at their 1995 meeting based on an update by the scientific 
assessment panel and could at that time recommend modification. 
Should such a change occur, EPA would also reconsider the ODP 
assigned to methyl bromide under the Clean Air Act. 
   EPA's legal obligation under section 602(e) to assign an 
ODP to methyl bromide consistent with that specified in the 
Montreal Protocol technically will not arise until the Copenhagen 
Amendments to the Montreal Protocol enter into force. Those 
amendments are to enter into force on January 1, 1994, provided 
that twenty Parties have ratified the amendments by that time. 
Otherwise, the amendments will enter into force 90 days after 
the twentieth instrument of ratification is deposited by a Party. 
As of September 1993, seven Parties have deposited their
instruments 
of ratification. 
   EPA also believes that the best scientific evidence currently 
available supports assigning methyl bromide an ODP of 0.7. This 
evidence is addressed in the Scientific Assessment Panel's updated 
assessment report on methyl bromide. The world's leading experts 
on this issue prepared and peer reviewed this report, and it 
represents the best available scientific analysis for EPA
evaluation 
and a sound basis for EPA action. A detailed discussion of the 
scientific issues surrounding methyl bromide's ODP is presented 
below. 
   Finally, EPA has also examined closely the scientific issues 
raised by the MBWG and others in the comments and addresses 
these concerns in detail below. Based on this review and for 
the reasons stated above, EPA has rejected the idea of using 
a range of value for the ODP of methyl bromide. 
   The MBWG contends that EPA has failed to demonstrate that 
methyl bromide ``contributes significantly to harmful effects 
on the stratospheric ozone layer'' under section 602(a). Section 
602(a) of the Clean Air Act specifies that the Administrator 
shall add to the class I list all substances having an ODP of 
0.2 or greater. Since EPA has concluded that methyl bromide's 
ODP exceeds this threshold, application of the less objective 
``contributes significantly'' standard is unnecessary. In any 
case, however, EPA believes the best current scientific evidence 
clearly supports adding methyl bromide to the class I list under 
this standard, as well. It is noteworthy that, because methyl 
bromide has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime relative 
to CFC-11, the 0.7 ODP understates the near-term damage methyl 
bromide causes in comparison to the CFCs. As explained below, 
the 0.7 ODP reflects the comparative damage of methyl bromide 
and CFC-11 over a 200-year time period. Over a 10-year time 
period, the best estimate of methyl bromide's ODP would be 7. 
This short-term ODP is vastly higher than any other substance 
not currently on the class I list, and thus supports different 
treatment than that accorded such other substances (See discussion 
of IEER petition and HCFCs above.) Therefore, methyl bromide's 
near-term contribution to ozone depletion over the near-term 
is much higher than even the 0.7 ODP suggests. The Protocol's 
Assessment Update Report reflects this perspective: 
   ``These model results suggest that anthropogenic emissions 
of (methyl bromide) could have accounted for about one-twentieth 
to one-tenth of the current observed ozone loss of 4-6%, and 
could grow to about one-sixth of the predicted loss by the year 
2000 if emissions continue to increase at the present rate of 
about 5-6% per year.'' 
   While uncertainties affect this and any model calculations 
about ozone depletion, this statement further supports the
conclusion 
that, absent steps under the Protocol to limit emissions, man-
made methyl bromide plays a significant role in ozone layer 
damage. 
   The MBWG next contends that ``prior to imposing any ban EPA 
is obligated to demonstrate, with a high measure of certainty, 
that termination of this product will be attainable,'' but provides

no legal basis for this obligation. As discussed in the preamble 
to the March 18 proposal, EPA believes that the Clean Air Act 
requires that all substances that the Administrator determines 
have an ODP of 0.2 or above be added to the class I list, without 
regard to whether a phaseout is attainable. The Clean Air Act 
separately allows EPA to extend the phaseout schedule under 
section 602(d) for a seven-year limited time if the otherwise 
applicable phaseout schedule is unattainable, considering when 
the substance is added to the list. Indeed the specific limitation 
of the extension authority to seven years confirms that the 
issue of whether a phaseout is attainable is not relevant to 
EPA's decision whether to add the substance to the class I list. 
   The MBWG further states that EPA's failure to consider the 
availability of substitutes in setting the phaseout date makes 
EPA's decision ``legally flawed.'' As discussed extensively 
in the preamble to the proposal, the Agency believes that, under 
section 602(c), methyl bromide's significant contribution to 
stratospheric ozone depletion, and its ozone depletion potential, 
constitute a sufficient basis for adding this substance to the 
class I list. While the ultimate phaseout of methyl bromide 
is a consequence of this listing, the Agency does not believe 
it has authority to consider the economic impact of the phaseout 
in determining whether to add methyl bromide to the list. 
   At the same time, however, the Agency believes that economic 
impacts are relevant to its decision whether to extend the section 
604(a) statutory schedule under section 602(d). As explained 
in the proposal, the Agency may extend the section 604(a) phaseout 
schedule within specified limits if it is unattainable, considering

when the new substance is added to the class I list. The economic 
impact of a phaseout is integral to the question of whether 
a phaseout is ``unattainable.'' Based on the unavailability 
of substitutes for methyl bromide, EPA has concluded that near-
term reductions are unattainable and that a freeze on production 
and consumption is the most stringent interim reduction schedule 
that can be established. As section 602(d) specifically limits 
EPA's authority to extend the phaseout schedule to seven years 
following the year methyl bromide is added to the class I list, 
EPA may not extend the phaseout date past January 1, 2001 (assuming

listing in 1993). EPA does not believe it has discretion to 
further extend this phaseout date based on economic impacts. 
   EPA proposed to extend the schedule until January 1, 2000, 
rather than January 1, 2001. EPA gave two reasons for this
position. 
First, the Agency explained that it did not believe the phaseout 
should be extended beyond the January 1, 2000 final termination 
date specified in section 604 for class I substances absent 
an affirmative basis to believe that termination will be
unattainable 
at that time. Second, EPA explained that it would not have had 
authority to extend the phaseout beyond January 1, 2000, had 
the Agency complied with the statutory schedule for responding 
to the petition to add methyl bromide to the class I list. 
   Several commenters urged the Agency to extend the final phaseout

date until January 1, 2001 as allowed under section 604. These 
commenters stated that the additional year is important given 
the limited time currently available to develop alternatives 
and to have these alternatives approved for use by the required 
regulatory agencies. EPA agrees with these commenters that the 
Agency cannot now conclude that these considerations will be 
any less important in the year 2000 than in the years prior 
to that time. Thus, EPA now believes that these considerations 
justify extending the freeze until the 2001 phaseout. Of course, 
as noted in the proposal, EPA will, in cooperation with the 
Office of Pesticide Programs and the USDA, monitor the availability

of substitutes and could accelerate the phaseout or establish 
interim reductions, if justifiable based on future information. 
   The MBWG also stated in its comment that section 612(a) of 
the Act ``requires EPA to ensure that its regulatory decisions 
under subchapter VI actions do not result in increased risks 
to health and the environment.'' Section 612(a) requires EPA 
``to the maximum extent practicable'' to take steps to ensure 
that more harmful substances are not used to replace class I 
and II substances. But the Agency's decision to list a substance 
which is to be determined solely based on the criteria specified 
in section 602(a), which does not include such a general risk 
standard. 

C. Background 


1. Initial Identification of Risks of Methyl Bromide 

   Action to list methyl bromide as a class I substance can 
be traced back to the international scientific assessment prepared 
in 1991 for the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Article 6 
of the Montreal Protocol calls for a periodic assessment of 
scientific, economic, technical, and environmental issues related 
to ozone depletion. The 1991 Scientific Assessment Report issued 
in December 1991 first identified methyl bromide as a potential 
significant contributor to ozone depletion and listed the ozone 
depletion potential of this compound at 0.6. 

2. Petition To List 

   Following the publication of the assessment, NRDC/FOE/EDF 
petitioned EPA on December 3, 1991, requesting among other things 
that the Agency add methyl bromide to the list of class I
substances 
under section 602(c) and phase out its production and consumption 
on an accelerated basis under section 606. It also requested 
that the Agency take emergency action under section 303 to reduce 
methyl bromide production in 1992 by 50 percent, with a total 
phaseout by January 1, 1993. 
   Because section 602 provides a timetable for responding to 
petitions and because no imminent hazard was involved, EPA rejected

the petitioners' request for emergency action under section 
303 and otherwise responded to the petition in its March 18, 
1993, Federal Register proposal. 
   Section 602(c)(3) specifies that within 180 days of receiving 
a petition, EPA shall either propose to add the substance to 
the list of class I or II substances or publish an explanation 
of the reason for denying the petition. If the decision is to 
propose listing, EPA is given one year after receipt of the 
petition to add the substance to the list by rule, or make a 
final determination not to add the substance to the list. EPA 
proposed to add methyl bromide to the class I list on March 
18, 1993 (58 FR 15014). Today's notice constitutes final action 
granting the petition to add methyl bromide to the class I list. 

3. Montreal Protocol Actions 

   The Montreal Protocol Parties at the April 1992 meeting of 
the Open-Ended Working Group began discussions on possible changes 
to the Protocol based on the 1991 assessment reports. At this 
meeting, the United States first proposed adding methyl bromide 
to the Montreal Protocol based on the concerns raised in the 
Scientific Assessment Report. The U.S. proposed to phase out 
production and consumption by the year 2000. In an effort to 
provide more detailed information for the Parties to consider, 
the Open-Ended Working Group called on the Chairman of the
Assessment 
Panels to provide additional information on both scientific 
and technical/economic issues related to controls on methyl 
bromide. 
   In response to this request, the Panels prepared an update 
of the scientific assessment report that focused specifically 
on methyl bromide. The report drew extensively from material 
presented at a two-day scientific workshop organized by the 
Methyl Bromide Global Coalition and held on June 2-3, 1992 in 
Washington, DC. 
   The resulting Protocol Assessment Update report concluded 
that, while substantial uncertainties exist, the current best 
estimate of the ozone depletion potential of methyl bromide 
was 0.7 (revised upward from 0.6 contained in the initial
Scientific 
Assessment Report). Furthermore, it concluded that if man-made 
emissions continued at current rates of increase, atmospheric 
models predict that man-made methyl bromide would account for 
5-10 percent of current depletion and one-sixth of depletion 
in the year 2000. The report identified as key areas of uncertainty

such factors as the potential for additional sinks for methyl 
bromide and the possibility of the compound breaking down in 
the atmosphere into less reactive species. These uncertainties 
are discussed in the section on scientific issues below. 
   A workshop to review technical issues concerning the use 
and availability of substitutes for methyl bromide was held 
from June 16-18, 1992, also in Washington, DC. The workshop 
was attended by over 90 experts from 20 countries and included 
sessions on each of the key areas of use of this compound. It 
concluded that use of methyl bromide could be reduced
substantially, 
but that no single alternative exists as a substitute for all 
uses of methyl bromide and that alternatives for some important 
uses do not currently exist. 
   A report summarizing the findings of both the scientific 
and technical workshops was prepared, thoroughly peer reviewed, 
and issued by the Chairman of the Assessment Panels (Dr. Robert 
Watson), ``Methyl bromide: Its Atmospheric Science, Technology 
and Economics'' in June 1992 (referred to here as Assessment 
Update). The report served as the basis for continued discussions 
among the Parties to the Protocol concerning the possibility 
of action to restrict production and consumption of methyl bromide.

   At the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
held in November 1992 in Copenhagen, the issue of what action, 
if any, to take on methyl bromide was widely debated. A number 
of nations, including Israel and many developing countries, 
maintained the position that the scientific evidence was so 
uncertain and the economic impact potentially so great that 
any action at this time to add this compound to the Protocol 
was premature. They advocated that the Parties should agree 
only to undertake additional studies to evaluate the need for 
and the nature of any future action. In contrast, the United 
States and many developed nations argued that action to restrict 
methyl bromide would make a significant contribution to global 
efforts to protect the ozone layer and that restrictions now 
on the production and consumption of this compound with an
exemption 
for essential uses would be the appropriate course of action. 
The United States proposed phasing out the compound in the year 
2000 while other nations favored either a near-term freeze or 
freeze with a reduction step. 
   The Parties to the Protocol reached a consensus decision 
with the adoption of an amendment calling for a freeze on methyl 
bromide production and consumption beginning in 1995 at 1991 
levels with an exemption for quarantine and preshipment
applications. 
The Parties also agreed that in adding methyl bromide to the 
list of controlled substances as Annex E, that it should be 
listed with an ozone depletion potential of 0.7. 
   In addition, the Parties unanimously adopted a non-binding 
resolution urging nations to take all steps to reduce emissions 
of methyl bromide and urging the Parties to take further steps 
to agree on reductions and an appropriate phaseout date based 
on the next round of Protocol assessments. The scientific and 
technical assessments have already been initiated and are due 
to be completed in November 1994. They will serve as the basis 
for further decisions by the Parties to be taken at their Sixth 
Meeting in 1995. 

4. Domestic Regulatory Action 

   As part of its efforts to develop information to respond 
to the petition by the environmental groups to list methyl bromide 
as a class I substance, on July 27, 1993, EPA issued a request 
for information under section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. This 
letter was sent to key industry and government organizations 
that potentially had useful information on the uses of methyl 
bromide, emissions from those uses, the availability of
alternatives, 
and scientific information concerning the ozone depletion potential

and impact of methyl bromide on the ozone layer. 
   EPA received responses from a broad spectrum of the agricultural

community which provided useful information on the uses of methyl 
bromide and the difficulties in identifying viable alternatives. 
Many of the respondents also questioned the scientific basis 
for linking their use of methyl bromide to ozone depletion and 
urged the Agency to delay action pending greater scientific 
certainty. 
   On March 18, 1992, EPA responded to the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition 
in the context of its proposed rule. The key elements of that 
proposal as it related to methyl bromide are the following: 
-Methyl bromide would be added to the list of class I substances 
  and its ODP would be listed as 0.7. 
-Production and consumption of the compound would be frozen 
  at 1991 levels beginning on January 1, 1994 and phased out 
  by January 1, 2000. 
-No interim reductions in production and consumption were included 
  in the proposal. 
-Methyl bromide was established as the only compound in a newly 
  created group six within the list of Class I substances. 
-The labeling provisions under section 611 would not apply to 
  agricultural products for which methyl bromide is used need 
  not be labeled under section 611. 
   EPA believes that its proposal would minimize the impact 
on the agricultural community of listing methyl bromide as a 
class I substance. EPA proposed to exercise its authority to 
extend the phaseout schedule under section 602(d) to a freeze 
as the most stringent schedule for phaseout it could propose 
in place of the section 604(a) schedule. This extension would 
provide maximum flexibility for the agricultural community to 
identify and shift to alternatives. 
   With regard to the ODP of methyl bromide, the Agency based 
its proposal and its evaluation of the ODP on the recommendations 
of the Protocol's Scientific Assessment report and its update, 
and the action taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 
As stated above, the Protocol's assessment update report represents

the most authoritative review of scientific evidence related 
to methyl bromide's impact on the ozone layer. While the report 
of that group recognized that important uncertainties related 
to the compound's ODP remain, they nonetheless provided an estimate

of the ODP of methyl bromide as 0.7. The Agency evaluated all 
the evidence available to it at the time of its proposal and 
determined that no new or additional information existed that 
was not available and considered at the time of the assessment 
and that supported reaching any alternative conclusion. The 
Agency believes the ODP provided for by that assessment represents 
the best current scientific evaluation of methyl bromide's ODP. 
Further discussion of the scientific basis for the 0.7 ODP is 
contained below. 
   In proposing to move forward to regulate methyl bromide based 
on the 0.7 ODP, the Agency fully recognizes that uncertainties 
remain and that additional information will become available 
over the next several years and could alter the ODP contained 
in future assessments. To address this issue, EPA clarified 
in its proposal that it believes it has the authority under 
section 602(c)(1) to delist methyl bromide as a class I substance 
in the event that new information or future action taken under 
the Montreal Protocol shifts the ODP below 0.2 and other wise 
demonstrates that methyl bromide does not contribute significantly 
to harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer, including 
near term effect. EPA explained the rationale behind this position 
at length in its proposal (58 FR 15037). Essentially, the Agency 
believes that the restriction on delisting class I substances 
contained in section 602(c)(4) applies only to substances
explicitly 
listed in the Act itself by Congress and contained in section 
602(a). EPA is adding methyl bromide to the class I list under 
subsection (c) of section 602, and methyl bromide is thus not 
explicitly ``referred to'' in subsection (a). EPA believes it 
would not be covered under the prohibition, contained in section 
602(c)(4), against removing a substance from the list. 
   The Agency reasons that without the ability to delist a
substance, 
EPA would hesitate to add a substance to the class I list until 
all uncertainties are resolved, despite much evidence of the 
substance's danger. The chilling effect of requiring absolute 
certainty prior to listing a substance would appear to run directly

counter to Congressional intent that the Agency take reasonable 
steps to safeguard the ozone layer. Several respondents in their 
comments support EPA on this interpretation as set out in the 
proposal. 
   With regard to the phaseout schedule, the proposal set January 
1, 2000 as the phaseout date for production and consumption 
of this compound. This date was based on language in section 
602 that requires that any newly listed substance be phased 
out no later than seven years after the year in which it is 
added to the list of class I substances. The proposal acknowledged 
that if methyl bromide were listed in 1993, that the Agency 
could postpone its phaseout until 2001. However, for the reasons 
explained above, EPA has decided to extend the freeze in this 
final rule until January 1, 2001. 
   The proposal did not require any interim reductions in
production 
and consumption of methyl bromide and instead jumps directly 
to the required phaseout. In determining the interim schedule 
prior to the mandated seven-year phaseout, the Agency is authorized

to extend the schedule in section 604(a) if that schedule is 
unattainable. In its proposal, the Agency stated that it believed 
the stringent phasedown schedule in 604(a) is, in fact,
unattainable 
based on the current availability of substitutes for methyl 
bromide. While the Protocol's technology assessment and EPA's 
own review have identified potential substitutes for many of 
the major uses of methyl bromide, several years or longer will 
likely be necessary to resolve possible regulatory and commercial 
barriers to the widespread use of these alternatives and to 
shift to these substitutes in a reasonably cost-effective manner. 
The proposal also stated that a number of near-term steps were 
being taken to reduce use and emissions and that these efforts 
would effectively allow for the maintenance of baseline production 
at 1991 levels without creating any significant economic impact 
until the year of the phaseout. Finally, the Agency acknowledged 
that should significant technological progress in shifting to 
alternatives occur prior to the phaseout, then it would reconsider 
the interim dates if it determined that interim reductions would 
be achievable. The Agency further recognized citizens' option 
under section 606 to petition the Agency to accelerate the
reduction 
schedule based on future information. 
   EPA proposed to place methyl bromide in a newly created sixth 
group within the list of class I substances rather than adding 
it to a previously existing group. In proposing this approach 
to listing methyl bromide, the Agency was following the historical 
precedent established both under previous actions under the 
Clean Air Act and by the Parties to the Protocol in the Copenhagen 
Amendments. In addition, EPA has placed methyl bromide in a 
separate group due to its own phaseout schedule. 
   In a final issue raised in the proposal, the Agency requested 
comment on whether the statute allows for any exemptions for 
essential uses from the phaseout of methyl bromide. EPA received 
comments supporting two different positions on this issue. Some 
commenters stated that since Title VI is silent on the grant 
of essential use exemptions for newly listed substances, but 
allows specified exemptions for currently listed substances, 
that the Agency has the authority to grant exemptions beyond 
the phaseout date for any newly listed substances. Other commenters

supported the position that since no explicit authority exists 
and the exemptions listed in section 604 are narrowly defined, 
that EPA lacks the authority to grant essential uses for newly 
listed substances such as methyl bromide. EPA's response to 
these comments is presented below. 

D. Today's Final Action 


1. Summary 

   Today's final rule lists methyl bromide as a class I substance 
with an ozone depletion potential of 0.7. While recognizing 
that scientific uncertainties remain, EPA believes that the 
best available scientific evidence warrants this action. In 
listing methyl bromide as a class I substance in a newly
established 
Group VI, the Agency is freezing production and consumption 
at 1991 levels for the control period beginning on January 1, 
1994. The phaseout of production and consumption is scheduled 
for January 1, 2001, and no interim reductions in production 
or consumption are required during the period prior to the
phaseout. 
Consistent with the Agency's interpretation of section 611, 
products that utilize methyl bromide as part of an agricultural 
process need not be labeled under that section. 
   In taking final action on the listing of methyl bromide at 
this time, the Agency seeks to craft a regulatory approach that 
is both consistent with the requirements of the CAA and with 
past and possible future action by the Parties to the Montreal 
Protocol. The Agency has limited discretion under section 602 
to decide when and how to regulate compounds as class I substances.

The Agency is obligated under section 602(a) to list any substance 
the Administrator finds ``cause or contributes significantly 
to harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer'' as well 
as ``all substances that the Administrator determines have an 
ozone depletion potential of 0.2 or greater.'' Once listed, 
the Agency's authority to extend the statutory phaseout schedule 
is limited to the situation where that schedule is ``unattainable''

under section 602(d) and in any event cannot extend beyond 7 
years. As discussed in the proposal, the Agency believes the 
sense of the statutory scheme is that the most stringent attainable

schedule should be applied to the newly listed substance. See 
58 FR at 15034. EPA believes that maintaining the freeze level 
until 2001 is the most stringent schedule it can promulgate. 
EPA cannot now conclude that any faster phaseout schedule is 
attainable. EPA has considered the economic impact of a methyl 
bromide phaseout in determining the most stringent schedule 
of interim reductions it could promulgate. 
   EPA does not believe further technology forcing through interim 
reductions is necessary or appropriate. The Agency believes 
that it should allow the agricultural community the maximum 
length of time under these circumstances to develop and implement 
cost-effective alternatives to methyl bromide. Also, while not 
strictly relevant to what is attainable, the Agency notes that 
the freeze established today will avoid any unnecessary economic 
impact in the unlikely event that the scientific understanding 
of methyl bromide's ODP changes significantly so that it is 
reduced below 0.2 and otherwise merits reconsideration of the 
listing based on its contribution to ozone depletion. 
   The next Montreal Protocol scientific assessment will be 
completed in November 1994 and the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

will again address the issues of methyl bromide limitations 
and ODP at their Sixth Meeting in 1995. The Agency will review 
its action today in light of future scientific data and
information, 
the outcome of the updated scientific assessment, and any relevant 
future actions by the Parties to the Protocol. 

2. Decision To List 

   EPA believes that the scientific evidence warrants the Agency's 
conclusion that methyl bromide's ODP is greater than 0.2, and 
that this is most consistent with action being taken under the 
Montreal Protocol to include methyl bromide's ODP as 0.7. Thus, 
the statutory requirements for adding methyl bromide to the 
class I list, in EPA's judgment, have been satisfied. Based 
on the scientific evidence regarding the ODP and also the evidence 
that methyl bromide's destructive impact is concentrated in 
the near-term, EPA believes this action is both legally supportable

and environmentally appropriate. 
   As discussed above in the section on ``Legal Authority,'' 
EPA believes that the reasoning and conclusions of the Montreal 
Protocol Scientific Assessment and its update, and actions by 
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol form an adequate basis 
for the Administrator's judgment that the threshold requirements 
for adding methyl bromide to the class I list have been fully 
satisfied. In particular, a key conclusion of the scientific 
assessment update was the following: ``. . . model results suggest 
that anthropogenic emissions of CH3Br (methyl bromide) could 
have accounted for one-twentieth to one-tenth of the current 
observed ozone loss of four to six percent, and could grow to 
about one-sixth of the predicted ozone loss by the year 2000 
if emissions continue to increase at the present rate of five 
to six percent per year.'' This conclusion reached by the
Scientific 
Assessment Panel underscores the potential significant near-
term impact of methyl bromide on ozone depletion in the absence 
of actions to restrict emissions. 
   This international scientific assessment based on the best 
scientific evidence available, clearly supports the Agency's 
conclusion that man-made methyl bromide represents a significant 
risk to the earth's ozone layer. The Agency does not believe 
that uncertainty inherent in all ozone depletion model calculations

justifies a different conclusion or a ``wait and see'' approach. 
   Furthermore, the scientific assessment panel also established 
the ODP of methyl bromide at 0.7, recognizing that uncertainties 
exist and that other factors could alter the ODP calculation. 
This value was adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
at their Fourth Meeting as part of the Copenhagen amendments 
to the Protocol. At the time these amendments enter into force 
(likely in 1994), EPA is required by section 602(e) to adopt 
an ODP consistent with that contained in the Montreal Protocol. 
Prior to that time, EPA believes that, absent a compelling reason 
to modify the ODP in favor of a different value, that it is 
appropriate to move forward with the same value contained in 
both the Protocol's scientific assessment update and adopted 
by the Parties. EPA has carefully reviewed the public comments 
on the science assessment and newly published information contained

in the scientific literature that relates to the ODP and impact 
of methyl bromide on the ozone layer. The Agency does not believe 
that a substantial case has been made for discarding or overriding 
the conclusions reached in the Protocol's Assessment Update 
or to modify on an interim basis the ODP contained in the
Copenhagen 
Amendments to the Protocol that are likely to enter into force 
next year. 

3. Scientific Issues Related to Methyl Bromide 

   In the preamble to its proposed regulations, EPA discussed 
at length the scientific basis for its proposal to list methyl 
bromide. Specifically, it presented the key findings of the 
Montreal Protocol's Scientific Assessment report and update 
that dealt with methyl bromide and that represented the most 
authoritative review of these issues. The Agency also cited 
the areas of significant scientific uncertainty described in 
that report, including the possibility of additional oceanic 
and terrestrial sinks for methyl bromide, the potential for 
some percentage of atmospheric reactions to lead to the
sequestering 
of bromine in less reactive compounds (i.e., referred to as 
Hbr branching) or more reactive compounds (i.e., increased HOBr 
formation), and the possibility that emissions of methyl bromide 
from man-made activities are smaller than estimated and that 
natural sources of methyl bromide are larger. EPA received
extensive 
comments on each of these issues, primarily from the Methyl 
Bromide Working Group (MBWG). These and other related issues 
are discussed in the following sections. 
   a. Faster Formation of HOBr. While discussed at the scientific 
assessment workshop in June 1992, the conclusions of the panel 
in calculating the ODP of methyl bromide do not take into
consideration 
the faster rate constant of the formation of HOBr from BrO plus 
HO2. This faster measurement differs from earlier slower estimates 
of this rate constant and now provides a measurement basis for 
the recommendation found in the compendium of rate constants 
published by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in 1992. However, 
the 95% confidence limit set forth in this compendium still 
encompasses the slower rate. 
   The effect of including the faster reaction would be to raise 
the ODP of methyl bromide, all other things being equal. The 
impact of including this faster reaction rate on the ODP of 
methyl bromide was included in the public comments submitted 
by the MBWG as calculated by Sze et. al. Based on these model 
calculations, assuming a 2.1 year atmospheric lifetime of methyl 
bromide, the ODP would be increased from 0.64 to 0.85. Assuming 
a lifetime of 1.3 years, the ODP would increase from 0.4 to 
0.53. 
   EPA recognizes that the evidence regarding this rate constant 
appears to warrant an upward adjustment of the methyl bromide 
ODP from 0.7, which was calculated without using this faster 
rate constant. However, since the Protocol scientific assessment 
addressed this possible faster rate constant as an area of
remaining 
uncertainty and did not include it in its calculations, EPA 
does not believe it should adopt an upwardly adjusted ODP for 
methyl bromide as a regulatory matter at this time. Additional 
review of this issue by the scientific community is underway 
and will provide a stronger basis for any modifications to the 
ODP related to this issue in future years. EPA notes that a 
slight increase in methyl bromide's ODP would not alter the 
regulatory regime adopted for this compound. Also, the Agency 
does not believe it should, as a regulatory matter, continually 
adjust the ODP of any compound as scientific investigation yields 
preliminary new information that has not been fully accepted 
by the international assessment process and that may be further 
modified with additional research. 
   Rather, the Agency believes that, to the extent there is 
no regulatory impact, the ODP should be established consistent 
with the scientific information presented in the two-year cycle 
of scientific assessments under the Montreal Protocol, and thus 
correspond to actions taken by the Parties to the Protocol. 
The Agency notes the mandate in section 602(e) of the Clean 
Air Act that the ODP specified under the Act ``shall be
consistent'' 
with the ODP specified under the Protocol supports this approach. 
   b. Hbr Branching. Assuming the faster rate of formation of 
HO2 with BrO as discussed above, an important area of uncertainty 
is whether and to what extent reaction of HO2 with BrO leads 
to the formation of Hbr plus O3. To the extent such reactions 
occur in the stratosphere, the ozone depletion potential of 
methyl bromine would be decreased. 
   This issue was examined in detail in the update report from 
the Scientific Assessment Panel. It stated that ``a major
uncertainty 
in the calculation of bromide-related ozone loss and ODPs is 
associated with quantification of the rate of formation of HBr 
in the stratosphere.'' 
   While the assessment panel had before it several calculations 
assuming different rates of ``HBr branching'' and included one 
of these calculations in its report, it nonetheless rejected 
including these estimates in its final determination of methyl 
bromide's ODP. The panel report stated two factors as arguments 
against its inclusion. First, there is no evidence of analogous 
chlorine reactions producing HCl. Second, while additional data 
on BrO measurements is necessary to draw any firm conclusions, 
the assessment report states: ``Although the upper range of 
the observed BrO would appear to be in conflict with a significant 
HBr source, that lack of definitive data for HBr and the large 
scatter in observed BrO made it difficult to rule out this
possibility.'' 
   Comments on these issues were submitted by the Methyl Bromide 
Working Group. They argue that no basis exists to believe that 
an analogous reaction with HCl would in any way be relevant 
to HBr branching; that limited measurements of HCl do exist; 
and that HBr branching is consistent with recent atmospheric 
measurements. 
   The MBWG provided limited data to support the contentions 
that production of HCl is significant or not relevant to whether 
HBr formation occurs. Additional research will be important 
to fully resolve this issue, including more data on observed 
values of HBr and BrO. Based on the evidence available at the 
time of assessment, however, the Panel concluded that the inclusion

of HBr branching was sufficiently speculative that the Panel 
excluded it from its best estimate of the ODP of methyl bromide. 
The assessment panel report states that the higher ODP values 
for inclusion of a faster BrO plus HO2 reaction ``is not
recommended'' 
and ``neither is the lower value of the ODP obtained when it 
is assumed that 10% of the BrO plus HO2 reaction produces HBr.'' 
The rejection of HBr branching by the Panel was based on
insufficient 
data on relevant reaction rates under stratospheric conditions 
of temperature and pressure and the need for additional studies 
on the formation of HBr by other reaction such as BrO plus OH 
and Br plus HO2 to improve the understanding of partitioning 
of bromine in the stratosphere. This lack of evidence supporting 
HBr partitioning along with the belief that no evidence exists 
that analogous chlorine reactions (ClO plus HO2 and ClO plus 
OH) produce HCl were the basis for the Panel's decision not 
to include HBr branching when they recommended the estimate 
of the ODP of methyl bromide. For the reasons discussed below, 
EPA fully concurs with this decision and with the Panel's
conclusion. 
   To evaluate the impact of different degrees of HBr branching 
on the ODP of methyl bromide, the MBWG commissioned an analysis 
using a state of the art atmospheric chemistry model. The model 
calculated the ODP assuming first, an estimated lifetime of 
methyl bromide of 2.1 years, and second, assuming a significant 
oceanic sink resulted in an atmospheric lifetime of 1.3 years. 
Assuming that a 10% branching of HBr occurs, and using the faster 
rate constant for BrO plus HO2 (see above), the model calculated 
an ODP of 0.24 and 0.15 for an atmospheric lifetime of 2.1 years 
and 1.3 years, respectively. If HBr branching occurred at the 
rate of 5%, the calculated ODPs are 0.4 and 0.24, for lifetimes 
of 2.1 and 1.3 years, respectively. The authors then go on to 
compare the model calculated levels of HBr with the limited 
data from the field. While stating that 10% HBr branching leads 
to a 6-7 parts per trillion by volume (pptv) of HBr at 32 km 
compared to an upper limit of 4 pptv measured by Traub, the 
authors concluded that despite the inconsistency, branching 
of as much as 10% cannot be ruled out given the ``expected temporal

and spatial variability of HBr and the relatively small samples 
of data from which the upper limits are derived.'' Finally, 
the authors state that their model calculation does not take 
into consideration possible losses of methyl bromide to land 
surfaces which would further reduce the calculated ODP. 
   In addressing the basis for the conclusions reached in the 
Assessment Update report, the MBWG first argues that branching 
to form HCl is consistent with atmospheric measurements. They 
cite a paper by Stachnick et al., in Geophysical Research Letters 
to support this claim. While the paper provides a number of 
possible explanations for the elevated level of HCl, it does 
not mention the relevant analogous reaction (HO2 plus ClO) as 
a plausible explanation. Furthermore, laboratory studies of 
OH plus ClO have produced no direct evidence in support of the 
formation of HCl. (Memorandum from NASA to EPA, August 19, 1993.) 
The MBWG cites a paper by Lee (J. Chin. Chemical Society) as 
containing laboratory evidence that HCl is formed by the reaction 
HO2 plus ClO. Concerns have been raised that this paper represents 
the only published work demonstrating this reaction, that internal 
controls used in the experiment were inadequate, and that efforts 
to date in the United States to verify this experiment have 
not been successful. (Memorandum from NASA to EPA August 19, 
1993.) 
   Finally, the MBWG's comments argue that since the scientific 
community agrees that the possibility of HBr branching cannot 
be ruled out, it is improper that ``EPA in effect does just 
that, by adopting an ODP value which fails to take this possibility

into account.'' However, when presented with much the same
information, 
for the reasons described above, the scientific assessment panel 
also deemed it more appropriate to calculate the ODP of methyl 
bromide without factoring in any specific value for HBr branching. 
The Agency also believes that the evidence provided by the MBWG 
is either scientifically flawed or insufficient for the reasons 
stated above to include HBr branching in its calculation of 
methyl bromide's ODP. While the Agency recognizes that additional 
research is necessary to better understand the issue of HBr 
branching, the evidence available to date does not merit including 
it in its ODP calculations. 
   It is important to note that the paper submitted by the MBWG 
on these issues was also submitted for publication in a scientific 
journal and has since been modified and resubmitted for
publication. 
(Telephone conversation with author September 23, 1993). It 
is also worth noting that key aspects of analysis presented 
in the paper that the MBWG relies upon were also reviewed prior 
to the issuance of the update report by the Scientific Assessment 
Panel. As discussed in detail above, the update report concluded 
that the role of HBr branching was sufficiently speculative 
that it should not be taken into account in its calculation 
of ODP. Based on its review of all of the evidence, EPA concurs 
with the view that inclusion of HBr branch, in the calculation 
of methyl bromide's ODP is too speculative. Should additional 
measurements or modeling provide more conclusive evidence in 
support of HBr branching, then the Agency would consider future 
changes to reduce the ODP of methyl bromide. 
   c. Other Sinks for Methyl Bromide. In proposing an ODP of 
0.7, EPA stated that this calculation was based only on reactions 
with the OH radical and that an important area of uncertainty 
was whether other oceanic or landbased sinks for methyl bromide 
exist. To the extent significant additional sinks for methyl 
bromide exist, they would result in a lower ODP for this compound. 
   Similarly, in the update of the Protocol's Scientific Assessment

on methyl bromide, the panel concluded that ``possible oceanic 
and terrestrial surface removal processes are one of the major 
areas of uncertainty in determining the global budget for methyl 
bromide.'' EPA received extensive comments from the MBWG and 
has reviewed several recent papers published related to the 
broader issue of the global ``budget'' of methyl bromide. 
   The comments from the MBWG point out the possible discrepancy 
between the past commercial sales of methyl bromide and
measurements 
of atmospheric concentrations of this compound. They cite papers 
by Cicerone (1988) and by Khalil (1993) to argue that while 
commercial sales increased in the mid-1980s, measured atmospheric 
concentrations increased only slightly if at all. From this 
possible anomaly, the MBWB argues that an additional important 
sink must exist for methyl bromide. The comment fails, however, 
to reflect additional data presented by Khalil (1993), which 
concludes that atmospheric concentrations did increase from 
the period 1988-1992 at the rate of about 3% plus or minus 1% 
per year. Because these data on production and concentrations 
do not portray a consistent picture, no firm conclusions can 
be drawn from them concerning the existence of additional sinks 
for methyl bromide. The potential for both additional sources 
and sinks for methyl bromide is an important area of uncertainty 
and more information should be available in future years. 
   In order to estimate the potential impact of the oceans as 
a substantial sink for methyl bromide, the MBWG included
information 
based on modelling performed by Sze as described above. This 
analysis showed that, even if the oceans were indeed a major 
sink for methyl bromide, the atmospheric lifetime based on this 
factor alone would decrease from 2.1 years to 1.3 years, and 
decrease the ODP to 0.4, still well above the 0.2 threshold. 
   EPA also received a paper from a research scientist at NOAA 
that examines the potential role of the oceans in regulating 
the atmospheric concentrations of methyl bromide (Butler, 1993). 
This paper was submitted to the docket at the same time it was 
submitted for publication in a scientific journal. Based on 
comments received from the journal, this paper has been
substantially 
revised and resubmitted for review and possible publication. 
(Telephone conversation with author, September 16, 1993). This 
original paper suggests that any evaluation of the atmospheric 
lifetime and impact on ozone of methyl bromide must include 
the role of the oceans. The paper suggests that the oceans are 
the largest source of methyl bromide, and that they could act 
as a regulator of the atmospheric concentrations of methyl bromide.

Thus, even if man-made emissions of methyl bromide were reduced 
through regulatory action, this paper suggests that reductions 
in atmospheric concentrations may not be reduced correspondingly. 
According to this paper, the oceans could increase their emissions 
to the atmosphere, largely or in part offsetting any gains from 
reductions in man-made emissions. 
   However, recent time series data published by Khalil (1993) 
suggest that atmospheric concentrations have been slowly increasing

over the past four years. This data appears to contradict the 
hypothesis that atmospheric concentrations would not change 
if manmade emissions decreased.
   To explore his hypothesis, Butler develops a simplified model 
combining both oceanic and atmospheric responses. The results 
from this model show the relationship between the atmospheric 
lifetime of methyl bromide and the saturation anomaly of the 
compound. The saturation anomaly is calculated by comparing 
the ratio of measurements of atmospheric concentrations with 
levels of oceanic concentrations. His analysis suggests that 
if the value for the saturation anomaly is 100%, then the
atmospheric 
lifetime would be slightly less than 2.0 years. If, however, 
the value for the saturation anomaly were 300 percent, then 
the atmospheric lifetime of methyl bromide would be reduced 
to slightly less than one year.
   Only limited and somewhat conflicting data exist of measurements

of the saturation anomaly of methyl bromide. Khalil (1993) reports 
on data from two shipboard experiments that occurred in 1983 
and 1987. Based on measurements taken on these voyages, he
estimated 
a saturation anomaly of 40-80 percent. This value would be
consistent 
with an atmospheric lifetime of methyl bromide of just over 
2 years. In contrast, a paper by Singh (1993) reports on data 
from a different oceanic experiment conducted in 1981-82 which 
produced values for the saturation anomaly at 180-240 percent, 
which would lead to an atmospheric lifetime of methyl bromide 
of 1-1.2 years.
   Without additional data, it is impossible to reconcile the 
range in values provided by the two limited data sets. However, 
in the explanation of his data, Singh (1993) suggests that it 
may not be appropriate to generalize to the entire ocean from 
the data he collected in the eastern Pacific. He points to
productivity 
maps that suggest the sampled area is 2-4 times more productive 
than the oceans as a whole. The model developed by Butler is 
necessarily simplified (given the paucity of data) and models 
the oceans as a whole. Nonetheless, additional data is essential 
to narrow the uncertainties raised in Bulter's analysis. Given 
the data available to date, the Agency does not believe it is 
prudent to modify the current regulatory strategy based on the 
hypothesis that the saturation anomaly across the entire oceans 
would be substantially greater than that obtained in the
measurements 
reported by Khalil.
   Finally, the MBWG comments also suggest that terrestrial 
sinks could be significant and further reduce the ODP of methyl 
bromide. While methyl bromide acts as a strong methylating agent, 
no published data exist concerning the possible magnitude of 
losses through land-based surface removal. The commenter
essentially 
cited information contained in a presentation made on this issue 
at the Scientific Workshop on methyl bromide by Kolb. This
presentation 
focused primarily on what studies could be done to evaluate 
land-based sinks and contained no data specifically demonstrating 
that such a sink exists for methyl bromide. Since no additional 
information is presented in support of modifying the ODP to 
reflect this factor, EPA must reach the same conclusion as the 
Scientific Assessment Panel, that an insufficient basis exists 
for altering the ODP based on the existence of land-based sinks. 
Should additional information be developed demonstrating that 
surface losses are an important sink for methyl bromide, the 
calculation of its ODP could be modified accordingly in the 
future.
   d. Natural and Man-Made Emissions. In addition to emissions 
from human activities, the oceans also represent a significant 
source of emissions of methyl bromide. The relative role of 
emissions from natural versus man-made sources of methyl bromide 
is one of the key areas of uncertainty and has important
implications 
for the effectiveness of measures to safeguard stratospheric 
ozone. Also, the total amount of emissions is relevant to the 
issue of atmospheric lifetime and therefore the calculation 
of ODP. 
   Based on their review of relevant data on this issue, the 
Protocol's Scientific Assessment update concluded that man-made 
emissions amounted to 25% percent plus or minus 10% of total 
methyl bromide in the atmosphere. This calculation assumes that 
the atmospheric lifetime of methyl bromide is two years and 
calculates that corresponding total emissions are roughly 75-
110 thousand metric tonnes annually to obtain the measured
atmospheric 
abundance of 9-13 pptv. Of this amount, roughly 25 thousand 
tonnes would be from man-made sources and the remaining roughly 
75 thousand tonnes would be from natural sources. 
   In their comments, the MBWG pointed out that if a one-year 
atmospheric lifetime were assumed instead of two years, that 
the percent contribution from man-made sources would be cut 
in half. However, if the lifetime of methyl bromide were a year, 
annual emissions would have to double to 150-220 thousand metric 
tonnes in order to maintain the measured atmospheric abundance 
of 9-13 pptv. While that amount cannot be ruled out, Khalil 
(1993), in the most extensive review of the methyl bromide budget 
published to date, estimated that emissions from the oceans 
amount to only 35 thousand metric tonnes. In another paper on 
this issue, Singh (1993) estimated that emissions from the oceans 
are on the order of 60 (40-80) thousand metric tonnes/year. 
While both papers point out the substantial uncertainties and 
limited availability of data to calculate the methyl bromide 
budget, based on the information available to these investigators, 
they calculated that in the absence of other significant sources, 
emissions from the oceans appear to be well below the amount 
required to support a one-year atmospheric lifetime of methyl 
bromide. However, a related area of uncertainty is whether methyl 
bromide from the burning of biomass could also represent a
significant 
source of man-made emissions. (Khalil, 1993). 
   Finally, the MBWG's comments discuss a number of possible 
alternative explanations for the north-south gradient that exists 
in measurements of methyl bromide's atmospheric abundance. The 
science assessment update suggests that this gradient reflects 
a significant source of methyl bromide from agricultural sources 
primarily in the northern hemisphere consistent with commercial 
sales and use of this compound. While direct measurements of 
emissions of methyl bromide from agricultural applications, 
of course, provide clearer evidence of the role of man-made 
methyl bromide, the existence of an interhemispheric gradient 
with higher concentration in the north may be an indirect
confirmation 
that such emissions occur. This evidence tends to counter the 
contention by some agricultural groups that methyl bromide injected

into the soil largely breaks down prior to its release into 
the atmosphere. 
   The comments by the MBWG suggested that the gradient could 
occur for a number of other reasons including: the fact that 
the oceans constitute a far greater percentage of the Southern 
hemisphere total mass and, therefore, constitute a larger sink 
in that half of the globe; that northern hemispheric oceans 
are biologically active and represent a larger natural source 
of emissions; that the larger land mass in the northern hemisphere 
represents a larger land sink; that the gradient in north to 
south of the OH radical is responsible for the gradient in methyl 
bromide abundances; and that large emissions of methyl bromide 
from biomass burning in the southern hemisphere is the reason 
it does not demonstrate a hemispheric gradient. Each of these 
hypotheses is presented in the comments as an equally feasible 
explanation for the interhemispheric gradient of methyl bromide. 
Without presenting any convincing arguments for any of these 
alternative hypotheses, the MBWG's comments state that ``it 
is unscientific for EPA to simply pick one hypothesis `out of 
the hat' and to dismiss all other plausible explanations for 
the interhemispheric gradient.'' The possible explanation of 
the interhemispheric gradient included in EPA's proposal was 
identified by the Protocol's Scientific Assessment Panel as 
the most plausible explanation. The panel stated that the
interhemispheric 
gradient was clear from the available atmospheric measurements 
and ``most probably indicated an excess source in the Northern 
Hemisphere.'' It reached this tentative conclusion rather than 
the ones preferred by the MBWG because it had data on methyl 
bromide use indicating higher emissions in the north than the 
south. Either no data, or inconclusive or conflicting data, 
was all that was available for each of the alternative hypotheses 
presented by the MBWG. While additional data will help clarify 
this issue in future assessments, the Agency believes that no 
additional information was presented in the comments to justify 
disagreeing with the statement on the possible cause of the 
interhemispheric gradient contained in the assessment panel 
update report. 
   One final area of uncertainty relates to the burning of leaded 
gasoline as another possible source of man-made methyl bromide. 
While the use of leaded gasoline is decreasing in favor of unleaded

gasoline, this source may prove to be a significant source of 
methyl bromide in the short-term. The source of the methyl bromide 
in leaded fuel is ethylene dibromide (EDB), a material that 
is added to the fuel as a lead scavenger (0.015g EDB/liter fuel). 
Limited data exists suggesting that the exhaust of a vehicle 
using leaded fuel may contain some 22-44% organic bromines, 
with the portion of this emitted as methyl bromide varying between 
54-82%. Additional studies will be required to fully evaluate 
the situation. However, in the United States, leaded fuel usage 
is only 1 percent or less of total fuel usage, making the
atmospheric 
contribution of methyl bromide from this source negligible. 
However, to the extent leaded fuel, is still used in other parts 
of the world, it is an important issue for calculating the methyl 
bromide budget and for possible future international controls.
   e. Summary of ODP Discussion. Both the Protocol's Scientific 
Assessment Update on methyl bromide and the discussion of methyl 
bromide's ODP in the preamble to EPA's proposed action identify 
a number of important uncertainties concerning the ODP. EPA 
received extensive comments related to these uncertainties and 
some commenters suggested that because, in their view, the ODP 
is likely to fall below 0.2, the Agency should delay taking 
any action.
    In reviewing these comments, EPA believes most if not all 
of these uncertainties were reviewed by the Scientific Assessment 
Panel in their update report. While recognizing that the ODP 
may change in the future as additional information becomes
available, 
the panel concluded that 0.7 was the current best estimate for 
the ODP of methyl bromide. It explicitly rejected both higher 
and lower estimates based on the same factors commenters on 
EPA's proposal have since raised.
   The comments further demonstrate that any single factor alone, 
even in an extreme case, is unlikely to reduce the ODP below 
0.2. Thus, even the high value for HBr branching (10 percent) 
alone would reduce the ODP to only 0.24. To reduce the ODP below 
0.2 would require both a substantial oceanic sink and significant 
HBr branching.
   To put the 0.2 ODP value in context, it is important to note 
that compounds with values below 0.2 are also being severely 
regulated under both the Montreal Protocol and CAA regulations. 
For example, methyl chloroform has an ODP of 0.12 (based on 
the latest scientific assessment) and is being phased out by 
January 1, 1996 both under the Protocol and CAA regulations. 
HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11 and is scheduled for phaseout in 
today's regulations by 2003. Thus, even if the ODP of methyl 
bromide were to drop below 0.2, the compound could still be 
regulated in much the same time frame established by today's 
rule.
   Finally, the above discussion of the ODP has focused exclusively

on steady-state values for the ODP of methyl bromide. The steady-
state value calculates the impact of the compound on ozone relative

to CFC-11 over a period of several hundred years. To the extent 
that the greatest concerns about the impact of ozone depletion 
will occur over the next ten years after which peak depletion 
will be declining, EPA also considers the ODP over that shorter 
time period important. Because of its shorter atmospheric lifetime 
compared to CFC-11 (2 years compared to 60 years), the short-
term impact of methyl bromide on ozone is substantially greater 
than its impact calculated over a much longer period of time. 
The scientific assessment update report calculates the ODP of 
methyl bromide over a period of 10 years at 7.0. The Agency 
believes it is important to consider that short-term reduction 
in risks to the ozone layer is an important part of its efforts 
under Title VI of the CAA, (See section on HCFCs and IEER petition,

above). EPA believes methyl bromide ``contributes significantly 
to harmful efforts on the stratospheric ozone layer'' to an 
extent much greater than reflected in its steady-state ODP. 
Methyl bromides short-term effect, even if the steady state 
ODP is proven to be just below 0.2, would still be much higher 
than any substance not currently on the class I list, and could 
well still merit listing based on its substantial contribution 
to stratospheric ozone depletion.

4. Uses and Substitutes for Methyl Bromide

   Methyl bromide is a broad spectrum pesticide which is widely 
used as a fumigant in the control of insects, nematodes, weeds, 
pathogens, and rodents. It is primarily utilized for soil
fumigation 
(80 percent of world-wide use), commodity and quarantine treatment 
(15 percent of use), and structural fumigation (5 percent of 
use). Because of its relatively low price, and its physical 
and chemical attributes, it is used world-wide in many different 
situations. Due to the versatility of this chemical, there is 
no single alternative treatment that can duplicate the action 
of methyl bromide in all its many applications. It is possible, 
however, to consider alternative chemicals and production methods 
that can replace methyl bromide to a significant degree in numerous

situations.
   In the last several months, activities related to several 
alternatives have been initiated. While additional research 
field tests and regulatory approvals will be necessary to define 
efficacy and applicability and may take considerable time, these 
initial steps represent an important beginning. Specifically, 
carbonyl sulfide has been identified by researchers in Australia 
as a potentially effective pest control material for commodity 
pests such as beetles, fruit flies, moths, mites and termites, 
as well as a soil fumigant for nematodes. Whether or not
registration 
is sought for this material in the U.S. remains an important 
issue. Enzone has just recently been approved for registration 
for use as a pesticide for nematode and disease control on grapes 
and citrus in the United States. In addition, new application 
methods are currently being field tested for metam sodium which 
show significant improvement in coverage and penetration. And 
in 1994, Telone will likely be investigated in large scale field 
trials in California, with the intention of a possible future 
reentry of use in that state. Several researchers have recently 
began developing a system utilizing carbon dioxide in combination 
with reduced dosages of existing fumigant agents in structural 
and commodity applications to achieve control levels better 
than what has been seen with methyl bromide alone. In addition, 
EPA expects an application to be filled shortly with the EPA 
Office of Pesticide Programs for the use of Dazomet as a soil 
fumigant for a number of high value applications which now use 
methyl bromide. While none of these alternatives are likely 
to make significant near-term inroads into the use of methyl 
bromide, depending on the outcome of additional efforts, they 
could contribute to the transition by 2001.
   a. The NAPIAP Study. The United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) issued a document in April 1993 entitled, ``The Biologic 
and Economic Assessment of Methyl Bromide,'' which was prepared 
by the National Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program 
(NAPIAP), and which will henceforth be referred to as the NAPIAP 
assessment. The NAPIAP assessment was intended to evaluate the 
impact on American agriculture from an immediate ban of methyl 
bromide.
   EPA believes that the report represents a useful analysis 
if methyl bromide were banned immediately, but that it was not 
designed nor intended to evaluate the proposed phaseout of this 
compound in the year 2000. Because it looks at the impact of 
an immediate ban, it assures little use of replacement materials 
by the agricultural community. 
   The NAPIAP assessment considered an acceptable alternative 
to methyl bromide to be one that duplicates its biocidal actions. 
This serves to restrict the range of materials which the NAPIAP 
report considered to replace methyl bromide. Methyl bromide 
is used to control pests which would otherwise cause crop damage 
and economic losses. However, it is not necessary (and probably 
not possible) to duplicate methyl bromide's broad spectrum efficacy

to achieve pest control. EPA believes, nonetheless, that it 
is possible to manage the pests currently controlled by methyl 
bromide with other chemical pest control tools, as well as
nonchemical 
and cultural means. 
   Many years of research have perfected the use of methyl bromide 
as a soil and commodity fumigant. It is reasonable to expect 
that major research efforts will be needed to improve the
performances 
of metam-sodium, dazomet, 1,3-dichloropropene and other alternative

pest control techniques. For example, preplant methyl bromide 
fumigation has shaped the way in which research, breeding programs,

and commercial practices are pursued with strawberry cultivation 
in California. Strawberry cultures were bred and selected in 
soils fumigated with methyl bromide. Under these circumstances, 
there has been no need to maintain or improve resistance to 
minor root pathogens, let alone major diseases such as
Verticillium. 
Very little is known about cultivar resistance to root diseases 
because commercial strawberries are grown under ``near axenic'' 
soil conditions. Researchers are likely to overcome at least 
part of the impacts of the methyl bromide phaseout by focusing 
on different strawberry cultures and developing appropriate 
pest management practices. 
   b. Comments. Several individuals and groups submitted comments 
to EPA on substitutes and alternatives to methyl bromide. In 
many cases, those in the agricultural community indicated they 
believed that alternatives to this material were extremely
``limited'', 
which would result in a situation where pests currently controlled 
by methyl bromide would be left uncontrolled, causing severe 
economic losses. EPA acknowledges that there is no chemical 
currently in existence nor envisioned in the short-term which 
will duplicate the broad spectrum biocidal action of methyl 
bromide. However, EPA believes that in order to prevent crop 
damage, and keep pests below the economic damage threshold, 
it is not necessary to duplicate the broad spectrum efficacy 
of methyl bromide. There are, in existence and under development, 
both chemical and non-chemical pest control tools which can 
manage insects, weeds, nematodes, and plant diseases. In pest 
management cases where alternatives are not currently available, 
EPA supports research, such as that now being spearheaded by 
the USDA, to identify and implement good alternative pest control 
materials and methods. 
   EPA agrees with comments that stated that methyl bromide 
is a crop protection tool that currently satisfies a number 
of important needs. If other tools can satisfy these needs, 
however, they will be accepted and utilized by the agricultural 
community. In this light, a fumigant with analogous broadspectrum 
biocidal characteristics as methyl bromide is not essential 
to combat pests which cause crop damage and yield losses. Better 
utilization of existing chemical pesticides, together with non-
chemicals and cultural methods, can address a many of the pest 
problems now managed by methyl bromide. Therefore, alternatives 
to methyl bromide need not be identical to this chemical in 
order to manage pests that can cause crop loss. 
   Comments were raised concerning materials that have potential 
to be used in place of methyl bromide and that must be evaluated 
on a case-by-case, crop-by-crop basis, appraising efficacy against 
the target pest, practical feasibility in a particular crop, 
economic viability, health and environmental risks, and regulatory 
issues. Several chemical and non-chemical pesticides exist today 
that are effective against insects, weeds, nematodes, and plant 
diseases. These will need to undergo further research to determine 
if they are practical field replacements for pests now controlled 
by methyl bromide. These materials are not general biocides 
like methyl bromide, but are action-specific to a particular 
set of pests. Therefore, it is likely that these materials will 
need to be used in combination with each other, and in conjunction 
with a good integrated pest management program, to replace the 
use of methyl bromide. Research is currently underway on both 
the governmental and academic levels, as well as in the private 
sector, to ensure that alternative materials and methods will 
be viable and available before methyl bromide is phased out. 
   A number of individuals and associations commented on the 
potential negative health effects of increased UV-B radiation, 
supporting the phaseout of methyl bromide to ensure protection 
of the ozone layer, thereby protecting human health and the 
environment in general. EPA agrees with this assessment, believing 
that the benefits to be expected with the phaseout of this chemical

are considerably greater than any short-term costs.
   Several commenters discussed the health and environmental 
problems that increased UV-B radiation would cause, the toxicity 
of methyl bromide, especially regarding the potential for worker 
exposure. The Physicians for Social Responsibility commented 
that methyl bromide appears to produce lasting neural behavioral 
deficits that are likely to impair cognitive functions even 
when used under conditions currently judged to be acceptable. 
They also noted that since this chemical is a potent alkylating 
agent and mutagenic, it may be carcinogenic. 
   Several commenters stated that once methyl bromide has been 
listed as a class I ozone depleting substance, EPA should implement

other pertinent sections of the CAA Title VI, notably sections 
608 and 610. Section 608 concerns emissions control, which in 
the case of methyl bromide would require users to reduce emissions 
as much as technologically possible in the interim. Section 
610 allows for a ban on non-essential uses of class I substances, 
which would require users to immediately implement existing 
replacements for aerosol applications of methyl bromide. However, 
after careful review and due consideration, EPA believes that 
it is premature to consider additional regulations at this time.
   Some commenters have raised concerns over regulatory issues, 
citing the time and cost involved in processing and registering 
pesticides with EPA. It is an EPA requirement to thoroughly 
test any material which will be utilized as a pesticide to evaluate

the potential for unreasonable adverse health and environmental. 
See, 40 CFR part l (58). This can take many years, depending 
upon the type of material and the complexity of testing needed. 
However, despite the time involved, pesticides are registered, 
and do become commercially available. While this issue may slow 
the short-term accessibility of some materials and is one reason 
for not requiring interim reductions, it should not be a
significant 
long-term barrier to the development of methyl bromide
replacements.
   c. Soil Fumigation. One of the most common uses of methyl 
bromide is as a soil fumigant. It is utilized to control nematodes,

pathogens, insects, and weeds which reside in the soil and
uncontrolled, 
can cause significant crop loss. Methyl bromide, especially 
when combined with chloropicrin, can thoroughly eliminate these 
pests from the soil. However, since this material will no longer 
be available, other pest control means will need to be developed 
and utilized to allow farmers to produce consistent and quality 
produce. EPA recognizes that this process will involve considerable

research on existing and developing pesticides, as well as the 
registration of new pesticides. The process of pesticide
registration 
includes both health and environmental testing, and may compromise 
the near-term utilization of some of these materials. 
   Several individual farmers and grower organizations commented 
on the potential lack of pest control materials with which to 
replace methyl bromide. As discussed above, EPA believes that 
alternatives to this chemical should be judged not upon their 
ability to duplicate the biocidal action of methyl bromide, 
but upon their ability to effectively and economically control 
pests currently managed by methyl bromide. In this light, methyl 
bromide, while effective, is not the only material registered 
with EPA which can control plant pathogens, nematodes, weeds, 
and insects. In this light, materials which are currently
registered 
on other crops for other uses may have applications for as
alternatives 
to methyl bromide.
   Several chemical pesticides are currently on the market which 
effectively control insects, weeds, nematodes, and plant diseases, 
and therefore have good potential to replace methyl bromide 
in specific soil pest control situations. Application methods 
for many of these materials will need to be modified in order 
to manage pests now exclusively controlled by methyl bromide. 
EPA recognizes that several years of research will be required 
before good alternatives to methyl bromide will be available 
to the agricultural community.
   Among the existing chemical pesticides that can replace methyl 
bromide, the methyl isothiocyanate (MIT) generators (Metam Sodium 
and Dazomet), and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D, Telone) have the 
greatest potential to manage pests currently controlled by methyl 
bromide. These materials are not, and should not be construed 
to be equivalent to methyl bromide. In order to achieve full 
control of the wide spectrum of soil pests that can decrease 
yield, these pesticides will often need to be augmented by other 
chemical pesticides, non-chemical materials and cultural practices 
(e.g., development of resistant stock, and shift in cropping 
practices).
   Both the MIT generators and 1,3-D will need to undergo field 
research on soil incorporation and general application methods 
to ensure that the chemical is well distributed at rates and 
depths needed to control target pests. Research will be required 
to delineate efficacious dosages, application procedures and 
reentry periods. Several commenters noted that these substitutes 
need better delivery systems to adequately replace methyl bromide. 
These pesticides are undergoing a review of application methods 
on both the Federal and state (California and Florida) levels 
with regard to worker exposure. It is likely that registration 
reinstatement will involve modifications in the use of these 
materials to insure safe and efficacious applications. Many 
commenters from the agricultural community noted the effectiveness 
of replacement materials for specific crop applications (see 
Background and Summary Document). 
   In addition, as numerous comments pointed out, there are 
several outstanding regulatory and registration issues regarding 
these pesticides. For example, Dazomet is not yet registered 
for food crops in the U.S., and Telone is not currently permitted 
in California. EPA believes that, given the time allowed before 
the phase out of methyl bromide, many of the near-term
developmental 
and regulatory hurdles may be overcome and the necessary
adaptations 
may be made with these and other materials.
   One advantage of the current and potential methyl bromide 
replacement materials is that they are, in general, far more 
selective than methyl bromide. The broad spectrum activity of 
methyl bromide, often considered an advantage, thoroughly
sterilizes 
the soil, destroying both the pest organisms, as well as those 
that are a beneficial part of the soil ecology. Replacement 
pesticides are on the whole more selective since they affect 
only specific pest classes, thereby having potentially less 
impact on the overall soil fauna and flora. However, several 
comments expressed concern regarding the possibility that, in 
order to achieve good control of economic pests, replacement 
pesticide application rates and frequency of application may 
cause secondary environmental problems. EPA believes that through 
the use of improved application techniques now under development 
(e.g., deeper injections, thicker tarps, use of carrier agents), 
it is likely that effectiveness could be increased while dosage, 
and thereby risks to ozone depletion, can be reduced.
   Other chemicals that are already on the market and may have 
potential when combined with other materials and practices include 
chloropicrin and carbon disulfide, as well as nonfumigant
nematicides 
(carbofuran, oxamyl, fenamiphos, ethoprop, aldicarb, etc.) combined

with fungicides (benomyl, metalaxyl, etc). Chloropicrin, currently 
used in combination with methyl bromide, may prove to be
efficacious 
when used with other pesticides. Each pest situation and control 
method needed will have to be evaluated in relation to the target 
pest, the crop grown, the temporal and geographic effects, and 
the existing integrated pest management program.
   Several pesticides are currently in the developmental stage, 
and will need significant laboratory and field research before 
reaching the marketplace and before their value as methyl bromide 
substitutes can be fully assessed. These include the inorganic 
azides, bromonitromethane, nemamort, and carbonyl sulfide, among 
others. These materials are currently in the developmental stage, 
and will require further evaluation before their potential as 
substitutes can be determined.
   There are numerous methods for managing soil pests that are 
nonchemical in nature. While some of these methods are already 
used to manage economic pests, many of these techniques will 
need to be field tested on the specific target pests now controlled

by methyl bromide, and therefore are part of a longer-term
solution. 
These include crop rotation, the use of organic amendments, 
steam, solar heating, biological control agents, various cultural 
practices, plant breeding, biotechnology, grafting, and the 
physical destruction of pests and their habitat. Although these 
pest control methods cannot control all economic pests when 
used singly, when part of an overall integrated pest management 
program, these and other techniques may be effective in reducing 
pest numbers. Research will be needed on these and other methods 
to determine their effectiveness in reducing pest numbers.
   Since many of the replacement pest control methods may be 
new to growers reliant on methyl bromide, an agricultural extension

program will likely be required during the initial stages of 
implementation. Several commenters noted existing limitations 
for many of the proposed replacements, and noted that cost and 
supplemental effort may render some replacements infeasible 
in the short-term. While this may seem true in the short-term, 
new and better application methods of existing chemicals may 
dramatically help both the short- and long-term situation. 
   Other commenters discussed the process by which methyl bromide 
use can increase the amount of soil nitrogen available to plants, 
indicating that this will not be possible without the use of 
this chemical. However, there are numerous ways to add nitrogen, 
as well as other nutrients, to the soil through the use of
commercially 
available fertilizers, as well as organic amendments and crop 
rotation programs. A program of good soil management can supply 
plant nutrients without increased pollution or ground water 
contamination, resulting in healthier plants which are more 
resistant to pests than those which are stressed due to poor 
nourishment. 
   The issue of seed bed disease protection was raised by
commenters 
who perceive that yields would substantially decrease without 
methyl bromide. EPA believes that several of the existing
fungicides, 
along with those in development, may adequately prevent the 
spread of disease and a significant decline in production. While 
research will be necessary to define dosages and application 
procedures, it is highly probable that efficacious and economically

viable materials will be in place by the phaseout date. 
   EPA agrees with several comments that cite the beneficial 
health effects of fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there 
is no evidence to support the assertion that fruits and vegetables 
will no longer be available following the phaseout of methyl 
bromide. EPA expects that both currently available control
strategies, 
and those which are in development, may be utilized to control 
pests and minimize crop loss when methyl bromide is no longer 
available. 
   d. Commodity Fumigation. Methyl bromide is currently used 
to treat both food and nonfood commodities prior to shipment, 
during shipment, and while in storage. It is utilized as an 
effective quarantine tool to prevent exotic pest invasions and 
to assure that pests specific to a particular area are not carried 
to new regions. In this regard, incoming fruits and vegetables, 
as well as other commodities, are treated if suspected of harboring

economic pests, or if the commodity origin is an area where 
such pests are known to exist. Commodities in storage or in 
transport are also treated to ensure that the material is not 
destroyed by pests. About five to eight percent of methyl bromide 
use is in commodity fumigation and is utilized primarily for 
insect pests, but also for disease and rodent control. 
   EPA received several comments expressing the concern that 
a good chemical fumigant does not exist for use in place of 
methyl bromide. EPA acknowledges that a single chemical which 
duplicates the action of methyl bromide is not now available 
for use. However, various chemical and non-chemical treatments 
are available today which can effectively control commodity 
pests, and promising alternatives appear possible in the future 
(e.g., nitrogen). Although many of the transport and storage 
systems currently in use will have to be modified to accommodate 
the change, EPA believes it is likely that existing and potential 
alternatives will prove both efficacious and cost effective 
once implemented. 
   Some comments discussed the potential losses which may occur 
in commodities not treated with methyl bromide. This was discussed 
especially with regard to fresh fruits and vegetables. EPA believes

that pest control materials and methods exist today, or are 
under development, which could potentially replace methyl bromide 
in many of the commodity applications. EPA acknowledges that 
as of this date, there are some quarantine use areas where
replacements 
do not currently exist. As the final phaseout date approaches, 
EPA will work with concerned parties to ensure that quarantine 
integrity is not compromised. 
   Several comments were received that discussed the regulatory 
issues that will be impacted by the phaseout. The United States 
Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 
(USDA/APHIS) regulations, which require the use of methyl bromide 
on certain imported commodities, was seen as a case in point. 
In addition, similar regulations in other countries, most notably 
Japan, were also seen as a potential issue. As alternatives 
to methyl bromide are established, governmental bodies that 

set agricultural quarantine regulations will need to adapt and 
change such regulations in a way which best protects domestic 
agriculture and imported commodities. Therefore, EPA agrees 
that this is an important issue and one that could take many 
years to address. 
   In a related issue, commenters discussed the registration 
of pesticides. Several commenters expressed concern regarding 
the possibility that pesticides that have important but minor 
uses may not be supported for registration or reregistration. 
In addition, some comments stated that the EPA pesticide
registration 
process is so lengthy and costly that few new pesticides will 
be available before methyl bromide is phased out. EPA is aware 
of this concern, and understands that the testing needed to 
ensure registration of a viable pesticide can appear formidable. 
Because of this issue, EPA has set up a special task force in 
the Office of Pesticide Programs to coordinate and track methyl 
bromide substitution activities, and, if possible, to ease or 
accelerate the regulatory process for pesticides that are
considered 
alternatives to methyl bromide. 
   A number of comments were received concerning the prospects 
of utilizing irradiation as an alternative to methyl bromide. 
Most notably, commenters believed that the capital cost and 
time required to irradiate would render this substitute infeasible.

   Some considered this option as the replacement for all methyl 
bromide commodity treatments. EPA believes this is an unlikely, 
and certainly costly scenario. Several comments discussed the 
issue of public acceptance, speculating that this pest control 
would be widely rejected. While public apprehension to irradiation 
currently exists, with additional research and public education, 
this option could potentially become more attractive over time. 
   EPA is aware that significant research is ongoing on other 
attractive alternatives for commodity and quarantine applications. 
Particular attention is being paid to controlled atmospheres 
as a potentially attractive alternative to the use of methyl 
bromide. For example, new, less expensive and more flexible 
systems for using nitrogen in a controlled atmosphere are now 
being marketed. However, for controlled atmosphere to be a viable 
quarantine/commodity pest control technique, it will require 
approval by the countries to which commodities are being exported 
to. In addition, the potential for the recovery and recycling 
of methyl bromide is being investigated. EPA supports this effort 
as an important short-term solution. 
   Existing fumigants may also replace methyl bromide in certain 
applications. Among the chemical pesticides which may be potential 
replacements are phosphine, propylene oxide, hydrogen cyanide, 
ethyl formate, and ethylene oxide. Non-chemical pest control 
tools such as irradiation, controlled atmosphere, heat and cold 
treatments, pest-free zones, physical isolation, microbials, 
biological control, and host resistance may be potential integrated

replacement materials as well. Research will be necessary to 
define the activity of these materials, as well as what human 
or environmental hazards could exist. In addition, research 
in basic pest biology, identification, and survey methods will 
need to be examined to ensure the availability of management 
tools over the long-term. 
   Many comments received on this use area stated that single 
alternatives such as phosphine, temperature treatments, and 
controlled atmospheres, among others, could not be used on all 
commodities now treated with methyl bromide. EPA understands 
and agrees that research must be conducted to define what commodity

can be treated, with what protocol, against what pest, and under 
what circumstances. Nevertheless, EPA believes that this is 
achievable, and with research commodity pests can be managed 
without methyl bromide. Commenters also noted that the aeration 
time needed with phosphine and holding time with heat, cold 
and controlled atmospheres can be longer than what is needed 
with methyl bromide. EPA acknowledges that this will take
considerable 
adjustment on the part of shipping and storage firms, but does 
not believe this is an insurmountable barrier. Adaptations of 
existing technologies (e.g., combinations using heat or carbon 
dioxide) might reduce dose and time of exposure requirements. 
   EPA received comments in support of the phaseout of methyl 
bromide, with special regard to worker-exposure issues in commodity

processing facilities. Several examples were given of workers 
who had been adversely affected by this material. The commenters 
strongly support efforts to strengthen worker-exposure and safety 
regulations, and thus requested that EPA accelerate the phaseout 
process and require that commodities treated with methyl bromide 
be labeled. EPA recognizes that the phaseout of methyl bromide 
in order to protect stratospheric ozone could also have collateral 
benefits by reducing occupational exposure to this chemical. 
Of course, worker exposure to methyl bromide substitutes may 
continue to be a concern in some cases. In any event, EPA does 
not believe reduction in worker exposure is a basis to accelerate 
the phaseout under Title VI. Nor is this a basis to require 
labelling under Title VI. As explained below, EPA does not believe 
the section 611 labelling requirement applies to agricultural 
products fumigated with methyl bromide. 
   e. Structural Fumigation. Methyl bromide has been utilized 
to effectively control wood destroying and boring insects in 
buildings, as well as rodents and other pests in food processing 
facilities. Although this use accounts for less than five percent 
of the total global usage, it has been considered a significant 
pest control tool due to its effectiveness. 
   EPA received comments on the potential for alternatives to 
replace methyl bromide for structural treatments. Most of them 
compared existing alternatives with methyl bromide. While methyl 
bromide is a good biocide, replacements will not necessarily 
need to duplicate its effectiveness in order to be good structural 
pest control tools. As with other chemical and non-chemical 
replacements, pest control tools in this use area will need 
to be thoroughly evaluated in regard to pest control efficacy, 
practical feasibility, and economic viability. It is essential 
that research be done on alternatives to the use of methyl bromide 
in the milling industry and the food processing industry to 
insure that chemical residue problems are addressed. 
   Several options exist with regard to pest problems in dwellings,

with sulfuryl fluoride the principal chemical alternative. In 
this area, methods to reduce methyl bromide dosage by combining 
the pesticide with carbon dioxide, have shown good success. 
Contact pesticides which control certain wood boring pests include 
diazinon, carbaryl, permethrin, cypermethrin, fenvalerate, propoxur

and borate which is now registered in the United States for 
control of termites and other wood destroying insects, and is 
currently being successfully utilized on a commercial basis. 
Non-chemical treatments include heat and cold treatments and 
the use of microwaves. Due to these developments, EPA believes 
it is likely that methyl bromide use will decline significantly, 
and this sector will not be adversely impacted to a significant 
degree by the phaseout. 
   The principal methyl bromide replacement for commodity storage 
warehouses and food production facilities is phosphine. While 
this material is not applicable in all situations due to its 
ability to corrode certain metals, when it is combined with 
carbon dioxide the amount of phosphine needed can be significantly 
reduced, which in turn diminishes the potential for phosphine-
induced metal corrosion. As discussed in the proposal (58 FR 
15014), other treatments include heat, cold, modified atmospheres, 
and inert dust. Additional research will be required in this 
area to ensure that all current users of methyl bromide will 
have acceptable replacements by 2001. Here, target pests and 
control options must be well defined in order to utilize pest 
control materials which are specific to the situation. 

5. Analysis of Costs and Benefits 

   EPA received comments that in the March proposal it had not 
adequately addressed the costs and benefits of action to phase 
out methyl bromide. On the contrary, EPA included extensive 
documents in the docket which examined the uses of methyl bromide 
and the applicability and costs of various alternatives. (See 
for example, Preliminary Use and Substitutes Analysis of Methyl 
Bromide in Agricultural and Other Uses (June, 1992) and Montreal 
Protocol Assessment Update on Methyl Bromide: Science, Technology 
and Economics, UNEP (1993)). In the case of health and
environmental 
impacts, the Protocol's assessment update provides significant 
information on the likely impact of continued use of methyl 
bromide on stratospheric ozone. 
   In comments received on the proposed rule, the MBWG conducted 
its own cost-benefit analysis (``Comparing the Costs and Benefits 
of EPA's proposed Phaseout of Methyl Bromide''). This analysis 
purports to calculate benefits based on EPA's methodology and 
findings used in past regulatory impact analysis. It calculates 
costs based primarily on an economic impact study performed 
by NAPIAP and discussed in detail in the previous section of 
this notice. The MBWG study concludes that the benefits of the 
methyl bromide phaseout in 2000 would be $19-29 million dollars 
and the costs would be $5-9 billion. This analysis is flawed 
for many reasons. The benefits calculations are drawn from an 
analysis of the impact of increased emissions of CFC-11. This 
scenario completely excludes the impact of bromine on stratospheric

ozone depletion and therefore very substantially understates 
the magnitude of depletion. The benefits of avoided ozone depletion

from CFC-11 occur over a period of 200 years, whereas the benefits 
from decreased emissions of methyl bromide occur within five 
to ten years. This factor is omitted from the MBWG's analysis. 
The analysis of the costs of phasing out methyl bromide
dramatically 
overstates estimates for the reasons discussed in detail above 
in the critique of the NAPIAP study. The cost estimates assume 
an immediate phaseout, assume no additional alternatives are 
available in 2000, assume that no improvements in the use of 
existing alternatives are feasible, and assume that the market 
response by farmers is in some cases simply to abandon their 
fields. 
   EPA conducted an extensive review of the costs and benefits 
of its final action on methyl bromide (see, ``The Cost and Cost-
Effectiveness of the Proposed Phaseout of Methyl Bromide,'' 
EPA, 1993). This study includes the latest information on the 
costs and effectiveness of potential new alternatives by the 
year 2001 and on the costs and benefits of improved utilization 
of existing alternatives. The Agency estimates the total costs 
of a phaseout from 1994-2010 to be $1.7-2.3 billion. The benefits 
analysis contained in this report reflects the key assumptions 
about manmade emissions, impact on ozone of bromine, and likely 
growth in use absent regulations that are contained in the Protocol

assessment update report. Based on this reasonable set of
assumptions, 
EPA calculates the benefits of the final rule phasing out methyl 
bromide to be between $244 and $952 billion. (The benefits for 
the phaseout of methyl bromide between 1994 and 2010 is between 
$14 and 56 billion). These benefits result primarily from avoided 
cases of non-melanoma skin cancer. The range in values results 
from different estimates for the value associated with a human 
life. 

6. Group Assignment and Baseline Year 

   Whenever a substance is added to the list of class I substances,

section 602(c)(1) provides that the Agency assign it to an existing

group or create a new group. The Agency proposed to create a 
new group (Group VI) following the historical precedent of actions 
both under the Montreal Protocol and the CAA. 
   Since the Agency did not receive any substantive comments 
on this aspect of its proposal, today's final rule adopts that 
approach. For the reasons summarized above and elaborated on 
in the proposal, methyl bromide will be listed as Group VI within 
the list of class I substances. 
   EPA proposed using 1991 as the base year for determining 
the level at which to set the production and consumption cap. 
This was chosen because it is the last year prior to discussions 
to regulate this compound and therefore avoids the possibility 
of companies increasing production in an effort to increase 
their baseline. The same reasoning was used in setting the
appropriate 
year for other substances covered in both the CAA and the Montreal 
Protocol. The baseline established in the Montreal Protocol 
for methyl bromide is also 1991. 
   The only comment on this issue supported this year as the 
baseline. For the reasons stated above, today's final rule adopts 
1991 as the baseline. In a separate notice (58 FR 40048), EPA 
had requested data to support the development of both a 1991 
consumption and production baselines for allocating allowances. 
EPA published proposed allowances based on 1991 levels on November 
9, 1993 in the Federal Register. The Agency intends to publish 
final allowances before the end of the calendar year in order 
to implement the freeze established in this rule beginning January 
1, 1994. 
   In an important distinction between the Montreal Protocol 
and this rule, EPA has not excluded quarantine and preshipment 
uses from its baseline and from the coverage of this regulation. 
Thus, the Agency intends to maintain records on both the baseline 
and annual production and consumption without the exemption 
of quarantine and preshipment uses as required under the CAA 
and with those exemptions as specified in the Copenhagen Amendments

to the Montreal Protocol. 

7. Interim Reductions and Phaseout Schedule 

   EPA is obligated under the CAA to impose the schedule of 
reductions called for in section 604 unless under section 602(d) 
it can demonstrate that such a schedule is unattainable. In 
its place, the Act appears to require the Agency to adopt the 
most stringent attainable phaseout schedule. 
   The proposed schedule for methyl bromide was to freeze
production 
in 1994 and to maintain that level until the 2000 phaseout. 
EPA's rationale behind this schedule was that some near-term 
alternatives for methyl bromide existed, but for many of these, 
additional testing and government approval would be required, 
which could take several years. Moreover, additional time is 
essential to allow for the testing of newly developed substitutes 
and to allow for a comparison of different alternatives to
determine 
which would be most beneficial in terms of efficacy and in terms 
of impact on the environment. 
   The Agency received many comments on the issue of interim 
reductions. One group of commenters urged the Agency to make 
deep reductions in the early years because of the availability 
of substitutes and other methods of reducing use. Many other 
commenters pointed to the lack of currently available alternatives 
and argued against any interim reduction steps. 
   EPA recognizes that in some cases alternatives are already 
available and could be shifted to in the near-term. The Agency 
encourages methyl bromide users to make these shifts. Moreover, 
recent requirements in California seek to reduce use and emissions 
through reduced dosage, deeper injections and thicker tarps 
in an effort to reduce ambient exposures and reduce health risks. 
These efforts will also reduce use, as much as 10-20% according 
to one commenter. However, the Agency expects that such reductions 
in use will primarily serve to offset the historic growth rate 
in the use of methyl bromide. While EPA encourages these and 
other near-term efforts to reduce use and emissions, the Agency 
does not believe at this time that an adequate case exists for 
relying on these measures as the basis for interim cuts, and 
instead believes that they will primarily offset increasing 
demand for methyl bromide. 
   While the Agency believes that several alternative fumigants, 
including such compounds as metam sodium, telone, and dazomet 
could be widely used as replacements for methyl bromide, it 
recognizes that some time will be required for this shift to 
occur. Regulatory hurdles, equipment modifications, more extensive 
field testing, and improved application techniques are all reasons 
why the Agency cannot now conclude that a more stringent near-
term schedule be un is attainable. Furthermore, as discussed, 
many non-fumigant alternatives may also be viable options to 
replace methyl bromide. These alternatives, including soil
sterilization, 
crop rotation, and plant breeding, will take several years or 
longer to develop and evaluate. In order to allow for these 
alternatives to be fully developed and evaluated, and to provide 
adequate time for regulatory approvals through EPA and USDA, 
today's final rule does not impose any interim reductions on 
production or consumption of methyl bromide prior to the phaseout. 
   Consistent with the provisions of section 602(d), today's 
final action allows the full seven years after January 1 of 
the year after the compound is listed for a phaseout. For the 
reasons discussed earlier in this notice, the phaseout of methyl 
bromide would be required by January 1, 2001 instead of 2000 
as proposed. 
   EPA received many comments calling for EPA to allow the maximum 
time permitted under the statute. These comments generally argued 
that the additional time is needed to allow for the development 
and approval of alternatives. Given the considerable uncertainties 
in knowing how long it will take for a full complement of
alternatives 
to be developed and implemented, the Agency believes it would 
be prudent at this time to permit the additional year prior 
to the phaseout. However, the Agency will continue to review 
the development and implementation of alternatives and could 
decide at some future date that an earlier phaseout is attainable. 
8. Labeling 

   Today's rule does not directly deal with labeling requirements 
under section 611; once a compound is listed as class I, then 
labeling would be required one year after the designation becomes 
effective (see, 40 CFR 82.102). EPA has determined that activities 
involved in growing, harvesting, storing and transporting food 
are part of an agricultural process that falls outside the intent 
of Congress to require labeling on products ``manufactured with'' 
a class I or II substance. Thus, containers of methyl bromide 
would be required to be labeled beginning on January 1, 1995, 
but products treated with methyl bromide would not require
labeling. 
   EPA received comments both supporting this interpretation 
of its labeling rule and arguing that labeling of these products 
was clearly intended by Congress and that providing this
information 
to consumers was precisely the intent of section 611. 
   EPA recognizes that the general purpose of alerting consumers 
that certain goods were produced in a manner that may cause 
harm to stratospheric ozone could apply to certain agricultural 
products for which methyl bromide is used. Nevertheless, the 
Agency believes that the section 611 requirement that products 
``manufactured with'' a class I or II substance should reasonably 
be interpreted to not apply to agricultural products as such 
products are grown and not manufactured. 
   The ordinary sense of the phrase ``manufactured with'' does 
not include agriculture. The dictionary defines ``manufacture'' 
to mean making something made ``from raw materials by hand or 
by machinery.'' (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983)).

Fruits and vegetables are generally not made from raw materials 
by hand or machinery. EPA further believes that labeling products 
raises issues that Congress did not foresee in enacting section 
611. For example, applying the labeling provision to agricultural 
products for which methyl bromide is used is practically more 
difficult than labeling of most manufactured products. Raw
agricultural 
products are ordinarily not packaged in the same manner as other 
manufactured products. In many if not most cases, consumers 
purchase fruits and vegetables without any packaging at all. 
Labeling such produce would be particularly difficult. 

9. Essential Uses 

   EPA asked for comment in its proposal on whether it has the 
statutory authority under section 604 to grant essential use 
exemptions for methyl bromide. EPA received one comment on this 
issue suggesting that it has such authority and that limits 
on essential uses specified in section 604 deal only with those 
compounds already listed and should not in any way restrict 
the Agency's flexibility in crafting essential uses for newly 
listed substances. Another commenter suggested that the Agency 
should go back to Congress for explicit authority to grant
essential 
uses. 
   EPA believes that it is premature at this time to attempt 
to resolve this issue. If, as the phaseout date approaches, 
it becomes clear that important uses are still without substitutes,

the Agency anticipates it would seek an appropriate remedy. 

V. Addition of Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the List of 
Class I Substances and to the Phaseout Schedule 

   In today's rule, the Agency is adding
hydrobromofluorocarbons(HBFCs) 
as group VII, class I controlled substances. These chemicals 
have a parallel chemical structure to the HCFCs, with bromine 
atoms taking the place of chlorine atoms. Multiple ODPs of these 
chemicals were agreed to by the Parties of the Montreal Protocol 
as part of the 1992 Amendment which phases out these compounds 
by January 1, 1996. As explained in other parts of this rule, 
the Agency expects these amendments to enter into force during 
the first few months of 1994. The multiple values contained 
in the Protocol Amendment on the ODPs of the listed HCFCs do 
not reflect scientific uncertainties. The upper value of the 
ODP range provided is the estimate for the isomer with the highest 
ODP, and the lower value is the estimate of the ODP for the 
isomer with the lowest ODP. The Parties to the Protocol at their 
meeting in Copenhagen agreed that the ODP for these chemicals 
shall be the upper value in the range, and that these chemicals 
should be phased out by January 1, 1996. All the upper ODP values 
for the HBFCs ODPs exceed 0.2. 
   As provided under section 602(e) of the Clean Air Act, the 
ODP of a substance specified under section 602 shall be consistent 
with the ODP specified for that substance under the Protocol. 
Also section 602(a) provides that the Administrator shall add 
to the class I list all substances that the Administrator
determines 
to have an ODP of 0.2 or greater. The Agency is assigning ODPs 
to the HBFCs based on the isomers with the highest ODP, consistent 
with the approach taken under the protocol. Because such ODPs 
are above 0.2, the Agency is adding the HBFCs to the class I 
list. The Agency has assigned HBFCs to group VII of the class 
I chemicals. 
   Once listed, these chemicals are subject to the phaseout 
schedule specified in section 604 of the Clean Air Act. However, 
section 606(a)(3) provides authority for accelerating the phaseout 
of class I substances on the grounds that the Montreal Protocol 
is modified to include a schedule that is more stringent than 
the schedule otherwise applicable under title VI. Section 614 
provides that in case of conflict between any provision of title 
VI and any provision of the Montreal Protocol, the more stringent 
provision shall govern. Therefore, the Agency is adopting the 
schedule agreed to by the Parties in Copenhagen to phase out 
these chemicals by January 1, 1996. 
   Furthermore, EPA had proposed, and today makes final, a freeze 
on the production and consumption of HBFCs, starting January 
1, 1994 at 1991 baseline levels. The Agency is aware of only 
one HBFC in production, HBFC-22B1, used as a fire suppressant 
with an ODP of 0.74. Use of this chemical is extremely limited, 
and it is only manufactured by one company. As a result, EPA 
does not anticipate any significant economic consequences from 
the phaseout of HBFCs. 
   EPA published a Federal Register notice requesting data on 
1991 production and consumption of HBFCs for the purposes of 
establishing baselines and allowances. Based on responses to 
that request, EPA published proposed allowances on November 
9, 1993, and intends to publish final allowances before the 
end of the year to implement the freeze beginning January 1, 
1994. 

VI. Trade Restrictions 


A. Description of Proposed and Final Requirements 

   In order to implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act, 
the decisions of the 4th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 
Protocol, and the London and Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal 
Protocol, EPA proposed and is today requiring a number of
restrictions 
on trade with foreign states that are not Parties to the Protocol 
or its amendments. The trade restrictions being promulgated 
by this rule add to existing trade restrictions promulgated 
in 1990 (see 40 CFR 82.4(d)). Specifically, today's actions 
require a ban on bulk exports of controlled substances from 
the U.S. of Annex A substances (Class I, Groups I and II) to 
foreign states that are not Party to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. 
While this provision will not be legally effective until the 
effective date of today's rulemaking, EPA had asked U.S. companies 
to comply with this trade ban. All indications suggest compliance 
has occurred. Today's rule also imposes a ban on bulk imports 
and exports of controlled substances listed in Annex B to the 
Protocol (Class I, Groups III, IV, and V) from and to foreign 
states, respectively, that are non-Parties to the London Amendment.

While this provision also will not be legally effective until 
the effective date of today's rulemaking, EPA has asked all 
relevant companies to ban the import and export of these chemicals 
effective August 10, 1993, the effective date of the relevant 
Protocol provision. Finally, today's rulemaking imposes a ban 
on imports from foreign states not Party to the 1987 Montreal 
Protocol of specified products listed in Annex D to the Protocol 
that contain the controlled substances specified in Annex A 
(Group I and II, Class I controlled substances). This provision 
will become effective January 10, 1994. The EPA proposal notified 
all companies of the applicability of these provisions. 
   The Montreal Protocol provides, and EPA is also allowing 
an exception from the trade bans for foreign states that are 
not Party to the Protocol, but have been determined by a Meeting 
of the Parties to the Protocol to be in compliance with Articles 
2A to 2E and 4 of the Protocol. This includes countries that 
have complied with the terms of decision IV/17c of the 4th Meeting 
of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, which provisionally 
determined compliance until the 5th Meeting of the Parties
(November, 
1993 Bangkok) for certain non-Parties that submitted specified 
data by March 31, 1993. A list of those qualifying countries 
can be found in appendix C, Annex 2 of this rule. An updated 
list of countries which are Party to the Protocol and its
amendments 
can be found in appendix C, Annex 1. Over the last several months, 
the number of Parties to the Protocol has been increasing at 
a relatively fast pace. As a consequence, EPA will update the 
list of Parties to the Protocol every other month. One commenter 
noted that EPA must make this list available as readily and 
easily as possible. A dated list of Protocol Parties and Parties 
qualifying for an exemption from the Protocol's trade bans can 
be obtained by calling EPA's Stratospheric Protection Hotline 
at 1-800-296-1996. The Agency will update this list every two 
months, and companies may trade with the newly added countries 
without EPA rulemaking. 
   Finally, in the proposed rule, EPA asked for comment on whether 
the information requirements currently in place for trade in 
bulk chemicals should be applied to the importation of controlled 
products. As noted below, one commenter stated that the
recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements discussed in the proposal were unduly 
burdensome, and that EPA should rely on U.S. Custom's records 
for this information. EPA had not formally proposed recordkeeping 
and has decided not to impose such information requirements. 
Since the publication of the proposed rule, the number of Protocol 
Parties has risen from 91 to 126, and there is every indication 
that additional Parties will be joining shortly. The current 
list of countries complying with the Protocol includes all known 
producers, and since all Protocol Parties are under an obligation 
to ban the export of controlled substances to non-Parties, the 
possibility that non-Parties would be producing and exporting 
products which contain controlled substances is narrow. Given 
these circumstances, EPA believes that it would be overly
burdensome 
to require such information for importation of controlled products.


B. Response to Major Comments 

   One commenter misunderstood EPA's description of the
relationship 
of Taiwan to the Montreal Protocol. In the proposed rule, EPA 
affirmed that the trade provisions of the Protocol only apply 
to ``a State not party to the Protocol,'' and noted that Taiwan, 
which did not fall under this Protocol category as a state, 
had nonetheless submitted data to the Protocol secretariat
indicating 
that it was in compliance with the control provisions of the 
Protocol. The commenter asked for clarification as to what action 
EPA would take if Taiwan were found at some future date to be 
out of compliance with those provisions. Should that situation 
arise, EPA would review its options and would take actions
consistent 
with U.S. laws and policies to strongly encourage full and prompt 
compliance with the Montreal Protocol. 

C. Legal Authority 

   As discussed in more detail in the proposal, section 615 
of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with the authority to promulgate 
these trade restrictions. That section authorizes the Agency 
to promulgate regulations, if in the Administrator's judgment, 
any substance, practice, process, or activity may reasonably 
be anticipated to affect the stratosphere and such effect may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 
These trade bans imposed by this rulemaking would prevent shipments

of ozone depleting substances from the U.S. to countries with 
no regulatory infrastructure to control their use. Limiting 
access in this way will reduce their release of such substances 
into the atmosphere, thereby, reducing effects on public health 
and welfare. Moreover, the bans on imports to the U.S. from 
non-Party foreign states of controlled substances and products 
would help discourage shifts of production to non-Party foreign 
states to the Protocol by eliminating the U.S. as a market for 
such production. 

D. Definitions 

   As proposed, in this final rule, EPA has further defined 
Parties to the Protocol in the regulation to distinguish Parties 
complying with the original 1987 Montreal Protocol, the 1990 
London Amendments and the 1992 Copenhagen Amendments. 

E. Foreign States not Party to the Protocol 

   Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol provides foreign states 
which are not Party to the Protocol with a mechanism to demonstrate

compliance with key Protocol provisions and seek exemption from 
the Protocol's trade measures against non-Parties. Specifically, 
paragraph 8 of Article 4 states that trade with non-Parties 
will be permitted if a meeting of the Parties finds those states 
to be in full compliance with Articles 2, 2A to 2E and 4 of 
the Protocol. It is anticipated that once granted, such status 
will be reviewed by each subsequent meeting of the Parties to 
ensure continuing compliance with the relevant Protocol provisions.

   At the 4th Meeting of the Parties, the Parties reviewed the 
data submission of Colombia, and based on their demonstration 
of compliance, decided to suspend measures against that non-
Party. Additionally, by Decision 4/17C, the Parties decided 
to determine provisionally, pending a final decision at the 
5th Meeting of the Parties, that any foreign state non-Party 
to the Protocol which submitted data by March 31, 1993, was 
in compliance with the relevant provisions and could be exempt 
from the trade restrictions until the 5th Meeting of the Parties 
when that data could be reviewed. Fourteen non-Parties to the 
Montreal Protocol submitted data based on that decision.
Additionally, 
eight non-Parties to the London Amendment to the Protocol submitted

data. Due to the timing of their submissions, EPA was not able 
to list in the proposed rule those countries with interim status 
as a Foreign State not Party to the Montreal Protocol but complying

with Montreal Protocol and/or the London Amendment. 

VII. Changes in Definition of Production 


A. Definition of Production 

   In the March 18 proposal, EPA proposed to define ``production'' 
as the manufacture of a controlled substance from any raw material 
or feedstock chemical, but not to include: ``(1) The manufacture 
of a controlled substance that is subsequently transformed; 
(2) the reuse or recycling of a controlled substance; or (3) 
amounts that are destroyed by the approved technologies.'' The 
current definition of ``production'' excludes controlled substances

that are subsequently transformed and the reuse or recycling 
of a controlled substance. 
   In today's rule, in response to a variety of comments to 
be discussed in this section, the definition of production is 
revised to mean ``the manufacture of a controlled substance 
from any raw material or feedstock, but does not include: 
   (1) The manufacture of a controlled substance that is to 
be subsequently transformed; 
   (2) The reuse or recycling of a controlled substance; 
   (3) The manufacture of a controlled substance that is
subsequently 
destroyed by one of the five approved technologies, to the extent 
that destruction is considered to have occurred under this rule; 
and 
   (4) Controlled substances that are vented or spilled
unintentionally.'' 
   Several commenters indicated that after the phaseout, production

allowances would no longer be available to produce controlled 
substances intended to be transformed or destroyed, using the 
current system of expending production allowances and applying 
to EPA to receive allowance reimbursement for controlled substances

that are transformed. In response to those comments, along with 
revising the definition of production, EPA is also revising 
its approach to requiring production and consumption allowances 
in cases where controlled substances are to be transformed or 
destroyed. 
   Under today's rule, production and consumption allowances 
are required only for the ``production'' of controlled substances 
that will result in emissive uses. As a result, producers of 
ozone-depleting chemicals that are to be used as feedstock do 
not need to expend allowances to manufacture these chemicals. 
That is also true for producers of such substances that are 
manufactured for production processes that will result in their 
destruction. Similarly, allowances are not required when importing 
reused or recycled substances. The changes in the definition 
of production will serve to facilitate business operations by 
eliminating the need for EPA's paperwork related to refunding 
and trading allowances in these limited situations. The Agency 
believes that these changes will assist industry in their business 
operations, but have no significant impact upon the ozone layer. 

1. Transformation 

   a. Changes in Treatment of Transformation. Under the current 
regulations, producers expend production and consumption allowances

when producing and importers expend consumption allowances when 
importing controlled ozone-depleting substances (except for 
carbon tetrachloride produced as a feedstock). When the chemicals 
are sold to a second party and subsequently transformed, new 
allowances are provided to that second party transformer upon 
request. These allowances are then traded back to the producing 
company by the transforming firm. 
   Several commenters, although agreeing with the proposed
definition 
of production, indicated that the current administrative procedures

for dealing with transformation and destruction under the allowance

system should be modified. Since, only after a company transformed 
the controlled substance and submitted documentation to EPA 
that transformation occurred, would EPA ``refund'' those allowances

expended, commenters indicated that allowances should not be 
required for the production of ozone-depleting substances that 
are to be transformed or destroyed. 
   Commenters further indicated that these requirements pose 
significant burdens upon industry. The paperwork and staff time, 
both for industry and EPA, to grant and trade allowances is 
excessive, and it may be months before a producer had allowances 
returned. The EPA recognizes that as the number of allowances 
becomes smaller with the annual reduction schedule, producers 
will become hard pressed for available allowances. It is not 
EPA's intent to hinder business operations that are allowed 
under the Montreal Protocol (i.e., production for transformation 
is not limited). Finally, EPA recognizes that under the current 
program, no manufacturer could produce past 1995 except for 
essential uses and exports to Article 5 countries, since no 
allowances will be available. 
   Consequently, EPA's procedures of the allowance system for 
ozone-depleting substances are now changed. In essence, the 
Agency is now extending the system previously applicable only 
to carbon tetrachloride transformation to other controlled
substances. 
Because controlled substances that are transformed are excluded 
from the definition of production, producers that transform 
or sell to purchasers that transform do not need allowances 
for such production. Companies that buy these chemicals for 
transformation purposes will no longer need to request allowance 
redemptions once transformation has occurred, and thus will 
no longer need to trade those allowances back to the producers. 
This change would be imperative once U.S. production and imports 
of controlled substances is fully phased out. Without such changes,

companies would be unable to produce controlled substances that 
were to be transformed or later destroyed after use. 
   The Agency does recognize that some production may have been 
intended for emissive uses and allowances expended, to produce 
those chemicals but they are later transformed. In these cases, 
EPA intends to allow persons to redeem those allowances where 
persons certify that transformation has occurred (see discussion 
on certifications below). 
   b. Recordkeeping and Reporting Changes Relative to
Transformation. 
In addition to the simplification of the program to eliminate 
the unnecessary requesting and trading of allowances, EPA will 
require only annual reports from companies that transformed 
ozone-depleting chemicals. To track transformation on a quarterly 
basis, EPA will rely upon producers' quarterly reports which 
will record the volume of chemical sold for transformations. 
The Agency found tracking transformation between producers' 
reports and transformers' reports difficult. Generally, chemicals, 
once produced, are sold, used, or put into inventory. In some 
cases, companies will stretch out inventory over years. This 
makes it difficult for EPA to match production intended for 
transformation to when it is actually consumed or transformed. 
Consequently, EPA has decided to eliminate the transformer's 
quarterly report. However, EPA has not eliminated recordkeeping 
by companies that consume these chemicals as feedstock. EPA 
will audit transformers to ensure compliance with the requirements 
of this regulation. Transformers must maintain the following 
records as is currently required under the existing program: 
dated records of the quantity and level of each controlled
substance 
transformed; copies of the invoices or receipts documenting 
the sale or transfer of the controlled substance to the person; 
dated records of the names, commercial uses, quantities of the 
resulting chemicals, and dated records of shipments to purchasers 
of the resulting chemicals; dated records of all shipments of 
controlled substances received by the person, and the identity 
of the producer or importer of the controlled substances; and 
dated records of inventories of controlled substances at each 
plant on the first day of each quarter. 
   Companies that purchase class I controlled substances and 
then transform those controlled substances must report the annual 
volume transformed within 45 days of the end of the control 
period. 
   In the case where production and/or consumption allowances 
are expended and the substance is later transformed, a person 
who transforms may receive allowances for transformation of 
controlled substances. The person must submit the following 
information: the identity and address of the person who transformed

the substance; the quantity and level of controlled substance 
transformed; a copy of the invoice or receipt documenting the 
sale of the controlled substance; the name, quantity and
verification 
of the commercial use of the resulting chemical transformed; 
and signature of the certifying party. The person must also 
certify that the production of the controlled substance expended 
either production and/or consumption allowance. The Agency believes

that this information is necessary to ensure that transformation 
has occurred. 

2. Destruction 

   In today's action, the Agency is implementing in its regulation 
a recent decision of the Parties in Copenhagen that addressed 
destruction (Decision IV/11), removing controlled substances 
to be destroyed under certain conditions from the definition 
of ``production.'' As will be described below, EPA believes 
that the implementation of this decision is consistent with 
House-Senate Conference Report that accompanied the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990, and will provide more clarity as to 
the definition of production and the conditions under which 
destruction is allowed. Today's rule eliminates from the definition

of production those ozone-depleting chemicals that are to be 
destroyed, similar to the manner in which transformation of 
such chemicals falls outside of the definition of production. 
The Agency believes that this change poses insignificant
environmental 
harm and lessens the administrative burden of the current
regulation. 
   a. Elimination of Coincidental Unavoidable Byproducts Provision.

As a result of actions by the Parties to the Protocol regarding 
destruction, the need for the current coincidental unavoidable 
byproducts (CUBP) provision is eliminated. Under the current 
regulations, that provision allows for an exemption from production

restrictions for any controlled substance that is a coincidental 
unavoidable byproduct and is subsequently contained and destroyed 
by the maximum achievable control technology, or MACT. With 
today's rule eliminating those quantities of controlled substances 
destroyed from the definition of production, the CUBP provision 
becomes unnecessary and duplicative. Therefore, as proposed, 
today's rule deletes the CUBP provision of the current phaseout 
regulations. Commenters supported the striking of the CUBP
provision, 
given the treatment to be afforded through the destruction and 
insignificant quantities (see discussion below) provisions outlined

in the proposal and followed through in today's final rulemaking. 
   b. Destruction-Background. Under the existing Protocol,
``production'' 
of controlled substances is defined as ``the amount of controlled 
substances produced, minus the amount destroyed by technologies 
to be approved by the Parties.'' At the Fourth Meeting of the 
Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the Parties approved five 
destruction technologies to be used for destroying controlled 
substances. 
   With the approval of the five destruction technologies-liquid 
injection incineration, reactor cracking, gaseous/fume oxidation, 
rotary kiln incinerators, and cement kilns, Parties to the Protocol

can now subtract from the definition of production that amount 
of controlled substance(s) that is destroyed by these means, 
under certain conditions discussed below. 
   Liquid injection incinerators are typically single-chamber 
units with waste burners. They may also include liquid injection 
stages of a multiple-chamber incinerator. These incinerators 
are used to destroy wastes with a low ash content and can be 
used to destroy sludge, slurry, vapor, or combustible liquid. 
Liquid wastes are burned in suspension after being injected 
through burners and atomized to fine droplets. 
   A reactor cracking process uses a cylindrical graphite, water-
cooled reactor and an oxygen-hydrogen burner system. Since 1983, 
this process has treated waste gases resulting from the production 
of CFCs. The gases are converted to hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric

acid, carbon dioxide, chlorine, and water. The two acids are 
usable in-house and/or marketable, and the chlorine is scrubbed, 
leaving only water vapor, oxygen, and carbon dioxide as waste 
gases. 
   Gaseous/fume oxidation destroys waste vapor streams, most 
often volatile organic compounds. A combustion temperature of 
around 1100 degrees centigrade is needed to destroy most ozone-
depleting compounds. Acid gas scrubbers are required for
incineration 
of halogenated waste vapors, such as those from controlled
substances. 
Fume incinerators can be direct flame incinerators, consisting 
of the combustion chamber and a burner, or recuperative fume 
incinerators that use heat exchangers to preheat the waste vapor 
feed stream or the combustion air. Fume incinerators are usually 
found in chemical process or manufacturing plants. 
   Rotary kiln incinerators can handle a wide variety of both 
solid and liquid wastes. Rotary kiln incinerators typically 
have at least two combustion chambers, the afterburner ensuring 
that complete combustion of exhaust gases takes place. Liquid 
wastes can be fed either into the rotary kiln area or directly 
into the afterburner chamber. If fed into the afterburner chamber, 
the liquid is atomized in the burner or combustion zone. 
   Cement kilns, under proper operation, can destroy most organic 
chemical wastes. Tests have been conducted using CFC-113, with 
a destruction efficiency of greater than 99.99 percent
demonstrated. 
Destruction of ozone-depleting substances in cement kilns appears 
beneficial. 
   c. Definition of Destruction/Change in Definition of Production.

In today's rulemaking, the Agency defines ``destruction'' as 
``the expiration of a controlled substance to the destruction 
efficiency actually achieved, unless considered completely
destroyed 
as defined by this section. Such destruction does not result 
in a commercially useful end product and uses one of the following 
controlled processes. . .'' The Agency believes it has the
authority 
to develop this definition to be consistent with the Protocol. 
While section 601 (11) of the CAA does not require EPA to exclude 
quantities of controlled substances that are destroyed from 
the definition of ``production,'' EPA believes it has the
discretionary 
authority to exclude from the definition of ``production''
controlled 
substances that are destroyed through the use of the technologies 
approved by the Protocol Parties at the Copenhagen meeting. 
Section 601 (11) provides that the terms `produce', `produced', 
and `production', refer to the manufacture of a substance from 
any raw material or feedstock chemical, but such terms do not 
include amounts of substances that are transformed or reused. 
   EPA notes that the Conference Report of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments stated that the ``conference agreement does not 
include a requirement to construe the term `production' in a 
manner consistent with the Protocol. The Protocol's exclusion 
for manufactured substances that are subsequently destroyed 
is too broad and does not include adequate safeguards to preclude 
abuse.'' The Conference Report then proceeded to state that 
``[i]n the course of implementing this Act, however, EPA shall 
consider whether an exclusion will be allowed on a case-by-case 
basis for the manufacture of controlled substances that are: 
(1) Coincidental, unavoidable byproducts of a manufacturing 
process; and (2) immediately contained and destroyed by the 
producer using maximum available control technologies.'' EPA 
proceeded to establish a process that exempted such production 
as CUBP, as discussed above, in the July 30, 1992 final rule 
(57 FR 33754). 
   While section 601 (11) of the CAA does not contain language 
requiring EPA to follow the Protocol in terms of excluding
destroyed 
controlled substances from production, it also does not contain 
language precluding EPA from following the Protocol Parties' 
approach to destruction. Moreover, the Conference Report assumes 
that EPA has the authority to exclude quantities that are destroyed

from production. Otherwise, Congress could not have directed 
EPA to consider excluding only certain types of destroyed
production. 
EPA believes that while it is not required to follow the approach 
of the Protocol Parties regarding destruction, it has the authority

to do so at this juncture because the approach adopted by the 
Parties, in specifically approving the five destruction
technologies, 
adequately satisfies the concerns expressed in the Conference 
Report. Those concerns were expressed at a time when it was 
not known how the Parties would treat destruction; by specifically 
approving these five technologies, the Parties have satisfied 
the concern of the House-Senate Conference Committee that the 
Protocol's exclusion associated with destruction is too broad. 
Furthermore, by requiring reliable documentation of the amount 
destroyed, EPA's implementing regulations further address the 
concerns raised in the conference language. 
   The Agency believes that with the adoption of this definition 
of destruction, a modified definition of production consistent 
with the Protocol's decision to approve the five destruction 
technologies, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
described below, the concern regarding destruction expressed 
in the Conference Report language is adequately addressed. 
   d. Treatment of Destruction. Today's rule, with its definition 
of destruction, treats destruction in a manner parallel to the 
treatment of transformation in this final rule. Those substances 
that are produced for use in production processes that result 
in their destruction, using one of the five approved destruction 
technologies, are exempt from the definition of production. 
Therefore, production and consumption allowances are not required 
for production and importation of controlled substances that 
are to be destroyed. 
   It is important to note that EPA modified the method adopted 
in this rule for treating transformation and thus, destruction, 
from the proposed rule in response to comments. While producers 
or importers transforming or destroying carbon tetrachloride 
would not have been required to hold allowances to produce or 
import under the proposal, producers and importers of other 
controlled substances, and non-producers were required to apply 
for allowance credits after transformation or destruction had 
taken place. EPA made this decision due to the number of comments 
it received requesting this treatment. The Agency believes that 
as long as there are adequate safeguards to ensure that the 
chemical is eventually destroyed, then this administrative change 
would have no impact on the environment. The Agency has
acknowledged 
that these requirements would have needed amending to implement 
the complete phaseout successfully. In today's final rule, in 
cases where the producer or an importer knows that any controlled 
substance is to be transformed or destroyed by the producer 
or importer itself or by a non-producer of the controlled
substance, 
that substance will not fall under the definition of ``production''

and ``consumption,'' negating the requirement for production 
and/or consumption allowances. 
   This rule does allow persons other than producers or importers 
to receive allowances when they destroy the controlled substance. 
Where allowances are expended in producing a substance that 
is sold for emissive use and that substance is later destroyed 
by one of the five approved technologies, the final rule is 
requiring that a certification be submitted to the Agency by 
the person requesting the allowances who destroyed the substance 
that allowances had been expended for the production or import 
of this controlled substance. 
   The person requesting these allowances should provide the 
following information: the identity and address of the person 
who destroyed the substance; the name, quantity and volume of 
controlled substance destroyed; copy of the invoice or receipt 
documenting the sale of the controlled substance to the person; 
and the destruction unit's efficiency. Finally, the person shall 
submit a certification that allowances had been expended for 
the production or import of this controlled substance. The Agency 
believes that this information, similar to the information required

for receipt of allowances for transformation, is necessary to 
ensure that destruction has occurred. 
   As will be discussed below, EPA is also requiring that each 
person who intends (knowing at the time of purchase) to destroy 
controlled substances submit to the producer or importer from 
whom they purchase those substances a verification that the 
substances they purchase will be destroyed. The purchaser or 
importer will keep this verification on file. Also discussed 
below, EPA is requiring that a one-time report be submitted 
by those who destroy controlled substances, stating the destruction

unit's destruction efficiency and the methods used to record 
the volume destroyed and those used to determine destruction 
efficiency as well as other federal or state regulations governing 
the destruction technology. The combination of these two one-
time (unless information in verification or report changes) 
requirements will supply adequate information to EPA and to 
the producer/importer, such that destruction can be confirmed. 
This will minimize the amount of information the person destroying 
will need to submit to the producer/importer after substances 
are actually destroyed. 
   All companies that destroy class I controlled substances 
must report volume destroyed during the control period within 
45 days of the end of the control period. 
   As will be explained in greater detail below, a substance 
will be considered completely destroyed if it is destroyed by 
one of the five technologies at a demonstrable destruction
efficiency 
of 98 percent or greater. Substances destroyed by one of the 
five technologies at a destruction efficiency of less than 98 
percent will be considered destroyed only to that percentage; 
thus, only that percentage of the substance that is to be destroyed

will be exempt from the definition of production. The remaining 
percentage will fall under the definition of production and 
thus require production and/or consumption allowances to produce 
or import. 
   This differs slightly from the treatment of transformation 
in this final rulemaking, in that substances transformed, meaning 
entirely consumed except for trace quantities, are exempt from 
the definition of production. There are no provisions for less 
than full transformation, except for trace quantities. A
destruction 
exemption can be obtained, however, for whatever percentage 
is demonstrated to be destroyed by one of the approved
technologies. 
   e. Response to Major Comments. EPA received numerous comments 
relative to its proposal to grant credits or exempt a controlled 
substance from the definition of ``production'' for destruction 
of the covered substances. Of those, only one stated that the 
Agency should not grant such credits or exemptions. The specific 
concern of this commenter centered around the potential ability 
of a company to transfer production credits among chemicals. 
According to the commenter, if a company had a surplus of one 
substance, destroyed that surplus, received credits, then used 
those credits to produce another substance, the Agency could 
be creating a disincentive to move out of those substances. 
   In this final rulemaking, EPA allows transfers of allowances 
to occur only within a Group (eg., Group I, which includes CFC-
11, -12, -113, -114, and -115). CFC allowances could not be 
traded for halon credits, as this commenter suggested. (Indeed, 
production of halons will be phased out in 1994, and therefore, 
no trades would occur among individual halons.) Additionally, 
all transfers of allowances among chemicals within a group must 
be adjusted according to the ODP of each substances. The Agency 
thus believes that, even in the event of an unlikely scenario 
described by the commenter, the implementation of these decisions 
will result in no environmental damage, yet will minimize
disruptions 
for companies that require controlled substances past the phaseout 
date. 
   Companies will only receive a destruction exemption for the 
volume of controlled substances that have been destroyed by 
one of these five approved destruction technologies, unless 
a 98 percent or greater destruction efficiency is achieved; 
only then would a full destruction exemption be granted. Because 
the environmental goal of this rule, as well as the whole of 
title VI, is to minimize and ultimately eliminate emissions 
of ozone-depleting chemicals, treating destruction in the same 
manner as transformation is treated in this final rule merely 
recognizes a process that destroys potential emissions of these 
substances consistent with these environmental goals. 
   The Agency received comments claiming that it is unreasonable 
to exclude from the definition of destruction those processes 
where heat or energy that may be commercially useful is produced 
as a byproduct of destruction. EPA agrees. The intent of the 
destruction process is to destroy the substance, for which a 
byproduct in the way of heat or energy may be produced, rather 
than production of an end product being the goal of the destruction

activity. Heat or energy are in fact potential byproducts of 
the process of destruction, rather than end products of the 
substance(s) itself. Therefore, EPA does not consider heat or 
energy produced as a byproduct of destruction to be considered 
an end product. As a result, the production of heat or energy 
as a byproduct of an approved destruction technology under this 
section does not preclude the substance or substances from falling 
under the definition of destruction. 
   One commenter suggested that the Agency clarify that any 
other destruction process that is later approved by the Parties 
to the Protocol and added to this list of five destruction
technologies 
should also be deemed an acceptable destruction technology under 
this rule. While EPA does not believe it appropriate to authorize 
the use of as yet unapproved destruction technologies, it intends 
to propose authorizing use of additional destruction technologies 
through future rulemakings, as such technologies are approved 
by the Parties. 
   Another commenter pointed out that, although listed properly 
in the Preamble, the regulatory text of this rulemaking listed 
the destruction technologies incorrectly, splitting out liquid 
injection incineration into two technologies-liquid injection 
and incineration. The regulatory text has now been corrected 
to include liquid injection incineration as one technology. 
   One commenter stated that controls of emissions of these 
substances by product recovery devices should be treated in 
the same manner as destruction via one of these five approved 
technologies. Another commenter stated that RCRA boilers and 
industrial furnaces should also be covered by the exemption. 
Both claimed that the end results would be avoidances of emissions.

In keeping with the intent of Congress, where concerns centered 
around too broad an exemption of a substance from the definition 
of production as a result of destruction, and in maintaining 
consistency with the decision reached by the Parties to the 
Protocol, the Agency is today allowing destruction exemptions 
only for those five destruction technologies approved by the 
Parties. 
   Another commenter requested that EPA clarify that an incidental 
use of a substance prior to destruction, adequately contained 
so as to prevent any emissions, not disqualify it from receiving 
destruction credits/exemptions. EPA expects that these substances 
will be used in a production process prior to being sent for 
destruction. Consequently, where uses of a substance occur in 
a contained environment and that substance is subsequently
destroyed, 
the destruction exemption described in this section would apply. 
   Another commenter requested that the Agency clarify that 
off-site disposal is equally acceptable in taking advantage 
of this destruction credit. If handled according to applicable 
requirements, off-site destruction should ensure the same
environmental 
benefits as on-site destruction. Consequently, as long as the 
requirements of this section are met, including all reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, off-site destruction will be 
treated in the same manner as on-site destruction. 
   A commenter expressed concern over the manner in which fugitive 
emissions are treated and accounted for. EPA has not counted 
fugitive emissions of controlled substances in its current
definitions 
of ``controlled substance'' or ``production.'' The Agency believes 
that, with the accelerated phaseout of these substances, the 
higher costs associated, and general operational efficiency 
concerns, producers and manufacturers have economic incentives 
to reduce fugitive emissions of controlled substances to a minimum.

Additionally, major sources under section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act will have requirements imposed that will necessitate minimizing

emissions of covered controlled substances. For these reasons, 
in keeping with past practice, fugitive emissions are not included 
in today's definitions of ``controlled substance'' or
``production.'' 
If EPA's expectations turn out to be wrong, and fugitive emissions 
are not kept to a minimum, EPA will revisit the matter in a 
subsequent rulemaking. 
   f. Degree of Exemption/Credit Afforded for Destruction.Under 
the current regulations, companies could only claim the CUBP 
exemption for carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform destroyed 
at a 99.99 percent efficiency. The Agency had developed this 
destruction efficiency for these two chemicals, as well as others, 
when they were characterized as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 
343(a) and 40 CFR 266.104, pursuant to the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq). In the July 
30, 1992 rulemaking for the protection of stratospheric ozone 
(57 FR 33754), the Agency adopted this definition of MACT in 
 82.4(e)(1)(v) to exempt CUBP from production limits. However, 
today's rule eliminates the CUBP provision and the Agency has 
now focused on developing standards for destruction of controlled 
substances in order to exempt those substances from the definition 
of ``production,'' making use of the Agency's experiences with 
MACT under the CUBP provision, RCRA regulations, and proposed 
CAA section 112 regulations. 
   Under RCRA, the Agency currently requires that industries 
that incinerate hazardous waste covered by the RCRA regulations 
meet ``at stack'' standards of 99.99 percent, or four nines. 
In addition to these ``at stack'' standards, RCRA also establishes 
performance standards to control fugitive emissions of hazardous 
substances which can occur at other point sources, such as waste 
storage facilities ( 264.345(d)). While there are currently 
no quantified controls for such emissions, EPA is developing 
such standards for point sources under the CAA section 112 rule. 
   Of the substances regulated by RCRA, the only controlled 
substances covered are methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. 
The remaining controlled substances are regulated under RCRA 
only when they are blended with hazardous waste, such as used 
solvents, and incinerated. 
   The Agency is today making available the granting of full 
exemption from production, or full allowance credits, based 
on the destruction of controlled substances when they are covered 
by, and operated in compliance with, RCRA section 343(a) and 
40 CFR 266.104. If the Agency were to exempt from the definition 
of production only that volume destroyed, 99.99 percent in the 
case of RCRA permitted facilities, the company would never be 
able to redeem the full amount of the chemical used, and would 
eventually be unable to obtain sufficient volumes to operate 
efficiently. 
   Under some situations, these chemicals are not covered by 
RCRA regulations, but will be covered by regulations to be
promulgated 
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The Agency published 
a proposed rule (known as the Hazardous Organic NESHAPS [HON] 
rule) on December 31, 1992 (57 FR 62608) to implement section 
112, stating that companies are required to control air emissions 
occurring in chemical manufacturing processes to the established 
MACT levels. The HON proposal covers approximately 400
manufacturing 
processes associated with the Synthetic Organic Manufacturing 
Industry (SOCMI), as well as seven non-SOCMI source categories. 
The Clean Air Act contained a list of 189 hazardous air pollutants 
(HAPS) of which a portion are known to be emitted by the above 
mentioned industries. Of those listed, the only controlled
substances 
are methyl chloroform (MCF), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) and 
methyl bromide (listed as a class I substance in today's
accelerated 
phaseout rule). 
   The HON proposal covers five kinds of emission points within 
such facilities where these substances are emitted, including 
process vents, wastewater streams, transfer operations, storage 
tanks, and equipment leaks. The Agency proposed that each emissions

source would require a ``reference control technology'' with 
specific applicability criteria, such as a 98% control efficiency 
with vapor incinerators for process vents and 95% for storage 
tanks. The HON proposes performance standards for operating 
the technologies, as well as criteria for the design of the 
control equipment.
   The Agency proposed that when organic hazardous air pollutants 
are released through process vent sources, companies may route 
these emissions to a gaseous/fume oxidation incinerator for 
destruction. The Agency has proposed that such incinerators 
operate with an efficiency of 98 percent.
   For the purposes of this rulemaking, the Agency establishes 
that when other regulations apply, such as ones promulgated 
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, rather than RCRA, and 
the 98 percent destruction efficiency is achieved by vapor
incinerators 
to which emissions of controlled substances are routed, the 
Agency will grant the full exemption or allotment of allowances 
for substances that are destroyed under these conditions.
   Several commenters claimed that there may be situations whereby 
a destruction efficiency of at least 98 percent is achieved 
through one of the approved destruction technologies, but the 
process does not fall under the jurisdiction of RCRA or section 
112 regulations. In such cases, the commenters argued, the full 
exemption for destruction should be granted. EPA agrees. EPA 
recognizes that there may be a situation in which, for example, 
a facility in which destruction at or above a 98 percent efficiency

level takes place is not a major source and thus, is not covered 
by section 112 regulations-nor is it regulated under RCRA for 
the disposal of hazardous wastes. Therefore, if a facility using 
one of these approved destruction technologies does not fall 
within the jurisdiction of RCRA or section 112 regulations, 
but achieves at least a 98 percent destruction efficiency and 
fulfills the requirements of this section (which include
documentation 
of destruction efficiency and the methods for determining that 
efficiency), a full exemption can be granted for destruction.
   Another commenter requested that the Agency define ``completely 
destroy'' in order to clarify situations in which full credit 
will be granted through destruction of these substances.
Consequently, 
EPA has added a definition of ``completely destroy'' which covers 
destruction of 98 percent or greater of the substance that is 
sent for destruction, using one of the five approved destruction 
technologies.
   The Agency recognizes that these five approved destruction 
technologies, although capable under test situations of destroying 
controlled substances at a 99.99 percent efficiency rate, may 
not be as efficient as is required for carbon tetrachloride 
and methyl chloroform covered under either RCRA or the proposed 
section 112 regulations. If the destruction efficiency in
destroying 
these controlled substances, including carbon tetrachloride 
and methyl chloroform, is below 98 percent, then EPA will exempt 
from production only those volumes that have indeed been destroyed.

For example, if an approved technology destroys only 80 percent 
of the chemical, then the Agency will only exempt the portion 
destroyed from the requirement to hold production allowances. 
Under such a program, companies that do not completely destroy 
their controlled substances would be unable to recoup, through 
allowances, their full volume of controlled substances needed 
to operate. Once the phaseout occurs, such companies will need 
to destroy close to 100 percent of the controlled substance, 
depending on technical limitations, in order to continue to 
operate at intended capacity.
   g. Standards for Destruction. In cases where a destruction 
unit falls under the jurisdiction of RCRA or section 112
regulations, 
standards are required for those units pertaining to destruction 
efficiency, combustion efficiency, flow, monitoring, etc. For 
purposes of this rulemaking, those units must fulfill the
requirements 
of the relevant regulations under which they are otherwise
regulated; 
the Agency finds no rationale for developing additional standards 
for the destruction of such controlled substances in these
regulations.
   In cases where a destruction unit is not covered by one of 
these other regulations, consistent with the decision of the 
Parties to the Protocol, the Agency encourages the adoption 
of the minimum standards and subsequent recordkeeping requirements 
set forth in chapter 5.5 of the Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory Committee

on ODS Destruction Technologies as the minimum requirements 
to be met under this section. The Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory 
Committee on ODS Destruction Technologies presents a list of 
minimum standards for pollutants emitted during destruction 
with stack concentrations for hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric 
acid, particulate, and carbon monoxide.
   The report entitled, Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory Committee 
on ODS Destruction Technologies, also recommends that atmospheric 
releases of controlled substances shall be monitored at all 
facilities with air emission discharges. For controlled substances,

this report recommends use of flow meters or continuously recording

weighing equipment for individual containers. The Agency recognizes

that flow meters are not always compatible with certain equipment. 
However, EPA requires that a means be available with which to 
monitor potential releases and actual destruction. Therefore, 
where flow meters or continuously recording weighing equipment 
is not feasible, at a minimum, containers are to be weighed 
``full'' and ``empty'' to establish quantities destroyed.
   h. Comments on Reporting and Recordkeeping Associated with 
Destruction. The Agency is requiring, consistent with the proposal,

that producers or importers of controlled substances for use 
in a production process that will result in destruction, using 
one of the approved technologies, maintain dated records of 
the quantity of controlled substances produced and sold for 
use in processes that result in destruction, and any applicable 
verifications from purchasers that the substance is to be
destroyed. 
The Agency requires this recordkeeping in order to verify
exemptions 
from production due to destruction.
   Also consistent with the proposal, producers and importers 
of controlled substances must report to the Agency the amount 
of that substance sold to each person who then subsequently 
destroys the chemical and any applicable certification showing 
that the purchaser of the controlled substance intends to destroy 
the chemical.
   Companies that both produce controlled substances and destroy 
those same substances must report the volume destroyed on their 
quarterly production report in a manner similar to that required 
for transformation. The final rule requires the same recordkeeping 
of persons who purchase controlled substances and subsequently 
destroy them as those outlined in the proposal.
   The Agency received comments expressing concern that IRS 
certificates indicating feedstock use do not address the issue 
of destruction, making the certificates meaningless as a reporting 
requirement for destruction. None of the IRS certificates relating 
to controlled substances require information on those substances 
intended to be destroyed or actually destroyed. Consequently, 
these certificates are useful for substances to be transformed, 
but not for those to be destroyed. As a result, EPA is requiring 
purchasers who intend to destroy controlled substances to provide 
producers or importers from whom they purchase a one-time
verification 
(unless any aspect of the information in the verification changes, 
thus requiring a revision) that includes the following information:

the identity and address of the person intending to destroy 
the substance; indication of whether those controlled substances 
will be completely destroyed, as defined in  82.3 of this rule, 
or less than completely destroyed, in which case the destruction 
efficiency at which such substances will be destroyed must be 
included; period of time over which the person intends to destroy 
controlled substances; and signature of the certifying party. 
The Agency believes that this information, similar to the
information 
required for receipt of allowances for transformation, is necessary

to ensure that destruction will occur. Without such verification 
information, a determination that the substances are to be
destroyed 
and that the producer is thus able to avoid expending production 
allowances for such substances would not be possible.
   Companies that purchase controlled substances that are
subsequently 
destroyed must keep the following records: the identity and 
address of the person destroying the substance; the quantity 
and level of controlled substance destroyed; a copy of the invoice 
or receipt documenting the sale of the controlled substance; 
dated records of substance received by the person and the identity 
of the person from whom the controlled substance was purchased; 
dated records of inventories of controlled substances at each 
plant on the first day of each quarter; and a copy of the
certification 
of intent to destroy, if applicable. 
   Several commenters stated that the proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, complemented by the recordkeeping 
requirements of other applicable regulatory regimes, would suffice 
for purposes of this section, and that more detailed requirements 
than what was proposed would be duplicative and unnecessary. 
As discussed above, these approved destruction technologies 
are often regulated under other statutes, such as RCRA, or are 
expected to be regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act. The implementing regulations for these statutes have detailed 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure that destruction

has taken place. The Agency agrees and believes that these regimes 
provide adequate standards as well as recordkeeping requirements; 
the Agency believes that the recordkeeping information outlined 
in the paragraph above would be maintained in response to these 
various recordkeeping requirements. At a minimum, regardless 
of the regime under which a facility is regulated, the
recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements outlined in this section are necessary 
in order to determine compliance with this final rule. 
   The Agency requested comments in the proposal on whether 
all companies that intend to destroy controlled substances should 
submit a one-time report to the Agency describing their methods 
used to record the volume destroyed and to determine destruction 
efficiency ratings. Two comments received by the Agency supported 
the one-time reporting of these methods. One commenter stated 
that the Agency should ask for the volume destroyed but not 
the method used in making that determination. EPA believes that 
in order to judge adequately whether the reported volume destroyed 
is accurate, it must know the destruction efficiency and understand

the method that is used to determine volume and degree of
destruction. 
Therefore, EPA will require the one-time report on the unit's 
destruction efficiency, and the methods used to record volume 
destroyed and to determine destruction efficiency rating. 
   The Parties to the Protocol in Copenhagen agreed that all 
Parties were to submit annual data on ozone-depleting chemicals 
destroyed. To comply with this agreement, the Agency requires 
an annual reporting requirement that all persons who destroy 
Class I and Class II chemicals report to EPA the volume destroyed 
if such a report had not been submitted to the Agency by the 
end of 120 days after the effective date of this rule. 
   Another commenter that produces controlled substances only 
as CUBPs stated that the recordkeeping required under the
destruction 
provision is more burdensome than the recordkeeping for CUBP 
production. EPA clarifies in this response that the producer 
of coincidentally produced byproducts would fall outside of 
the allowance requirements through either the insignificant 
quantity exemption of this section or due to the destruction 
of that which is produced. EPA believes that the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements associated with the destruction
exemption 
are minimal and not overly burdensome to a producer of
coincidentally 
produced byproducts. Therefore, EPA, with this rule, establishes 
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements as proposed for 
controlled substances that are destroyed. 
   3. Spills. The definition of production in both the current 
rule and the proposed regulations accompanying the March 18 
proposal includes spilled or vented controlled substances equal 
to or in excess of one hundred pounds per event. 
   The Agency received a number of comments on this aspect of 
the definition of production. Allowances are currently required 
in cases of a spill or venting that exceeds 100 pounds. Commenters 
requested that EPA delete this part of the definition of
production. 
Producers of ozone-depleting substances who currently hold
allowances 
indicated that this provision may place companies in non-compliance

after the phaseout, since allowances to cover spills would not 
be available. Once the phaseout is completed, there will be 
no means by which to comply with this requirement. Furthermore, 
commenters indicated that this provision does not allow for 
unusual circumstances. For example, a company that needs to 
quickly and safely shut down a manufacturing process may need 
to vent controlled substances. Commenters suggested that the 
Agency should rely on emission reduction rules promulgated under 
other authority by EPA to deal with venting or spill situations, 
rather than the ``zero emission'' program that would be in place 
after the phaseout. 
   The Agency agrees that requiring allowances for vents and 
spills over 100 pounds would lead to unintentional noncompliance 
following the production phaseout, since allowances will no 
longer be available. With this action, EPA is deleting spills 
from the definition of production. Therefore, allowances will 
not be expended in cases of spills or venting of any amount. 
Spills had been included in the definition of production to 
limit release of ozone-depleting chemicals. EPA believed that 
companies could avoid compliance action by the Agency if they 
over-produced and then spilled this excess production. Although 
such action is still possible, the Agency is beginning to address 
these implementation issues in preparation for the phaseout. 
With the phaseout, companies would not be placed in situations 
where they would over-produce. Once the phaseout occurs, companies 
will only produce for exempted uses. However, the Agency requires 
in today's rule that companies keep records of spills in excess 
of 100 pounds. EPA will monitor the frequency of spills through 
plant inspections and Section 114 information requests when 
appropriate. 
   While the purpose of the definition of production is not 
to control vents and spills, but to determine the need for
allowances 
for production of controlled substances, EPA agrees with commenters

that other existing and proposed EPA regulations governing controls

of spills and venting are designed to provide control of such 
emissions. The Agency believes that the proposed Hazardous Organic 
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HON) 
authorized under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act will be 
an appropriate mechanism for controlling venting of several 
of these substances. These regulations are to be published by 
EPA in early 1994. Furthermore, current regulations governing 
the accidental release of chemicals are designed to require 
appropriate action in the event of spills. 

B. Imports 

   In this final rule, EPA is modifying the requirements of 
allowances for imports to make them consistent with the
requirements 
of production allowances established in this rule. Under the 
system currently in place, importers expend consumption allowances 
to import controlled substances intended for transformation, 
and to import used or recycled controlled substances. However, 
under the regulations promulgated with today's notice, importers 
will not need to expend consumption allowances for controlled 
substances intended for transformation or destruction, or for 
ozone-depleting substances that are used or recycled. Several 
commenters requested this change to ensure consistency in the 
treatment of chemicals that are produced and chemicals that 
are imported. In addition, transformers or destroyers of imports 
for which consumption allowances were expended may redeem
consumption 
allowances and trade them back to the importer. 

C. International Issues 


1. Exports 

   Under current regulations, there is no distinction made between 
exports for emissive uses and exports for transformation.
Commenters 
have noted that under current regulations, these substances 
will no longer be able to be produced, despite an intent to 
transform or destroy, since there will be no allowances available 
after the phaseout. These commenters claim that this situation 
could severely affect the U.S. global market for feedstock, 
since several class I chemicals are feedstocks in production 
of alternatives. Without this change, commenters claim that 
many producers would be shut out of the international markets. 
   Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that industry must ensure that 
adequate controls are in place to verify that the export is 
indeed transformed or destroyed. Tracking and verifying that 
exports are transformed or destroyed proves to be much more 
difficult than for imports and domestically produced and sold 
controlled substances. Consequently, EPA retains its current 
process for handling exports. Allowances will be required for 
all exports regardless of whether they are bound for emissive 
uses or transformation or destruction. However, EPA recognizes 
the problems that this system would impose upon exporters after 
the phaseout in 1996. Therefore, the Agency intends to issue 
a supplemental rule prior to the phaseout of class I chemicals 
scheduled for the end of 1995 under this rule, in order to address 
issues involving allowances for exports. 

2. Transfers of Production Rights Between Nations 

   The phaseout regulations currently in effect provide for 
the granting of production allowances commensurate with any 
production rights transferred by foreign companies to companies 
in the United States. However, under the existing regulations, 
consumption rights are not also granted as a part of these trades. 
Under the existing program, EPA only granted production allowances 
because consumption allowances would be redeemed after production 
had been exported. The Agency had used this mechanism to ensure 
that the production had in fact been exported. This approach 
was reasonable prior to the adoption of the phaseout schedule. 
However, EPA recognizes that as the United States approaches 
the phaseout date, consumption allowances will become more limited 
and companies may be unable to wait until consumption allowances 
are redeemed for the export. Commenters have indicated that 
these provisions make the trading of production rights from 
foreign countries to companies in the U.S. of little if any 
use, because both production and consumption allowances are 
required in order to produce controlled substances for domestic 
consumption. 
   In response to this concern, the Agency will grant consumption 
allowances equal to the level of production allowances for a 
trade from another Party to the Protocol. The company receiving 
these allowances must certify that this production is intended 
for export. However, when the United States trades production 
to another country, EPA will only lower the production allowances 
for the company involved in the trade. The corresponding
consumption 
allowances would be retained in order to be used to import the 
production transferred abroad. 

D. Insignificant Quantities 

   In today's action, the Agency is implementing in its regulation 
a recent decision of the Parties in Copenhagen that addressed 
``insignificant quantities'' (Decision IV/12). Today's rule 
exempts from the definition of ``controlled substance'' a substance

produced in ``insignificant quantities.'' The Agency believes 
that this change poses insignificant environmental harm and 
lessens the administrative burden of the current regulation 
and thus changes its definition of controlled substance in today's 
rule to exempt insignificant quantities. 

1. Insignificant Quantities of Substances Other Than Methyl 
Bromide 

   EPA is also implementing the Parties' decision on insignificant 
quantities. During the Fourth meeting of the Parties to the 
Montreal Protocol held in Copenhagen November 23-25, 1992, the 
Parties approved a decision (Decision IV/12) stating that the 
definition of ``controlled substance'' will not include
insignificant 
quantities of those substances under certain conditions.
Specifically, 
it stated that in the following situations, insignificant
quantities 
of controlled substances shall not be considered to be covered 
by the definition of ``controlled substances'': 
    insignificant quantities originating from inadvertent or 
coincidental production during a manufacturing process; or, 
    insignificant quantities originating from use of controlled 
substances as process agents (including unreacted feedstocks) 
which are present in chemical substances or products as trace 
impurities. 
   Since these activities are excluded from the definition of 
controlled substances, and thus could not be counted against 
production or consumption, production and consumption allowances 
are not required in order to produce or import these substances. 
   In either of these situations, the Parties recognized that 
insignificant quantities of controlled substances may result 
or remain in a product after processing. In taking this decision, 
the Parties understood that the existence or creation of controlled

substances in these contexts were an essential consequence of 
continued production of various products (Section 2.10.4, UNEP 
report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel), were 
likely to be insignificant in quantity, and in fact, had not 
heretofore been included in the definition of controlled substance,

or taken into account by countries in their implementation of 
the current definition. Thus, the decision clarified the fact 
that CFCs and other compounds covered by the Montreal Protocol 
as controlled substances that are created or found in these 
contexts are not included within the scope of the Protocol's 
definition of controlled substance. Nevertheless, the Decision 
calls on the Parties to endeavor to take steps to minimize such 
emissions. 
   Pursuant to the decision of the Parties and comments received 
supporting this proposed action, EPA today is exempting from 
the definition of ``controlled substances'' insignificant
quantities 
of controlled substances that originate from inadvertent or 
coincidental production during a manufacturing process, from 
unreacted feedstock, or from their use as process agents and 
residual presence in chemical substances or products as trace 
impurities. This exemption will apply so long as the substances 
produced in this manner are not themselves, as distinct products, 
offered for commercial sale. 
   One commenter asked for clearer language explaining inadvertent 
production. EPA interprets inadvertent production to be production 
that occurs unintentionally as a result of a chemical reaction 
in the production process. Because the production is inadvertent, 
the substance itself is neither made for, nor offered for,
commercial 
sale. Inadvertent production occurs in small quantities, since 
production of inadvertent substances constitutes inefficiencies 
in the production process and manufacturers work to keep such 
inadvertent production to a minimum. 
   EPA carefully considered the environmental implications of 
this decision and its relationship to current regulations. First, 
as it relates to environmental protection, EPA studied available 
information, and has determined that the quantities of controlled 
substance emissions associated with the above noted situations 
are small. Estimates indicate that they are on the order of 
500 ODP-weighted metric tons worldwide. In the U.S., in many 
cases, these small emissions are reduced even further by regulatory

treatment under other EPA requirements. An example of the size 
of related production can be found in trace impurities of carbon 
tetrachloride remaining in finished products made in the U.S. 
This residual is estimated to amount to 32 metric tons per year. 
Levels of inadvertent production of controlled substances are 
also very small. For example, some carbon tetrachloride is produced

during the manufacture of chloroethanes. The worldwide estimate 
of levels expected to be emitted during these processes are 
estimated to be on the order of 100-200 ODP MT. However, carbon 
tetrachloride produced in this manner is generally not emitted; 
rather it is recycled within the plant, or, as required by RCRA, 
destroyed by an appropriate technology. A further factor which 
will help to reduce related emissions is the phaseout itself. 
By the year 2000, emissions from these situations are expected 
to constitute less then .1% of the amount of controlled substances 
produced in their baseline year. The realization of the small 
quantities involved was a factor in the Parties decision to 
exclude the insignificant quantities resulting from these processes

from the definition of controlled substances. (UNEP OzL Pro. 
4 CRP 2ter). 
   Regarding present regulatory treatment,  82.4(e) of EPA's 
current regulations provided an exemption from control for Group 
IV or V substances, if those substances were produced as a
coincidental 
unavoidable byproduct of a manufacturing process, and were
immediately 
contained and destroyed. In light of the regulations EPA is 
promulgating today concerning incidental production and
destruction, 
EPA is today repealing the current requirements of  82.4(e), 
effective with the 1994 control period. This action is being 
taken to align EPA regulations with Montreal Protocol requirements 
that will be adhered to internationally, and to eliminate the 
ambiguity of certain situations that may or may not have met 
the requirements of  82.4(e). 
   With this rule, all companies that meet these conditions 
are exempt from production and consumption control and do not 
need to file exemption requests. Finally, it fashions a more 
workable allowance system that will be necessary as the U.S. 
moves forward toward a more rapid phaseout. 
   One commenter expressed concern, given the elimination of 
the coincidental unavoidable byproduct provision, that no guidance 
is given for what constitutes an insignificant quantity. EPA 
clarifies in this response that the producer of coincidentally 
produced byproducts would either fall outside of the allowance 
requirements through the insignificant quantity exemption of 
this section or due to the destruction of that which is produced. 
While the Agency believes that a specific number or percentage 
that constitutes an insignificant quantity cannot be defined 
in terms of volume or concentration for all instances, those 
coincidentally produced byproducts that fall outside of the 
insignificant quantity realm as determined by the commenter 
can be exempted from the definition of production as a result 
of destruction of the byproduct. 
   In taking these actions, EPA is mindful of the portion of 
the Parties' decision that urges all Parties to take steps to 
minimize emissions associated with inadvertent and trace quantity 
production. In this regard, EPA reserves the right to implement 
measures to reduce such emissions in the event it finds that 
they are or have become significant. 
   In conclusion, today's rule, in implementing the decision 
of the Parties to the Protocol on insignificant quantities, 
removes from the definition of ``controlled substance'' those 
substances that are: 
    insignificant quantities originating from inadvertent or 
coincidental production during a manufacturing process; or 
    insignificant quantities originating from use of controlled 
substances as process agents (including unreacted feedstocks) 
which are present in chemical substances or products as trace 
impurities. 

2. Insignificant Production of Methyl Bromide 

   Several commenters noted that in the preamble to the proposed 
rulemaking, EPA misstated that methyl bromide was inadvertently 
produced in the production of polyethylene. In fact, methyl 
bromide is an inadvertent byproduct of the manufacture of
terephthalic 
acid (TPA) and dimethyl terapthalate (DMT), feedstocks which 
are used in the production of polyethylene terephthalate. 
   While supporting EPA's proposal to exempt inadvertent production

of methyl bromide from the definition of controlled substances, 
one commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that ``substantial'' 
emissions of methyl bromide are inadvertently produced during 
the manufacture of TPA/DMT. This commenter noted that emissions 
of methyl bromide during the production of these chemicals ranges 
from .0001 to .0007 pounds of TPA/DMT produced, making them 
non-substantial. On the other hand, one commenter noted that 
inadvertent methyl bromide emissions reported to the toxic release 
inventory showed that byproduct emissions in 1990, which can 
also come from methyl bromide manufacturing, totaled over 1.5 
million pounds, and therefore, should not be exempted from control 
as an insignificant quantity. 
   EPA's statement in the proposal regarding the magnitude of 
emissions of methyl bromide are produced stemmed from the total 
quantity of related emissions. Data provided from the 3 domestic 
manufacturers of TPA/DMT which emit methyl bromide estimated 
1990 methyl bromide emissions amounted to 2.5 million pounds. 
EPA will continue to work with the industry to reduce these 
emissions and to monitor these emissions to determine if regulatory

action is needed in the future. 
   As noted in the comments of several TPA/DMT producers, the 
3 domestic producers of TPA/DMT have committed to achieve a 
20% plus reduction in their emissions by 1997, and an 85% plus 
reduction by 2000. Several commenters noted the cost of requiring 
industry to make these reductions using presently available 
technology. Given the fact that the rules being promulgated 
today do not require any reductions in methyl bromide emissions 
until the year 2001, and the industry has committed to make 
short term reductions, EPA believes that it is prudent to let 
industry investigate new and innovative measures which will 
allow it to meet this commitment at the lowest possible costs. 
EPA will, however, continue its discussion with this industry 
in order to monitor, carefully, progress toward their commitment. 
EPA is committed to taking necessary actions to ensure that 
related emissions are indeed insignificant. 
   Several commenters noted that equity dictated that similar 
commitments to reduce inadvertent production of methyl bromide 
should be made globally to ensure that US manufactures are not 
put at a competitive disadvantage for having to comply with 
these provisions. The EPA will help to ensure that this matter 
is considered by the Parties to the Protocol in a manner which 
preserves the lead time which will be useful in the investigation 
of technological reduction options. 

VIII. Other Issues 


A. Definition of Importer 

   The March 18 Notice proposed a revision to the definition 
of ``importer'' to include the actual owner, the consignee, 
and the transferee of the import. The Agency proposed this revision

to ensure that requirements imposed on importers affected the 
parties most directly responsible for the import. 
   EPA proposed to define ``Importer'' to mean any person who 
imports a controlled substance, or a controlled product into 
the United States. ``Importer'' includes the person primarily 
liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise or an 
authorized agent acting on his or her behalf. The term could 
also include, as appropriate: 
   (1) The consignee; 
   (2) The importer of record; 
   (3) The actual owner; or 
   (4) The transferee, if the right to draw merchandise in a 
bonded warehouse has been transferred. 
   Several commenters stated that this definition was
unsatisfactory 
because it continued to list ``importers of record'' as legally 
responsible for conforming to the regulations. The commenters 
were concerned that since custom brokers often act as importers 
of record, they would be legally liable transactions. The
commenters 
believed that brokers, since they act solely for the purpose 
of facilitating the entry of goods, should be exempted from 
liability in cases where they are acting as an importer of record. 
Commenters further suggested that customs brokers, even when 
they are ``importers of record,'' are financially uninterested 
parties in those instances where they are merely acting as nominal 
importers. 
   The commenters also suggested that, as an alternative, the 
proposed regulations be modified to include a hierarchy of persons 
to be held responsible for imports. The commenters believed 
that such an enforcement hierarchy will indicate that the customs 
broker would be held responsible for regulatory compliance only 
in those situations where there is no owner/purchaser and no 
consignee set forth on the entry form and/or located in the 
United States. The following hierarchy was suggested: 
   (1) Owner; 
   (2) Purchaser; 
   (3) Consignee; 
   (4) Transferee; and 
   (5) Customs broker (if acting as the importer of record). 
   In response EPA however, has decided not to change its
definition 
of ``importer'' from the one proposed. EPA will consider adopting 
a hierarchy, such as the one suggested by the commenters, as 
part of its enforcement strategy for this program. EPA does 
not agree that all customs brokers listed as ``importers of 
record'' are financially uninterested parties. As indicated 
by the comments to the proposed rule, customs brokers provide 
services which facilitate the entry of merchandise into the 
United States. The brokers are a part of the chain of persons 
that participate in an import transaction, and fees are charged 
for the services that are provided. As a result, EPA views customs 
brokers as knowledgeable professionals regarding import matters. 
In light of these considerations, EPA has included customs brokers 
who act as importers of record in its list of persons responsible 
for import of controlled substances. 
   It should also be noted that only one party to an import 
transaction needs to hold consumption allowances for the
importation 
of a controlled substance. This issue was raised by a commenter 
who is concerned that allowances are frequently held by the 
owners or purchasers of controlled substances and not by the 
importer of record. Under this regulation, only one of the several 
parties included in the definition of importer needs to hold 
and expend consumption allowances for a particular transaction. 
However, the other parties involved in that transaction need 
to be aware of the import requirements promulgated under this 
rule. Therefore, while the ``importer of record'' need not hold 
consumption allowances, it is a part of its function to determine 
that the necessary allowances are being held and expended. 

B. Tracking Essential Uses 

   Several commenters indicated that additional changes may 
need to be made in the tracking procedures in order to accommodate 
any essential use exemptions that are granted under the Montreal 
Protocol. EPA agrees that any granted essential use exemptions 
will necessitate changes in the tracking system. Changes such 
as these will be proposed and finalized in a rulemaking to be 
initiated at a later date when provisions to allow production 
for specified essential uses are established. 

C. Addition of HCFCs to the EPCRA Section 313 List 

   The March 18 Notice indicated that the Agency published a 
Federal Register action on June 24, 1992 (57 FR 28159) proposing 
to add HCFCs to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting 
under EPCRA section 313. In that proposal EPA also solicited 
comments on alternative options for listing the HCFCs, such 
as listing those HCFCs known to be in production or commercially 
viable individually and providing some mechanism, such as a 
Significant New Use Rule, to add HCFCs that come into production 
in the future. In this proposal, EPA also identified five HCFCs 
as currently in production or commercially available. These 
are: HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, HCFC-123, and HCFC-124. 
Comments regarding this proposed rule are currently being analyzed 
and the Agency expects to issue a final rule on this matter 
in the near future. 

D. Environmental Impact Statement 

   One commenter stated that EPA is obligated to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National
Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., for its action 
to regulate methyl bromide. While EPA has extensively considered 
the environmental impacts of this action, section 7(c)(1) of 
the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA), 
15 U.S.C. 793(c)(1), exempts EPA from preparing an EIS under 
NEPA. That provision states: ``No action taken under the Clean 
Air Act shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1069.'' The Agency 
further notes that its policy statement published on May 7, 
1974 does not obligate the Agency to prepare an EIS. See 39 
FR 16186. In that policy statement, EPA recognized, prior to 
enactment of section 7(c)(1) of the ESECA, that ``[t]he Federal 
Courts of Appeals have held that the Agency need not prepare 
environmental impact statements for its environmentally protective 
activities.'' Id. While EPA announced that it would voluntarily 
prepare EISs for certain major regulatory actions specified 
in the policy statement (not including actions under the
subsequently 
enacted title VI of the Clean Air Act), the Agency made clear 
that ``[t]he voluntary preparation of impact statements in no 
way legally subjects the Agency to NEPA's requirements.'' Id.

E. Recycled and Used Controlled Substances 

   The Agency proposed to exclude recycled and used ozone-depleting

substances when calculating consumption. EPA proposed this change 
to conform the U.S.'s treatment of used and recycled controlled 
substance with a recent decision (Decision IV/24) in Copenhagen 
by the Parties to exclude such chemicals from the calculation 
of consumption. EPA received support from three commenters on 
this proposed change. 
   Prior to this Protocol decision and this rulemaking, used 
and recycled controlled substances did count as part of a country's

consumption. Within the United States, importers were required 
to hold consumption allowances to import used or recycled
controlled 
substances. In turn, an exporter could receive additional
consumption 
allowances for the export of used or recycled controlled
substances. 
   With this rule, the importation of used or recycled controlled 
substances will not require consumption allowances, and therefore 
will be unrestricted. Similarly, the exporters of used or recycled 
controlled substances will not receive consumption allowances 
for such export. 
   EPA did not describe specific recordkeeping requirements 
in the proposal, but asked for comment on the need for further 
revisions ``to effectuate this intent of the Parties.'' One 
commenter suggested that importers and exporters make some
certification 
that the shipment is ``being done properly and legally''. Although 
the commenter did not describe specifics on how this could be 
done, the Agency believes that it would be reasonable to require 
that importers and exporters state on all bills of lading and 
invoices covering shipments of used or recycled controlled
substances 
that the ``shipped product is a used or recycled controlled 
substance as defined in 40 CFR 82.3''. EPA believes that such 
documentation represents a minimal reporting burden and should 
provide adequate control to safeguard against fraud. 
   EPA proposed that importers and exporters of recycled halons 
and HCFCs report on an annual basis to EPA. EPA proposed to 
require this data in order to report these volumes to UNEP as 
required by the Protocol. The Agency received no comments on 
this provision and therefore requires such reports within 45 
days after the end of each control period. 

F. Transhipments 

   The Agency proposed to exclude transhipments of bulk controlled 
substances from the consumption limits for the United States. 
EPA proposed this exclusion to implement Decision IV/14 of the 
Parties. Transhipments are shipments of bulk chemicals from 
one party to another through the United States that are not 
repackaged within the United States. The United States serves 
only as a shipping corridor for the controlled substances. EPA 
did not receive any comments on this issue. With this final 
rule, the Agency excludes transhipments from the consumption 
limits. Companies that tranship must keep records that the
transhipment 
does not enter interstate commerce in the United States. 

G. Publication of the Regulatory Text 

   Some commenters have suggested EPA was obligated to publish 
proposed regulatory text. EPA believes its March 18 proposal 
that explained the basis and purpose of its intended actions 
and notified the public of the availability of the regulatory 
text was legally sufficient. 
   Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act applies to ``promulgation 
or revision of regulations under title VI (relating to stratosphere

and ozone protection)'' to govern the rulemaking procedures 
here. See section 307((d)(1)(I). That subsection specifically 
provides that: notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published 
in the Federal Register, as provided under section 553(b) of 
title 5, shall be accompanied by a statement of its basis and 
purpose and shall specify the period available for public comment. 
* * * The statement of basis and purpose shall include a summary 
of-
   (A) The factual data on which the proposed rule is based; 
   (B) The methodology used in obtaining the data and in analyzing 
the data; and 
   (C) The major legal interpretations and policy considerations 
underlying the proposed rule. 
   Section 553(b) of title V (the Administrative Procedure Act, 
or APA) provides, in turn, that ``general notice of proposed 
rule making shall be published in the Federal Register. * * 
* The notice shall include- * * * either the terms or substance 
of proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issued 
involved.'' 
   Clean Air Act section 307(d) nowhere mentions publication 
of the terms of substance of a proposed rule. Furthermore, APA 
section 553(b) clearly offers an agency the choice of whether 
to include the terms of substance of the proposal or a description 
of the subjects and issues involved. EPA's extensive discussion 
of the subjects and issues involved in its proposal, published 
on March 18, thus satisfies the publication requirements of 
the Clear Air Act and APA. 
   In any case, the published rule provided adequate notice 
to apprise interested parties of the subject of the rulemaking 
in order to afford them a meaningful opportunity to participate 
and comment on the issues involved. See, e.g., Florida Power 
& Light Co. v. United States, 846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1988); 
South Carolina ex rel. Tindal v. Block, 717 F.2d 874, 885 (4th 
Cir. 1983); Small Refiners Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 
705 f.2D 506, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (cases summarizing purpose 
of notice to provide opportunity to comment). There is no question 
that EPA's published proposal sufficiently alerted interested 
parties of the likely alternatives being considered within the 
scope of the proceedings for the final rule. See Spartan
Radiocasting 
Co. v. FCC. 619 f.2d 314, 321 ((4th Cir. 1980) (proposal must 
notify persons of likely alternatives so that they know whether 
their interests are at stake); see also Bonney Motor Express, 
Inc. v. United States, 640 F.2d 646, 650 (5th Cir. 1981)(final 
rule can be substantially different from proposal if proposal 
fairly apprised interested parties of subject and issues before 
the Agency). 
   EPA did in fact notify the public in the published proposal 
that regulatory language could be obtained through the EPA hotline,

and provided a telephone number for obtaining it. See 58 FR 
15014 (March 18, 1993). The regulatory language was available 
before the public hearing held on April 2, 1993, and the public 
of course also had an opportunity to comment on the proposed 
regulatory language by the close of the comment period on May 
19. 

IX. Changes From the Proposal and Current Program 

   This section discusses the changes EPA has made in this final 
rule and how they differ from the proposed rule and the current 
program. 

 82.1   Purpose and Scope.

   This section changes slightly from the current rule to include 
the new definition of consumption, and the trade provisions. 
There are no changes from the proposal. 

 82.2   Effective date.

   January 1, 1994, is the effective date for this rule, except 
for  82.4(d) and 82.3(h) and (l) which are effective January 
10, 1994. The effective date for the listing of methyl bromide 
as a class I controlled substance is December 10, 1993. 

 82.3   Definitions.

   Section 82.3 contains some modifications to definitions or 
additions to definitions. In the final rule, a new subsection 
(g) has been inserted, defining ``completely destroy'', which 
means to cause the expiration of a controlled substance at a 
destruction efficiency of 98 percent or greater, using one of 
the destruction technologies approved by the Parties. 
   A new paragraph (h) was inserted in  82.3 in the proposed 
rule and is retained in this final rule, defining ``complying 
with the Protocol'' to mean when referring to a foreign state 
not Party to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the London Amendments, 
or the Copenhagen Amendments, as indicated in appendix C to 
this subpart by a meeting of the Parties as noted in the records 
of the Directorate of the United Nations Secretariat to be in 
full compliance with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol 
specified in Article 4 paragraph 8 of the Montreal Protocol. 
   A new paragraph (i) was inserted in the proposed rule and 
is retained in this final rule, defining ``consumption'' to 
mean the production plus imports minus exports of a controlled 
substance (other than transhipments, or recycled or used controlled

substances). 
   A new paragraph (l) was inserted in the proposed rule and 
is retained in the final rule, defining ``controlled product'' 
as a product that contains a controlled substance listed as 
a class I, Group I or II substance in appendix A of the rule, 
and that belongs to one or more of six categories of products, 
which include automobile and truck air-conditioning units, domestic

and commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning/heat pump 
equipment, aerosol products (except medical aerosols), portable 
fire extinguishers, insulation boards, panels and pipe covers, 
and pre-polymers. The definition also states that controlled 
products include, but are not limited to, those products listed 
in appendix D to this subpart. 
   Current paragraph (i), defining ``controlled substance,'' 
was modified in the proposal and in this final rule, with the 
modified definition of ``controlled substance'' becoming paragraph 
(m). Also added to the new definition is a sentence explaining 
that inadvertent or coincidental creation of insignificant
quantities 
of listed substances, (1) during a chemical process, (2) resulting 
from unreacted feedstock, or (3) from the controlled substance's 
use as a process agent present in the chemical as a trace impurity 
substance being manufactured are not deemed controlled substances. 
Furthermore, the definition is modified to explain that class 
I substances are now divided into seven, rather than five groups. 
   The definition of ``CUBP,'' paragraph (j) in the current 
rule, is removed from this final rule. 
   A new paragraph (o) was inserted in the proposed rule and 
in this final rule to define ``destruction'' as the expiration 
of a controlled substance that does not result in a commercially 
useful end product and that uses one of the five destruction 
technologies (listed in the definition) approved by the Parties 
to the Protocol. In the final rule, an additional clarification 
is added, inserting ``to the destruction efficiency actually 
achieved, unless considered completely destroyed under the rule'' 
after the phrase ``expiration of a controlled substance.'' 
   A new paragraph (t) was inserted in the proposed and final 
rules, defining ``foreign state not Party to or Non-Party'' 
as a foreign state that has not deposited instruments of
ratification, 
acceptance, or other form of approval with the Directorate of 
the United Nations Secretariat, evidencing the foreign state's 
ratification of the provisions of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, 
the London Amendments, or of the Copenhagen Amendments, as
specified. 
   The definition of ``import'', new paragraph (u), was modified 
in the proposal to add to the exemptions from the definition, 
``bringing a controlled product into the U.S. when transported 
in a consignment of personal or household effects or in a similar 
non-commercial situation normally exempted from U.S. Customs 
attention.'' 
   In the proposal, the current definition of ``importer'' was 
stricken, with a revised definition inserted (new paragraph 
(v)). The revised definition of importer is any person who imports 
a controlled substance or a controlled product into the United 
States. The definition elaborates that importer includes the 
person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the 
merchandise or an authorized agent acting on his behalf. The 
term also includes, as appropriate, the consignee; the importer 
of record; the actual owner, if such a declaration and superseding 
bond has been filed; or the transferee, if the right to draw 
merchandise in a bonded warehouse has been transferred. 
   A new paragraph (w) was inserted into the proposed and final 
rules, defining ``London Amendments'' as the Montreal Protocol, 
as amended at the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 
Protocol in London in 1990. 
   Paragraph (p) of the current rule, defining ``MACT,'' is 
stricken from this final rule. 
   A new paragraph (y) was inserted into the proposed rule and 
in the final rule, defining ``1987 Montreal Protocol'' as the 
Montreal Protocol, as originally adopted by the Parties in 1987. 
   The definition of ``Party'' (paragraph (aa)) was expanded 
in the proposal and retained as such in the final rule. In the 
new definition, ``any foreign state'' is substituted for ``any 
nation.'' Added to the end of the current definition is the 
following: ``(pursuant to instruments of ratification, acceptance, 
or approval deposited with the Depository of the United Nations 
Secretariat), as having ratified the specified control measure 
in effect under the Montreal Protocol. Thus, for purposes of 
the trade bans specified in  82.4(d)(2) pursuant to the London 
Amendments, only those foreign states that are listed in Appendix 
C to this subpart as having ratified both the 1987 Montreal 
Protocol and the London Amendments shall be deemed to be Parties.''

   In the proposal, the definition of ``production'' (paragraph 
(ee)) was modified to add to exemptions from the definition, 
those amounts that are destroyed by the approved technologies. 
The final rule additionally exempts those amounts that are spilled 
or vented unintentionally, rather than only those amounts less 
than 100 pounds per event, as in the current rule and in the 
March 18, 1993 proposal. 
   A new paragraph (hh) was added in the proposal and final, 
defining ``transhipment'' as the continuous shipment of a
controlled 
substance from a foreign state of origin through the United 
States or its territories to a second foreign state of final 
destination. 
   The definition of ``unexpended consumption allowances''
(paragraph 
(ii)) was modified in the proposed rule and in the final rule 
to exclude transhipments in the part of the calculation where 
controlled substances that the person has produced or imported 
are subtracted from the total level of that person's consumption 
allowances held. 
   The final rule adds paragraph (kk) to define used or recycled 
control substances as controlled substances that have seen service 
in their intended use systems. 
   All paragraphs are re-lettered accordingly. 

 82.4   Prohibitions. 

   This section of the current rule has been replaced with new 
regulatory language. EPA has modified  82.4(a) to exempt the 
production of controlled substances that will either be transformed

or destroyed from the production allowance limit. This exemption 
is expanded from that proposed in the March 18 notice to include 
not only Group IV class I controlled substances, but all class 
I controlled substances. 
   Similarly,  82.4(b) which limits production and importation 
through consumption allowances provides for the same expanded 
exemptions as  82.4(a).
   Section 82.4(c) states the conditions when consumption
allowances 
and production allowances are used in conjunction to produce 
controlled substances. As with the current program, only
consumption 
allowances are needed to import. This section restates the
exemptions 
for production and consumption for controlled substances that 
are transformed or eventually destroyed, or those for exempted 
uses under  82.4(k). 
   Section 82.4(d) has not changed since the proposal. EPA has 
expanded the existing  82.4(d) to include not only the prohibition 
on the export or import of a Group I and Group II, class I
controlled 
substance to and from a foreign state not party to the Protocol 
(or complying with the Protocol), but also the prohibition on 
the export or import of Groups III, IV, and V, class I controlled 
substances to or from foreign states not party to the London 
Amendments (or complying with the London Amendments). Also, 
the proposal, and today's final rule, includes the prohibition 
on the importation of certain products containing group I and 
II, class I controlled substances, from foreign states not party 
to the Montreal Protocol (or complying with the Montreal Protocol).

   EPA has dropped existing and proposed  82.4(e) from this 
final rule. This subparagraph had described the accounting
procedures 
that the Agency would perform to calculate the level of
transformation 
of Group IV, class I controlled substance done in the proceeding 
control period, that would be attributed to the control period. 
As already noted, EPA found this accounting procedure cumbersome, 
and will no longer require this calculation. 
   The proceeding subparagraphs that address class II controls 
are re-alphabetized. Proposed  82.4(f) becomes (e). The Agency 
has further modified the proposed restrictions on production 
of HCFC-141b to exempt destruction, transformation, or for
exemptions 
stated in  82.4(l) (for medical devices or exports to a developing 
countries). The proposal restricted all production. Similarly, 
proposed  82.4(g) becomes (f), and provides exemptions to the 
prohibition for the import of HCFC-141b effective January 1, 
2003. These exemptions include import for the purposes of
transformation, 
destruction, or for the exemptions in  82.4(l). 
   Proposed  82.4(h) becomes (g) with the re-lettering. The 
proposal had limited production HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b to the 
level of consumption and production baseline allowances allocated 
under  82.5(h) (reserved) and  82.6(h) reserved. The Agency 
has modified this to allow exemptions under  82.4(l) (medical 
devices and exports to developing countries). The final rule 
does not allocate either production or consumption allowances 
at this time, but states that these HCFCs may only be produced 
or imported for the purposes of servicing existing equipment, 
and for transformation or destruction. 
   Proposed  82.4(j) is now  82.4(h) and, which now restricts 
the production and consumption of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b starting 
in the year 2020 to only uses that transform or destroy these 
chemicals, or for exemptions in  82.4(l). 
   Proposed  82.4(k) becomes  82.4(i). EPA has modified this 
section to restrict production and consumption of any other 
class II controlled substance that had not been previously
controlled 
to baseline production and consumption allowances defined in 
 82.5(h) or for feedstock use or transformation, for uses that 
eventually destroy the controlled substance, for use as a
refrigerant 
in equipment manufactured prior to 2020 or for exemptions in 
 82.4(l). 
   Proposed  82.4(l) becomes  82.4(j) and has been substantially 
modified. This paragraph prohibits the production or importation 
of any class II controlled substance in 2030 and beyond except 
for uses as a feedstock, where it is destroyed, or for exemptions 
in  82.4(l). 
   Proposed  82.4(n) becomes (k) and is reserved for exemptions 
for essential uses for class I controlled substances. 
   EPA has added an additional paragraph (l) that will state 
exemptions to the class II bans. As allowed under the Clean 
Air Act, excess production and consumption may be used for medical 
devices or for export to developing countries. These paragraphs 
are reserved. 

 82.5   Apportionment of Baseline Production Allowances.

   This section remains as part of the current program but now 
includes paragraphs for Groups VI and VII, class I controlled 
substances.

 82.6   Apportionment of Baseline Consumption Allowances.

   This section remains as part of the current program but now 
includes paragraphs for Groups VI and VII, class I controlled 
substances. These paragraphs are reserved.

 82.7   Grant and phased reduction of baseline production and 
consumption allowances for class I controlled substances.

   This section amends the current program to accelerate the 
phaseout in the production and consumption of class I chemicals. 
This section has not changed from the proposal except that the 
phaseout date for methyl bromide is 2001, not 2000 as proposed.

 82.8   Grant and freeze of baseline production and consumption 
allowances for class II controlled substances.

   This section continues to be reserved. The Agency had proposed 
a reduction schedule for the class II chemicals that was tied 
to an allowance system. In the development of the final rule, 
as described elsewhere, EPA controls class II chemicals under 
 82.4 of this rule through an allowances program. However, 
EPA will most likely amend this rule in the future when the 
decision to have an allowance system in place to control class 
II controlled substances.

 82.9   Availability of production allowances in addition to 
baseline production allowances.

   The Agency had not proposed changes to  82.9(a). However, 
during the comment period, EPA received comments that the dates 
cited in this section had not changed to accommodate the
accelerated 
phaseout of class I chemicals. EPA has not accelerated these 
dates in this final rule but intends to propose such changes 
in the near future.
   The Agency had not proposed any changes to  82.9(b). However, 
in this final rule, EPA will increase consumption allowances 
for a company equal to production allowances it would receive 
in a trade of production from another Party to the Protocol, 
and that such a trade of production allowances now requires 
a signed statement from a person that the increased production 
is intended for export to the Party trading its production.
   The Agency had proposed dropping the provisions of  82.9(c), 
and to establish a system where allowances could be redeemed 
for controlled substances that were transformed or destroyed. 
EPA has further modified this requirement to require persons 
requesting additional allowances to certify that allowances 
had been expended for the production of the controlled substances 
transformed or destroyed. The Agency also stipulates requirements 
for ``complete destruction'' of controlled substances.

 82.10   Availability of consumption allowances in addition 
to baseline allowances.

   For  82.10(a), The Agency proposed and makes final today 
the ability for exporters to receive additional consumption 
allowances for exports, except for controlled substances that 
are transhipped. However, EPA has expanded this exclusion to 
used or recycled controlled substances. The Agency had not included

this exclusion in the proposed regulatory text, but had discussed 
this exclusion in the preamble.
   EPA proposed to change  82.10(b) to allow persons who
transformed 
or destroyed all class I chemicals, including groups VI and 
VII, to receive additional consumption allowances upon proof 
that, indeed, the chemicals had been destroyed or transformed. 
EPA has modified this provision to require a certification that 
production and/or consumption allowances were expended in the 
production or import of the destroyed or transformed controlled 
substances requirements in  82.10(b)(1) that include the identity 
and address of the person, the name, level and quantity of the 
volume transformed or destroyed, invoice documenting sale of 
the controlled substance and the name of the resulting chemical 
of the transformation, and the efficiency of the relevant
destruction 
process.
   Section 82.10(b)(2) remains as proposed, providing for Agency 
review of these transactions. EPA has added further clarification 
of ``completely destroyed'', allowing for 100 percent redemption 
of allowances for 98 percent destruction of controlled substances.
   Finally, the current  82.10(c) is eliminated, and replaced 
by another provision that grants persons increased consumption 
allowances, when such persons receive production allowances 
for trades of production from another Party to the Protocol. 
This paragraph complements  82.9(b), and requires identical 
information. The Agency assumes that compliance with  82.9(b) 
is compliance with  82.10(c).

 82.11   Exports to Article 5 Parties.

   This section remains as proposed. However, EPA has broadened 
the exclusion to used or recycled controlled substances. The 
reporting requirements remain the same as the current program.

 82.12   Transfers.

   This section remains as proposed. EPA has deleted the
requirement 
that a statement be included that the trade is for the purposes 
of reimbursing a producer or an importer for allowances expended.

 82.13   Recordkeeping and Reporting.

   Section 82.13(a) changes the effective date to January 1, 
1993, from the January 1, 1992 effective date of the current 
phaseout rule. Final  82.13(f) differs from the proposal and 
only applies to class I substances. Paragraph (f)(2), requiring 
reporting on by-products not destroyed is deleted, because the 
destruction provisions cover this aspect in other paragraphs.
   The newly-numbered paragraph (f)(2) adds dated records of 
the quantity of each controlled substance produced at each facility

to the records that producers must maintain. Currently section 
(f)(2) refers only to Group IV references and has been eliminated, 
because all controlled substances are now being treated in a 
similar manner. Requirements for maintaining dated records of 
the sale of controlled substances for feedstock or destruction 
and copies of certifications that the substance will be transformed

or destroyed are added.
   Producers' reporting requirements currently in  82.13(f)(4) 
are now found in  82.13(f)(3). They now require production 
information for each quarter by company, rather than by plant, 
as in the current rule and the March 18, 1993 proposal. New 
subparagraph (3)(i) now only requires that production be reported, 
specifying the quantity of any controlled substance used for 
feedstock purposes; the phrase ``for controlled and noncontrolled 
substances for each plant and totaled by class I controlled 
substance for all plants owned by the producer'' has been deleted 
from that sentence in current subparagraph (4)(i). New subparagraph

(3)(ii) adds ``for use in processes resulting in destruction'' 
to the requirement in current (4)(ii) that requires that the 
amount of production for feedstock use be reported. The phrase 
``for each plant, totaled by controlled substance for all plants 
for that quarter and for the control period to date'' is deleted 
from current subparagraph (4)(iii), and current subparagraph 
(4)(iv) is deleted. Current subparagraph (4)(v) becomes (3)(iv). 
References to ``at each plant'' are removed. Additionally, ``or 
eventual destruction'' is added to current (4)(vii), now the 
new (3)(vi). Current (4)(viii), now (3)(vii), adds the requirement 
that a purchaser's destruction verification, in the case of 
destruction, be submitted, showing that the controlled substance 
is to be destroyed.
   Paragraph (5) now becomes paragraph (4).
   Recordkeeping for importers, paragraph (g), is changed as 
follows:
   Subparagraph (g)(1)(i) refers only to class I controlled 
substances. A new (g)(1)(ii) is added requiring that records 
be maintained on the quantity of controlled substances imported 
for transformation or destruction, and the quantity sold for 
each use. Current subparagraphs (ii), (iii), and (iv) now become 
(iii), (iv), and (v). Current subparagraph (v), which asks for 
port of exit, is deleted. Destruction was added in the proposal 
to the required dated records documenting sale of controlled 
substances for feedstock use; the addition is retained in the 
final rule. Added to the records to be maintained under (g)(1) 
are IRS certifications or destruction verifications that the 
controlled substances are to be transformed or destroyed,
respectively.
   Paragraph (g)(2) refers now to ``class I controlled substance'' 
and adds destruction to those reporting requirements that address 
substances imported or sold for feedstock and certifications 
that transformation is to occur. A new subparagraph (x) is added, 
requiring that the quantity of recyclable and recycled controlled 
substances imported during the quarter be reported.
   Paragraph (h) refers to how the class I controlled substances 
modification is retained in this final rule to change references 
to class I substances to controlled substances. 
   Paragraph (i) was modified in the proposal and such modification

is retained in this final rule to include destruction information 
to the recordkeeping requirements in this paragraph wherever 
transformation is addressed, in a manner parallel to transformation

(i.e., ``transform or destroy''), except where requirements 
only apply to transformation; such requirements then specify 
as such in the final rule. Any references to ``Group IV'' are 
stricken, so that the requirements apply to all controlled
substances, 
as specified in this paragraph. A new recordkeeping requirement 
has been added to paragraph (i): copy of the relevant
certifications 
of intent to transform or destroy, where substances were sold 
for transformation or destruction purposes. 
   Paragraph (j), having been retained in the proposal, is stricken

in the final rule. 
   Paragraph (k) was stricken in the proposal and remains stricken 
in this final rule. 
   A new paragraph (j) is added in the final rule that requires 
those who destroy controlled substances to provide EPA with 
a one-time report stating the destruction unit's destruction 
efficiency and the methods used to record the volume destroyed 
and those used to determine destruction efficiency. 
   A new paragraph (k) is inserted into the final rule that 
requires those who purchase and subsequently destroy class I 
controlled substances to provide the producer from whom they 
purchase the substances with a one-time (unless circumstances 
change) verification that the controlled substances they purchase 
will be destroyed. Any changes related to the verification will 
require a revised verification. 
   A new paragraph (l) is added in the final rule that requires 
persons who purchase controlled substances intended for
transformation 
to provide the producer or importer with the IRS certification 
that the controlled substances are to be used in a process
resulting 
in transformation. 
   A new paragraph (m) is added to the final rule requiring 
persons who transform or destroy controlled substances to report 
annually to EPA the volume of those substances transformed or 
destroyed. 
   A new paragraph (n) requires every person who produces, imports 
or exports class II chemicals must report its quarterly level 
of production, imports and exports of these chemicals within 
45 days of the end of each quarter. 
   Paragraph (o) contains new requirements that those who import 
or export used or recycled controlled substances label their 
bill of lading or invoice indicating that the controlled substance 
is used or recycled. 
   A new paragraph (p) requires companies that import or export 
used or recycled Group II, class I controlled substances, or 
used or recycled class II controlled substances must report 
annually. 
   Finally paragraph (q) requires records for transhipments. 

X. Impact of Final Action 

   The Agency developed a cost-benefit analysis of various possible

phaseout schedules presented in the petitions and in the comments 
as well as the schedule for the accelerated phaseout of ozone-
depleting compounds finalized by EPA today. In all the scenarios 
analyzing the various reduction schedules, the analysis yielded 
net incremental benefits of the same order of magnitude for 
all the options with the Alliance schedule yielding the least 
net incremental benefits over the current 2000 year phaseout, 
and the NRDC and EPA's proposed schedule yielding the most net 
incremental benefits, depending on the valuation of benefits. 
Given the uncertainties implicit in any cost benefit analysis 
of this kind, the net incremental benefits of these scenarios 
are approximately equal with the lower bound estimate of $175 
billion to a higher bound estimate of $790 billion (at a 2 percent 
discount rate). 
   The analysis includes cost assumptions for HCFC replacements. 
However, these costs are only hypothetical, assuming that HCFC 
replacements are between 10% and 30% more expensive than the 
HCFC themselves. EPA needed to make such assumptions since HCFC 
replacements have not been yet been identified for some important 
uses. When high replacements costs are used, the net incremental 
benefits range from $164 billion to $776 billion (at a 2 percent 
discount rate). 
   As such analysis indicates that various schedules yield
comparable 
net benefits, the Agency chose as the schedule that it is
finalizing 
today, with limited modifications, the schedule adopted in
Copenhagen 
over both the NRDC schedule and the Alliance schedule based 
on EPA's judgement on the availability of technologies and
infrastructure 
support. Although the cost-benefit analysis suggests that the 
NRDC schedule is a possible option, the analysis performed on 
that scenario assumes the widespread use of various technologies 
that are dependent on a supporting industry infrastructure that 
may not be present. It is the Agency's judgement that although 
such technologies are available, the deployment of these
technologies 
may incur significant but unaccounted for costs, as industry 
would need to adopt controls quickly without full knowledge 
of possible cost implications of their actions, and full support 
of an infrastructure necessary to support that technology. 
   For example, the RIA analysis indicates that retrofit of 
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment must occur under 
all schedules. However, the NRDC schedule requires extensive 
retrofitting with total costs approaching $9 billion (at a 2 
percent discount rate). The retrofit cost under EPA's proposed 
schedule would be substantially lower. 
   Furthermore, all of the phaseout schedules considered would 
require significant recycling and recovery at disposal. Although 
this will occur, the infrastructure necessary to provide recycling 
services, as well as to establish the bank of halons and CFCs, 
is under development, and would be severely strained under any 
accelerated phaseout. However, the Agency believes that its 
proposed schedule provides sufficient lead time for this
infrastructure 
to develop. 
   The Agency is also finalizing a less stringent schedule for 
the phaseout of HCFCs rather than the schedules suggested in 
comments by environmental groups for these chemicals. Although 
the cost-benefit analysis indicates that the NRDC schedule may 
yield higher net benefits, assuming different valuation of
benefits, 
the RIA does not calculate the possible adverse effects of the 
rapid phaseout of HCFCs required under such a schedule. The 
Agency believes that too short a period for the allowable use 
of HCFCs would further encourage the continued use of CFCs in 
the short-term by making the use of HCFCs as an alternative 
unattractive. It could also force the industry to move to untested 
alternatives that may pose unknown adverse environmental and 
health effects. For this reason the Agency is finalizing today 
a less stringent phaseout of HCFCs. The cost of the Alliance 
petition and EPA's schedule for HCFCs are comparable. 
   EPA has also used a discount rate of 4.5% as well as 7% in 
valuing future costs and benefits. When such a discount rate 
is used, the incremental cost of the accelerated phaseout (over 
the Clean Air Act phaseout) is $21 billion, with benefits ranging 
from $31 billion to $124 billion. At a 7% discount rate, the 
incremental costs are $12 billion, with benefits ranging from 
$8 billion to $24 billion. 
   EPA also examined the cost and benefits for a 2001 phaseout 
date for methyl bromide. The Agency has stated that a number 
of possible alternatives exist for users of methyl bromide, 
but that time is required for commercialization and use. EPA's 
cost analysis of these alternatives examined their likely range 
of costs, and coupled those assumptions with a monte carlo
analysis, 
presenting a set of costs, (median, mean, minimum and maximum 
costs) that could be expected with the methyl bromide phaseout. 
This analysis indicates that the minimum social cost is
approximately 
$7 million while the maximum cost is roughly $16 billion. The 
mean cost is a little more than $2 billion while the medium 
cost was estimated to be $1.7 billion. These are the total social 
costs between 1994 and 2010. These costs were discounted at 
2%. 
   EPA calculated the benefits of phasing out of methyl bromide 
by 2001 between the years 1994 and 2011. EPA estimates benefits 
for this period to range from $14 billion to 56 billion, at 
a 2 percent discount rate. The Agency estimated that costs at 
a 4.5% discount rate would be $1.2 billion with benefits ranging 
from $4 billion to $16 billion. At a 7% discount rate, the costs 
would be $.8 billion with benefits ranging from $1.6 to $6.4 
billion. 

XI. Additional Information 


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 entitlements, 
grants, user fees, 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 the Executive Order 12866, it has 
been determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory 
action'' because the final rule has an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more. As such this action was submitted 
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions 
or recommendations will be documented in the public record. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

   In the proposed rulemaking, the EPA certified, pursuant to 
section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

that the proposal would not have ``a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' During the public comment 
period, the Agency received comments suggesting that this
regulatory 
flexibility ``certification'' was not appropriate because the 
proposal failed to include a regulatory flexibility analysis 
on the impact of methyl bromide phaseout on small businesses 
(especially small farmers). 
   However, a regulatory flexibility analysis is required only 
for small entities which are directly regulated by rulemaking. 
See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 
(D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider 
the rule's impact on regulated entities and not indirect impact 
on small entities not regulated). The current rulemaking directly 
regulates only producers and importers of ozone depleting
chemicals, 
by limiting the production and importation of such chemicals, 
including methyl bromide. As indicated in the proposed rulemaking, 
the Agency did analyze which producers and importers would be 
directly regulated by the rulemaking: no small entities would 
be directly subject to the rulemaking. There are only three 
producers and one importer of methyl bromide, and only one producer

and importer of HBFCs. Since none of these entities qualify 
as small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility 
Act, no Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is needed for either 
the proposed or final rule. Accordingly pursuant to section 
605(b) of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. EPA hereby makes this certification for this 
final rule. 
   Nonetheless, the Agency, in fact, did give consideration 
to the impact of the phaseouts on users, both large and small, 
even though they will not be directly regulated by the rulemaking. 
This is out of concern for user sectors, which will need to 
find replacements for controlled substances. For CFCs, EPA has 
prepared an analysis to examine specifically the effect on the 
phaseout of existing small businesses. (The Agency is not at 
this time able to quantify the impact of the long-term phaseout 
of class II chemicals.) For these chemicals, EPA examined the 
impact of the phaseout on the user communities which may face 
increased costs during the phaseout of these chemicals. (All 
companies regulated under 40 CFR part 82, subpart A that produce 
or import are either not small businesses as defined by the 
Small Business Administration, or will simply produce or import 
the Class I alternatives, not incurring any additional cost 
to their business.) In its analysis of these impacts, EPA believed 
that the most affected sectors, household refrigeration, mobile 
airconditioners, chillers and process refrigeration, would need 
to retire or retrofit existing equipment but that consumers, 
rather than business, would bear the final costs. In some cases, 
such as industrial process refrigeration or chillers, retrofits 
will be such a small cost relative to operation costs that the 
impact will be minimal. For the other sectors, sterilization, 
solvent cleaning, portable fire extinguisher, and foam blowing, 
the alternative technologies are now readily available, and 
business closures are not expected in these sectors. 
   With regard to methyl bromide, the Agency's proposed rulemaking 
did not discuss the specific impacts on small businesses per 
se. However, the proposal did extensively consider the question 
of the impact of phaseout on users with regard to availability 
of alternatives. As a result for methyl bromide, EPA believes 
it has adopted an approach that mitigates the impact on users, 
including small businesses, to the greatest extent permissible, 
consistent with our legislative mandates. 
   As noted on page 15034 of the proposal, and in today's document,

a newly listed class I substance is automatically subject to 
the section 604(a) phaseout schedule unless: (1) The Administrator 
accelerates that schedule pursuant to section 606; or (2) the 
Administrator determines that the 604(a) schedule is unattainable 
and extends the schedule pursuant to section 602(d). 
   Under section 602(d), in the case of any substance added 
to the list of class I or II, the Administrator may extend any 
schedule or compliance deadline contained in section 604 or 
section 605 to a later date than specified in such sections 
if such schedule is unattainable, considering when such substance 
is added to the list. However, an extension under section 602(d) 
may not extend the termination of production date for a class 
I substance to a date more than 7 years after January 1 of the 
year after the year that it is listed as a class I substance. 
With today's notice, the United States will phase out production 
and consumption of methyl bromide by January 1, 2001, a full 
seven years after the January 1, following listing. As noted 
in the proposal as well in today's document, EPA believes this 
is the most flexible regulatory program allowable under the 
Clean Air Act. Moreover, by not requiring interim reductions 
prior to the phaseout, EPA is further minimizing the impact 
of this rule on methyl bromide users. 
   This final rule also notes that the labeling requirements 
of section 611 of the Clean Air Act Amendments do not pertain 
to the crops and produce that had been fumigated with methyl 
bromide. Although products that are manufactured with a class 
I substance are required to be labeled, the Agency has interpreted 
the phrase ``manufactured with'' as ``the mechanical or chemical 
transformation of materials or substances into new products 
or to assemble component products''. EPA believes that agricultural

processes are excluded from this definition of ``manufactured'', 
and that crops and produce do not need to be labeled under section 
611 of the Clean Air Act. This interpretation of the labeling 
requirement alleviates further regulatory burden on users of 
methyl bromide. 
   Finally, the Agency states that it will continue to monitor 
the development of substitutes over the next seven years, and 
that some solution to provide essential use exemptions may be 
explored if there are no substitutes, in order to prevent undue 
impacts on small businesses. 
   Given the time frame and restrictions contained in the
regulation 
of methyl bromide, an assessment of its impact on small businesses 
must look closely at both near-term and long-term impacts. For 
the next seven years, production will be frozen at 1991 levels. 
Because of on-going efforts to reduce occupational and ambient 
levels of methyl bromide, its use in many soil fumigation and 
structural applications has recently been decreasing. As a result, 
maintaining the 1991 production levels through 2001 should not 
have any economic impact on current users of methyl bromide. 
   Seven years from now, after the production phaseout in 2001, 
the impact on users will largely be driven by the costs and 
availability of alternatives. It is extremely difficult to quantify

the long-term impact of the phaseout given the existence of 
a wide range of potential alternatives either currently available 
or potentially available by the year 2001. While the document 
prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
entitled, ``The Biologic and Economic Assessment of Methyl
Bromide,'' 
attempts to calculate the costs of a methyl bromide phaseout, 
as discussed earlier, this analysis focused on an immediate 
ban and not a phaseout in 2001. Given the number of potential 
alternative chemicals and non-chemicals already under review, 
the potential exists for additional alternatives to be available 
in 2001. 
   Some alternatives available and used after 2001 may indeed 
prove to be more expensive than methyl bromide which may result 
in lower profits to users if these costs cannot be passed on 
to consumers. However, EPA has found that the impacts from
regulatory 
actions which remove pesticides from the market are mitigated 
over time as new pest control technologies are introduced and 
adjustments are made to compensate for the loss of the pesticide 
through alternative pest control practices. It is reasonable 
to expect that research efforts already underway to improve 
the performance and acceptability of metam sodium, dazomet, 
1,3-dichloropropene and other chemical and non-chemical alternative

pest control techniques will result in minimizing the impact 
of a methyl bromide phaseout to small entities. When used in 
combination, and in conjunction with a good integrated pest 
management program, these materials should be able to replace 
many if not all of the major uses of methyl bromide. Research 
is currently underway on both the governmental and academic 
levels, as well as in the private sector, to ensure that
alternative 
materials and methods will be viable and available before methyl 
bromide is phased out. 
   EPA has also considered the economic impact that the removal 
of methyl bromide may have on the American agricultural community. 
To estimate the total social cost of the phaseout, forecasting 
must include the incremental cost and likely prevalence of the 
various methyl bromide alternatives in each end use. The result 
of such an analysis, including the future costs of likely
alternatives, 
applications rates, market share, and efficacy of each alternative,

can be extremely variable due to marked differences in the
characteristics 
of various crops, soil types, and climatic conditions in various 
parts of the country. To reflect the uncertainty associated 
with a number of these key factors, EPA's analysis was performed 
using a ``monte carlo'' technique. This analysis resulted in 
an estimated total social cost of the phaseout of this chemical 
(between 1994 and 2010) varies between a low of $24 million, 
and a high of $12.2 billion, with a median total cumulative 
cost through 2010 of $1.3 billion. EPA believes that all scenarios 
except the ``high cost'' case represent acceptable impacts. 
Moreover, the high costs case represents a scenario in which 
a strong case could be made for pursuing an essential use provision

for those applications where economically viable alternatives 
do not exist. 
   As the agricultural research community and the private sector 
explore viable alternative chemicals and growing methods that 
can substitute for methyl bromide, it is likely that the majority 
of current use areas will find economically viable and
environmentally 
sound substitutes prior to the 2001 phaseout. EPA, along with 
USDA, intend to continue to work closely with the agricultural 
community to support the expedited development and review of 
these alternatives. Furthermore, the Agency intends to assess 
throughout the period leading up to the phaseout the extent 
to which substitutes may not become available for important 
uses of methyl bromide and to take timely steps to ensure that, 
if necessary, to pursue an appropriate measures to allow for 
essential uses. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

   The information collection requirements in this rule have 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have 
been assigned control number 2060-170. 
   This collection of information has an estimated reporting 
burden estimated to vary from 2 to 15 hours per response with 
an average of 9 hours per response and an estimated annual
recordkeeping 
burden averaging 250 hours per respondent. These estimates include 
time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information. 
   Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions 
for reduction of this burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; 
EPA; 401 M Street, SW. (Mail Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; 
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:

Desk Officer for EPA''. 

References 

   Cicerone, R.J., L.E. Heidt, and W.H. Pollack, ``Measurements 
of Atmospheric Bromine'' J. Geophys. Res. 94, 16639, 1989. 
   Gleason, I., et. al., ``Record Low Global Ozone on 1992'' 
Science, April 23, 1993. 
   Khalil, M.A.K., R.A. Rasmussen, and R. Gunawardena,
``Atmospheric 
Methyl Bromide: Trends and Global Mass Balance'' J. Geophys. 
Res. 98, 2887, 1993. 
   Singh, H.B. and M. Kanakidou, ``An Investigation of the
Atmospheric 
Sources and Sinks of Methyl Bromide'' Geophy Res lett, 20, 133-
136, 1993. 
   Solomon, S. and D.L. Albritton, ``Time-dependent ozone depletion

potentials for short- and long-term forecasts'' Nature 357, 
33, 1992. 
   United Nations Environment Programme, ``Environmental Effects 
of Ozone Depletion'' Nairobi, Kenya, 1991. 
   United Nations Environment Programme, ``Environmental Effects 
Panel Report'', Nairobi, Kenya, 1989. 
   United Nations Environment Programme, ``Methyl Bromide: Its 
Atmospheric Science, Technology, and Economics-Montreal Protocol 
Assessment Supplement'', 1992. 
   United States Environmental Protection Agency, ``Alternatives 
to Methyl Bromide'' prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning 
and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., 1993. 
   WMO, UNEP, NASA, NOAA, U.N. DEP, ``Scientific Assessment 
of Ozone Depletion: 1989. 
   WMO, UNEP, NASA, NOAA, U.K. DEP, ``Scientific Assessment 
of Ozone Depletion; 1991.'' 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

   Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, 
Imports, Ozone Layer, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Stratospheric ozone. 

   Dated: November 30, 1993. 

Carol M. Browner, 
Administrator. 
   Part 82, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations 
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. 7414, 7671-7671q. 

   2. Part 82 is amended by revising subpart A to read as follows: 

Subpart A-Production and Consumption Controls 
Sec. 
82.1 Purpose and scope. 
82.2 Effective date. 
82.3 Definitions. 
82.4 Prohibitions. 
82.5 Apportionment of baseline production allowances. 
82.6 Apportionment of baseline consumption allowances. 
82.7 Grant and phased reduction of baseline production and
consumption 
    allowances for class I controlled substances. 
82.8 Grant and phased reduction of baseline production and
consumption 
    allowances for class II controlled substances. [Reserved] 
82.9 Availability of production allowances in addition to baseline 
    production allowances. 
82.10 Availability of consumption allowances in addition to 
    baseline consumption allowances. 
82.11 Exports to Article 5 Parties. 
82.12 Transfers.
82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

Appendix A to Subpart A-Class I Controlled Substances 

Appendix B to Subpart A-Class II Controlled Substances 

Appendix C to Subpart A-Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

Appendix D to Subpart A-Harmonized Tariff Schedule Description 
of Products That May Contain Controlled Substances in Appendix 
A, Class I, Groups I and II

Appendix E to Subpart A-Article 5 Parties 

Appendix F to Subpart A-Listing of Ozone Depleting Chemicals 

Subpart A-Production and Consumption Controls 

 82.1  Purpose and scope. 

   (a) The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to 
implement the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 
Ozone Layer and sections 602, 603, 604, 605, 607 and 616 of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549. The 
Protocol and section 604 impose limits on the production and 
consumption (defined as production plus imports minus exports, 
excluding transhipments and used or recycled controlled substances)

of certain ozone depleting substances, according to specified 
schedules. The Protocol also requires each nation that becomes 
a Party to the agreement to impose certain restrictions on trade 
in ozone depleting substances with non-Parties. 
   (b) This subpart applies to any person that produces,
transforms, 
destroys, imports or exports a controlled substance or imports 
a controlled product. 

 82.2  Effective date. 

   (a) The regulations under this subpart take effect January 
1, 1994, except for  82.3 (h) and (l) and  82.4(d) that are 
effective January 10, 1994. The listing of methyl bromide and 
HBFCs as a class I controlled substances is effective December 
10, 1993. 
   (b) The regulations under this part that were effective prior 
to January 1, 1994 continue to apply for purposes of enforcing 
the provisions that were applicable prior to January 1, 1994. 

 82.3  Definitions. 

   As used in this subpart, the term: 
   (a) Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency or his authorized representative. 
   (b) Baseline consumption allowances means the consumption 
allowances apportioned under  82.6. 
   (c) Baseline production allowances means the production
allowances 
apportioned under  82.5. 
   (d) Calculated level means the weighted amount of a controlled 
substance determined by multiplying the amount (in kilograms) 
of the controlled substance by that substance's ozone depletion 
weight listed in appendix A or appendix B of this subpart. 
   (e) Class I refers to the controlled substances listed in 
appendix A of this subpart. 
   (f) Class II refers to the controlled substances listed in 
appendix B of this subpart. 
   (g) Completely destroy means to cause the expiration of a 
controlled substance at a destruction efficiency of 98 percent 
or greater, using one of the destruction technologies approved 
by the Parties. 
   (h) Complying with the Protocol, when referring to a foreign 
state not Party to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the London
Amendments, 
or the Copenhagen Amendments, means that the non-Party has been 
determined as complying with the Protocol, as indicated in appendix

C of this subpart, by a meeting of the Parties as noted in the 
records of the directorate of the United Nations Secretariat. 
   (i) Consumption means the production plus imports minus exports 
of a controlled substance (other than transhipments, or recycled 
or used controlled substances). 
   (j) Consumption allowances means the privileges granted by 
this subpart to produce and import class I controlled substances; 
however, consumption allowances may be used to produce class 
I controlled substances only in conjunction with production 
allowances. A person's consumption allowances are the total 
of the allowances he obtains under  82.7, 82.6 and 82.10, 
as may be modified under  82.12 (transfer of allowances). 
   (k) Control period means the period from January 1, 1992 
through December 31, 1992, and each twelve-month period from 
January 1 through December 31, thereafter. 
   (l) (1) Controlled product means a product that contains 
a controlled substance listed as a Class I, Group I or II substance

in appendix A of this subpart, and that belongs to one or more 
of the following six categories of products: 
   (i) Automobile and truck air conditioning units (whether 
incorporated in vehicles or not); 
   (ii) Domestic and commercial refrigeration and air
conditioning/heat 
pump equipment (whether containing controlled substances as 
a refrigerant and/or in insulating material of the product), 
e.g. Refrigerators, Freezers, Dehumidifiers, Water coolers, 
Ice machines, Air conditioning and heat pump units; 
   (iii) Aerosol products, except medical aerosols; 
   (iv) Portable fire extinguishers; 
   (v) Insulation boards, panels and pipe covers; and 
   (vi) Pre-polymers. 
   (2) Controlled products include, but are not limited to, 
those products listed in appendix D of this subpart. 
   (m) Controlled substance means any substance listed in appendix 
A or appendix B of this subpart, whether existing alone or in 
a mixture, but excluding any such substance or mixture that 
is in a manufactured product other than a container used for 
the transportation or storage of the substance or mixture. Thus, 
any amount of a listed substance in appendix A or appendix B 
of this subpart which is not part of a use system containing 
the substance is a controlled substance. If a listed substance 
or mixture must first be transferred from a bulk container to 
another container, vessel, or piece of equipment in order to 
realize its intended use, the listed substance or mixture is 
a ``controlled substance''. The inadvertent or coincidental 
creation of insignificant quantities of a listed substance in 
appendix A or appendix B of this subpart: (1) During a chemical 
manufacturing process, (2) resulting from unreacted feedstock, 
or (3) from the listed substance's use as a process agent present 
as a trace quantity in the chemical substance being manufactured, 
is not deemed a controlled substance. Controlled substances 
are divided into two classes, Class I in appendix A of this 
subpart, and Class II listed in appendix B of this subpart. 
Class I substances are further divided into seven groups, Group 
I, Group II, Group III, Group IV, Group V, Group VI, and Group 
VII as set forth in appendix A of this subpart. 
   (n) Copenhagen Amendments means the Montreal Protocol on 
Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, as amended at the Fourth 
Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Copenhagen 
in 1992. 
   (o) Destruction means the expiration of a controlled substance 
to the destruction efficiency actually achieved, unless considered 
completely destroyed as defined in this section. Such destruction 
does not result in a commercially useful end product and uses 
one of the following controlled processes approved by the Parties 
to the Protocol: 
   (1) Liquid injection incineration; 
   (2) Reactor cracking;
   (3) Gaseous/fume oxidation;
   (4) Rotary kiln incineration; or 
   (5) Cement kiln. 
   (p) Export means the transport of virgin, used, or recycled 
controlled substances from inside the United States or its
territories 
to persons outside the United States or its territories, excluding 
United States military bases and ships for on-board use. 
   (q) Exporter means the person who contracts to sell controlled 
substances for export or transfers controlled substances to 
his affiliate in another country. 
   (r) Facility means any process equipment (e.g., reactor, 
distillation column) used to convert raw materials or feedstock 
chemicals into controlled substances or consume controlled
substances 
in the production of other chemicals. 
   (s) Foreign state means an entity which is recognized as 
a sovereign nation or country other than the United States of 
America. 
   (t) Foreign state not Party to or Non-Party means a foreign 
state that has not deposited instruments of ratification,
acceptance, 
or other form of approval with the Directorate of the United 
Nations Secretariat, evidencing the foreign state's ratification 
of the provisions of the 1987 Montreal Protocol the London
Amendments, 
or of the Copenhagen Amendments, as specified. 
   (u) Import means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, 
or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into any place 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whether or 
not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an
importation 
within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States, 
with the following exemptions: 
   (1) Off-loading used or excess controlled substances or
controlled 
products from a ship during servicing;
   (2) Bringing controlled substances into the U.S. from Mexico 
where the controlled substance had been admitted into Mexico 
in bond and was of U.S. origin; and 
   (3) Bringing a controlled product into the U.S. when transported

in a consignment of personal or household effects or in a similar 
non-commercial situation normally exempted from U.S. Customs 
attention. 
   (v) Importer means any person who imports a controlled substance

or a controlled product into the United States. ``Importer'' 
includes the person primarily liable for the payment of any 
duties on the merchandise or an authorized agent acting on his 
or her behalf. The term also includes, as appropriate: 
   (1) The consignee; 
   (2) The importer of record; 
   (3) The actual owner; or 
   (4) The transferee, if the right to draw merchandise in a 
bonded warehouse has been transferred. 
   (w) London Amendments means the Montreal Protocol, as amended 
at the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
in London in 1990. 
   (x) Montreal Protocol means the Montreal Protocol on Substances 
that Deplete the Ozone Layer, a protocol to the Vienna Convention 
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, including adjustments 
adopted by the Parties thereto and amendments that have entered 
into force. 
   (y) 1987 Montreal Protocol means the Montreal Protocol, as 
originally adopted by the Parties in 1987. 
   (z) Nations complying with, but not joining, the Protocol 
means any nation listed in appendix C , Annex 2, of this subpart.
   (aa) Party means any foreign state that is listed in appendix 
C of this subpart (pursuant to instruments of ratification, 
acceptance, or approval deposited with the Depositary of the 
United Nations Secretariat), as having ratified the specified 
control measure in effect under the Montreal Protocol. Thus, 
for purposes of the trade bans specified in  82.4(d)(2) pursuant 
to the London Amendments, only those foreign states that are 
listed in appendix C of this subpart as having ratified both 
the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the London Amendments shall be 
deemed to be Parties. 
   (bb) Person means any individual or legal entity, including 
an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, 
municipality, political subdivision of a state, Indian tribe; 
any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United States; 
and any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 
   (cc) Plant means one or more facilities at the same location 
owned by or under common control of the same person. 
   (dd) Potential production allowances means the production 
allowances obtained under  82.9(a). 
   (ee) Production means the manufacture of a controlled substance 
from any raw material or feedstock chemical, but does not include: 
   (1) The manufacture of a controlled substance that is
subsequently 
transformed; 
   (2) The reuse or recycling of a controlled substance; 
   (3) Amounts that are destroyed by the approved technologies; 
or 
   (4) Amounts that are spilled or vented unintentionally.
   (ff) Production allowances means the privileges granted by 
this subpart to produce controlled substances; however, production 
allowances may be used to produce controlled substances only 
in conjunction with consumption allowances. A person's production 
allowances are the total of the allowances he obtains under 
 82.7, 82.5 and 82.9 as may be modified under  82.12 (transfer 
of allowances). 
   (gg) Transform means to use and entirely consume (except 
for trace quantities) a controlled substance in the manufacture 
of other chemicals for commercial purposes. 
   (hh) Transhipment means the continuous shipment of a controlled 
substance from a foreign state of origin through the United 
States or its territories to a second foreign state of final 
destination. 
   (ii) Unexpended consumption allowances means consumption 
allowances that have not been used. At any time in any control 
period a person's unexpended consumption allowances are the 
total of the level of consumption allowances the person has 
authorization under this subpart to hold at that time for that 
control period, minus the level of controlled substances that 
the person has produced or imported (not including transhipments 
and used or recycled controlled substances) in that control 
period until that time. 
   (jj) Unexpended production allowances means production
allowances 
that have not been used. At any time in any control period a 
person's unexpended production allowances are the total of the 
level of production allowances he has authorization under this 
subpart to hold at that time for that control period, minus 
the level of controlled substances that the person has produced 
in that control period until that time. 
   (kk) Used or recycled controlled substances means controlled 
substances that have been recovered from their intended use 
systems. 

 82.4   Prohibitions. 

   (a) No person may produce, at any time in any control period, 
any class I controlled substance (except for controlled substances 
that are transformed or destroyed or substances that are produced 
pursuant to an exemption as specified in paragraph (k) of this 
section) in excess of the amount of unexpended production
allowances 
for that substance held by that person under the authority of 
this subpart at that time for that control period. Every kilogram 
of excess production constitutes a separate violation of this 
subpart.
   (b) No person may produce or (except for transhipments, or 
for used or recycled controlled substances) import, at any time 
in any control period, any class I controlled substance (except 
for controlled substances that are transformed, destroyed, or 
substances that are produced or imported pursuant to an exemption 
as specified in paragraph (k) of this section) in excess of 
the amount of unexpended consumption allowances held by that 
person under the authority of this subpart at that time for 
that control period. Every kilogram of excess production or 
importation (other than transhipments or used and recycled
controlled 
substances) constitutes a separate violation of this subpart.
   (c) A person may not use production allowances to produce 
a quantity of a class I controlled substance (with the exceptions 
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section) unless he holds 
under the authority of this subpart at the same time consumption 
allowances sufficient to cover that quantity of class I controlled 
substances nor may a person use consumption allowances to produce 
a quantity of class I controlled substances (with the exceptions 
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section) unless the person 
holds under authority of this subpart at the same time production 
allowances sufficient to cover that quantity of class I controlled 
substances. However, only consumption allowances are required 
to import class I controlled substances with the exceptions 
set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. 
   (d) No person may: 
   (1) Import or export any quantity of a controlled substance 
listed in Class I, Group I or Group II, in appendix A of this 
subpart from or to any foreign state not listed as a Party to 
the 1987 Montreal Protocol unless that foreign state is complying 
with the 1987 Montreal Protocol (As noted in appendix C, Annex 
2 of this subpart); 
   (2) Import or export any quantity of a controlled substance 
listed in Class I, Group III, Group IV or Group V, in appendix 
A of this subpart, from or to any foreign state not Party to 
the London Amendments (as noted in appendix C, Annex 1, of this 
subpart), unless that foreign state is complying with the London 
Amendments (as noted in appendix C, Annex 2, of this subpart); 
or 
   (3) Import a controlled product from any foreign state not 
Party to the 1987 Montreal Protocol (as noted in appendix C, 
Annex 1, of this subpart), unless that foreign state is complying 
with the Protocol (as noted in appendix C, Annex 2, of this 
subpart). 
   (4) Every kilogram of a controlled substance, and every
controlled 
product, imported or exported in contravention of this subpart 
constitutes a separate violation of this subpart.
   (e) Effective January 1, 2003, no person may produce HCFC-
141b except in a process resulting in its transformation, use 
in a process resulting in destruction, or for exceptions stated 
in paragraph (l) of this section. 
   (f) Effective January 1, 2003, no person may import HCFC-
141b except for use in a process resulting in its transformation, 
use in a process resulting in destruction, or for exceptions 
stated in paragraph (l) of this section. 
   (g) Effective January 1, 2010, no person may produce or consume 
(excluding used or recycled controlled substances, or
transhipments) 
HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b for any purpose other than for use in a 
process resulting in their transformation, use in a process 
resulting in their destruction, for use in equipment manufactured 
prior to January 1, 2010, or for exceptions stated in paragraph 
(l) of this section in excess of baseline allowances allocated 
 82.5(h) and 82.6(h). 
   (h) Effective January 1, 2020, no person may produce or consume 
HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b (excluding used or recycled controlled 
substances, or transhipments) for any purpose other than for 
use in a process resulting in their transformation, use in a 
process resulting in their destruction or for exceptions stated 
in paragraph (l) of this section. 
   (i) Effective January 1, 2015, no person may produce or consume 
class II substance (excluding used or recycled controlled
substances, 
or transhipments) not previously controlled, for any purpose 
other than for use in a process resulting in its transformation, 
use in a process resulting in their destruction, as a refrigerant 
in equipment manufactured before January 1, 2020, or for exceptions

stated in paragraph (l) of this section, in excess of baseline 
production and consumption levels defined in  82.5(h) and 
82.6(h). 
   (j) Effective January 1, 2030 no person may produce or import 
class II substances, (excluding used or recycled controlled 
substances, or transhipments) for any purpose other than for 
use in a process resulting in their transformation, use in a 
process resulting in their destruction, or for exceptions stated 
in paragraph (l) of this section. 
   (k) The following exemptions apply to the production and 
consumption restrictions under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section: [Reserved] 
   (l) The following exemptions apply to the production and 
consumption restrictions under paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), 
(i) and (j) of this section: 
   (1) Medical Devices [Reserved] 
   (2) Exports to developing countries [Reserved] 

 82.5   Apportionment of baseline production allowances. 

   Persons who produced controlled substances in Group I or 
Group II in 1986 are apportioned baseline production allowances 
as set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Persons 
who produced controlled substances in Group III, IV, or V in 
1989 are apportioned baseline production allowances as set forth 
in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section. Persons who 
produced controlled substances in Group VI and VII in 1991 are 
apportioned baseline allowances as set forth in paragraphs (f) 
and (g) of this section. 


                                                                   
                           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
       Controlled Substance                       Person           
       Allowances (kg)     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                                   
                           
                          (a) For Group I controlled substances:   
                           
                                                                   
                           
CFC-11 ...........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............             23,082,358  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......             33,830,000  
                                    Elf Atochem,
N.A..................             21,821,500  
                                    Laroche Chemicals
................             12,856,364  
CFC-12 ...........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............             35,699,776  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co.......             64,849,000  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................             31,089,807  
                                    Laroche Chemicals
................             15,330,909  
CFC-113 ..........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............             21,788,896  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......             58,553,000  
CFC-114 ..........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............              1,488,569  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......              4,194,000  
CFC-115 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......              4,176,000  
                         (b) For Group II controlled substances:   
                           
                                                                   
                           
Halon-1211 .......................  Great Lakes Chemical Corp
........                826,487  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................              2,135,484  
Halon-1301 .......................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......              3,220,000  
                                    Great Lakes Chemical Corp
........              1,766,850  
Halon-2402 ....................... 
..................................                         
                         (c) For Group III controlled substances:  
                           
                                                                   
                           
CFC-13 ...........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............                127,125  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                187,831  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................                  3,992  
                                    Great Lakes Chemical Corp
........                 56,381  
                                    Laroche Chemicals
................                 29,025  
CFC-111 .......................... 
..................................                         
CFC-112 .......................... 
..................................                         
CFC-211 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                     11  
CFC-212 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                     11  
CFC-213 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                     11  
CFC-214 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                     11  
CFC-215 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                    511  
                                    Halocarbon Products Corp
.........                  1,270  
CFC-216  .........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                170,574  
CFC-217 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                    511  
                         (d) For Group IV controlled substances:   
                           
                                                                   
                           
CCl4 .............................  Akzo Chemicals, Inc
..............              7,873,615  
                                    Degussa Corporation
..............                 26,546  
                                    Dow Chemical Company, USA
........             18,987,747  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                  9,099  
                                    Hanlin Chemicals-WV, Inc
.........                219,616  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................                853,714  
                                    Occidental Chemical Corp
.........              1,059,358  
                                    Vulcan Chemicals
.................             21,931,987  
                          (e) For Group V controlled substances:   
                           
                                                                   
                           
Methyl chloroform ................  Dow Chemical Company, USA
........            168,030,117  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                      2  
                                    PPG Industries, Inc
..............             57,450,719  
                                    Vulcan Chemicals
.................             89,689,064  
                    (f) For Group VI controlled substances:
[Reserved]                         
                                                                   
                           
                   (g) For Group VII controlled substances:
[Reserved]                         
                                                                   
                           
                    (h) For class II controlled substances:
[Reserved]                         
                                                                   
                           
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴


 82.6   Apportionment of baseline consumption allowances. 

   Persons who produced, imported, or produced and imported 
controlled substances in Group I or Group II in 1986 are
apportioned 
chemical-specific baseline consumption allowances as set forth 
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. Persons who produced, 
imported, or produced and imported controlled substances in 
Group III, Group IV, or Group V in 1989 are apportioned chemical-
specific baseline consumption allowances as set forth in paragraphs

(c), (d), and (e) of this section. Persons who produced, imported, 
or produced and imported controlled substances in Group VI or 
VII in 1991 are apportioned chemical specific baseline consumption 
allowances as set forth in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. 


                                                                   
                      
                                                                   
                      
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
       Controlled substance                       Person           
     Allowances (kg)  
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                                   
                      
                       (a) For Group I controlled substances:      
                      
                                                                   
                      
CFC-11 ...........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............        22,683,833  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......        32,054,283  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................        21,740,194  
                                    Hoechst Celanese Corporation
.....           185,396  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................         1,673,436  
                                    Kali-Chemie Corporation
..........            82,500  
                                    Laroche Chemicals
................        12,695,726  
                                    National Refrigerants, Inc
.......           693,707  
                                    Refricentro, Inc.
................           160,697  
                                    Sumitomo Corporation of America
..             5,800  
  CFC-12 .........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............        35,236,397  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......        61,098,726  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................        32,403,869  
                                    Hoechst Celanese Corporation
.....           138,865  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................         1,264,980  
                                    Kali-Chemie Corporation
..........           355,440  
                                    Laroche Chemicals
................        15,281,553  
                                    National Refrigerants, Inc
.......         2,375,384  
                                    Refricentro, Inc
.................           242,526  
CFC-113 ..........................  Allied-Signal, Inc.18,241,928
....                    
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......        49,602,858  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................           244,908  
                                    Holchem
..........................           265,199  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................         2,399,700  
                                    Refricentro, Inc
.................            37,385  
                                    Sumitomo Corporation of America
..           280,163  
CFC-114 ..........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............         1,429,582  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......         3,686,103  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................            22,880  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................            32,930  
CFC-115 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......         2,764,109  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................           633,007  
                                    Hoechst Celanese Corporation
.....             8,893  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................         2,366,351  
                                    Laroche Chemicals
................           135,520  
                                    Refricentro, Inc
.................            27,337  
                       (b) For Group II controlled substances:     
                      
                                                                   
                      
Halon-1211 .......................  Elf Atochem, N.A
.................           411,292  
                                    Great Lakes Chemical Corp
........           772,775  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................         2,116,641  
                                    Kali-Chemie Corporation
..........           330,000  
Halon-1301 .......................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......         2,772,917  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................            89,255  
                                    Great Lakes Chemical Corp
........         1,744,132  
                                    Kali-Chemie Corporation
..........            54,380  
Halon-2402 .......................  Ausimont
.........................            34,400  
                                    Great Lakes Chemical Corp
........            15,900  
                      (c) For Group III controlled substances:     
                      
                                                                   
                      
CFC-13 ...........................  Allied-Signal, Inc
...............           127,124  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......           158,508  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................             3,992  
                                    Great Lakes Chemical Corp
........            56,239  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................             5,855  
                                    Laroche Chemicals
................            29,025  
                                    National Refrigerants, Inc
.......            16,665  
CFC-111                                                            
                      
CFC-112 ..........................  Sumitomo Corporation of America
..             5,912  
                                    TG (USA) Corporation
.............             9,253  
CFC-211 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                11  
CFC-212 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                11  
CFC-213 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                11  
CFC-214 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                11  
CFC-215 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......               511  
                                    Halocarbon Products Corp
.........             1,270  
CFC-216 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......           170,574  
CFC-217 ..........................  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......               511  
                       (d)For Group IV controlled substances:      
                      
                                                                   
                      
CC14 .............................  Crescent Chemical Co
.............                56  
                                    Degussa Corporation
..............            12,466  
                                    Dow Chemical Company, USA
........         8,170,561  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......            26,537  
                                    Elf Atochem, N.A
.................                41  
                                    Hanlin Chemicals-WV, Inc
.........           103,133  
                                    Hoechst Celanese Corporation
.....                 3  
                                    ICC Chemical Corp
................         1,173,723  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................           855,466  
                                    Occidental Chemical Corp
.........           497,478  
                                    Sumitomo Corporation of America
..                 9  
                       (e) For Group V controlled substances:      
                      
                                                                   
                      
Methyl Chloroform ................  3V Chemical Corp
.................             3,528  
                                    Actex, Inc
.......................            50,171  
                                    Atochem North America
............            74,355  
                                    Dow Chemical Company, USA
........       125,200,200  
                                    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co
......                 2  
                                    IBM
..............................             2,026  
                                    ICI Americas, Inc
................        14,179,850  
                                    Laidlaw
..........................           420,207  
                                    PPG Industries
...................        45,254,115  
                                    Sumitomo
.........................             1,954  
                                    TG (USA) Corporation
.............             7,073  
                                    Unitor Ships Service, Inc
........            14,746  
                                    Vulcan Chemicals
.................        70,765,072  
                 (f) For Group VI controlled substances: [Reserved]
                      
                                                                   
                      
                 (g) For Group VII controlled substances:
[Reserved]                      
                                                                   
                      
                 (h) For Class II controlled substances: [Reserved]
                      
                                                                   
                      
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



 82.7   Grant and phased reduction of baseline production and 
consumption allowances for class I controlled substances. 

   For each control period specified in the following table, 
each person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline 
production and consumption allowances apportioned to him under 
 82.5 and 82.6. 


                                                                   
                                     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                      Class I      Class I     
Class I      Class I      Class I      Class I   
 
                     substances   substances  
substances   substances   substances   substances
  
  Control period     in groups     in group    
in group    in group V    in group     in group  
 
                     I and III   II (percent) IV
(percent)  (percent)   VI (percent)     VII      

                     (percent)                   
                                    (percent)    
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                 
                                                 
1994 .............           25            0     
     50           50          100          100   
1995 .............           25            0     
     15           30          100          100   
1996 .............            0            0     
      0            0          100            0   
1997 .............            0            0     
      0            0          100            0   
1998 .............            0            0     
      0            0          100            0   
1999 .............            0            0     
      0            0          100            0   
2000 .............            0            0     
      0            0          100            0   
2001 .............            0            0     
      0            0            0            0   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴


 82.8  Grant and phased reduction of baseline production and 
consumption allowances for class II controlled substances.
[Reserved] 

 82.9  Availability of production allowances in addition to 
baseline production allowances. 

   (a) Every person apportioned baseline production allowances 
for class I controlled substances under  82.5 (a) through (e) 
is also granted potential production allowances equal to: 
   (1) 10 percent of his apportionment under  82.5 for each 
control period ending before January 1, 2000; and 
   (2) 15 percent of his apportionment under  82.5 for each 
control period beginning after December 31, 1999 and ending 
before January 1, 2011 (January 1, 2013 in the case of methyl 
chloroform). 
   (3) A person may convert potential production allowances, 
either granted under this paragraph (a) or obtained under  
82.12 (transfer of allowances), to production allowances only 
to the extent authorized by the Administrator under  82.11 
(Exports to Article 5 Parties). A person may obtain authorizations 
to convert potential production allowances to production allowances

by requesting issuance of a notice under  82.11 or by completing 
a transfer of authorizations under  82.12. 
   (b) A person may also increase or decrease its production 
allowances by trading with another Party to the Protocol. A 
nation listed in appendix C, Annex 1 of this subpart (Parties 
to the Montreal Protocol) must agree either to transfer to the 
person for the current control period some amount of production 
that the nation is permitted under the Montreal Protocol or 
to receive from the person for the current control period some 
amount of production that the person is permitted under this 
subpart. A request for production allowances shall also be
considered 
a request for consumption allowances under  82.10(c). 
   (1) For trades from a Party, the person must obtain from 
the principal diplomatic representative in that nation's embassy 
in the United States a signed document stating that the appropriate

authority within that nation has established or revised production 
limits for the nation to equal the lesser of the maximum production

that the nation is allowed under the Protocol minus the amount 
transferred, the maximum production that is allowed under the 
nation's applicable domestic law minus the amount transferred, 
or the average of the nation's actual national production level 
for the three years prior to the transfer minus the production 
allowances transferred. The person must submit to the Administrator

a transfer request that includes a true copy of this document 
and that sets forth the following: 
   (i) The identity and address of the person; 
   (ii) The identity of the Party; 
   (iii) The names and telephone numbers of contact persons 
for the person and for the Party; 
   (iv) The chemical type and level of production being
transferred; 
   (v) The control period(s) to which the transfer applies; 
and 
   (vi) A signed statement by the person that this increased 
production is intended as an export to the Party. 
   (2) For trades to a Party, a person must submit a transfer 
request that sets forth the following: 
   (i) The identity and address of the person; 
   (ii) The identity of the Party; 
   (iii) The names and telephone numbers of contact persons 
for the person and for the Party; 
   (iv) The chemical type and level of allowable production 
to be transferred; and 
   (v) The control period(s) to which the transfer applies. 
   (3) After receiving a transfer request that meets the
requirements 
of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the Administrator may, 
at his discretion, consider the following factors in deciding 
whether to approve such a transfer: 
   (i) Possible creation of economic hardship; 
   (ii) Possible effects on trade; 
   (iii) Potential environmental implications; and 
   (iv) The total amount of unexpended production allowances 
held by United States entities. 
   (4) The Administrator will issue the person a notice either 
granting or deducting production allowances and specifying the 
control periods to which the transfer applies, provided that 
the request meets the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section for trades from Parties and paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section for trades to Parties, unless the Administrator has 
decided to disapprove the trade under paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section for trades to Parties. For a trade from a Party, the 
Administrator will issue a notice that revises the allowances 
held by the person to equal the unexpended production allowances 
held by the person under this subpart plus the level of allowable 
production transferred from the Party. For a trade to a Party, 
the Administrator will issue a notice that revises the production 
limit for the person to equal the lesser of: 
   (i) The unexpended production allowances held by the person 
under this subpart minus the amount transferred; or 
   (ii) The unexpended production allowances held by the person 
under this subpart minus the amount by which the United States 
average annual production of the controlled substance being 
traded for the three years prior to the transfer is less than 
the total allowable production allowable for that substance 
under this subpart minus the amount transferred. The change 
in allowances will be effective on the date that the notice 
is issued. 
   (5) If after one person obtains approval for a trade of
allowable 
production of a controlled substance to a Party, one or more 
other persons obtain approval for trades involving the same 
controlled substance and the same control period, the Administrator

will issue notices revising the production limits for each of 
the other persons trading that controlled substance in that 
control period to equal the lesser of: 
   (i) The unexpended production allowances held by the person 
under this subpart minus the amount transferred; or 
   (ii) The unexpended production allowances held by the person 
under this subpart minus (the amount by which the United States 
average annual production of the controlled substance being 
traded for the three years prior to the transfer is less than 
the total allowable production for that substance under this 
subpart) multiplied by the amount transferred divided by (the 
total amount transferred by all the other persons trading the 
same controlled substance in the same control period) minus 
the amount transferred by that person. 
   (iii) The Administrator will also issue a notice revising 
the production limit for each person who previously obtained 
approval of a trade of that substance in that control period 
to equal the unexpended production allowances held by the person 
under this subpart plus the amount by which the United States 
average annual production of the controlled substance being 
traded for the three years prior to the transfer is less than 
the total allowable production under this subpart multiplied 
by the amount transferred by that person divided by (the amount 
transferred by all of the persons that have traded that controlled 
substance in that control period). The change in production 
allowances will be effective on the date that the notice is 
issued. 
   (c) A person may obtain production allowances for that
controlled 
substance equal to the amount of that controlled substance produced

in the United States that was transformed or destroyed within 
the United States in cases where production allowances were 
expended to produce such substance in accordance with the
provisions 
of this paragraph. A request for production allowances under 
this section will be considered a request for consumption
allowances 
under  82.10(b). 
   (1) A person must submit a request for production allowances 
that includes the following: 
   (i) The identity and address of the person; 
   (ii) The name, quantity, and level of controlled substance 
transformed or the name, quantity and volume destroyed; 
   (iii) A copy of the invoice or receipt documenting the sale 
of the controlled substance to the person; 
   (iv) A certification that production allowances were expended 
for the production of the controlled substance; 
   (v) If the controlled substance is transformed, the name, 
quantity, and verification of the commercial use of the resulting 
chemical transformed; and 
   (vi) If the controlled substance is destroyed, the efficiency 
of the destruction process. 
   (2) The Administrator will review the information and
documentation 
submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section and will assess 
the quantity of class I controlled substance that the documentation

and information verifies was transformed or destroyed. The
Administrator 
will issue the person production allowances equivalent to the 
controlled substances that the Administrator determines were 
transformed or destroyed. For controlled substances completely 
destroyed under this subpart, the Agency will grant allowances 
equal to 100 percent of volume intended for destruction. For 
those controlled substances destroyed at less than a 98 percent 
destruction efficiency, the Agency will grant allowances
commensurate 
with that percent of destruction efficiency that is actually 
achieved. The grant of allowances will be effective on the date 
that the notice is issued. 
   (3) If the Administrator determines that the request for 
production allowances does not satisfactorily substantiate that 
the person transformed or destroyed controlled substances as 
claimed, or that modified allowances were not expended, the 
Administrator will issue a notice disallowing the request for 
additional production allowances. Within ten working days after 
receipt of notification, the person may file a notice of appeal, 
with supporting reasons, with the Administrator. The Administrator 
may affirm the disallowance or grant an allowance, as he finds 
appropriate in light of the available evidence. If no appeal 
is taken by the tenth day after notification, the disallowance 
will be final on that day. 

 82.10   Availability of consumption allowances in addition 
to baseline consumption allowances. 

   (a) Any person may obtain, in accordance with the provisions 
of this section, consumption allowances equivalent to the level 
of class I controlled substances (other than used or recycled 
controlled substances or a transshipment) that the person has 
exported from the United States and its territories to a Party 
(as listed in appendix C, Annex 1 of this subpart), other than 
a transshipment. 
   (1) The exporter of the class I controlled substances must 
submit to the Administrator a request for consumption allowances 
setting forth the following: 
   (i) The identities and addresses of the exporter and the 
recipient of the exports; 
   (ii) The exporter's Employer Identification Number; 
   (iii) The names and telephone numbers of contact persons 
for the exporter and the recipient; 
   (iv) The quantity and type of controlled substances exported;
   (v) The source of the controlled substance and the date
purchased; 
   (vi) The date on which and the port from which the controlled 
substances were exported from the United States or its territories;

   (vii) The country to which the controlled substances were 
exported; 
   (viii) The bill of lading and the invoice indicating the 
net quantity of controlled substances shipped and documenting 
the sale of the controlled substances to the purchaser; and 
   (ix) The commodity code of the controlled substance exported. 
   (2) The Administrator will review the information and
documentation 
submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and will assess 
the quantity of controlled substances that the documentation 
verifies was exported. The Administrator will issue the exporter 
consumption allowances equivalent to the level of controlled 
substances that the Administrator determined was exported. The 
grant of the consumption allowances will be effective on the 
date the notice is issued. 
   (b) A person may obtain consumption allowances for that
controlled 
substance equal to the amount of a controlled substance either 
produced in or imported into the United States that was transformed

or destroyed in the United States in the case where consumption 
allowance were expended to produce or import such substance 
in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 
   (1) A person must submit a request for consumption allowances 
that includes the following: 
   (i) The identity and address of the person; 
   (ii) The name, quantity, and level of controlled substance 
transformed or the name, quantity and volume destroyed; 
   (iii) A copy of the invoice or receipt documenting the sale 
of the controlled substance to the person; 
   (iv) A certification that production and/or consumption
allowances 
were expended for the production and/or import of the controlled 
substance; 
   (v) If the controlled substance is transformed, the name, 
quantity, and verification of the commercial use of the resulting 
chemical transformed; and 
   (vi) If the controlled substance is destroyed, the efficiency 
of the destruction process. 
   (2) The Administrator will review the information and
documentation 
submitted under paragraph (b)(1) of this section and will assess 
the quantity of controlled substance that the documentation 
and information verified was transformed or destroyed. The
Administrator 
will issue to the person consumption allowances equivalent to 
the level of controlled substances that the Administrator
determines 
was transformed or destroyed. For controlled substances completely 
destroyed under this subpart, the Agency will grant allowances 
equal to 100 percent of volume intended for destruction. For 
those controlled substances destroyed at less than a 98 percent 
destruction efficiency, the Agency will grant allowances
commensurate 
with that percent of destruction efficiency that is actually 
achieved. The grant of allowances will be effective on the date 
that the notice is issued. 
   (3) If the Administrator determines that the request for 
consumption allowances does not satisfactorily substantiate 
that the person transformed or destroyed controlled substances 
as claimed, or that production or consumption allowances had 
not been expended, the Administrator will issue a notice
disallowing 
the request for additional consumption allowances. Within ten 
working days after receipt of notification, the person may file 
a notice of appeal, with supporting reasons, with the
Administrator. 
The Administrator may affirm or vacate the disallowance. If 
no appeal is taken by the tenth day after notification, the 
disallowance will be final on that day. 
   (c) A person may also increase its consumption allowances 
by receiving production from another Party to the Protocol. 
A nation listed in appendix C, Annex 1 of this subpart (Parties 
to the Montreal Protocol) must agree to transfer to the person 
for the current control period some amount of production that 
the nation is permitted under the Montreal Protocol. A request 
for consumption allowances shall also be considered a request 
for production allowances under  82.9(b). For trades from a 
Party, the person must obtain from the principal diplomatic 
representative in that nation's embassy in the United States 
a signed document stating that the appropriate authority within 
that nation has established or revised production limits for 
the nation to equal the lesser of the maximum production that 
the nation is allowed under the Protocol minus the amount
transferred, 
the maximum production that is allowed under the nation's
applicable 
domestic law minus the amount transferred, or the average of 
the nation's actual national production level for the three 
years prior to the transfer minus the production allowances 
transferred. The person must submit to the Administrator a transfer

request that includes a true copy of this document and that 
sets forth the following: 
   (1) The identity and address of the person; 
   (2) The identity of the Party; 
   (3) The names and telephone numbers of contact persons for 
the person and for the Party; 
   (4) The chemical type and level of production being transferred;

   (5) The control period(s) to which the transfer applies; 
and 
   (6) A signed statement by the person that this increased 
production is intended as an export to the Party. 

 82.11   Exports to Article 5 Parties. 

   In accordance with the provisions of this section, any person 
may obtain authorizations to convert potential production
allowances 
to production allowances by exporting class I controlled substances

(not including transshipments, or used or recycled controlled 
substances) to foreign states listed in appendix E to this subpart 
(Article 5 Parties). Authorizations obtained under this section 
will be valid only during the control period in which the
controlled 
substance departed the United States. A request for authorizations 
under this section will be considered a request for consumption 
allowances under  82.10(a) as well. 
   (a) The exporter must submit to the Administrator a request 
for authority to convert potential production allowance to
production 
allowances. That request must set forth the following: 
   (1) The identities and addresses of the exporter and the 
recipient of the exports; 
   (2) The exporter's Employee Identification Number; 
   (3) The names and telephone numbers of contact persons for 
the exporter and for the recipient; 
   (4) The quantity and the type of controlled substances exported,

its source and date purchased; 
   (5) The date on which and the port from which the controlled 
substances were exported from the United States or its territories;

   (6) The country to which the controlled substances were
exported; 
   (7) A copy of the bill of lading and invoice indicating the 
net quantity shipped and documenting the sale of the controlled 
substances to the purchaser;
   (8) The commodity code of the controlled substance exported; 
and
   (9) A copy of the contract covering the sale of the controlled 
substances to the recipient that contains provisions forbidding 
the reexport of the controlled substance in bulk form and
subjecting 
the recipient or any transferee of the recipient to liquidated 
damages equal to the resale price of the controlled substances 
if they are reexported in bulk form.
   (b) The Administrator will review the information and
documentation 
submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, and assess the 
quantity of controlled substances that the documentation verifies 
were exported to an Article 5 Party. Based on that assessment, 
the Administrator will issue the exporter a notice authorizing 
the conversion of a specified quantity of potential production 
allowances to production allowances in a specified control year, 
and granting consumption allowances in the same amount for the 
same control year. The authorizations may be used to convert 
potential production allowances to production allowances as 
soon as the date on which the notice is issued.

 82.12   Transfers.

   (a) Inter-company transfers. Any person (``transferor'') 
may transfer to any other person (``transferee'') any amount 
of the transferor's consumption allowances, production allowances, 
potential production allowances, or authorizations to convert 
potential production allowances to production allowances, as 
follows:
   (1) The transferor must submit to the Administrator a transfer 
claim setting forth the following:
   (i) The identities and addresses of the transferor and the 
transferee;
   (ii) The name and telephone numbers of contact persons for 
the transferor and the transferee;
   (iii) The type of allowances or authorizations being
transferred, 
including the names of the controlled substances for which
allowances 
are to be transferred;
   (iv) The group of controlled substances to which the allowances 
or authorizations being transferred pertains;
   (v) The amount of allowances or authorizations being
transferred;
   (vi) The control period(s) for which the allowances or
authorizations 
are being transferred;
   (vii) The amount of unexpended allowances or authorizations 
of the type and for the control period being transferred that 
the transferor holds under authority of this subpart as of the 
date the claim is submitted to EPA; and
   (viii) The amount of the one-percent offset applied to the 
unweighted amount traded that will be deducted from the
transferor's 
allowance balance (except for trades of potential production 
allowances, authorizations to convert, or trades from transformers 
and destroyers to producers or importers for the purpose of 
allowance reimbursement).
   (2) The Administrator will determine whether the records 
maintained by EPA, taking into account any previous transfers 
and any production, allowable imports and exports of controlled 
substances reported by the transferor, indicate that the transferor

possesses, as of the date the transfer claim is processed,
unexpended 
allowances or authorizations sufficient to cover the transfer 
claim (i.e., the amount to be transferred plus, in the case 
of transferors of production or consumption allowances, one 
percent of that amount). Within three working days of receiving 
a complete transfer claim, the Administrator will take action 
to notify the transferor and transferee as follows:
   (i) If EPA's records show that the transferor has sufficient 
unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover the transfer 
claim or if review of available information is insufficient 
to make a determination, the Administrator will issue a notice 
indicating that EPA does not object to the transfer and will 
reduce the transferor's balance of unexpended allowances or 
authorizations by the amount to be transferred plus, in the 
case of transfers of production or consumption allowances, one 
percent of that amount. When EPA issues a no objection notice, 
the transferor and the transferee may proceed with the transfer. 
However, if EPA ultimately finds that the transferor did not 
have sufficient unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover 
the claim, the transferor and transferee will be held liable 
for any violations of the regulations of this subpart that occur 
as a result of, or in conjunction with, the improper transfer.
   (ii) If EPA's records show that the transferor has insufficient 
unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover the transfer 
claim, or that the transferor has failed to respond to one or 
more Agency requests to supply information needed to make a 
determination, the Administrator will issue a notice disallowing 
the transfer. Within 10 working days after receipt of notification,

either party may file a notice of appeal, with supporting reasons, 
with the Administrator. The Administrator may affirm or vacate 
the disallowance. If no appeal is taken by the tenth working 
day after notification, the disallowance shall be final on that 
day.
   (3) In the event that the Administrator does not respond 
to a transfer claim within the three working days specified 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the transferor and transferee 
may proceed with the transfer. EPA will reduce the transferor's 
balance of unexpended allowances or authorizations by the amount 
to be transferred plus, in the case of transfers of production 
or consumption allowances, one percent of that amount. However, 
if EPA ultimately finds that the transferor did not have sufficient

unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover the claim, 
the transferor and transferee will be held liable for any
violations 
of the regulations of this subpart that occur as a result of, 
or in conjunction with, the improper transfer.
   (b) Inter-pollutant conversions. Any person (``convertor'') 
may convert consumption allowances, production allowances,
potential 
production allowances, or authorizations to convert potential 
production allowances to production allowances for one class 
I controlled substance to the same type of allowance for another 
class I controlled substance within the group of controlled 
substances as the first as follows:
   (1) The convertor must submit to the Administrator a conversion 
claim setting forth the following:
   (i) The identity and address of the convertor;
   (ii) The name and telephone number of a contact person for 
the convertor;
   (iii) The type of allowances or authorizations being converted, 
including the names of the controlled substances for which
allowances 
are to be converted;
   (iv) The group of controlled substances to which the allowances 
or authorizations being converted pertains;
   (v) The amount and type of allowances to be converted;
   (vi) The amount of allowances to be subtracted from the
convertor's 
unexpended allowances for the first controlled substance, to 
be equal to 101 percent of the amount of allowances converted 
(except for conversions of authorizations to convert potential 
production allowances and conversions of potential production 
allowances);
   (vii) The amount of allowances or authorizations to be added 
to the convertor's unexpended allowances or authorizations for 
the second controlled substance, to be equal to the amount of 
allowances for the first controlled substance being converted 
multiplied by the quotient of the ozone depletion factor of 
the first controlled substance divided by the ozone depletion 
factor of the second controlled substance, as listed in appendix 
A of this subpart;
   (viii) The control period(s) for which the allowances or 
authorizations are being converted; and
   (ix) The amount of unexpended allowances or authorizations 
of the type and for the control period being converted that 
the convertor holds under authority of this subpart as of the 
date the claim is submitted to EPA.
   (2) The Administrator will determine whether the records 
maintained by EPA, taking into account any previous conversions, 
any transfers, and any production, imports (not including
transhipments, 
or used and recycled controlled substances), or exports (not 
including transhipments, or used and recycled controlled
substances) 
of controlled substances reported by the convertor, indicate 
that the convertor possesses, as of the date the conversion 
claim is processed, unexpended allowances or authorizations 
sufficient to cover the conversion claim (i.e., the amount to 
be converted plus, in the case of conversions of production 
or consumption allowances, one percent of that amount). Within 
three working days of receiving a complete conversion claim, 
the Administrator will take action to notify the convertor as 
follows:
   (i) If EPA's records show that the convertor has sufficient 
unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover the conversion 
claim or if review of available information is insufficient 
to make a determination, the Administrator will issue a notice 
indicating that EPA does not object to the conversion and will 
reduce the convertor's balance of unexpended allowances or
authorizations 
by the amount to be converted plus, in the case of conversions 
of production or consumption allowances, one percent of that 
amount. When EPA issues a no objection notice, the convertor 
may proceed with the conversion. However, if EPA ultimately 
finds that the convertor did not have sufficient unexpended 
allowances or authorizations to cover the claim, the convertor 
will be held liable for any violations of the regulations of 
this subpart that occur as a result of, or in conjunction with, 
the improper conversion. 
   (ii) If EPA's records show that the convertor has insufficient 
unexpended allowances or authorizations to cover the conversion 
claim, or that the convertor has failed to respond to one or 
more Agency requests to supply information needed to make a 
determination, the Administrator will issue a notice disallowing 
the conversion. Within 10 working days after receipt of
notification, 
the convertor may file a notice of appeal, with supporting reasons,

with the Administrator. The Administrator may affirm or vacate 
the disallowance. If no appeal is taken by the tenth working 
day after notification, the disallowance shall be final on that 
day. 
   (3) In the event that the Administrator does not respond 
to a conversion claim within the three working days specified 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the convertor may proceed 
with the conversion. EPA will reduce the convertor's balance 
of unexpended allowances by the amount to be converted plus, 
in the case of conversions of production or consumption allowances,

one percent of that amount. However, if EPA ultimately finds 
that the convertor did not have sufficient unexpended allowances 
or authorizations to cover the claims, the convertor will be 
held liable for any violations of the regulations of this subpart 
that occur as a result of, or in conjunction with, the improper 
conversion. 
   (c) Inter-company transfers and Inter-pollutant conversions. 
If a person requests an inter-company transfer and an inter-
pollutant conversion simultaneously, the amount subtracted from 
the convertor-transferor's unexpended allowances for the first 
controlled substance will be equal to 101 percent of the amount 
of allowances converted and transferred in the case of transfer-
conversions of production or consumption allowances. 

 82.13   Record-keeping and reporting requirements. 

   (a) Unless otherwise specified, the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements set forth in this section take effect on January 
1, 1994. 
   (b) Reports and records required by this section may be used 
for purposes of compliance determinations. These requirements 
are not intended as a limitation on the use of other evidence 
admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 
   (c) Unless otherwise specified, reports required by this 
section must be mailed to the Administrator within 45 days of 
the end of the applicable reporting period. 
   (d) Records and copies of reports required by this section 
must be retained for three years. 
   (e) In reports required by this section, quantities of
controlled 
substances must be stated in terms of kilograms. 
   (f) Every person (``producer'') who produces class I controlled 
substances during a control period must comply with the following 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements: 
   (1) Within 120 days of December 10, 1993, or within 120 days 
of the date that a producer first produces a class I controlled 
substance, whichever is later, every producer who has not already 
done so must submit to the Administrator a report describing: 
   (i) The method by which the producer in practice measures 
daily quantities of controlled substances produced; 
   (ii) Conversion factors by which the daily records as currently 
maintained can be converted into kilograms of controlled substances

produced, including any constants or assumptions used in making 
those calculations (e.g., tank specifications, ambient temperature 
or pressure, density of the controlled substance); 
   (iii) Internal accounting procedures for determining plant-
wide production; 
   (iv) The quantity of any fugitive losses accounted for in 
the production figures; and 
   (v) The estimated percent efficiency of the production process 
for the controlled substance. 
   Within 60 days of any change in the measurement procedures 
or the information specified in the report in paragraph (b), 
the producer must submit a report specifying the revised data 
or procedures to the Administrator. 
   (2) Every producer of a class I controlled substance during 
a control period must maintain the following records: 
   (i) Dated records of the quantity of each controlled substance 
produced at each facility; 
   (ii) Dated records of the quantity of controlled substances 
produced for use in processes that result in their transformation 
or for use in processes that result in their destruction and 
quantity sold for use in processes that result in their
transformation 
or for use in processes that result in their destruction; 
   (iii) Copies of invoices or receipts documenting sale of 
controlled substance for use in processes resulting in their 
transformation or for use in processes resulting in destruction; 
   (iv) Dated records of the quantity of each controlled substance 
used at each facility as feedstocks or destroyed in the manufacture

of a controlled substance or in the manufacture of any other 
substance, and any controlled substance introduced into the 
production process of the same controlled substance at each 
facility; 
   (v) Dated records identifying the quantity of each chemical 
not a controlled substance produced within each facility also 
producing one or more controlled substances; 
   (vi) Dated records of the quantity of raw materials and
feedstock 
chemicals used at each facility for the production of controlled 
substances; 
   (vii) Dated records of the shipments of each controlled
substance 
produced at each plant; 
   (viii) The quantity of controlled substances, the date received,

and names and addresses of the source of recyclable or recoverable 
materials containing controlled substances which are recovered 
at each plant; 
   (ix) Records of the date, the controlled substance, and the 
estimated quantity of any spill or release of a controlled
substance 
that equals or exceeds 100 pounds; and 
   (x) Copies of IRS certification that the controlled substance 
will be transformed or the verification that it will be destroyed. 
   (3) For each quarter, each producer of a class I controlled 
substance must provide the Administrator with a report containing 
the following information: 
   (i) The production by company in that quarter of each controlled

substance, specifying the quantity of any controlled substance 
used in processing, resulting in its transformation by the
producer; 
   (ii) The amount of production for use in processes resulting 
in destruction of controlled substances by the producer; 
   (iii) The levels of production (expended allowances) for 
each controlled substance; 
   (iv) The producer's total of expended and unexpended consumption

allowances, potential production allowances, production allowances,

and authorizations to convert potential production allowances 
to production allowances, as of the end of that quarter; 
   (v) The quantity, the date received, and names and addresses 
of the sources of recyclable and recoverable materials containing 
the controlled substances which are recovered; 
   (vi) The amount of controlled substance sold or transferred 
during the quarter to a person other than the producer for use 
in processes resulting in its transformation or eventual
destruction; 
and 
   (vii) Internal Revenue Service Certificates in the case of 
transformation, or the purchaser's destruction verification 
in the case of destruction, showing that the purchaser or recipient

of a controlled substance intends to either transform or destroy 
the controlled substance. 
   (4) For any person who fails to maintain the records required 
by this paragraph (f), or to submit the report required by this 
paragraph (f), the Administrator may assume that the person 
has produced at full capacity during the period for which records 
were not kept, for purposes of determining whether the person 
has violated the prohibitions at  82.4. 
   (g) Importers of class I controlled substances during a control 
period must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
specified in this section. 
   (1) Any importer of a class I controlled substance must maintain

the following records: 
   (i) The quantity of each controlled substance imported, either 
alone or in mixtures, including the percentage of each mixture 
which consists of a controlled substance; 
   (ii) The quantity of controlled substances other than
transhipments 
or used or recycled substances imported for use in processes 
resulting in their transformation or destruction and quantity 
sold for use in processes that result in their destruction or 
transformation; 
   (iii) The date on which the controlled substances were imported;

   (iv) The port of entry through which the controlled substances 
passed; 
   (v) The country from which the imported controlled substances 
were imported; 
   (vi) The commodity code for the controlled substances shipped; 
   (vii) The importer number for the shipment; 
   (viii) A copy of the bill of lading for the import; 
   (ix) The invoice for the import; 
   (x) The quantity of imports of used and recycled class I 
controlled substances and class II controlled substances; 
   (xi) The U.S. Customs entry form; 
   (xii) Dated records documenting the sale or transfer of
controlled 
substances for use in process resulting in transformation or 
destruction; and 
   (xiii) Copies of IRS certifications that the controlled
substance 
will be transformed or destruction verifications that it will 
be destroyed. 
   (2) Reporting Requirements-Importers. For each quarter, every 
importer of a class I controlled substance must submit to the 
Administrator a report containing the following information: 
   (i) Summaries of the records required in paragraphs (g)(1) 
(i) through (vii) of this section for the previous quarter; 
   (ii) The total quantity imported in kilograms of each controlled

substance for that quarter; 
   (iii) The levels of import (expended consumption allowances) 
of controlled substances for that quarter and totaled by chemical 
for the control-period-to-date; 
   (iv) The importer's total sum of expended and unexpended 
consumption allowances by chemical as of the end of that quarter; 
   (v) The amount of controlled substances imported for use 
in processes resulting in their transformation or destruction; 
   (vi) The amount of controlled substances sold or transferred 
during the quarter to each person for use in processes resulting 
in their transformation or eventual destruction; 
   (vii) Internal Revenue Service Certificates showing that 
the purchaser or recipient of imported controlled substances 
intends to transform those substances or destruction verifications 
showing that purchaser or recipient intends to destroy the
controlled 
substances. 
   (h) Reporting Requirements-Exporters. For any exports of 
class I controlled substances not reported under  82.10 (additional

consumption allowances) or  82.11 (Exports to Parties), the 
exporter who exported a class I controlled substances must submit 
to the Administrator the following information within 45 days 
after the end of the control period in which the unreported 
exports left the United States: 
   (1) The names and addresses of the exporter and the recipient 
of the exports; 
   (2) The exporter's Employee Identification Number; 
   (3) The type and quantity of each controlled substance exported 
and what percentage, if any, of the controlled substance are 
recycled or used; 
   (4) The date on which and the port from which the controlled 
substances were exported from the United States or its territories;

   (5) The country to which the controlled substances were
exported; 
and 
   (6) The commodity code of the controlled substance shipped. 
   (i) Every person who has requested additional production 
allowances under  82.9(c) or consumption allowances under  
82.10(b) or who transforms or destroys class I controlled
substances 
not produced by that person must maintain the following: 
   (1) Dated records of the quantity and level of each controlled 
substance transformed or destroyed; 
   (2) Copies of the invoices or receipts documenting the sale 
or transfer of the controlled substance to the person; 
   (3) In the case where those controlled substances are
transformed, 
dated records of the names, commercial use, and quantities of 
the resulting chemical(s); 
   (4) In the case where those controlled substances are
transformed, 
dated records of shipments to purchasers of the resulting
chemical(s); 
   (5) Dated records of all shipments of controlled substances 
received by the person, and the identity of the producer or 
importer of the controlled substances; 
   (6) Dated records of inventories of controlled substances 
at each plant on the first day of each quarter; and 
   (7) A copy of the person's IRS certification of intent to 
transform or the purchaser's destruction verification of intent 
to destroy, in the case where substances were purchased for 
transformation or destruction purposes. 
   (j) Persons who destroy class I controlled substances shall 
provide EPA with a one-time report stating the destruction unit's 
destruction efficiency and the methods used to record the volume 
destroyed and those used to determine destruction efficiency 
and the name of other relevant Federal or state regulations 
that may apply to the destruction process. Any changes to the 
unit's destruction efficiency or methods used to record volume 
destroyed and to determine destruction efficiency must be reflected

in a revision to this report to be submitted to EPA within 60 
days of the change. 
   (k) Persons who purchase and subsequently destroy controlled 
class I substances shall provide the producer or importer from 
whom they purchase controlled substances to be destroyed with 
a verification that controlled substances will be used in processes

that result in their destruction. 
   (1) The verification shall include the following: 
   (i) Identity and address of the person intending to destroy 
controlled substances; 
   (ii) Indication of whether those controlled substances will 
be completely destroyed, as defined in  82.3, or less than 
completely destroyed, in which case the destruction efficiency 
at which such substances will be destroyed must be included; 
   (iii) Period of time over which the person intends to destroy 
controlled substances; and 
   (iv) Signature of the verifying person. 
   (2) If, at any time, any aspects of this verification change, 
the person must submit a revised verification reflecting such 
changes to the producer from whom that person purchases controlled 
substances intended for destruction. 
   (l) Persons who purchase class I controlled substances and 
who subsequently transform such controlled substances shall 
provide the producer or importer with the IRS certification 
that the controlled substances are to be used in processes
resulting 
in their transformation. 
   (m) Any person who transforms or destroys class I controlled 
substances must report the names and quantities of class I
controlled 
substances transformed and destroyed for each control period 
within 45 days of the end of such control period. 
   (n) Every person who produces, imports, or exports class 
II chemicals must report its quarterly level of production, 
imports, and exports of these chemicals within 45 days of the 
end of each quarter. 
   (o) Persons who import or export used or recycled controlled 
substances must label their bill of lading or invoice indicating 
that the controlled substance is used or recycled. 
   (p) Every person who imports or exports used or recycled 
group II, class I controlled substances, or class II controlled 
substances must report its annual level within 45 days of the 
end of the control period. 
   (q) Every person who transships a controlled substance must 
maintain records that indicate that the controlled substance 
shipment originated in one country destined for another country, 
and does not enter interstate commerce with the United States. 

Appendix A to Subpart A-Class 1 Controlled Substances 


                                                                   
          
                                                                   
          
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                             
   ODP         
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                             
               
A. Group I:                                                  
               
  CFC-13-Trichlorofluoromethane                              
               
    (CFC-11) ...........................................     
         1.0   
  CF2C12-Dichlorodifluoromethane                             
               
    (CFC-12) ...........................................     
         1.0   
  C2F3C13-Trichlorotrifluoroethane                           
               
    (CFC-113) ..........................................     
         0.8   
  C2F4C12-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane                          
               
  (CFC-114)                                                  
         1.0   
  C2F5C1-Monochloropentaf luoroethane                        
               
    (CFC-115) ..........................................     
         0.6   
  C2F5C1-Monochloropentafluoroethane                         
               
  All isomers of the above chemicals                         
               
B. Group II:                                                 
               
  CF2C1Br-Bromochlorodifluoromethane                         
               
    (Halon-1211) .......................................     
         3.0   
  CF3Br-Bromotrifluoromethane                                
               
    (Halon-1301) .......................................     
        10.0   
  C2F4Br2-Dibromotetrafluoroethane                           
               
    (Halon-2402) .......................................     
         6.0   
  All isomers of the above chemicals                         
               
C. Group III:                                                
               
  CF3C1-Chlorotrifluoromethane                               
               
    (CFC-13) ...........................................     
         1.0   
  C2FC15-                                                    
               
    (CFC-111) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C2F2C14-                                                   
               
    (CFC-112) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C3FC17-                                                    
               
    (CFC-211) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C3F2C16-                                                   
               
    (CFC-212) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C3F3C15-                                                   
               
    (CFC-213) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C3F4C14-                                                   
               
    (CFC-214) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C3F5C13-                                                   
               
    (CFC-215) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C3F6C12-                                                   
               
    (CFC-216) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  C3F7C1-                                                    
               
    (CFC-217) ..........................................     
         1.0   
  All isomers of the above chemicals                         
               
D. Group IV:                                                 
               
  CC14-Carbon Tetrachloride ............................     
         1.1   
E. Group V:                                                  
               
  C2H3C13-1,1,1 Trichloroethane ........................     
               
    (Methyl chloroform) ................................     
         0.1   
  All isomers of the above chemical except l,l,2-            
               
   trichloromethane                                          
               
F. Group VI:                                                 
               
  CH3Br-Bromomethane                                         
               
    (Methyl Bromide) ...................................     
         0.7   
G. Group VII:                                                
               
  CHFBR2 ...............................................     
        1.00   
  CHF2Br (HBFC-22B1) ...................................     
        0.74   
  CH2FBr ...............................................     
        0.73   
  C2HFBr4 ..............................................     
     0.3-0.8   
  C2HF2Br3 .............................................     
     0.5-1.8   
  C2HF3Br2 .............................................     
     0.4-1.6   
  C2HF4Br ..............................................     
     0.7-1.2   
  C2H2FBr3 .............................................     
     0.1-1.1   
  C2H2F2Br2 ............................................     
     0.2-1.5   
  C2H2F3Br .............................................     
     0.7-1.6   
  C2H3FBr2 .............................................     
     0.1-1.7   
  C2H3F2Br .............................................     
     0.2-1.1   
  C2H4FBr ..............................................     
    0.07-0.1   
  C3HFBr6 ..............................................     
     0.3-1.5   
  C3HF2Br5 .............................................     
     0.2-1.9   
  C3HF3Br4 .............................................     
     0.3-1.8   
  C3HF4Br3 .............................................     
     0.5-2.2   
  C3HF5Br2 .............................................     
     0.9-2.0   
  C3HF6Br ..............................................     
     0.7-3.3   
  C3H2FBR5 .............................................     
     0.1-1.9   
  C3H2F2BR4 ............................................     
     0.2-2.1   
  C3H2F3Br3 ............................................     
     0.2-5.6   
  C3H2F4Br2 ............................................     
     0.3-7.5   
  C3H2F5BR .............................................     
     0.9-1.4   
  C3H3FBR4 .............................................     
    0.08-1.9   
  C3H3F2Br3 ............................................     
     0.1-3.1   
  C3H3F3Br2 ............................................     
     0.1-2.5   
  C3H3F4Br .............................................     
     0.3-4.4   
  C3H4FBr3 .............................................     
    0.03-0.3   
  C3H4F2Br2 ............................................     
     0.1-1.0   
  C3H4F3Br .............................................     
    0.07-0.8   
  C3H5FBr2 .............................................     
    0.04-0.4   
  C3H5F2Br .............................................     
    0.07-0.8   
  C3H6FB ...............................................     
    0.02-0.7   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴


Appendix B to Subpart A-Class II Controlled Substances


                                                                   
          
                                                                   
          
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                             
   ODP         
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                             
               
CHFC12-Dichlorofluoromethane                                 
               
  (HCFC-21) ............................................     
      [res.]   
CHF2C1-Chlorodifluoromethane                                 
               
  (HCFC-22) ............................................     
        0.05   
CH2FC1-Chlorofluoromethane                                   
               
  (HCFC-31) ............................................     
      [res.]   
C2HFC14-                                                     
               
  (HCFC-121) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C2HF2C13-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-122) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C2HF3C12-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-123) ...........................................     
        0.02   
C2HF4C1-                                                     
               
  (HCFC-124) ...........................................     
        0.02   
C2H2FC13-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-131) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C2H2F2C12-                                                   
               
  (HCFC-132b) ..........................................     
      [res.]   
C2H2F3C1-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-133a) ..........................................     
      [res.]   
C2H3FC12-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-141b) ..........................................     
        0.12   
C2H3F2C1-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-142b) ..........................................     
        0.06   
C3HFC16-                                                     
               
  (HCFC-221) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3HF2C15-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-222) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3HF3C14-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-223) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3HF4C13-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-224) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3HF5C12-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-225ca) .........................................     
      [res.]   
C3HF5C12                                                     
               
  (HCFC-225cb) .........................................     
      [res.]   
C3HF6C1-                                                     
               
  (HCFC-226) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H2FC15-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-231) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H2F2C14-                                                   
               
  (HCFC-232) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H2F3C13-                                                   
               
  (HCFC-233) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H2F4C12-                                                   
               
  (HCFC-234) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H2F5C1-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-235) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H3FC14-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-241) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H3F2C13-                                                   
               
  (HCFC-242) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H3F3C12-                                                   
               
  (HCFC-243) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H3F4C1-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-244) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H4FC13-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-251) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H4F2C12-                                                   
               
  (HCFC-252) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H4F3C1-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-253) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H5FC12-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-261) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H5F2C1-                                                    
               
  (HCFC-262) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
C3H6FC1-                                                     
               
  (HCFC-271) ...........................................     
      [res.]   
All isomers of the above chemicals                           
               
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴


Appendix C to Subpart A-Annex 1-Parties to the Montreal Protocol: 


                                                                   
          
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
      Foreign state          Montreal         London   
    Copenhagen     
                             protocol       amendments 
    amendments     
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                   
Algeria ................   X               X           
                   
Antigua and Barbuda ....   X               X           
   X               
Argentina ..............   X               X           
                   
Australia ..............   X               X           
                   
Austria ................   X               X           
                   
Bahamas ................   X               X           
   X               
Bahrain ................   X               X           
                   
Bangladesh .............   X                           
                   
Barbados ...............   X                           
                   
Belarus ................   X                           
                   
Belgium ................   X               X           
                   
Benin ..................   X                           
                   
Bosnia and Herzegovina .   X                           
                   
Botswana ...............   X                           
                   
Brazil .................   X               X           
                   
Burnei .................   X                           
                   
Bulgaria ...............   X                           
                   
Burkina Faso ...........   X                           
                   
Cameroon ...............   X               X           
                   
Canada .................   X               X           
                   
Central African Republic   X                           
                   
Chile ..................   X               X           
                   
China ..................   X               X           
                   
Costa Rica .............   X                           
                   
Cote Ivoire ............   X                           
                   
Croatia ................   X                           
                   
Cuba ...................   X                           
                   
Cyprus .................   X                           
                   
Czech Republic .........   X                           
                   
Denmark ................   X               X           
                   
Dominica ...............   X               X           
                   
Dominican Republic .....   X                           
                   
Ecuador ................   X               X           
                   
Egypt ..................   X               X           
                   
El Salvador ............   X                           
                   
European E.C. ..........   X               X           
                   
Fiji ...................   X                           
                   
Finland ................   X               X           
                   
France .................   X               X           
                   
Gambia .................   X                           
                   
Germany ................   X               X           
                   
Ghana ..................   X               X           
                   
Greece .................   X               X           
                   
Grenada ................   X                           
                   
Guatemala ..............   X                           
                   
Guinea .................   X               X           
                   
Hungary ................   X                           
                   
Iceland ................   X               X           
                   
India ..................   X               X           
                   
Indonesia ..............   X               X           
                   
Iran ...................   X                           
                   
Ireland ................   X               X           
                   
Israel .................   X               X           
                   
Italy ..................   X               X           
                   
Jamaica ................   X               X           
                   
Japan ..................   X               X           
                   
Jordan .................   X                           
                   
Kenya ..................   X                           
                   
Kiribati ...............   X                           
                   
Korea, Republic of .....   X               X           
                   
Kuwait .................   X                           
                   
Lebanon ................   X               X           
                   
Libya ..................   X                           
                   
Liechtenstein ..........   X                           
                   
Luxembourg .............   X               X           
                   
Malawi .................   X                           
                   
Malaysia ...............   X               X           
   X               
Maldives ...............   X               X           
                   
Malta ..................   X                           
                   
Marshall Islands .......   X               X           
   X               
Mauritius ..............   X               X           
                   
Mexico .................   X               X           
                   
Monaco .................   X               X           
                   
Namibia ................   X                           
                   
Netherlands ............   X               X           
                   
New Zealand ............   X               X           
   X               
Nicaragua ..............   X                           
                   
Niger ..................   X                           
                   
Nigeria ................   X                           
                   
Norway .................   X               X           
   X               
Pakistan ...............   X               X           
                   
Panama .................   X                           
                   
Papua New Guinea .......   X               X           
                   
Paraguay ...............   X               X           
                   
Peru ...................   X               X           
                   
Philippines ............   X               X           
                   
Poland .................   X                           
                   
Portugal ...............   X               X           
                   
Romania ................   X               X           
                   
Russian Federation .....   X               X           
                   
Saint Kitts and Nevis ..   X                           
                   
Samoa ..................   X                           
                   
Saudi Arabia ...........   X               X           
                   
Senegal ................   X               X           
                   
Seychelles .............   X               X           
                   
Singapore ..............   X               X           
                   
Slovenia ...............   X               X           
                   
Solomon Islands ........   X               X           
                   
South Africa ...........   X               X           
                   
Spain ..................   X               X           
                   
Sri Lanka ..............   X               X           
                   
Sudan ..................   X                           
                   
Swaziland ..............   X                           
                   
Sweden .................   X               X           
   X               
Switzerland ............   X               X           
                   
Syrian Arab Republic ...   X                           
                   
Tanzania ...............   X               X           
                   
Thailand ...............   X               X           
                   
Togo ...................   X                           
                   
Trinidad and Tobago ....   X                           
                   
Tunisia ................   X               X           
                   
Turkey .................   X                           
                   
Tuvalu .................   X                           
                   
Uganda .................   X                           
                   
Ukranian SSR ...........   X                           
                   
United Arab Emirates ...   X                           
                   
United Kingdom .........   X               X           
                   
United States ..........   X               X           
                   
Uruguay ................   X                           
                   
Uzbekistan .............   X                           
                   
Venezuela ..............   X               X           
                   
Zambia .................   X                           
                   
Zimbabwe ...............   X                           
                   
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



Appendix C to Subpart A, {1}-Annex 2-Nations Complying With, 
but not Parties to, the Protocol: Colombia 
        {1}  Regarding Taiwan, see preamble discussion VI
(Trade 
      쿝estrictions) 

Appendix D to Subpart A-Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

Description of Products that May Contain Controlled Substances 
in Appendix A, Class I Groups I and II 
   This Appendix is based on information provided by the Ozone 
Secretariat of the United Nations Ozone Environment Programme. 
The Appendix lists available U.S. harmonized tariff schedule 
codes identifying headings and subheadings for Annex D products 
that may contain controlled substances. 
   The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States uses 
a enumeration system to identify products imported and exported 
to and from the U.S. This system relies on a four digit heading, 
a four digit subheading and additional two digit statistical 
suffix to characterize products. The United States uses the 
suffix for its own statistical records and analyses. This Appendix 
lists only headings and subheadings. 
   While some can be readily associated with harmonized system 
codes, many products cannot be tied to HS classifications unless 
their exact composition and the presentation are known. It should 
be noted that the specified HS classifications represent the 
most likely headings and subheadings which may contain substances 
controlled by the Montreal Protocol. The codes given should 
only be used as a starting point; further verification is needed 
to ascertain whether or not the products actually contain
controlled 
substances. 

Category 1. Automobile and Truck Air Conditioning Units-(Whether 
Incorporated in Vehicles or Not) 

   There are no separate code numbers for air conditioning units 
specially used in automobiles and trucks. Although a code has 
been proposed for car air conditioners, it is not yet officially 
listed in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (see category 2). The 
following codes apply to the vehicles potentially containing 
air conditioning units. 

Heading/Subheading and Article Description 

8701.(10, 20, 30, 90) {2}-Tractors 
        {2}  At this time vehicle air conditioning units are 
      쿬onsidered components of vehicles or are classified
under 
      퀃he general category for air conditioning and
refrigeration 
      쿮quipment. Vehicles containing air conditioners are
therefore 
      쿬onsidered products containing controlled substances. 
8702-Public-transport type passenger motor vehicles.
8702.10-With compression-ignition internal-combustion piston 
  engine (diesel or semi-diesel). 
8702.90-Other. 
8703-Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed 
  for the transport of persons (other than those of heading 
  8702), including station wagons and racing cars.
8703.10-Vehicles specially designed for traveling on snow; golf 
  carts and similar vehicles; includes subheading 10.10 and 
  10.50.
8703.(21, 22, 23, 24)-Other vehicles, with spark-ignition internal 
  combustion reciprocating engines. 
8703.(31, 32, 33, 90)-Other vehicles, with compression-ignition 
  internal combustion piston engine (diesel or semi-diesel).
8704-Motor vehicles for the transport of goods.
8704.10.(10, 50)-Dumpers designed for off-highway use.
8704.(21, 22, 23)-Other, with compression-ignition internal 
  combustion piston engine (diesel or semi-diesel).
8704.(31, 32, 90)-Other, with compression-ignition internal 
  combustion piston engine. 
8705-Special purpose motor vehicles, other than those principally 
  designed for the transport of persons or goods (for example, 
  wreckers, mobile cranes, fire fighting vehicles, concrete 
  mixers, road sweepers, spraying vehicles, mobile workshops, 
  mobile radiological units). 
8705.10-Crane lorries. 
8705.20-Mobile drilling derricks. 
8705.30-Fire fighting vehicles. 
8705.90-Other. 

Category 2. Domestic and Commercial Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning/Heat 
Pump Equipment

   Domestic and commercial air conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment fall primarily under headings 8415 and 8418. 

Heading/Subheading and Article Description 

8415-Air conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan 
  and elements for changing the temperature and humidity, including

  those machines in which the humidity cannot be separately 
  regulated.
8415.20-Proposed code for air conditioning of a kind used for 
  persons, in motor vehicles.
8415.10.00-A/C window or wall types, self-contained.
8415.81.00-Other, except parts, incorporating a refrigerating 
  unit and a valve for reversal of the cooling/heat cycle.
8415.82.00-Other, incorporating a refrigerating unit;
Self-contained 
  machines and remote condenser type air conditioners (not for 
  year-round use); Year-round units (for heating and cooling); 
  Air Conditioning evaporator coils; Dehumidifiers; and other 
  air conditioning machines incorporating a refrigerating unit.
8415.83-Automotive air conditioners.
8418-Refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing 
  equipment, electric or other; heat pumps, other than air
conditioning 
  machines of heading 8415; parts thereof.
8418.10.00-Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate 
  external doors.
8418.21.00-Refrigerators, household type, compression type.
8418.22.00-Absorption type, electrical.
8418.29.00-Other.
8418.30.00-Freezers of the chest type.
8418.40-Freezers of the upright type.
8418.50.0040-Other refrigerating or freezing chests, cabinets, 
  display counters, showcases and similar refrigerating or freezing

  furniture.
8418.61.00-Other refrigerating or freezing equipment; heat pumps.
8418.69-Other Icemaking machines; drinking water coolers, self-
  contained; soda fountain and beer dispensing equipment;
centrifugal 
  liquid chilling refrigerating units; absorption liquid chilling 
  units; reciprocating liquid chilling units; and other
refrigerating 
  or freezing equipment (household or other). 
8479.89.10-Dehumidifiers (other than those under 8415 or 8424 
  classified as ``machines and mechanical appliances having 
  individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere''). 

Category 3. Aerosol Products 

   An array of different products use controlled substances 
as aerosols and in aerosol applications. Not all aerosol
applications 
use controlled substances, however. The codes given below represent

the most likely classifications for products containing controlled 
substances. The product codes listed include:{3}
        {3}  Other categories of products that may contain 
      쿬ontrolled substances are listed below. EPA is
currently 
      퀇orking to match them with appropriate codes. They
include: 
      쿬oatings and electronic equipment (e.g., electrical
motors), 
      쿬oatings or cleaning fluids for aircraft maintenance, 
      쿺old release agents (e.g. for production of plastic or 
      쿮lastomeric materials), water and oil repellant
(potentially 
      퀅nder HS 3402), spray undercoats (potentially under
``paints 
      쿪nd varnishes''), spot removers, brake cleaners, safety

      퀂prays (e.g., mace cans), animal repellant, noise horns

      (e.g., for use on boats), weld inspection developers, 
      쿯reezants, gum removers, intruder alarms, tire
inflators, 
      쿭usters (for electronic and non-electronic
applications), 
      퀂pray shoe polish, and suede protectors.
    Varnishes.
    Perfumes.
    Preparations for use on hair.
    Preparations for oral and dental hygiene.
    Shaving preparations.
    Personal deodorants, bath preparations.
    Prepared room deodorizers.
    Soaps.
    Lubricants.
    Polishes and creams.
    Explosives.
    Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, disinfectants.
    Arms and ammunition.
    Household products such as footwear or leather polishes.
    Other miscellaneous products.

Heading/Subheading and Article Description 

3208-Paints and varnishes {4} (including enamels and lacquers) 
  based on synthetic polymers of chemically modified natural 
  polymers, dispersed or dissolved in a non-aqueous medium.
        {4}  Although paints do not generally use contain
controlled 
      퀂ubstances, some varnishes use CFC 113 and 1,1,1,
trichlorethane 
      쿪s solvents.
3208.10-Based on polyesters. 
3208.20-Based on acrylic or vinyl polymers. 
3208.90-Other. 
3209-Paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based 
  on synthetic polymers or chemically modified natural polymers, 
  dispersed or dissolved in a an aqueous medium. 
3209.10-Based on acrylic or vinyl polymers. 
3209.90-Other. 
3210.00-Other paints and varnishes (including enamels, lacquers 
  and distempers) and prepared water pigments of a kind used 
  for finishing leather. 
3212.90-Dyes and other coloring matter put up in forms or packings 
  for retail sale. 
3303.00-Perfumes and toilet waters. 
3304.30-Manicure or pedicure preparations. 
3305.10-Shampoos. 
3305.20-Preparations for permanent waving or straightening. 
3305.30-Hair lacquers. 
3305.90-Other hair preparations. 
3306.10-Dentrifices. 
3306.90-Other dental (this may include breath sprays). 
3307.10-Pre-shave, shaving or aftershave preparations. 
3307.20-Personal deodorants and antiperspirants. 
3307.30-Perfumed bath salts and other bath preparations. 
3307.49 Other (this may include preparations for perfuming or 
  deodorizing rooms, including odoriferous preparations used 
  during religious rites, whether or not perfumed or having 
  disinfectant properties). 
3307.90-Other (this may include depilatory products and other 
  perfumery, cosmetic or toilet preparations, not elsewhere 
  specified or included). 
3403-Lubricating preparations (including cuttingoil preparations, 
  bolt or nut release preparations, anti-rust or anti-corrosion 
  preparations and mould release preparations, based on
lubricants), 
  and preparations of a kind used for the oil or grease treatment 
  of textile materials, leather, fur skins or other materials, 
  but excluding preparations containing, as basic constituents, 
  70 percent or more by weight of petroleum oils or of oils 
  obtained from bituminous minerals. 
3402-Organic surface-active agents (other than soap); surface-
  active preparations, washing preparations and cleaning
operations, 
  whether or not containing soap, other than those of 3401. 
3402.20-Preparations put up for retail sale. 
3402.19-Other preparations containing petroleum oils or oils 
  obtained from bituminous minerals. 
3403-Lubricating preparations consisting of mixtures containing 
  silicone greases or oils, as the case may be. 
2710.00-Preparations not elsewhere specified or included,
containing 
  by weight 70 percent or more of petroleum oils or of oils 
  obtained from bituminous minerals, these oils being the basic 
  constituents of the preparations. 
3403.11-Lubricants containing petroleum oils or oils obtained 
  from bituminous minerals used for preparations from the treatment

  of textile materials, leather, fur skins or other materials. 
3403.19-Other preparations containing petroleum oils or oils 
  obtained from bituminous minerals. 
3405-Polishes and creams, for footwear, furniture, floors,
coachwork, 
  glass or metal, scouring pastes and powders and similar
preparations 
  excluding waxes of heading 3404. 
3405.10-Polishes and creams for footwear or leather. 
3405.20-Polishes for wooden furniture, floors or other woodwork. 
36-Explosives. 
3808-Insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, anti-
  sprouting products and plant-growth regulators, disinfectants 
  and similar products, put up in forms or packings for retail 
  sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-
  treated bands, wicks and candles, and fly papers). 
3808.10-Insecticides. 
3808.20-Fungicides. 
3808.30-Herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant growth 
  regulators. 
3808.40-Disinfectants. 
3808.90-Other insecticides, fungicides. 
3809.10-Finishing agents, dye carriers to accelerate the dyeing 
  or fixing of dye-stuffs and other products and preparations 
  (for example, dressings and mordants) of a kind used in the 
  textile, paper, leather or like industries, not elsewhere 
  specified or included, with a basis of amylaceous substances. 
3814-Organic composite solvents and thinners (not elsewhere 
  specified or included) and the prepared paint or varnish
removers. 
3910-Silicones in primary forms. 
9304-Other arms (for example, spring, air or gas guns and pistols, 
  truncheons), excluding those of heading No. 93.07. Thus, aerosol 
  spray cans containing tear gas may be classified under this 
  subheading. 
0404.90-Products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether 
  or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, 
  not elsewhere specified or included. 
1517.90-Edible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable 
  fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of 
  this chapter, other than edible fats or oils or their fractions 
  of heading No. 15.16. 
2106.90-Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included. 

Category 4. Portable Fire Extinguishers 


Heading/Subheading and Article Description 

8424-Mechanical appliances (whether or not hand operated) for 
  projecting, dispersing, or spraying liquids or powders; fire 
  extinguishers whether or not charged, spray guns and similar 
  appliances; steam or sand blasting machines and similar jet 
  projecting machines. 
8424.10-Fire extinguishers, whether or not charged. 

Category 5. Insulation Boards, Panels and Pipe Covers 

   These goods have to be classified according to their composition

and presentation. For example, if the insulation materials are 
made of polyurethane, polystyrene, polyolefin and phenolic
plastics, 
then they may be classified Chapter 39, for ``Plastics and articles

thereof''. The exact description of the products at issue is 
necessary before a classification can be given.{5} 
        {5}  This category may include insulating board for 
      쿫uilding panels and windows and doors. It also includes

      퀁igid appliance insulation for pipes, tanks, trucks, 
      퀃railers, containers, train cars & ships,
refrigerators, 
      쿯reezers, beverage vending machines, bulk beverage
dispensers, 
      퀇ater coolers and heaters and ice machines.

Heading/Subheading and Article Description 

3917.21 to 3917.39-Tubes, pipes and hoses of plastics. 
3920.10 to 3920.99-Plates, sheets, film, foil and strip made 
  of plastics, noncellular and not reinforced, laminated, supported

  or similarly combine with other materials. 
3921.11 to 3921.90-Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, 
  made of plastics. 
3925.90-Builders' ware made of plastics, not elsewhere specified 
  or included. 
3926.90-Articles made of plastics, not elsewhere specified or 
  included. 

Category 6. Pre-Polymers 

   According to the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized Commodity 
Description and Coding System, ``prepolymers are products which 
are characterized by some repetition of monomer units although 
they may contain unreacted monomers. Prepolymers are not normally 
used as such but are intended to be transformed into higher 
molecular weight polymers by further polymerization. Therefore 
the term does not cover finished products, such as di-isobutylenes 
or mixed polyethylene glycols with very low molecular weight. 
Examples are epoxides based with epichlorohydrin, and polymeric 
isocyanates.'' 

Heading/Subheading and Article Description 

3901-Pre-polymers based on ethylene (in primary forms). 
3902-Pre-polymers based on propylene or other olefins (in primary 
  forms). 
3903, 3907, 3909-Pre-polymers based on styrene (in primary forms), 
  epoxide and phenols. 

Appendix E to Subpart A-Article 5 Parties 

   Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, 
Barbados, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central 
African Republic, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cote Ivoire, Croatia, 
Cuba, Cyprus, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 
India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, 
Libya, Malawi, Malasia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, 
Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, 
Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Saint 
Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, 
Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania, Thailand, 
Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, 
Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 

Appendix F to Subpart A-Listing of Ozone Depleting Chemicals 


                                                                   
                         
                                                                   
                         
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
       Controlled substance             ODP          AT
L         CLP          BLP       
컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴
                                                       
                                 
A. Class I 1. Group I:                                 
                                 
  CFC13-Trichlorofluoromethane              1.0        
60.0          1.0         0.00   
   (CFC-11).                                           
                                 
  CF2C12-Dichlorodifluoromethane            1.0       
120.0          1.5         0.00   
   (CFC-12).                                           
                                 
  C2F3C13-Trichlorotrifluoroethane          0.8        
90.0         1.11         0.00   
   (CFC-113).                                          
                                 
  C2F4C12-                                  1.0      
200.00          1.8         0.00   
   Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-                     
                                 
   114).                                               
                                 
  C2F5-                                     0.6       
400.0          2.0         0.00   
   C1Monochloropentafluoroethane                       
                                 
   (CFC-115).                                          
                                 
All isomers of the above chemicals                     
                                 
 [reserved]                                            
                                 
2. Group II:                                           
                                 
  CF2 C1Br-                                 3.0        
  12         0.06         0.13   
   Bromochlorodifluoromethane                          
                                 
   (Halon-1211).                                       
                                 
                                            -18        
-.08         -.03                
  CF3 Br-Bromotrifluoromethane             10.0        
  72         0.00         1.00   
   (Halon-1301).                                       
                                 
                                           -107        
                                 
  C2F4 Br2                                  6.0        
  23         0.00         0.30   
   Dibromotetrafluoroethane (Halon                     
                                 
   -2402).                                             
                                 
                                            -28        
             -.37                
All isomers of the above chemicals                     
                                 
 [reserved]                                            
                                 
3. Group III:                                          
                                 
  CF3C1-Chlorotrifluoromethane              1.0        
 120         0.88         0.00   
   (CFC-13).                                           
                                 
                                           -250       
-1.83                             
  C2FC15-(CFC-111) ...............          1.0        
  60         1.04         0.00   
                                            -90       
-1.56                             
  C2F2C14-(CFC-112) ..............          1.0        
  60         0.90         0.00   
                                            -90       
-1.35                             
  C3FC17-(CFC-211) ...............          1.0        
 100         1.76         0.00   
                                           -500       
-8.81                             
  C3F2C16-(CFC-212) ..............          1.0        
 100         1.60         0.00   
                                           -500       
-7.98                             
  C3F3C15-(CFC-213) ..............          1.0        
 100         1.41         0.00   
                                           -500       
-7.06                             
  C3F4C14-(CFC-214) ..............          1.0        
 100         1.20         0.00   
                                           -500       
-6.01                             
  C3F5C13-(CFC-215) ..............          1.0        
 100         0.96         0.00   
                                           -500       
-4.82                             
  C3F6C12-(CFC-216) ..............          1.0        
 100         0.69         0.00   
                                           -500       
-3.45                             
  C3F7C1-(CFC-217) ...............          1.0        
 100         0.37         0.00   
                                           -500       
-1.87                             
All isomers of the above chemicals                     
                                 
 [reserved]                                            
                                 
4. Group IV:                                           
                                 
  CC14-Carbon Tetrachloride ......          1.1        
50.0          1.0         0.00   
5. Group V:                                            
                                 
  C2H3C13-1,1,1 Trichloroethane             0.1        
 6.3         0.11         0.00   
   (Methyl chloroform).                                
                                 
All isomers of the above chemical                      
                                 
 except 1,1,2-trichloroethane [                        
                                 
 reserved]                                             
                                 
6. Group VI:                                           
                                 
  CH3Br-Bromomethane (Methyl                0.7        
       [reserved]                
   Bromide).                                           
                                 
7. Group VII:                                          
                                 
  CHFBR2- ........................         1.00        
       [reserved]                
  CHF2Br(HBFC-22B1) ..............         0.74        
       [reserved]                
  CH2FBr .........................         0.73        
       [reserved]                
  C2HFBr4 ........................    0.3 - 0.8        
       [reserved]                
  C2HF2Br3 .......................    0.5 - 1.8        
       [reserved]                
  C2HF3Br2 .......................    0.4 - 1.6        
       [reserved]                
  C2HF4Br ........................    0.7 - 1.2        
       [reserved]                
  C2H2FBr3 .......................    0.1 - 1.1        
       [reserved]                
  C2H2F2Br2 ......................    0.2 - 1.5        
       [reserved]                
  C2H2F3Br .......................    0.7 - 1.6        
       [reserved]                
  C2H3FBr2 .......................    0.1 - 1.7        
       [reserved]                
  C2H3F2Br .......................    0.2 - 1.1        
       [reserved]                
  C2H4 Br ........................   0.07 - 0.1        
       [reserved]                
  C3HFBr6 ........................    0.3 - 1.5        
       [reserved]                
  C3HF2Br5 .......................    0.2 - 1.9        
       [reserved]                
  C3HF3Br4 .......................    0.3 - 1.8        
       [reserved]                
  C3HF4Br3 .......................    0.5 - 2.2        
       [reserved]                
  C3HF5Br2 .......................    0.9 - 2.0        
       [reserved]                
  C3HF6Br ........................    0.7 - 3.3        
       [reserved]                
  C3H2FBR5 .......................    0.1 - 1.9        
       [reserved]                
  C3H2F2BR4 ......................    0.2 - 2.1        
       [reserved]                
  C3H2F3Br3 ......................    0.2 - 5.6        
       [reserved]                
  C3H2F4Br2 ......................    0.3 - 7.5        
       [reserved]                
  C3H2F5BR .......................    0.9 - 1.4        
       [reserved]                
  C3H3FBR4 .......................   0.08 - 1.9        
       [reserved]                
  C3H3F2Br3 ......................    0.1 - 3.1        
       [reserved]                
  C3H3F3Br2 ......................    0.1 - 2.5        
       [reserved]                
  C3H3F4Br .......................    0.3 - 4.4        
       [reserved]                
  C3H4FBr3 .......................   0.03 - 0.3        
       [reserved]                
  C3H4F2Br2 ......................    0.1 - 1.0        
       [reserved]                
  C3H4F3Br .......................   0.07 - 0.8        
       [reserved]                
  C3H5FBr2 .......................   0.04 - 0.4        
       [reserved]                
  C3H5F2Br .......................   0.07 - 0.8        
       [reserved]                
  C3H6FB .........................   0.02 - 0.7        
       [reserved]                
B. Class II:                                           
                                 
  CHFC12-DiChlorofluoromethane           [res.]        
 2.1         0.03         0.00   
   (HCFC-21).                                          
                                 
  CHF2C1-Chlorodifluoromethane             0.05        
15.3         0.14         0.00   
   (HCFC-22).                                          
                                 
  CH2FC1-Chlorofluoromethane (HCFC       [res.]        
1.44         0.02         0.00   
   -31).                                               
                                 
  C2HFC14-(HCFC-121) .............       [res.]        
 0.6         0.01         0.00   
  C2HF2C13-(HCFC-122) ............       [res.]        
 1.4         0.02         0.00   
  C2HF3C12-(HCFC-123) ............         0.02        
 1.6        0.016         0.00   
  C2HF4C1-(HCFC-124) .............         0.02        
 6.6         0.04         0.00   
  C2H2FC13-(HCFC-131) ............       [res.]        
 4.0         0.06         0.00   
  C2H2F2C12-(HCFC-132b) ..........       [res.]        
 4.2         0.05         0.00   
  C2H2F3C1-(HCFC-133a) ...........       [res.]        
 4.8         0.03         0.00   
  C2H3FC12-(HCFC-141b) ...........         0.12        
10.0         0.10         0.00   
  C2H3F2C1-(HCFC-142b) ...........         0.06        
19.1         0.14         0.00   
  C3HFC16-(HCFC-221) .............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3HF2C15-(HCFC-222) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3HF3C14-(HCFC-223) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3HF4C13-(HCFC-224) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3HF5C12-(HCFC-225ca) ..........       [res.]        
 1.5         0.01         0.00   
                                           -1.7        
                                 
    (HCFC-225Cb) .................       [res.]        
 5.1         0.04         0.00   
  C3HF6C1-(HCFC-226) .............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H2FC15-(HCFC-231) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H2F2C14-(HCFC-232) ...........   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H2F3C13-(HCFC-233) ...........   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H2F4C12-(HCFC-234) ...........   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H2F5C1-(HCFC-235) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H3FC14-(HCFC-241) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H3F2C13-(HCFC-242) ...........   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H3F3C12-(HCFC-243) ...........   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H3F4C1-(HCFC-244) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H4FC13-(HCFC-251) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H4F2C12-(HCFC-252) ...........   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H4F3C1-(HCFC-253) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H5FC12-(HCFC-261) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C2H5F2C1-(HCFC-262) ............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
  C3H6FC1-(HCFC-271) .............   [reserved]        
                          0.00   
All isomers of the above chemicals                     
                                 
 [reserved]                                            
                                 


[FR Doc. 93-29886 Filed 12-3-93; 4:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The Contents entry for this article reads as follows:

Air programs:
  Stratospheric ozone protection-
    Ozone-depleting substances; accelerated phase-out schedule,
65018
 

Top of page


Local Navigation




Jump to main content.