Jump to main content.


Vol. 58 No.  51 Thursday, March 18, 1993  p 15014 (Proposed Rule)  
    1/4697  

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 



40 CFR Part 82 



[FRL 4604-2] 



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 



AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.



컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is proposing to amend the schedule 

for the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, as provided for 

under section 606 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 

under section 606. Today's action also proposes 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 proposes to add methyl bromide to the list of class I
substances, 

in response to new scientific information and a petition submitted 

under section 602 of the Act, the decision of the Protocol Parties 

to classify methyl bromide as a controlled substance with an 

ozone depleting substance with an ozone depleting potential 

(ODP) of .7 and to add hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the 

list of Class I substances. Finally, in accordance with trade 

provisions in article 4 of the Montreal Protocol, EPA proposes 

with this action to ban specified trade between the U.S. and 

foreign states not party to the Protocol.



DATES: EPA intends to publish a final action in the fall of 

1993 with an effective date of January 1, 1994, except for the 

Montreal Protocol trade provisions that will take effect 30 

days after final promulgation. If requested by March 25, 1993, 

EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed action on April 

2, 1993. The contact person listed below may be called regarding 

a hearing. Written comments on this action must be submitted 

on or before April 19, 1993, if the hearing is not held, or 

May 3, 1993, if the hearing is held.



ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rulemaking should be submitted


in duplicate to the attention of Air Docket No. A-92-13 at: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, 

DC, 20460. A copy should also be sent to Peter Voigt at the 

address indicated below. The Docket is located in room M-1500, 

First Floor Waterside Mall. Materials relevant to this rulemaking 

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. The proposed 

regulatory language is not printed with this action, but may 

be obtained through the EPA hotline. The hotline telephone number 

is 1-800-296-1996.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Voigt, U.S. EPA,
Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office 

of Air and Radiation, 6202J, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC, 

20460, (202) 233-9185. 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 





Table of Contents

I. Background



  A. Scientific Evidence of Ozone Depletion



  B. Past Efforts to Control Ozone-Depleting Substances



  C. Fourth Meeting of Parties of the Montreal Protocol



  a. Summary



  b. Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol



  c. Amendments to the Montreal Protocol



  d. Decisions of the Protocol Parties



  D. 1990 CAA Amendment

II. Purpose of Today's Proposal

III. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations



  A. Accelerated Phaseout of Class I Substances



  1. Legal Authority



  2. Proposed Phaseout Schedule



  a. Existing Phaseout Schedule



  b. Petitioners' and Commenters' Suggested Phaseout Schedules



  (i) NRDC/EDF/FOE Petition



  (ii) CFC Alliance Petition



  (iii) ARI Comments



  (iv) BPX Comments



  (v) PACC and ALA Comments



  (vi) HSIA Comments



  c. EPA's Response to Petitions and Comments



  (i) Use of section 303 to Accelerate the Phaseout



  (ii) Use of Authority under Both Paragraphs of section 606(a)



  (iii) The Proposed Schedule



  3. Limited Exemptions to Production and Consumption Phaseout



  B. Accelerated Phaseout of Class II Substances



  1. Today's Proposal



  2. Legal Authority



  3. Petitioners' and Commenters' Suggested Phaseout Options



  4. EPA's Response to Petitions and Comments



  C. Addition of Methyl Bromide to the List of Class I Substances 

    and Phaseout Schedule



  1. Summary



  2. Legal Authority



  3. Petitioners' and Commenters' Suggested Actions



  a. NRDC/EDF/FOE Petition



  b. Methyl Bromide Working Group Comments



  c. Responses to the section 114 Information Request



  4. Today's Proposal



  5. Group Assignment



  6. Ozone Depletion Potential



  D. Phaseout Schedule for Methyl Bromide



  1. Petitioners' Request



  2. Statutory Standards



  3. Summary of Proposal and Response to Petitioners



  4. Most Stringent Attainable Schedule



  5. Today's Proposal



  6. Applicability of Section 611 Labeling Requirements



  7. Essential Use Exemption



  E. Addition of Hydrobromofluorocarbons to the List of Class 

    I Substances and to the Phaseout Schedule



  1. Summary



  2. Legal Authority



  3. Applicability of Section 611 Labeling Requirements to HBFCs



  F. Trade Restrictions



  1. Montreal Protocol Trade Requirements



  2. Legal Authority

IV. Other Issues



  A. Addition of HCFCs to the EPCRA section 313 List



  B. Postponement of Labeling of Products Manufactured with 

    Ozone Depleting Substances



  C. Suggestions for the Implementation of section 612



  D. Treatment of Recycled and Used Ozone Depleting Substances 

    When Calculating Consumption



  E. Transshipment



  F. Destruction and Insignificant Quantities

V. Impact of Proposed Action

VI. Additional Information



  A. Executive Order 12291



  B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 



I. Background 





A. Scientific Evidence of Ozone Depletion 



   A broad scientific consensus has emerged that continuing 

depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer will lead to increased 

levels of UV-B radiation penetrating to the earth's surface, 

resulting in potential health and environmental harm including 

increased incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts,
suppression 

of the immune system, damage to crops and aquatic organisms, 

increased formation of ground-level ozone, and increased weathering


of outdoor plastics (see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

the Phaseout of Ozone-Depleting Chemicals and United Nations 

Environment Programme Synthesis Report). 

   The initial hypothesis linking chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 

and depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer appeared in a 

paper by Molina and Rowland in 1974. Since that time, the
scientific 

community has made remarkable advances in understanding atmospheric


processes affecting stratospheric ozone and in analyzing data 

measuring ozone depletion, both over the polar regions and
globally. 

In response to the growing evidence that chlorine and bromine 

could destroy stratospheric ozone on a global basis and the 

discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica, the international 

community negotiated the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which limited 

the production and consumption of a specific set of ozone-depleting


substances. 

   Also under this agreement, Parties are required to assess 

the science, economics and alternative technologies related 

to protection of the ozone layer every two years. In response 

to this requirement, the Parties issued their first scientific 

assessment in 1989. This assessment found that the destruction 

of the ozone layer over Antarctica was due to the presence of 

high chlorine concentrations linked to CFCs and other chlorinated 

and brominated compounds. In addition, the scientific assessment 

reported that a three to five percent decrease in ozone levels 

had occurred over a twenty-year period in the northern hemisphere 

in the winter months that could not be attributed to known natural 

processes. At the Second Meeting of the Protocol Parties in 

June 1990, the Parties responded to this new evidence by
reassessing 

and tightening the restrictions placed on these chemicals. 

   Significant scientific advances have continued since the 

1989 Protocol assessments. Several reports since that time have 

indicated a more rapid rate of ozone depletion than previously 

believed. 

   The most recent Protocol Scientific Assessment was issued 

on December 17, 1991. The report, entitled Scientific Assessment 

of Ozone Depletion: 1991, contained information from ground-

based monitoring instruments as well as from satellite instruments 

indicating significant decreases in total-column ozone in winter, 

and for the first time also in spring and summer, in both the 

northern and southern hemispheres at middle and high latitudes. 

It reported no significant depletion in the tropics. The total 

ozone measurement spectrometer (TOMS) data indicated that for 

the period 1979 to 1991 decreases in total ozone at 45 degrees 

south ranged between 4.4 percent in the fall to as much as 6.2 

percent in the summer, while depletion at 45 degrees north ranged 

between 1.7 percent in the fall to 5.6 percent in the winter. 

Data from the ground-based Dobson network confirmed these losses 

in total column ozone during the twelve-year period. These findings


show almost twice as much depletion as the average rate measured 

by the ground-based network over a twenty-year period. Based 

on this new data, scientists have concluded that the ozone in 

the stratosphere during the 1980's disappeared at a much faster 

rate than experienced in the previous decade. 

   The recent UNEP Science Assessment also included new data 

on the estimated ozone depletion potential (ODP) of ozone-depleting


substances. The assessment placed the ODP of methyl bromide, 

a chemical previously thought to have an insignificant effect 

on stratospheric ozone, at 0.6, with a range of uncertainty 

between 0.44-0.69. The meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen 

set the ODP at .7 based on a more inform percent assessment. 

The Executive Summary of the Assessment stated that, "if the 

anthropogenic sources of methyl bromide are significant and 

their emissions can be reduced, then each ten percent reduction 

in methyl bromide would rapidly result in a decrease in
stratospheric 

bromine of 1.5 pptv [parts per trillion by volume], which is 

equivalent to a reduction in chlorine of 0.045 to 0.18 ppbv 

[parts per billion by volume]. This gain is comparable to that 

of a three-year acceleration of the scheduled phaseout of the 

CFCs." 

   On February 3, 1992, NASA released preliminary data acquired 

by the ongoing Arctic Airborne Stratospheric Experiment-II (AASE-

II), a series of high-altitude instrument-laden plane flights 

over the northern hemisphere (see Interim Findings: Second Airborne


Arctic Stratospheric Expedition). Additional data were also 

obtained from the initial observations by NASA's Upper Atmosphere 

Research Satellite (UARS), launched in September 1991. The key 

findings were as follows: 

   1. Northern latitudes: 

    The measurements showed higher levels of chlorine oxide 

(ClO) (the key agent responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion)


over Canada and New England than were observed during any previous 

series of aircraft flights. 

    Levels of hydrogen chloride (HCl), a chemical species that 

stores atmospheric chlorine, were observed to be low, providing 

new evidence for the occurrence of chemical processes that convert 

stable forms of chlorine into ozone-destroying species. 

    Levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were also observed to be 

low, providing evidence of reactions that take place on the 

surface of aerosols that diminish the ability of the atmosphere 

to control the buildup of chlorine radicals. 

    The observations of high ClO and bromine oxide (BrO) levels 

imply human-induced rates of ozone destruction of one to two 

percent per day for a short period of time beginning in late 

January. Total annual ozone loss in the Arctic will depend upon 

how long these chemical perturbations persist. 

   2. Temperate latitudes: 

    ClO levels over the United States and Canada and as far 

south as the Caribbean were many times greater than gas phase 

model predictions. These levels are only partially explainable 

by enhanced aerosol surface reactions due to the emissions from 

Mount Pinatubo. 

    New observations of HCl and nitrogen oxide (NO) imply that 

chlorine and bromine are more effective in destroying ozone 

than previously believed. 

    Thin horizontal layers of elevated ClO concentrations were 

found throughout the Northern Hemisphere. 

   The NASA findings indicate that in late January, 1992, the 

Arctic air was chemically "primed" for the potential formation 

of a springtime ozone "hole" similar to that formed each spring 

over Antarctica. These findings also are consistent with theories 

that ozone depletion may occur on aerosols anywhere around the 

globe, and not solely on polar stratospheric clouds as was
previously 

believed. 

   After collecting more data, NASA released an April 30, 1992 

"End of Mission Statement," which indicated that while a rise 

in stratospheric temperatures in late January apparently prevented 

severe ozone depletion from occurring in the Arctic this year, 

observed ozone levels were nonetheless lower than had previously 

been recorded for this time of year. This information has further 

increased the Agency's concern that significant ozone loss may 

occur over populated regions of the earth, thus exposing humans, 

plants and animals to harmful levels of UV-B radiation, and 

adds support to the need for further efforts to limit emissions 

of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine. 



B. Past Efforts To Control Ozone-Depleting Substances 



   The United States has been a leader in the development and 

implementation of measures to limit the emissions of
ozone-depleting 

chemicals. As a leading advocate for, and an original member 

of, the Vienna Convention in 1985, and the subsequent Montreal 

Protocol in 1987, and strengthening amendments to the Montreal 

Protocol in 1990 (the London Amendments) and a leading advocate 

again in 1992 (the Copenhagen Amendments), the United States 

has demonstrated its long-standing commitment to global
stratospheric 

ozone protection. 

   The 1987 Montreal Protocol has served as the basis to control 

the production and consumption, of ozone-depleting chemicals. 

Originally, the Montreal Protocol required a 50 percent reduction 

from 1986 levels in the production and consumption of CFC-11, 

-12, -113, -114, and -115, by 1998 with halons 1211, 1301 and 

2402 frozen at their 1986 levels starting in 1992.{1} In addition, 

with certain specified exceptions, Article 4 of the Protocol 

required the Parties to ban trade with foreign states not Party 

to the Protocol as follows: (1) Paragraph 1 required the Parties 

to ban bulk imports from foreign states not party of the chemicals 

listed in Annex A within one year of entry into force of the 

Protocol (i.e. January 1, 1990), (2) paragraph 2 required Parties 

operating under Article 5 paragraph 1 (developing countries) 

to ban bulk exports to foreign states not party of the chemicals 

listed in Annex A by January 1, 1993, and (3) paragraph 3 required 

the Parties to ban imports from foreign states not party of 

products containing the chemicals listed in Annex A, as specified 

in a separate annex to the Protocol to be negotiated by the 

Parties within three years of the entry into force of the Protocol.


Currently, 92 foreign states and the United States, representing 

over 90 percent of the world's consumption of CFCs and halons, 

are Parties to the original Montreal Protocol. (See appendix 

C of today's proposal.) 

      {1} The chemicals are listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR 

      쿛art 82 as Class I, Group I (CFCs) and Group II
(Halons). 

      쿟hey also are listed in Annex A to the Montreal
Protocol.

   As noted above, during the first scientific assessment required 

under the Protocol, scientists examined the data from the land-

based monitoring stations and the TOMS satellite data and found 

that there had been global ozone depletion during the winter 

and spring over the northern hemisphere. In addition, further 

studies of the Antarctic ozone hole implicated chlorine as the 

main cause of ozone depletion over the Antarctic. 

   Responding to this information, the Parties met in London 

in 1990 and revised the existing Protocol (the London Amendments) 

to require a complete phaseout of the CFCs and halons specified 

in the 1987 Montreal Protocol by the year 2000. In addition, 

in Annex B to the Protocol as amended, the Parties added CFC-

13, -111, -112, -211, -212, -213, -214, -215, -216, -217 to 

the original list of CFCs, as well as two more chemicals, methyl 

chloroform and carbon tetrachloride.{2} The Amendments provided 

that the last two chemicals were to be phased out by 2005 and 

2000, respectively. The London Amendments also expanded the 

Article 4 trade restrictions, specifying that the paragraph 

1 Annex A chemicals imports ban was to take effect January 1, 

1990, extending the Annex A chemicals export ban in paragraph 

2 to all Parties to the London Amendments, and banning imports 

and exports of the additional new chemicals listed in Annex 

B with foreign states that are not Parties to the London Amendments


(paragraphs 1 bis., and 2 bis.) within one year after the
Amendments 

enter into force, i.e. beginning August 10, 1993.{3} Currently, 

33 foreign states and the United States have become Parties 

to the London Amendments. (See Appendix C of today's proposal.) 

An exception to the trade bans of the 1987 Montreal Protocol 

and the 1990 London Amendments is authorized by Article 4,
paragraph 

8 for foreign states not party that are determined by a meeting 

of the Parties to be in compliance with the phase-out and trade 

provisions of the Protocol. 

      {2} The Annex B chemicals are listed in appendix A of 

      40 CFR part 82, and identified as Class I, Group III 

      (CFCs) and Group IV (carbon tetrachloride), and Group 

      쿣 (methyl chloroform).

      {3} See, Decision IV/1 of the Fourth Meeting of the
Parties, 

      퀇hich confirms the "entry into force" of the London
Amendments. 

      쿔n addition, although not pertinent to today's
proposal, 

      쿻ew paragraph 3 bis. provides (parallel to Article 4 

      쿾aragraph 3) for the Parties to develop a list of
products 

      쿬ontaining Annex B substances, and then ban imports of 

      퀂uch products from foreign states that are not Parties 

      퀃o the London Amendments.

   Annex D to the Protocol, listing six categories of products 

containing Annex A substances which Parties may not import from 

foreign states not party was adopted by the Third Meeting of 

the Parties on June 21, 1991, and became effective May 27, 1992. 

The ban on imports of the Annex D products is to take effect 

beginning May 27, 1993. See Decision IV/16 paragraph 1 or the 

Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, confirming 

entry into force of Annex D. 



C. Fourth Meeting of Parties of the Montreal Protocol 





a. Summary 



   At the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

in Copenhagen, Denmark on November 23-25, 1992, the Parties 

adjusted the phase-out schedules for Class I (Annex A and B) 

substances to phase out CFCs, methyl chloroform and carbon
tetrachloride 

in 1996 and halons in 1994. (see further discussion below). 

The Parties also decided a variety of other matters, including 

approval of certain destruction technologies, clarification 

of the treatment of insignificant quantities of production and 

of transshipments for purposes of phase-out accounting, adoption 

of essential use criteria and a number of matters pertaining 

to the Article 4 trade bans. 

   In addition, the Parties adopted a package of amendments 

to the Protocol. (The "Copenhagen Amendment"; see Decision IV/4 

of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, 

adopting Annex III to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the 

Parties). The amendment would, upon entry into force, add HBFCs 

as Group II of Annex C, add a schedule for phasing-out Annex 

C substances, and establish new Annex E adding methyl bromide 

as an ozone depleting substance and requiring its control. 



b. Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol 



   The following adjustment to the phaseout schedules of previously


controlled substances were adopted at the Copenhagen meeting: 

   (1) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for the originally 

controlled CFCs (i.e., class I, group I substances) to require 

a 75% reduction in production and consumption (production plus 

imports minus exports) from 1986 baseline levels in 1994 and 

1995, and a complete phaseout by 1996; 

   (2) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for halons (class 

I, group II substances) to require a complete phaseout of
production 

and consumption by 1994; 

   (3) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for other fully
halogenated 

CFCs (class I, group III substances) to require a reduction 

from 1989 levels of 75% in 1994 and 1995, and a complete phaseout 

of production and consumption by 1996; 

   (4) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for carbon tetrachloride 

(class I, group IV) by requiring a reduction from 1989 levels 

of 85% in 1995, and a complete phaseout in 1996; 

   (5) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for methyl chloroform 

(class I, group V) by reducing production and consumption to 

50% of 1989 levels in 1994, and phasing out production and
consumption 

completely by 1996. 

   (6) Establishing criteria for identifying essential uses 

and a process for excepting limited production and consumption 

of the above chemicals from the otherwise applicable phaseout 

deadline (see below). 

   Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 9, of the Protocol, these 

adjustments are to go into effect six months after the United 

Nations Depositary circulates the adjustments to the Parties. 



c. Amendments to the Montreal Protocol 



   In addition, the Parties adopted the following amendments 

to the Protocol: 

   (1) Freezing consumption of HCFCs (class II substances)
beginning 

in 1996 at a baseline level of 100% of the 1989 ozone depletion 

potential (ODP)-weighted level of HCFC consumption plus 3.1% 

of the ODP weighted 1989 CFC consumption; reducing consumption 

by 35% of the baseline in 2004, 65% by 2010, 90% by 2015, and 

99.5% by 2020; and completely phasing out consumption by 2030; 

   (2) Adding Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the list of 

controlled substances, specifying their ozone depletion potential, 

and phasing their production and consumption out completely 

by 1996; 

   (3) Adding methyl bromide to the list of controlled substances, 

adopting the ozone depleting potential estimate of the scientific 

assessment of 0.7, and freezing production and consumption
beginning 

in 1995 at 1991 levels (not including amounts used for quarantine 

and pre-shipment uses); 

   (4) Establishing a procedure for the approval by the Parties 

for continued production and consumption of controlled substances 

after their phaseout to meet essential use requirements; and 

defining essential uses as those necessary for health or safety, 

or critical to the functioning of society, and where there are 

no available alternatives or existing stocks of banked or recycled 

material; 

   (5) Establishing reporting requirements for HCFCs, HBFCs, 

and methyl bromide; 

   (6) Establishing reporting requirements for imports and exports 

of recycled halons and HCFCs; 

   (7) Amending the Article 4 restrictions on imports and exports 

of controlled substances to and from foreign states not party 

to the Protocol; 

   The Amendments are to enter into force by January 1, 1994, 

provided twenty Parties have ratified them. If twenty Parties 

have not ratified the Amendments by the date, the Amendments 

are to go into effect 90 days after the twentieth instrument 

of ratification is deposited by a Party. 



d. Decisions of the Protocol Parties 



   The Parties also made a number of decisions regarding procedures


and definitions that affect implementation of the Protocol, 

and which are addressed in this proposal. These decisions include: 

   (1) The approval of certain destruction technologies and 

that Parties that plan to operate destruction facilities do 

so in accordance with "good housekeeping procedures" developed 

by the Parties or their equivalent; 

   (2) Clarification of the definition of controlled substances 

to exclude insignificant quantities under defined circumstances, 

and to encourage Parties to minimize emissions of such substances; 

   (3) Clarification of the reporting requirements and treatment 

of international transshipment; 

   (4) Clarification of the definition of controlled substance 

to exclude the import and export of recycled and used controlled 

substances from the calculation of consumption, but to require 

reporting of data concerning these imports and exports. 



D. 1990 CAA Amendments 



   On November 15, 1990, the President signed the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549, including Title 

VI, "Stratospheric Ozone Protection." Section 604 of the Act 

establishes a phase-out schedule as fast as, and in some instance 

faster than, the 1990 Amendments to the Protocol. Specifically 

this title requires the United States to phase out production 

and consumption of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride by 

the turn of the century, and of methyl chloroform by 2002. In 

addition, section 605 of the Act requires a freeze on the
production 

of HCFCs beginning in 2015, and a phaseout of these chemicals 

by 2030. Section 606 authorizes EPA to accelerate these phaseout 

schedules if scientific evidence indicates the need for faster 

action, if technological advances permit such action, or if 

the Montreal Protocol is modified to require faster action. 

   On July 30, 1992 EPA issued regulations implementing the 

phase-out schedules for Class I substances required under Section 

604 for 1992 and subsequent control period (57 FR 33754). 

   Title VI calls for other programs to help protect the ozone 

layer as well. It requires EPA to establish both a warning label 

program and a national recycling program, to ban non-essential 

products, to develop a federal procurement policy, and to implement


a safe alternatives program to evaluate the alternatives to 

class I substances (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and 

methyl chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs). 

   U.S. industry has responded to concerns about ozone depletion 

by quickly developing substitutes and alternative processes 

to replace CFCs, halons and other ozone-depleting compounds. 

Due to the rapid development of substitutes and alternatives 

to these chemicals, U.S. production of CFCs was 23 percent below 

allowable 1986 baseline levels in the first year of regulation 

(1989-90), and 42 percent below that level in the second year 

(1990-91). 



II. Purpose of Today's Proposal 



   On February 11, 1992, President Bush, responding to recent 

scientific findings, announced that the United States would 

phase out production of CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, halons, 

and methyl chloroform by December 31, 1995. He asked that U.S. 

producers of the chemicals voluntarily reduce their 1992 output 

to 50 percent of baseline year levels and announced that the 

U.S. will re-examine the phaseout schedule of HCFCs. He also 

stated that the U.S. will consider recent evidence suggesting 

the possible need to phase out methyl bromide. In addition, 

the President called on other nations to match the U.S. commitment 

by ratifying the Protocol as amended in 1990 and by accelerating 

their phaseout schedules. The President further stated that 

exemptions would be made for essential uses, and that limited 

quantities of the chemicals would continue to be produced in 

order to service certain existing equipment, to the extent
allowable 

under the Protocol. 

   In addition, the Agency has received two petitions to accelerate


the phaseout of these chemicals. One petition was submitted 

by three environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and Friends 

of the Earth (FOE). This petition also asked EPA to add methyl 

bromide to the list of class I substances. The other petition 

was submitted by the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, an 

industry group of producers and users of the chemicals. Comments 

on these petitions and suggestions for appropriate phaseout 

dates were also received from the Methyl Bromide Working Group, 

the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), the Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), the Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 

(BPX), and the Pharmaceutical Aerosol CFC Coalition (PACC) and 

the American Lung Association (ALA). In addition, the Agency 

received information from the public on methyl bromide in response 

to an information request. 

   Today's action proposes regulations implementing the President's


announcement and the actions taken by the Fourth Meeting of 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. It includes proposed dates 

for interim reductions and the phaseout of Class I and Class 

II substances. It also proposes to list and phase out methyl 

bromide and HBFCs. It discusses the information submitted in 

the petitions and responds to the petitions, as required by 

section 602(c)(3) and section 606(b) of the Act. In addition, 

today's action proposes to implement the decisions of the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol at their meeting in Copenhagen in
November, 

1992. Finally, today's action proposes regulations implementing 

the restrictions on trade with foreign states that have not 

become Parties to the Montreal Protocol or to the London Amendments


that are to take effect in 1993.{4} 

      {4} Additional trade bans set forth in the Copenhagen 

      쿌mendments will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking


      쿪fter those Amendments enter into force.



III. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations 





A. Accelerated Phaseout of Class I Substances 





1. 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 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. 

   Section 606(b) provides that any person may petition the 

Administrator to establish a more stringent phaseout schedule 

and requires the Administrator to grant or deny any such petitions 

within 180 days of receipt. It also provides that if the
Administrator 

denies the petition, the Administrator shall publish an explanation


of why the petition was denied. If the Administrator grants 

such petition, such final regulations shall be promulgated within 

one year. Finally, section 606(b) states that any petition shall 

include a showing by the petitioner that there are data adequate 

to support the petition and that if the Administrator finds 

that there is insufficient information to make a determination 

under section 606, the Administrator shall use any authority 

available to the Administrator to acquire such information. 

   Finally, section 614(b) states that in the case of any conflict 

between any provision in Title VI and the Montreal Protocol, 

the more stringent provision shall govern. Thus, since the phase-

out schedules adopted by the Fourth Meeting of the Parties are 

more stringent than those contained in section 604, the adjustments


adopted by the Parties prevail. However, additional actions 

under section 606 to even accelerate further the timetables 

agreed to by the Parties are warranted if the conditions set 

out in section 606(a) (1) or (2) are satisfied. 



2. Proposed Phaseout Schedule 



   a. Existing Phaseout Schedule. The class I substances are 

currently subject to the phaseout schedule laid out in section 

604(a) of the Act, which limits production and consumption to 

the following percentages of baseline levels each year: 





                                                                   
          

                                                                   
          

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                            Group IV  
Group V    Other    

                   Date                      (carbon  
(methyl   class I   

                                            tetrach 
chlorof  substan   

                                            loride)   
orm)     ces     

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                       
                   

1991 .....................................       100   
   100        85   

1992 .....................................        90   
   100        80   

1993 .....................................        80   
    90        75   

1994 .....................................        70   
    85        65   

1995 .....................................        15   
    70        50   

1996 .....................................        15   
    50        40   

1997 .....................................        15   
    50        15   

1998 .....................................        15   
    50        15   

1999 .....................................        15   
    50        15   

2000 .....................................         0   
    20         0   

2001 .....................................         0   
    20         0   

2002{1} ..................................         0   
     0         0   

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴

  {1}And each year thereafter.                                     
          





   b. Petitioners' and Commenters' Suggested Phaseout Schedules. 

(i) NRDC/EDF/FOE Petition. The first petition under section 

606 was submitted by NRDC, EDF and FOE on December 3, 1991. 

These petitioners requested a complete phaseout of CFCs by January 

1, 1995, a complete phaseout of halons and carbon tetrachloride 

by January 1, 1992, and a complete phaseout of methyl chloroform 

by January 1, 1993, with strict interim reductions specified 

for each of the chemicals to be phased out later than 1992. 

The petitioners cited recent scientific findings, including 

the most recent scientific and environmental effects assessments 

conducted under the Montreal Protocol. These assessments, the 

petitioners maintained, demonstrate that CFCs and other halocarbon 

compounds are causing far more rapid depletion of the stratospheric


ozone layer than was believed when Congress adopted the phaseout 

schedule contained in section 604 of the Act. They also stated 

that an accelerated phaseout would be technologically feasible 

due to the availability of alternatives, a factor that they 

contended provides an independent basis for accelerating the 

current schedules. This petition also requested that the Agency 

use its authority under section 303 of the Clean Air Act to 

take emergency action to stop the production and consumption 

of halons and methyl bromide in 1992 as "polluting activities 

that present imminent and substantial danger to public health, 

welfare, and the environment." While section 303 contains no 

deadline for response to a petition, the petitioners requested 

that the Administrator respond to this portion of the petition 

within 30 days. 

   The phaseout schedule for class I substances suggested by 

the petitioners is summarized in the following table: 





             Class I.-Phaseout Schedule Requested by NRDC/EDF/FOE  
          

  [Allowable production and consumption year (begin Jan. 1) as
percentage of  

                                   baseline]                       
          

                                                                   
          

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴

                      Substance                        
Percent     Year    

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴

                                                             
              

CFCs ...............................................         
 40    1992   

                                                             
 25    1993   

                                                             
 15    1994   

                                                             
  0    1995   

Halons .............................................         
  0    1992   

Carbon Tetrachloride ...............................         
  0    1992   

Methyl Chloroform ..................................         
 50    1992   

                                                             
  0    1993   

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴





   (ii) CFC Alliance Petition. On February 11, 1992, the Alliance 

for a Responsible CFC Policy (the Alliance) also petitioned 

the Agency to accelerate the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals.


The Alliance petition cited substantial technological advances 

in developing alternatives to CFCs, as well as the announcements 

over the last year concerning additional measurements of potential 

ozone depletion around the globe as the bases for its call for 

an accelerated phaseout. The Alliance petition proposed the 

following allowable annual production schedule for CFCs: 





      CFC Phaseout Schedule      

  Requested by the CFC Alliance  

   [Allowable annual production  

       of 1986 quantities]       

                                 

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴

       Year          Percent    

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                

1993..............         50   

1994..............         40   

1995..............         25   

1996..............      ({1})   

1996-1999.........      ({2})   

2000..............          0   

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴

  {1}0% for new equipment.       

  {2}Allocation for service of   

  equipment manufactured before  

  Jan. 1, 1996 (amount to be     

  determined).                   





   Although the Alliance recommended an accelerated phaseout 

schedule for CFCs, the trade group disagreed with the NRDC/EDF/FOE 

petition's reliance on EPA's authority under section 606(a)(1), 

which provides for an accelerated phaseout if an acceleration 

of the phaseout schedule may be necessary to protect human health 

and the environment against such effects. The Alliance stated 

that the uncertainty of the science and the possible impacts 

on human health and the environment due to ozone depletion would 

not provide a solid basis for action solely under section
606(a)(1), 

and suggested that the accelerated phaseout also be based on 

the authority under section 606(a)(2) of the Act, which provides 

for a more stringent schedule based on the availability of
substitutes 

taking into account technological achievability, safety, and 

other relevant factors. The Alliance petition stated that Congress 

intended the Agency to apply the criteria in paragraphs (1) 

and (2) jointly, not independently. In support of that contention, 

the Alliance pointed to the last sentence in section 606(a) 

which states 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. The Alliance suggested that Congress so qualified the 

criteria of the two subsections to require EPA to consider the 

practicality of accelerating the phaseout of these chemicals. 

It stated that the technological progress that has been made 

in reducing CFC usage and emissions, recovering and recycling 

used CFCs, identifying potential alternative chemicals to assist 

in the elimination of the fully halogenated compounds, and in 

accelerating the normal commercialization process for these 

new compounds and technologies warrants the acceleration of 

the phaseout schedule for CFCs. While the Alliance encouraged 

EPA to accelerate the phaseout, it believed that, taking
technological 

feasibility into account, the phaseout could not be as rapid 

as the earlier petitioners had suggested. 

   (iii) ARI Comments. The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute (ARI) commented on the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition through 

a letter to the EPA Administrator dated February 5, 1992. Many 

of the ARI comments were similar to those voiced by the Alliance. 

However, ARI specifically warned that the phaseout of class 

I chemicals proposed by the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition would not 

provide significant additional ozone protection over other possible


accelerated control schedules, yet could lead to other unintended 

consequences such as increased global warming or major operating 

disruptions for equipment users and the public. ARI suggested 

that most refrigeration equipment manufacturers could not meet 

the phaseout dates proposed in the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition, and 

recommended the phaseout schedule proposed by the Alliance. 

   (iv) BPX Comments. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPX) submitted 

a response to the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition on January 10, 1992. 

This company was concerned with the environmental groups' suggested


phaseout schedule for halons. 

   The company stated that "it may be possible to impose a
production 

ban if that ban is deferred until a reliable and effective
mechanism 

for banking and recycling halons can be established." It stated, 

however, that "if EPA takes regulatory action before the rules 

for such a `halon bank' have been worked out, and before the 

bank itself has been established, the results will be both
environmentally 

and economically counterproductive, as well as posing a safety 

hazard." 

   BPX described the use of halons for oil field fire protection 

on the North Slope of Alaska, and stated that no full substitute 

for this essential halon use has yet been developed. The statement 

contended that the environmental groups' petition "failed to 

demonstrate that the essential users of halon can be supplied 

with virgin or recycled product if an immediate production ban 

is granted." BPX went on to state that such a ban would be
environmentally 

counterproductive and stressed the importance of first developing 

a full-fledged halon bank. BPX also stated that the phaseout 

of HCFCs by 2000 would "only serve to defer the development 

of non-ozone depleting chemicals, and would ultimately prolong 

the use of CFC's and halons." 

   (v) PACC and ALA Comments. The Pharmaceutical Aerosol CFC 

Coalition (PACC) and the American Lung Association (ALA) also 

submitted comments on the Alliance and NRDC/EDF/FOE petitions. 

These groups asked that EPA make special allowances for metered 

dose inhalers (MDIs) if it accelerates the phaseout schedule 

for CFCs. 

   The commenters stated that "[a]n enormous effort is underway 

to find alternatives to CFCs in MDIs. Substantial progress is 

being made, but, even with currently identified substitutes, 

it will take at least until 1998 to 2000 before CFCs can be 

eliminated from most MDIs." The groups cited the UNEP Technical 

Options committee report on Aerosol Products, Sterilants,
Miscellaneous 

Uses and Carbon Tetrachloride, which states that "CFC free
pressurized 

inhalation aerosols will not be available until at least mid 

1998, and in some cases not until the end of the century." 

   The commenters explained that "MDIs are pocket-sized aerosol 

devices that deliver precisely-measured doses of therapeutic 

drugs directly to the lungs" that are used for treating asthma 

and various pulmonary diseases. They stated that one out of 

every ten people in the U.S. and Europe use MDIs, and explained 

that implementing substitutes is particularly difficult in this 

area due to the extensive testing and government approval
procedures 

that must be undergone before alternatives may be made available. 

The commenters enclosed suggested language for the MDI exemption 

and a detailed "Analysis of the Likely Availability of Substitutes 

for the Use of CFCs in Metered Dose Inhalers." 

   (vi) HSIA Comments. The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance 

(HSIA) also submitted comments on the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition's 

phaseout schedule for carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. 

In regard to carbon tetrachloride, HSIA stated that perhaps 

as little as three percent of the carbon tetrachloride manufactured


in this country is used in non-feedstock applications that are 

subject to the phaseout. Moreover, it opposed the NRDC/EDF/FOE 

suggested phaseout date of January 1, 1992 for these applications. 

According to HSIA, a phaseout by this date would have drastic 

adverse consequences for American industry without any significant 

environmental benefits. The HSIA response stated that, "NRDC 

contends that EPA may not consider technological achievability 

in a decision to act under section 606(a)(1), arguing that
feasibility 

concerns are limited to a consideration of acceleration under 

section 606(a)(2). This argument disregards the language and 

the intent of section 606 and the other provisions in Title 

VI of the Clean Air Act." HSIA cited other portions of the title 

where Congress specifically required that feasibility and the 

technological availability of substitutes be considered. HSIA 

also opposed the environmental groups' call for EPA to act under 

section 303, stating that "legislative history indicates that 

EPA may act immediately under section 303 only if a non-speculative


risk of substantial harm exists." 

   HSIA went on to state that scientific evidence does not support 

the phaseout schedule suggested by the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition. 

It noted that the most recent UNEP scientific assessment, while 

concluding that harmful cumulative chlorine loading could be 

reduced by advancing CFC and HCFC phaseout deadlines, did not 

address the effect of a 1992 phaseout of carbon tetrachloride. 

HSIA added that the regulations proposed under section 604 of 

the Clean Air Act (56 FR 49548) would themselves result in an 

accelerated phaseout because of the method of calculation of 

the baseline consumption allowances, and went on to describe 

the uses of carbon tetrachloride that would be affected by an 

early phaseout, including its use for explosion prevention during 

chlorine production, its use as a solvent or reaction medium 

in the production of certain pesticides and pharmaceuticals, 

chlorinated rubber, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, and in
laboratories. 

HSIA stated that substitution for these applications is problematic


and will require significant research and development, citing 

the UNEP Technical Report's statement that "in cases where
alternatives 

cannot be found or the time frame for approval is lengthy,
continued 

use [after a 1997 phaseout] may be required with appropriate 

recovery and recycling controls being implemented." HSIA also 

raised the issue of the involuntary production of carbon
tetrachloride 

in other processes and warned that if destroyed controlled
substances 

are not excluded from the definition of production, "many companies


would be forced to undertake enormously expensive alterations 

of their production processes." 

   Regarding methyl chloroform, HSIA stated that the 1993 phaseout 

of methyl chloroform suggested by the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition 

is impractical, given the wide range of applications for this 

chemical. It stated that this phaseout would seriously jeopardize 

the health and safety of workers and consumers who would be 

required to shift to alternatives that may prove more toxic, 

and contribute to other environmental hazards. Indeed, the
commenter 

stated that such a rapid phaseout of these chemicals, and adoption 

of alternatives, would be contrary to the policy set out in 

section 612 of the Act, which requires that class I and II
substances 

be replaced by chemicals, product substitutes, or alternative 

manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human health 

and the environment. HSIA stated that the failure to take into 

account the availability of safe alternatives would violate 

EPA's responsibility under the Clean Air Act. 

   HSIA, like the Alliance, disputed the environmental groups' 

claim that only section 606(a)(1) need be satisfied for the 

Administrator to accelerate the phaseout. It argued that the 

uncertainties of current scientific understanding regarding 

the relationship between ozone-depleting chemicals and the harmful 

effects of ozone depletion are great enough that any action 

taken to accelerate the phaseout based on this one subparagraph 

would be legally improper. Like the Alliance, HSIA remarked 

that subparagraph 606(a)(2) must also be taken into account, 

which provides for acceleration if it is practicable based on 

the availability of substitutes, taking into account "technological


achievability, safety and other relevant factors." It argued 

that the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition failed to consider such factors, 

ignoring the possible adverse health and environmental effects 

of the proposed phaseout schedule for methyl chloroform. 

   The HSIA comments cited the UNEP Technical Assessment as 

a guide to when it would be possible to phase out methyl
chloroform. 

This document discusses the solvent, coatings, and adhesive 

uses of methyl chloroform and the technological feasibility 

of replacing them with alternative chemicals and processes. 

The report notes that for some applications of methyl chloroform, 

no alternatives have yet been developed. The report also indicates 

that many of the potential alternatives in precision cleaning, 

adhesives and coatings and inks are emerging technologies that 

are not yet commercially available. The UNEP assessment further 

reported that alternative technologies pose significant potential 

problems, such as greater flammability, toxicity, and atmospheric 

pollution as a result of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.


   HSIA proposed that the United States review the schedule 

for phasing out methyl chloroform that is discussed in the UNEP 

Assessment. The UNEP document states that developed countries 

that have moved aggressively in this area (termed "head-start" 

countries) are on course for a phaseout between 1992 and 1994, 

while other developed countries appear capable of phasing out 

this chemical between 1995 and 2000. For developing countries, 

the assessment concludes that the use of this chemical could 

be eliminated between 1992 and 2002. HSIA stated, however, that 

the assessment report notes the difficulties of the transition. 

The Assessment states that such schedules "require prompt decisions


to enable suppliers and customers time to select, manufacture, 

and implement the new processes, equipment or chemicals. It 

can take several years for some or many solvent users to form 

the process conversion team and to identify, evaluate, select, 

specify, purchase, install, start-up, and qualify the equipment 

and processes." 

   c. EPA's Response to Petitions and Comments. (i) Use of section 

303 to Accelerate the Phaseout. In a letter to the NRDC/EDF/FOE 

petitioners dated December 30, 1991, the Agency declined to 

use section 303 to take emergency action (as requested by the 

petitioners). Although protection of the stratospheric ozone 

layer requires prompt attention, the Agency believes it prudent 

to examine different reduction schedules and to receive and 

review public comment on the impact that different schedules 

may have in terms of environmental protection and social costs. 

   The Agency believes that section 606(b) provides for a review 

process for any petition to accelerate the phaseout schedule. 

Under that section, the Administrator must either grant or deny 

the petition. If the Administrator grants the petition, final 

action must be taken within one year. Given that Congress
anticipated 

the possibility of an accelerated phaseout and called for
rulemaking 

to effect such a change, EPA believes that use of section 303 

to accelerate the phaseout would be inappropriate unless only 

immediate action were capable of avoiding the potential harm. 

   (ii) Use of Authority under Both Paragraphs of section 606(a). 

As explained earlier 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 proposed 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 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 feasibility 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. Although 

the adjustments have not yet entered into force, under paragraph 

9 of Article 2 of the Protocol they will take effect six-months 

after the essentially ministerial task of circulating the
adjustments 

to the Parties is completed. Unlike amendments, adjustment do 

not need to be ratified by a specified number of Parties before 

they enter into force. By the time this rule is promulgated, 

the adjustments will have been circulated and be due to take 

effect by a date certain. 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 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 and all that remains is the passage 

of time before the amendments enter into force. 

   EPA also notes that section 614 of the CAA, which provides 

that in the case of a conflict between Title VI of the CAA and 

the Protocol, the more stringent of the two controls, 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 proposing today are at least as 

stringent as those required by the adjustments to the Protocol. 

   The final phaseout dates that are proposed for all class 

I substances are the same as those in the new adjustments. The 

interim reductions proposed for CFCs and methyl chloroform in 

1994 and for carbon tetrachloride in 1995 are also identical 

to those contained in the adjustments. The other proposed interim 

reductions are more stringent than those contained in the
adjustments. 

These are being proposed under the authority granted in section 

606 (a)(1) and (2). 

   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. Thus, EPA does not 

agree with the contention in the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition that 

EPA is not "permitted to consider the availability of substitutes 

when making" determinations under section 606(a)(1) (see petition 

at p. 17 n. 10) 

   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 (emphasis added). 

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 phaseout the production and consumption 

ozone-depleting chemicals to protect the environment and human 

health and the availability of substitutes for those chemicals. 

Even though it was 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 

Bill 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). 

   The dates called for by the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition itself 

suggest some consideration of practicality is necessary. Although 

the scientific evidence they cite indicates that an immediate 

phaseout would benefit the ozone layer and thus human health 

and the environment, they call for a phaseout over several years 

in the case of some of the more depleting substances. Their 

position only confirms the reasonableness of considering
technological 

feasibility in setting the phaseout schedule. 

   This does not mean that the Administrator is limited by the 

current availability of substitutes in determining an appropriate 

phaseout schedule. In taking the availability of substitutes 

into account, the Administrator may consider the future potential 

for 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.) 

   (iii) The Proposed Schedule. The Agency is proposing today 

to phase out the production and consumption of all currently-

listed class I substances except halons by January 1, 1996. 

Limited exemptions as adopted by the Montreal Protocol Parties 

in Copenhagen would be allowed from the phaseout to the extent 

permitted by the Act. This proposal effectively implements the 

adjustments for these chemicals adopted by the Protocol Parties 

at the Copenhagen meeting and President Bush's February 1992 

announcement. 

   The proposal also calls for phaseout of halons by January 

1, 1994 and consistent with what was decided during the recent 

meeting of the Parties to the Protocol. In addition to these 

phaseout dates, EPA is proposing the following interim reductions 

for the class I substances based in part on the adjustments 

adopted at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and in part on 

the expected shift out of these substances by key use sectors 

consistent with requirements of section 606(a)(1) and (2): 





                   Proposed Schedule for CFCs and Halons{1}        
          

          [Allowed percentage of baseline production and
consumption]         

                                                                   
          

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                            
Percent         

              Year (beginning January 1)             
쳐컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                         CFCs
    Halons    

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                             
              

1994.................................................       
25         0   

1995.................................................       
15         0   

1996.................................................        
0         0   

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴

  {1}Subject to specified exceptions.                              
          







     Proposed Schedule for Carbon Tetrachloride and Methyle
Chloroform{1}     

          [Allowed percentage of baseline production and
consumption]         

                                                                   
          

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                            
Percent         

             Year (beginning January 1)             
쳐컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                        CCL4 
   C2H3CL3    

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                             
              

1994................................................       50
         50   

1995................................................       15
         30   

1996................................................        0
          0   

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

  {1}Subject to specified exceptions for essential uses.           
          





   President Bush in his February 1992 announcement called for 

voluntary reductions to 50 percent of baseline levels during 

1992. The Agency believes that the proposed reductions in
production 

and consumption were likely to have been met for CFCs and halons, 

but that a 50 percent reduction for methyl chloroform (1,1,1-

trichloroethane, CASRN 79-00-5) and carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane, 

CASRN 56-23-5), which entails much larger cuts from 1991 levels, 

would not have been achieved. The percentages allowed in section 

604 for 1991 for methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride 

are 100%. As a result, companies have been producing and using 

these materials at higher levels than CFCs and halons. The proposed


schedule envisions that the 50% level would be achieved in 1994 

for these two compounds. 

   To assess the potential impact and cost of various phaseout 

schedules, the Agency used a modeling analysis of the available 

substitutes and expected phaseout dates for each use sector. 

(See the results of the Integrated Assessment Model in the
Regulatory 

Impact Analysis and Appendices as prepared for this rulemaking). 

The Integrated Assessment Model analyzes the costs of reducing 

ozone-depleting substance use in different sectors and ranks 

each of these "controls" by cost. The least costly controls 

are then selected for each year and the volume reductions for 

each control are determined. These volumes are then converted 

to percentages of baseline production levels. This analysis 

demonstrates the likely feasibility of the proposed phase-out 

schedules contained in this proposal. 

   Based on this analysis and on the UNEP Technical Assessment, 

EPA expects technological progress regarding the development 

and availability of substitutes to continue. Alternatives are 

now being introduced in the market and commitments to shift 

to alternatives have already been publicly announced by major 

use sectors. This progress makes it feasible, in the case of 

CFCs, to require an additional 25 percent reduction in 1994 

beyond the 50 percent called for in 1992, and an additional 

10 percent reduction in 1995. In the case of carbon tetrachloride 

and methyl chloroform, EPA believes that interim cuts cannot 

be quite as deep, because of the large number of diverse small 

users and the wider range of alternatives these users are likely 

to adopt. This is particularly true in the case of methyl
chloroform 

as noted earlier, unlike CFCs and halons, these chemicals have 

only been regulated since 1991. As a result, users are just 

beginning to reduce their use. The following sections describe 

the basis for these interim steps. 

   For CFCs in the foams sector, the "technologically feasible 

phaseout" date determined by the Assessment Panel for different 

types of foam ranges from 1991 to 1995. The extruded polystyrene 

sheet industry has already moved out of CFCs (to HCFC-22 and 

pentane), as has the extruded polystyrene boardstock foam industry 

(to HCFC-142b/22). Polyurethane foam used in boardstock insulation 

and in insulation in refrigeration units remains the largest 

single use of CFCs. It constituted 9.2 percent of total CFC 

use in 1986. The boardstock industry is anticipating a shift 

to HCFCs (generally HCFC-141b) in 1993. The boardstock
manufacturers 

anticipate that the shift will be completed by January 1, 1994, 

which is also when favorable CFC tax treatment ends for this 

sector. The compound HCFC-141b will have completed toxicity 

testing and be available in commercial quantities beginning 

in 1993. Reductions in the foams sector are expected to be 18.1 

percent of baseline year CFC production in 1993, 31.9 percent 

in 1994, and 32.3 percent in 1995. 

   Use of CFC-113 in the United States has already been
substantially 

reduced. Many of the largest solvent users have established 

ambitious corporate goals for elimination of CFC-113 and are 

well along in meeting these goals. For example, Northern Telecom 

became the first major company to successfully implement its 

commitment to eliminate its use of ozone-depleting solvents 

at the end of 1991. Further significant reductions are likely 

in the next several years as more firms adopt CFC-free technologies


such as aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners, no-clean fluxes, 

hydrocarbon solvents, and controlled atmosphere soldering. Many 

of these processes have now been adopted by industry leaders 

with widespread reports of cost savings. This process will be 

further accelerated as the Department of Defense continues the 

process of modifying its procurement specifications and existing 

contracts to allow for additional use of alternatives. EPA
anticipates 

an additional reduction in CFC-113 use in 1993 and 1994 with 

nearly complete elimination by end of 1994 (Montreal Protocol 

1991 Assessment: Report of the Solvents, Coatings and Adhesives 

Technical Options Committee). The modelling analysis predicts 

reductions from total 1986 use levels in the solvents sector 

of 13.3 percent in 1993, 15.1 percent in 1994, and 16.5 percent 

in 1995. 

   Significant reductions are also occurring and planned for 

the refrigeration sectors. These are predicted to amount to 

7.3 percent of 1986 total use levels in 1993, 9.2 percent in 

1994, and 11.2 percent in 1995. For chillers, substitutes including


HCFC-123 and -22 have already been introduced into the market 

place for new equipment. In addition, increased recycling, the 

use of purge emission reduction equipment, and retrofits to 

alternatives are also reducing emissions and demand. In the 

motor vehicle sector, the first cars with HFC-134a air conditioning


systems are now being sold. One major automobile manufacturer 

(Volvo) has committed to shifting its entire fleet out of CFCs 

by the end of 1993 and all U.S. companies have committed to 

being out by the end of 1994. Furthermore, emissions at servicing 

will be reduced through mandatory recycling as required under 

section 609 of the Act. 

   From discussions with the major producers of the CFCs, the 

Agency believes that all intended to comply with the President's 

voluntary request to reduce by 50 percent in 1992 (see press 

releases from Allied-Signal, Dupont and Elf Atochem). Given 

the actions to shift away from CFCs that are planned in 1993, 

an additional 25 percent reduction in 1994 beyond the 1992
reduction 

should not prove to be problematic. Impact analyses show, however, 

that the reductions suggested by the environmental groups (75 

percent in 1993, 85 percent in 1994, 100 percent in 1995), would 

be inordinately burdensome with little effect on ozone depletion. 

EPA believes that the phaseout schedule proposed by the
environmental 

groups would not be feasible due to the burdens it would place 

on the industry infrastructure necessary to support the deployment 

of new technologies. 

   In total, the Agency believes that an additional drop in 

production and consumption in 1994 should not prove difficult. 

The Alliance schedule suggests that a drop of an additional 

ten percent would not be problematic, and in light of the Agency's 

estimates of potential reductions, represents a conservative 

estimate of needed ozone-depleting substances in 1994. Assuming 

a 50 percent reduction was achieved in 1992, additional reductions 

in 1993 and 1994 in the boardstock sector, in new motor vehicle 

and building air-conditioning equipment, in further solvent 

reductions, and through recycling and recovery will allow total 

reductions of 75 percent or more. CFC production shows that 

between 1990 and 1991 alone, a drop of 11 percent of baseline 

levels occurred (from 64 percent to 53 percent). If such a rapid 

reduction rate were to continue, CFC production in 1992 could 

be expected to be at 42 percent of baseline levels, 31 percent 

in 1993, 20 percent in 1994, and 9 percent in 1995, falling 

to zero after that year. Even taking into account possible setbacks


in substitute development in the final stages of the phaseout, 

a 75 percent reduction in 1994 and further 10 percent reduction 

in 1995 with a complete phaseout in 1996 appears reasonable 

for the CFCs. Moreover, the 75 percent reduction in 1994 and 

the completed phaseout in 1996 are required as a consequence 

of the adjustments to the Protocol. While the Agency believes 

that its proposed schedule represents a reasonable judgment 

as to the most rapid phaseout feasible, the Agency requests 

comments on whether a more rapid phaseout schedule should be 

required. 

   EPA is not requiring a mandatory reduction in 1993 beyond 

that already specified in section 604 and the current regulations. 

It is not taking this step because the regulated community would 

have inadequate action of any further reduction since this
rulemaking 

will not be completed until sometime during 1993 control period. 

Nonetheless, EPA believes that additional reductions beyond 

the 50 percent level called for in 1992 can and will be achieved 

this year and are necessary in order to ensure a smooth transition 

to the 75 percent reduction required in 1994. For example, EPA 

believes that significant reductions will be achieved in 1993 

in the insulating foam sector as they complete their shift to 

HCFC-141b and in the automobile sector where additional lines 

of car models will shift to air conditioning units with HFC-

134a. 

   In addition to efforts by new equipment manufacturers to 

shift out of CFCs, EPA believes that further reductions this 

and in future years are essential in the area of servicing existing


equipment in order to minimize economic consequences of a 1996 

phase-out of CFC production. Full implementation of recycling 

requirements for both vehicle and stationery air conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment, as now required by law, will provide 

some significant reductions in emissions. Beyond this important 

immediate step, firms that own air conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment must begin acting now to retrofit this equipment or 

to purchase replacement equipment that utilizes substitutes. 

Retrofit options and replacements using alternative refrigerants 

are now available for virtually all equipment. Failure by equipment


owners to act now will likely cause a bottleneck in replacement 

and retrofit equipment delivery and could cause shortages and 

unwarranted price increases. EPA has recently initiated a program 

to work closely with building and equipment owners to assist 

them in their efforts to retrofit or replace equipment that 

may not be serviceable after the production phase-out on January 

1, 1996. 

   Halon reductions worldwide also appear to be occurring at 

a rapid rate. The worldwide reduction in halon production from 

1989 to 1990 was equal to 14 percent of baseline levels (from 

108 percent in 1989 to 96 percent in 1990), with further
significant 

reductions achieved in 1991 and with reductions of 50 percent 

anticipated in 1992. 

   Due to the rapid fall-off in production and use, the Agency 

believes that halon production and consumption may be eliminated 

by the end of 1993. The halon sector has made significant progress 

in eliminating the unnecessary release of halons through
conservation. 

The Agency is working closely with the military and industry 

to establish halon banks, potentially large reservoirs of halon 

that could service the fire protection business for necessary 

applications far into the future. 

   The 1991 "Report of the Halon Technical Options Committee" 

stated that the bank of Halon 1211 should be sufficient to maintain


existing equipment using recycled halon, with minimal difficulty. 

The Committee estimated that the bank of Halon 1301 will be 

adequate to supply maintenance quantities for equipment for 

at least 40 years after production ceases. Although these estimates


are based on a 2000 phaseout, the differences between available 

recycled halon with a 2000 phaseout and a 1994 phaseout, relative 

to the 1986 baseline, are small. For example, for Halon 1211, 

the Committee estimated that 11 percent of the 1986 baseline 

will be available after a 2000 phaseout, while slightly less 

than 10 percent will be available after a 1994 phaseout. For 

Halon 1301, 54 percent will be available after a 2000 phaseout; 

around 40 percent of baseline will be available after a 1994 

phaseout. The Agency believes that a phaseout is achievable 

and appropriately balances the continued need for halons to 

protect against fires with their impact on ozone depletion. 

The Report of the Halon Technical Options Committee states, 

"an orderly transition to alternative fire protection measures, 

establishment of procedures to adequately manage the bank of 

halons, and increased efforts to develop transitional and eventual 

replacement fire extinguishing agents with the beneficial
characteristics 

of the present halons are all steps that may minimize the loss 

of fire protection capability represented by the phaseout of 

halons." The Agency will continue to work to maximize these 

efforts but recognizes that a limited essential use exemption 

may be necessary depending on the success of halon banking. 

Section 3 below discusses the criteria and procedures for
requesting 

such an exemption. EPA is also requesting that halon producers 

and users reduce to 30 percent of their allowable 1986 baseline 

level in 1993. As discussed above, EPA is not mandating this 

requirement for 1993 because the timing of the rulemaking would 

require that the provision be applied retroactively. Nonetheless, 

the Agency is requesting that halon producers and importers 

continue to make progress toward an orderly phase-out by 1994 

by voluntarily reducing to 30 percent of their baseline in 1993. 

This additional reduction beyond the 50 percent requested in 

1992 is particularly critical to the early development of halon 

banking systems. Only once halon supply from new production 

becomes unavailable will users look to alternative sources
including 

halon banking programs. Since halon banking systems are critical 

to meeting the longer term critical needs of halon users, the 

development of these programs at this date is critical to a 

successful production phase-out by 1994. EPA is requesting the 

producers and importers of halons commit to this voluntary interim 

reduction step and will monitor progress toward meeting this 

target through the quarterly reporting required by regulation. 

   Currently, methyl chloroform is used in the following
applications: 

Solvent cleaning (64 percent), aerosols (13 percent), adhesives 

(ten percent), coatings and inks (six percent), and miscellaneous 

uses (six percent) within the United States. Although the Agency 

believes that these sectors face obstacles to the elimination 

of methyl chloroform by 1996, significant strides have already 

been made by these sectors to find alternatives to methyl
chloroform. 

   The Agency believes that further reductions can be realized 

in the near term within the coatings and inks sectors,
miscellaneous 

use sectors and adhesives, and in the use of methyl chloroform 

in solvent cleaning. 

   The coatings and inks sectors can readily move toward
commercially 

available technologies. Such alternatives include water based 

coatings and inks, high solid coatings, and powder coatings. 

   The 1991 UNEP Technical Assessment reports that alternatives 

are available for most miscellaneous applications including 

carriers for coating and impregnation, vapor soldering, component 

drying, riveting and machining, fabric protection, semiconductor 

manufacturing and mold release agents. Although there are some 

categories such as pre-surgical skin cleaning and other small 

medical applications, motion picture film cleaning and other 

small applications for which substitutes are not yet available, 

the industry will likely find a alternatives prior to 1996. 

The Agency believes that these are minor sectors. 

   The use of methyl chloroform in degreasing can be significantly 

reduced through improved housekeeping and the use of available 

alternative technologies such as aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners,


as well as no-clean fluxes. Finally, the Agency believes that 

substitutes for methyl chloroform for adhesives will depend 

on a mix of commercially available and developing technologies. 

Commercially available alternatives include hydrocarbon solvent-

based, water-based adhesives, hot melt systems, and solvent 

recovery systems in continuous operations. Emerging technologies 

include radiation-cured adhesives, "high solids" adhesives, 

powders, and reactive liquids. In 1991, the 3M Company, a major 

producer of adhesives, announced a goal to phase out of its 

use of methyl chloroform by the end of 1992. 

   Based on this information, the Agency believes that the combined


miscellaneous sector, coatings and inks and adhesives sectors, 

and metal-cleaning applications can reduce the total use of 

methyl chloroform by 50 percent in 1994. Although the controls 

mentioned above will not service the entire metal cleaning sectors,


it is likely that these controls will displace a significant 

volume of methyl chloroform so that a 50% reduction from baseline 

levels can be made in 1994. 

   Further, the additional 20 percent reductions called for 

in 1995 also appear feasible. The largest use of methyl chloroform 

is in the solvent cleaning sector. The reductions for this sector 

are expected to be 27.9 percent of baseline production levels 

in 1993, 37.9 percent in 1994, and 51.0 percent in 1995. There 

is a large aqueous cleaning network already supplying the metal 

cleaning sector that could expand to absorb some of the current 

uses of methyl chloroform. Semi-aqueous systems will provide 

a similar option to the aqueous systems. The phaseout of methyl 

chloroform may force users to switch to chlorinated substances 

and non-halogenated organic solvents. In such cases, the use 

of new, low emission equipment will be essential to minimize 

worker exposure. As for the electronics sector's use of methyl 

chloroform, a wide variety of replacement chemicals now being 

employed as substitutes for CFC-113 are available, effective 

and affordable. Alternative processes such as aqueous and semi-

aqueous cleaning and alcohol, no-clean fluxes, and controlled 

atmosphere are also widely accepted by industry. If work continues 

rapidly in these remaining sectors, the Agency believes that 

methyl chloroform can be phased out by the end of 1995. Based 

on the rapid development of CFC alternatives over the last four 

years, the Agency believes that zero production by 1996 is
achievable, 

with exemptions as permitted by the CAA for essential uses where 

no safe and effective alternative exists. Moreover, the 50 percent 

reduction in 1994 and phaseout by January 1, 1996, are required 

by the recently adopted adjustments to the Protocol. 

   In the case of methyl chloroform progress to date in the 

reduction of production and consumption has been slower. In 

fact, 1992 production during the first 9-months of the year 

appears to have remained roughly equal to that of 1991. As a 

result, it is critical that efforts be accelerated to shift 

to alternatives by sectors using this compound. Failure to make 

such a shift in a timely manner will create severe economic 

hardship as the 1996 phase-out date approaches. To facilitate 

a more orderly transition to alternatives, EPA is requesting 

that producers and importers reduce voluntarily their production 

and consumption to 60 percent of their allowable levels in 1993. 

This reduction will continue to limit the availability of methyl 

chloroform to user firms, thus encouraging them to shift to 

alternatives at the earliest possible time, rather than postpone 

shifting to alternatives until supplies are reduced further 

in future years. EPA requests that producers and importers commit 

to meeting this 1993 voluntary target. The Agency will monitor 

progress toward meeting this voluntary goal through quarterly 

reports required by regulation. 

   For carbon tetrachloride, a 50 percent reduction in 1994, 

and an 85 percent reduction in 1995 (the same reduction required 

for that year under the Protocol) is expected to be attainable. 

As stated in the UNEP Assessment, "most carbon tetrachloride 

is used in the manufacture of CFCs or other chemicals.
Non-feedstock 

uses such as solvent cleaning, laboratory use and miscellaneous 

solvent applications have a number of substitutes." The report 

of the Montreal Protocol Technical Options Committee states 

that "there are a number of dispersive uses of CTC such as its 

use as a cleaning solvent, which can be substituted in the short 

term (two to three years) by the use of currently available 

alternatives. This should enable some reductions in usage." 

It also cites some applications (e.g., use as an inert solvent 

in chlorination reactions) in which emissions can be "virtually 

eliminated" and thus production curtailed, in spite of the lack 

of alternatives. 

   The UNEP Assessment cites certain "low volume" uses for which 

substitutes are still being sought. EPA expects that the 15 

percent of baseline levels established by the Clean Air Act 

and available until 1996 will be sufficient to supply any such 

"minor uses" for which substitute development is problematic. 

Some of those may indeed be exempted from the accelerated phaseout 

date if deemed essential. The UNEP assessment states that "it 

should be possible to phase out carbon tetrachloride use in 

non-feedstock applications by the year 1995 and in specialty 

use by 1997." Such uses may be classified as "essential uses" 

as discussed in section III.A.3. of this document. 

   EPA believes that the interim reductions and final phase-

out dates proposed here represent an aggressive yet feasible 

schedule for reductions in ozone-depleting substance production 

and consumption. The Agency requests comment on the proposed 

phaseout schedules and on the size and utility of annual interim 

reductions contained in this proposal. 



3. Limited Exemptions to Production and Consumption Phase-Out 



   The Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed at the 1992 meeting 

in Copenhagen to exempt essential uses of controlled substances 

from the production and consumption limits of Article 2 of the 

Protocol. Language regarding essential uses was added to the 

Protocol provisions in Article 2 governing the control measures. 

(See Decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to 

the Montreal Protocol). The Parties recognized the importance 

of timing in specifying exemptions, especially with regard to 

halons, in view of the acceleration of the phaseout dates for 

these chemicals. The Parties will decide on essential use
exemptions 

for halons at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties anticipated in 

the fall of 1993 and essential use exemptions for the remaining 

substances at the Sixth Meeting of the Parties in approximately 

September 1994 and at subsequent meetings as necessary. 

   The Parties set out criteria in Copenhagen to identify essential


uses. Decision IV/25 states that a controlled substance should 

qualify as "essential" only if "it is necessary for the health, 

safety or is critical for the functioning of society (encompassing 

cultural and intellectual aspects)" and "there are no available 

technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes 

that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health".


In addition, the Parties agreed "that production and consumption, 

if any, of a controlled substance, for essential uses should 

be permitted only if: all economically feasible steps have been 

taken to minimize the essential use and any associated emission 

of the controlled substance; and the controlled substance is 

not available in sufficient quantity and quality from the existing 

stocks of banked or recycled controlled substances." 

   Any essential use exemptions would also have to comply with 

the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Section 604 sets forth 

specific exemptions from the phaseout schedules contained in 

the Clean Air Act. To the extent that an accelerated phaseout 

schedule is adopted, EPA could provide exemptions beyond those 

specified in the Act so long as these exemptions do not result 

in an exceedence of the schedule contained in section 604(a). 

Since section 604(b) specifies the phaseout date for class I 

substances, that section effectively limits the authority of 

the Agency to provide essential use exemptions for periods after 

the termination dates (2000 for all class I substances other 

than methyl chloroform and 2002 in the case of methyl chloroform).

   The exemptions outlined in section 604 are limited in scope, 

amount and time. Section 604(d)(1) allows essential use exemptions 

for methyl chloroform beginning in 2002, the first year of its 

complete phaseout under section 604(a), and extending through 

2004. Section 604(d)(2) allows essential use exemptions for 

the use of any class I substance in medical devices, and section 

604(d)(3) allows exceptions for limited quantities of halons 

solely for purposes of aviation safety. Exceptions under section 

604(d) are limited to annual quantities no greater than 10 percent 

of the baseline year production of the person receiving the 

exception. Section 604(f) permits the President to issue exemptions


for the production and use of CFC-114 and halons if necessary 

for national security. (This subsection does not provide such 

authority to EPA.) Finally, section 604(g) permits the Agency 

to authorize production of halons for fire suppression and
explosion 

prevention, but expressly provides that the Administrator may 

not grant such exceptions after 1999. However, section 604(g)(3), 

provides the authority to grant exceptions through 2004 for 

halons used on the North Slope of Alaska.

   In sum, for the period between the accelerated phase-out 

schedule adopted in Copenhagen and the schedule contained in 

Section 604 of the CAA, decisions taken by the Parties to the 

Protocol shall govern whether or not exemptions can be granted 

in the United States. For the period following the phase-out 

schedule in 604 limitations on the grant of exemptions contained 

in the CAA must also be satisfied and any such exemptions must 

be consistent with both the Montreal Protocol and the CAA.

   The need for essential use exemptions for halon will largely 

depend on the success of programs to reallocate halons stored 

in existing systems where other alternatives are suitable to 

more necessary applications. Given that efforts to initiate 

such "halon banking" have only recently begun, EPA urges all 

halon users to act quickly to assess their current use of these 

compounds and to determine if alternative approaches to fire 

protection are feasible. If so, the Agency encourages users 

to contribute any unneeded halon to one of the banking programs 

currently being established. EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Hotline 

(1-800-296-1996) should be contacted to obtain information about 

halon banking.

   If a halon user determines that other alternatives are not 

feasible and that sources of future supply are not available, 

it should prepare an essential use application to EPA as described 

below.

   In the case of other Class I substances (i.e., CFCs, methyl 

chloroform and carbon tetrachloride), EPA encourages these users 

to continue to explore alternatives until applications for
exemptions 

are required to initiate the Protocol exemption approval procedures


on approximately January 1, 1994. EPA believes that any essential 

use determinations for these compounds would be premature at 

this time, and that given the rapid pace of technological progress,


the burden will be upon the petitioner to demonstrate the need 

for the exemption. For example, EPA recognizes that the use 

of CFCs in metered dose inhalers might represent one example 

where alternatives might not be available by January 1, 1996 

because of extensive testing and approval requirements. This 

use would clearly qualify under the health and safety criteria 

established by the Parties of the Protocol and may also qualify 

under the CAA's medical device exception. Whether an exemption 

would be granted for production to service existing refrigeration 

and air conditioning equipment would depend on a number of factors 

including: whether adequate supplies were available from recycling 

and recovery at disposal, whether economically feasible retrofit 

or replacement of equipment were viable; and whether such use 

was considered by the Parties to meet the criteria of health, 

safety or critical functioning of society. EPA will continue 

to work closely with these sectors to ensure the smoothest possible


transition to alternatives and to minimize costs of the phase-

out.

   Under the Copenhagen agreements, Parties must submit their 

nominations to the Secretariat for halon essential uses at least 

six months before the meeting at which the decision will be 

taken (e.g., by April 1993 for the Fifth Meeting of the Parties 

which may be held as early as October 1993, and nine months 

before the Sixth Meeting of the Parties schedule for Fall 1994 

for the other chemicals. Thus, the first step in the process 

to qualify a use as essential is for a user firm, association 

or government agency to notify EPA of its candidate use and 

for EPA together with other relevant agencies to evaluate whether 

or not that use appears consistent with the criteria adopted 

by the Parties in Copenhagen. The U.S. government will review 

the candidate for exemption and, through coordination and review 

with other relevant federal agencies, determine whether or not 

it should be nominated for evaluation by the Protocol Parties. 

This assessment will be performed by EPA as the lead agency, 

with other agencies and departments providing technical expertise 

where appropriate. Based on nominations made by Parties to the 

Protocol, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will 

review such submissions and prepare recommendations to the Parties 

for exemptions. The Panel will review these nominations to
determine 

whether the eligibility criteria have been satisfied and has 

been directed by the Parties to examine the expected duration 

for the essential use, emission controls for the essential use 

application, sources of already produced controlled substances 

for the essential use, and the steps necessary to ensure that 

alternatives and substitutes are available as soon as possible 

for the proposed essential use. The Parties also instructed 

the Technical Panel to consider the environmental acceptability, 

health effects, economic feasibility, availability and regulatory 

status of alternatives and substitutes.

   The Technical Panel must submit its report to the Parties 

at least three months before the Parties meet to designate
essential 

uses. Thus, the Panel must submit recommendations for halons 

by July 1, 1993 and for the other controlled substances by the 

summer of 1994.

   In order to meet these tight deadlines, the U.S. government 

must act quickly, and through this action and an independent 

notice issued earlier (57 FR 6786) requests nominations for 

the essential use exemptions for halons. Recommendations for 

essential use exemptions for halon should be submitted to the 

Agency no later than (one month after date of publication) in 

order for EPA and other agencies to have adequate time to review 

the information prior to the deadline for submitting nominations 

to the Secretariat. Nominations for essential uses to be determined


at the Sixth Meeting of the Parties for the other controlled 

substances are requested by January 1, 1994.

   All nominations should present the following information:

   (1) Description and quantification of the specific uses of 

the controlled substances;

   (2) Demonstration that continued use of that application 

is necessary for health and safety reasons or is critical for 

the functioning of society;

   (3) Demonstration that no alternatives are technically,
economically 

or legally available;

   (4) Description of the steps taken to date to find alternatives;

   (5) Description of future steps to be taken to find
alternatives;

   (6) Demonstration that steps have been taken to secure existing 

stocks of the chemicals, either from a bank or from recovery 

sources, and that necessary quantities of appropriate quality 

are not available for this exempted use; and

   (7) The expected time period for which this exemption is 

required and its consistency with the CAA provisions.

   All nominations should be sent to: Program Manager, Essential 

Use Exemptions, Mail Stop 6202J, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, 20460.

   The Agency, together with other agencies, will work with 

submitters, other experts and other interested federal agencies 

to review this information and forward nominations to the
Protocol's 

Secretariat for consideration as appropriate and consistent 

with CAA limitations. 



B. Accelerated Phaseout of Class II Substances 





1. Today's Proposal 



   EPA is proposing with this action to accelerate the schedule 

for phasing out the production and consumption of certain HCFCs. 

These proposed provisions accelerate the phaseout provided for 

in section 605 of the Clean Air Act, 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, and 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 manufactured 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.


   At their Fourth Meeting, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

agreed to phaseout consumption of HCFCs over time. The Agency 

believes that the phaseout proposed today will result in compliance


with the schedule agreed upon in Copenhagen, and also responds 

to the portion of the NRDC/EDF/FOE and CFC Alliance petitions 

that dealt with HCFCs. 

   The HCFC regulatory regime adopted in Copenhagen places an 

overall cap on these compounds and requires increasingly stringent 

reductions from the cap until phase-out is reached. The cap 

for each of the developed country Parties is equal to the sum 

of 3.1 percent of the country's 1989 ozone depletion potential 

(ODP) weighted consumption of CFCs in group 1 of Annex A and 

the ODP weighted level of HCFCs consumed in that year. To determine


the amount of the cap for the United States, EPA will be requiring 

producers, importers and exporters of CFCs and HCFCs to report 

data for 1989 through a separate action. Using the specified 

formula, EPA's preliminary estimates are that the baseline level 

will total approximately 16-17 million kilograms. 

   The Copenhagen amendments call for cap on HCFCs (i.e., the 

level specified by the formula) to apply beginning in 1996. 

The amendments further call for a 35 percent cut from the cap 

in 2004, followed by a 65 percent reduction in 2010, a 90 percent 

reduction in 2015, a 99.5 percent reduction in 2020 and a total 

phase-out in 2030. 

   EPA has considered several different approaches to implementing 

the HCFC cap in the United States. One approach would be to 

follow the regime proposed in both the NRDC/FOE/EDF and CFC 

Alliance petitions whereby limits are placed on the most potent 

ozone depleting substances first, with less ozone depleting 

HCFCs permitted for use over a longer period of time. This approach


recognizes that different HCFCs have different impacts on the 

ozone layer and focuses efforts on developing alternatives for 

the most damaging compounds first. 

   In contrast, EPA could directly implement the HCFC cap approach 

through an allowance system tied to the total number of consumption


rights permitted under the cap in any given year. Under this 

approach, for example, EPA could allocate consumption allowances 

based on 1989 consumption of CFCs. However, while this approach 

is consistent with that taken for CFCs and halon, it would create 

substantial inequities due to differences in investments and 

commitments already made to date by HCFC users and producers. 

For example, if 1989 consumption were used as the basis for 

allocations, substantial inequities might occur between those 

firms that produced large quantities of CFCs in 1989 and those 

that have invested in HCFC facilities over the past several 

years. While tradeable permits would allow for a rationalization 

of the market, such shifts would largely be controlled by a 

small number of firms each with vested economic interests and 

could adversely affect user industries in need of HCFCs in the 

near-term to phase-out of CFCs. 

   Instead of allocations based on 1989 consumption, EPA could 

simply auction off the allowances for HCFC consumption. This 

approach would avoid inequities associated with using 1989 as 

a base year, but would create substantial uncertainties for 

both HCFC producers and users who have already committed
substantial 

capital to shift to these interim replacements. 

   EPA is requesting public comment on the use of an allocation 

or auction system to implement the HCFC cap approach adopted 

under the Montreal Protocol. 

   EPA is proposing an acceleration of the phaseout schedule 

for certain HCFCs on a compound-specific basis as proposed in 

both the CFC Alliance and NRDC/EDF/FOE petitions. As discussed 

above, this approach phases out those HCFCs with the highest 

ozone depletion potentials at an earlier date than those compounds 

with lower ODPs. This approach also recognizes the utility of 

phasing out the use of these compounds first in new equipment 

and allowing a longer period of use to service existing
refrigeration 

and air conditioning equipment. 

   EPA is proposing today to ban the production and consumption 

of HCFC-141b effective January 1, 2003 because of its significantly


higher ODP, 0.12. For HCFC-22 (ODP of .05) and HCFC-142b (ODP 

of .06), the Agency is proposing to freeze the production and 

consumption of these compounds at baseline levels effective 

January 1, 2010; to ban use of these compounds in virgin (i.e., 

not used or recycled) for anything other than feedstocks and 

for use in servicing appliances manufactured prior to January 

1, 2010; and to ban production and consumption effective January 

1, 2020. No change to the statutorily specified timetable would 

be imposed on HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 because of their substantially 

shorter lifetimes and lower ODPs (around .02). The proposed 

restrictions are summarized in the following table: 





                                                                   
         

                                                                   
         

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

                         Affected                      
                   

        Date             compounds                     
                   

                        restriction                    
                   

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴탠컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                       
                   

Jan. 1, 2003 ......  HCFC-141b ......  Ban on
production and consumption.  

Jan. 1, 2010 ......  HCFC-22, HCFC-    Production and
consumption frozen   

                      142b              at baseline
levels.                

                     HCFC-22, HCFC-    Ban on use of
virgin chemical.      

                      142b                             
                   

                     ................  Unless used as
feedstock or         

                                        refrigerant in
appliance           

                                        manufactured
prior to Jananuary    

                                        1, 2010.       
                   

Jan. 1, 2015 ......  all other HCFCs   Production and
consumption frozen   

                                        at baseline
levels.                

                     all other HCFCs   Ban on use of
virgin chemical       

                                        unless used as
feedstock or        

                                        refrigerant
inappliances           

                                        manufactured
prior to January 1,   

                                        2020.          
                   

Jan. 1, 2020 ......  HCFC-22, HCFC-    Ban on
production and consumption.  

                      142b                             
                   

Jan. 1, 2030 ......  all other HCFCs   Ban on
production and consumption.  

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴좔컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴



   EPA notes, however, that substantial efforts are underway 

to develop and implement alternatives to the HCFCs and that 

these efforts may make it possible to accelerate the phaseout 

of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Thus, the Agency will closely monitor 

these efforts and will determine whether an acceleration of 

the ban on the use of these substances in new equipment is
feasible. 

   The Agency believes that the acceleration proposed here along 

with measure being taken under other Title VI authority will 

achieve compliance with the requirements to restrict HCFCs adopted 

by the Parties in November of 1992. Based on an assessment of 

which use sectors in the United States are likely to shift to 

HCFCs, the type of HCFC they are likely to use, and the maximum 

amount the sectors could require, EPA believes that the Protocol 

cap will not be exceeded in 1996 or thereafter, and that the 

Protocol reductions will be satisfied, as well. EPA's analysis 

of future HCFC use is included in the docket, "Revised Cap and 

Emission Scenario Analysis". To help ensure that the HCFC cap 

will not be violated, EPA will implement bans on specific uses 

of HCFCs under section 610 of the Clean Air Act and place
additional 

restrictions on the use of HCFC-141b in solvents (except for 

critical uses where other substitutes are not available) under 

section 612 of the CAA. 

   Again, EPA's analysis of likely HCFC consumption under the 

proposed approach outlined above is based on the projected likely 

scenario of HCFC use by sector. Since all major sectors have 

already determined if they are going to shift to HCFCs and if 

so, the specific HCFC they will use, this analysis should represent


an accurate assessment of future use of these compounds. By 

restricting use of HCFCs along the lines described in the proposal 

for phase-out dates and use restrictions (in new products, and 

restrictions under sections 610 (nonessential uses) and 612 

(safe alternatives), EPA calculated likely use and compared 

that to requirements under the Montreal Protocol limits. 

   This analysis showed the following results: 





                                                                   
          

                                                                   
          

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컫컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                     Percent
reduction       

                                              
쳐컴컴컴컴컴컴컴쩡컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                   Protocol  
  Proposed    

                                                 requirement 
    rule      

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컵컴컴컴컴컴컴컴

                                                             
              

1996..........................................          100  
       75     

2004..........................................           65  
       51     

2010..........................................           35  
       15     

2015 .........................................           10  
        6     

2020..........................................            0.5
         .5   

2030..........................................            0  
        0     

컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컨컴컴컴컴컴컴컴





   While EPA's analysis suggests that the proposed approach 

to implementing the Protocol's HCFC regime should amply provide 

for compliance, EPA will closely monitor compliance and will 

take additional regulatory action if necessary. 

   EPA is proposing to require quarterly reporting of all HCFC 

production and use soon after the end of each three-month period 

as a basis for monitoring compliance with the Protocol's
requirements, 

but requests comments on this approach to meeting the Protocol's 

HCFC restrictions. 

   EPA has additional flexibility because its proposed restriction 

on HCFC-141b is scheduled for 2003 instead of 2004 when the 

first reduction step under the Protocol takes effect. EPA is 

proposing 2003 because it believes this date provides adequate 

leadtime for shifting to an alternative to HCFC-141b. However, 

if additional time for such a shift becomes necessary, EPA will 

consider modifying its schedule to allow for the additional 

year now permitted under the Protocol. 



2. Legal Authority 



   The authority to accelerate the phaseout of HCFCs is also 

contained in section 606 of the Act, which has already been 

discussed in connection with the acceleration of the phaseout 

of class I substances. In addition, the provisions of section 

614 regarding conflicts between the CAA and the Protocol which 

have also been discussed previously, apply. 



3. Petitioners' and Commenters' Suggested Phaseout Options 



   The NRDC/EDF/FOE petition requested that EPA accelerate the 

phaseout schedule for class II substances. As noted earlier, 

under the current schedule in section 605 of the Act, U.S.
production 

and consumption of class II chemicals must be frozen at baseline 

levels in 2015, with a final phaseout date of January 1, 2030. 

In addition, section 605 places a use restriction on the HCFCs, 

prohibiting the use of HCFCs on or after January 1, 2015, unless 

they (1) have been used, recovered, and recycled, (2) are used 

as feedstocks, or (3) are used as a refrigerant in appliances 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. 

   The petitioners used this same two-stage reduction approach 

in their request for an accelerated schedule, but also
distinguished 

between HCFCs with high and low ODPs. They asked that the
production 

and consumption of HCFC-22, HCFC-141b, and HCFC-142b (the three 

longest-lived commercially useful HCFCs) for use in new equipment 

be prohibited by January 1, 2000, while allowing production 

of these chemicals for service use until January 1, 2005. This 

request was also based on the most recent evidence of the
seriousness 

of ozone depletion and the statement that the three long-lived 

HCFCs could become important contributors to ozone depletion 

if not restricted. 

   The petition from the Alliance also requested that the phaseout 

of HCFC-22, HCFC-141b, and HCFC-142b be accelerated. It suggested 

a January 1, 2010 ban on the production and use of the three 

compounds in new equipment. It suggested a final phaseout date 

for all production of the materials of January 1, 2020. The 

petitioners argued that HCFCs are "bridging" compounds whose 

use allows both developed and developing countries to phase 

out of CFCs more rapidly. According to the petition, these
compounds 

allow for the continuation of high priority products and services 

such as refrigeration, air conditioning, and insulation materials. 

To enable HCFCs to serve their essential function, the Alliance 

contended, producers and users must be assured that HCFCs will 

be available for a reasonable length of time. The Alliance
petitioners 

argued that their proposed phaseout schedule for HCFCs assures 

a reasonable lifetime for HCFC technologies that will help sectors 

to shift away from CFC technologies in the near term. 

   AHAM also supported the acceleration of the phaseout of the 

three long-lived HCFCs, but to a date no earlier than 2010. 

According to AHAM's comments, HCFCs, either alone or as part 

of a blend, are among the leading CFC alternatives for the home 

appliance sector. It stated that accelerating the phaseout to 

a date earlier than 2010 would have a severe impact on the
industry. 

   In its comments, ARI also recommended a ban on the manufacture 

of new equipment using the three long-lived HCFCs and a ban 

on the production of these compounds for such equipment as of 

January 1, 2010. Under its suggested plan, production of HCFC-

22, HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b would be permitted for the servicing 

of existing equipment until January 1, 2020. ARI's correspondence 

focused on the importance of finding and proving acceptable 

alternatives to HCFC-22, based on the fact that it is a very 

important chemical which is used in over 80 percent of the products


produced by the air-conditioning and refrigeration industry. 

ARI emphasized that there are yet no proven acceptable alternatives


to HCFC-22, and that the United States relies on HCFC-22 for 

essential air conditioning and refrigeration much more than 

any other nation. 



4. EPA's Response to Petitions and Comments 



   EPA has continually characterized HCFCs as important
transitional 

substances, but has recommended that they be used only where 

other substitutes are not viable. The Agency also has encouraged 

recycling wherever possible and urged that substitutes be selected 

on the basis of the lowest ODP possible. In the Analysis of 

the Environmental Implications of the Future Growth in Demand 

for Partially-Halogenated Chlorinated Compounds (1989), the 

Agency determined that this type of prudent use of the substances 

would result in significantly lower levels of atmospheric chlorine 

than those associated with more expanded use patterns. 

   The Agency's proposed accelerated phaseout schedule for HCFC-

22 and HCFC-142b parallels the schedule for the phaseout of 

the rest of the HCFCs (the section 605 schedule), but accelerates 

the ban on production and consumption by ten years and the freeze 

and use restriction by five years. The effect is to prohibit 

the use of the chemicals (virgin material only) for any use 

except as a feedstock or as a refrigerant in existing equipment 

as of January 1, 2010, and to allow a ten-year exemption for 

production for use in servicing existing refrigeration and air-

conditioning equipment. 

   The Agency agrees with both petitions that the seriousness 

of the problem of ozone depletion and the potential risks to 

human health and the environment warrant an acceleration of 

the phaseout of the three long-lived HCFCs. The production and 

consumption of these compounds has already begun to increase 

as companies move out of CFCs. While their lower ozone depletion 

potentials make them preferable to the class I substances, if 

their production and consumption is not limited, they could 

over the long run cause serious damage to the ozone layer. As 

a result, the Agency believes that the HCFCs are strictly interim 

substitutes for the more harmful class I substances. EPA wishes 

to encourage ongoing research efforts to find substances that 

are effective, yet have no detrimental effect on stratospheric 

ozone. At the same time, too short a period for the allowable 

use of HCFC would further encourage the continued use of CFCs, 

which would adversely affect the environment.

   As indicated by all of the petitioners and commenters, a 

more rapid phaseout of these substances than that adopted in 

section 605 of the Clean Air Act is clearly environmentally 

desirable and technologically feasible. However, as in the case 

of the CFCs, a too-precipitous phaseout could result in excessive 

costs with relatively minor benefits in terms of decreased
atmospheric 

chlorine loading. In addition, allowances must be made for
servicing 

equipment that uses HCFCs. Estimates by ARI, AHAM, and the Alliance


indicate that even with optimal rates of recycling and recovery 

of refrigerants, at least ten years worth of production must 

be allowed for servicing existing equipment in order to avoid 

premature retirement of significant amounts of equipment using 

these compounds (assuming no near-drop-in alternative refrigerant 

becomes available). Most refrigeration and air-conditioning 

units have a useful life of a decade or more. Since work on 

substitutes in such sectors as foam and refrigeration has not 

yet produced alternatives to the use of HCFCs, the near term 

shift out of CFCs is dependent on the commercialization of these 

interim substitutes. A 2000 phaseout of HCFCs would make further 

investment in these substitutes unlikely, thus prolonging the 

need for CFCs. As a result, the Agency believes that on balance 

those dates suggested by the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition for phasing 

out the long-lived HCFCs may be unattainable. The dates proposed 

by EPA balance the costs of shifting to HCFCs by sector and 

the environmental impact of the different HCFCs. 

   On the other hand, EPA believes that the dates suggested 

by industry groups are more realistic but represent a somewhat 

conservative assumption for when substitutes will become available,


particularly in the case of HCFC-141b. The UNEP Assessment states 

that "long advance notice of phaseout regulations would avoid 

the sale of equipment dependent on transitional substances * 

* *. Based on the impressive record of technical progress to 

date, and on the intensity of industry efforts to find final 

alternatives to ozone depleting substances, it may be possible 

for users to phase out these chemicals relatively quickly." 

As a result, the Agency is proposing earlier phaseout dates 

for HCFC-141b than those suggested by the Alliance and the other 

commenters. The Agency's regulatory impact analysis indicates 

that HCFC-141b will primarily be used in certain foam applications,


and can be used without expensive new manufacturing technology. 

Given the high ODP of this compound, a further switch in 2003 

would have substantial environmental benefits and should be 

both technologically and economically feasible. New high-pressure 

equipment that must be used for alternatives to HCFC-141b in 

foam-blowing applications is currently under development and 

could be commercially available by 2003. 

   The Agency believes that 2010 is a technologically feasible 

date for the phaseout of the use of the HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b 

in new equipment.

   Residential and commercial air conditioning applications 

comprise approximately 67 percent of the HCFC-22 use as a
refrigerant. 

In this application, promising alternatives have been identified. 

These refrigerant alternatives include mixtures based in HFC-

32, HFC-134a, HFC-125, HFC-143a and existing chemicals such 

as ammonia and propane. Commercializing products to use
alternatives 

will require extensive research in materials compatibility, 

long-term durability, performance and safety standards. However, 

the necessary research programs have been initiated by both 

industry and government in accelerated and coordinated programs.

   In January 1992, the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute 

organized a research task group, which identified ten potential 

alternatives to HCFC-22. This task group will submit these
alternatives 

to system testing to measure their performance and compatibility. 

Other organizations, such as the Electric Power Research Institute,


have also made a commitment to accelerate research programs 

to identify and test HCFC-22 alternatives.

   EPA has also accelerated research into HCFC-22 alternatives, 

as well as initiated studies with industry and safety organizations


to address safety and institutional issues associated with the 

use of the flammable refrigerants and mixtures with flammable 

components. 

   Preliminary modeling and experimental test results indicate 

that some of the HCFC-22 alternatives may be more efficient 

than the current systems. The potential efficiency increases 

could range from a few percent to as high as 12 percent. Actual 

efficiency gains will have to be confirmed with system testing 

and optimization.

   HFC-32 based systems could be more expensive than HCFC-22 

due to the increased cost of the chemicals and potential component 

changes required to achieve the full efficiency potential of 

mixtures. System testing is required to determine the full range 

of compatibility and performance optimization.

   At least one air conditioning equipment manufacturer has 

been testing propane as a potential replacement for HCFC-22. 

While a risk assessment has not been concluded to determine 

the safety of using propane in this application, performance 

and materials compatibility tests have shown favorable results. 

Tests have shown approximately two percent efficiency increases. 

The production of equipment using propane should not change 

costs because the cost of a slightly larger compressor will 

be more than offset by the low cost of refrigerant. If major 

system redesign or secondary loops are required, additional 

costs will be incurred. This has not yet been determined, however.

   The remaining 33 percent of the HCFC-22 use in refrigeration 

is in retail refrigeration and cold storage. The amount of HCFC-

22 used in refrigeration is expected to grow in the short term, 

due to the replacement of R-502 in low temperature refrigeration 

equipment with HCFC-22. 

   Compressor manufacturers have been testing promising refrigerant


alternatives and some expect to commercialize products using 

them by 1994. The alternatives receiving most attention include 

blends with HFC-125, HFC-143a, and HFC-32. The most difficult 

barrier to the retrofitting of existing HCFC-22 systems is that 

the lubricants used in them are not compatible with the new 

refrigerants. In order to facilitate the transition from HCFC-

22 to the alternatives, compressor manufacturers are currently 

testing new HFC lubricants with HCFC-22 compressor systems in 

an attempt to introduce HCFC-22 equipment with the new lubricants. 

This would make retrofitting HCFC-22 systems to alternatives 

less costly in the field once the alternative refrigerants become 

commercially available. 

   Except for an increase in refrigerant costs, commercializing 

new low temperature refrigeration systems with HCFC-22 alternatives


are not expected to significantly increase production costs. 

Manufacturers expect that the new alternatives will perform 

at least as well as HCFC-22 systems. 

   Ammonia already dominates the cold storage equipment market 

and may be considered an alternative for some of the HCFC-22 

cold storage market. Building and fire codes may determine the 

actual market penetration of ammonia in this application. 

   HCFC-22 has also been identified as an inexpensive alternative 

to CFC-11 and CFC-12 in some foam applications. A further switch 

out of HCFC-22 by 2010 appears feasible. 

   In 1988, the entire U.S. extruded polystyrene packaging industry


switched from CFC-12 to HCFC-22 as an interim solution. HCFC-

22 has been eliminated in the production process by substituting 

with HFC-152a, hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide. 

   The extruded polystyrene boardstock insulation industry quickly 

phased out of CFC-12 to HCFC-142b or HCFC-142b/HCFC-22. The 

industry is currently evaluating alternatives to the HCFCs, 

including HFC and other blowing agents. 

   HCFC-22, either alone or in combination with HCFC-142b, may 

be used in some CFC-11 polyurethane foam applications. Pour-

in-place sandwich panels and insulation in refrigerated cases 

have already switched to HCFC-22. Other polyurethane foam
insulation 

applications are testing HCFC-22 as a blowing agent and may 

be introduced shortly. Because HCFCs are considered a low-cost 

interim solution, there has been accelerated research by the 

industry to develop long term alternatives. Compounds currently 

under testing include HFCs, ethers, and hexafluorobutane. While 

much work is required on evaluating energy efficiency, performance 

and materials compatibility, the Agency's regulatory impact 

analysis shows that it should be possible to resolve these issues 

by 2010. 

   EPA will continue to monitor the success of the HCFC recycling 

program and the search for alternatives to determine the
feasibility 

of the proposed dates. The Agency remains confident, however, 

in industry's ability to make the transition out of HCFCs in 

a timely manner, given the investment of adequate energy and 

resources into research to that end. EPA requests comments on 

the proposed schedule for the HCFC phaseout and on the schedules 

suggested by petitioners. 

   The Agency also requests comment on the HCFC phaseout's
relationship 

to use limits under sections 608, 610 and 612 of the Act. EPA 

will take some action to limit HCFC use on a sector-by-sector 

basis. For example, section 610(d)(1) bans the sale or distribution


of HCFCs in aerosols and non-insulating foam. EPA also intends 

to use its authority under section 612(c) to restrict the use 

of the HCFCs in those applications where a substitute clearly 

(1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment; 

and (2) is currently or potentially available. Finally, EPA 

is required under section 608 to limit use and emissions of 

class I and II substances to their lowest achievable levels, 

and may promulgate bans on use to accomplish that. EPA is
considering 

whether or not it should limit the uses of HCFCs in this way. 

Comment is requested on this possible approach to the HCFC
phaseout. 



C. Addition of Methyl Bromide to the List of Class I Substances 

and Phaseout Schedule 





1. Summary 



   Methyl bromide is a chemical used primarily as a soil fumigant 

in high value crops (e.g., strawberry, tobacco seedling, tree 

nurseries, etc.) and to a more limited extent in commodity
quarantine 

programs to prevent the spread of pests.

   The December 3, 1991 NRDC/EDF/FOE petition requested, pursuant 

to section 602(c)(3), that EPA add methyl bromide (bromomethane 

CASRN 74-95-3) to the list of class I substances pursuant to 

section 602(a). The petition further requested under section 

606(b) that EPA act under section 606(a) to establish an
accelerated 

schedule for phasing out methyl bromide by January 1, 1993, 

with an interim reduction of fifty percent in 1992. The petition 

also requested that EPA order this accelerated phaseout of methyl 

bromide based on the Administrator's emergency powers under 

section 303 of the Act to protect public health or welfare or 

the environment. 

   The Parties to the Montreal Protocol at their Fourth Meeting 

agreed to amend the Protocol to include methyl bromide as a 

controlled substance, to adopt an ODP of 0.7 for it, and to 

freeze its production (with exemptions for quarantine and pre-

shipment use) at 1991 levels beginning in 1995. The Parties 

adopted the recent scientific assessment of 0.7 for the ODP, 

acknowledging this as the best estimate despite the uncertainties 

related to this estimate. The Parties also unanimously adopted 

a non-binding resolution urging all steps to be taken to reduce 

emissions and use of this compound and urging the Parties to 

take further steps to agree on reductions and a phase-out date, 

as appropriate based on the next Protocol assessments. 

   As explained earlier in this action, the Parties' agreements 

to list methyl bromide as a controlled substance, to freeze 

production based on 1991 levels beginning in 1995, and to adopt 

the scientific assessment's best estimate for an ozone depletion 

potential of 0.7 are to enter into force by January 1, 1994, 

provided that twenty Parties have ratified them. If twenty Parties 

have not ratified the amendments by that date, then these
amendments 

are to enter into force ninety-days after the twentieth instrument 

of ratification is deposited by a Party. 

   EPA is proposing to add methyl bromide to the list of class 

I substances under section 602(a) in response to the action 

taken by the Parties to the Protocol, the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition, 

and the scientific data discussed in the UNEP Scientific Assessment


of Ozone Depletion and the update of that assessment. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to establish 1991 as the baseline year under 

section 601(2)(C), but is rejecting the accelerated phaseout 

schedule suggested by the petitioners. The proposed phaseout 

schedule for methyl bromide is thus that prescribed for class 

I substances by section 604(a), as modified pursuant to section 

602(d). EPA is also proposing to assign methyl bromide an ODP 

of 0.7 as specified in the latest UNEP scientific assessment 

and as agreed to in the Copenhagen Amendment by the Parties 

to the Protocol.

   In a separate action, the Agency is requiring persons that 

manufactured, imported, exported or transformed the substance 

in 1991 to provide information on their activities during that 

year, for the purpose of establishing baseline production and 

consumption allowances if methyl bromide is listed as a class 

I substance.



2. 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 which the Administrator 

determines have an ozone depletion potential of 0.2 or greater. 

Section 602(c) provides that the Administrator may add, by rule, 

any substance to the class I list, in accordance with the criteria 

in section 602(a). 

   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 substances 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 where the ozone depletion 

potential of a substance is specified in the Montreal Protocol, 

the ozone-depletion potential specified for that substance under 

this subsection shall be consistent with the Montreal Protocol. 

When the ODP for methyl bromide enters into force for the United 

States, and is listed through the final promulgation of this 

rule, it will be set for purposes of the Clean Air Act. 

   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, sections 604 and 605 authorize EPA to promulgate
regulations 

phasing out the production of class I and class II substances 

from baseline levels, respectively, in accordance with schedules 

specified in those sections. 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. 



3. Petitioners' and Commenters' Suggested Actions 



   a. NRDC/EDF/FOE Petition. As noted above, the NRDC/EDF/FOE 

petition requested, among other things, that the Agency add 

methyl bromide to the list of class I substances. The petition 

cited section 602(c) as authority for such listing, but asked 

the Agency to take emergency action under section 303 to
immediately 

add the substance to the list and to provide for a 50 percent 

cut in its production in 1992, with a total phaseout by 1993. 

As discussed below, the petitioners also requested that methyl 

bromide be subject to an accelerated phaseout schedule under 

section 606. 

   The petition cited the UNEP Scientific Assessment for support. 

(The cited UNEP assessment has been updated since the time of 

the petition.) The Assessment referenced in the petition states 

that the "best estimate" of the ODP for methyl bromide is 0.6. 

The executive summary of that assessment further states that 

"if the anthropogenic sources of methyl bromide are significant 

and their emissions can be reduced, then each ten percent reduction


in methyl bromide would rapidly result in a decrease in
stratospheric 

bromine of 1.5 pptv, which is equivalent to a reduction in chlorine


of 0.045 to 0.18 ppbv. This gain is comparable to that of a 

three-year acceleration of the scheduled phaseout of the CFCs." 

The report also discussed the uncertainties that could affect 

the estimate of the ODP. 

   b. Methyl Bromide Working Group Comments. Following the
NRDC/EDF/FOE 

petition, the Methyl Bromide Working Group, an industry group 

of three methyl bromide manufacturers (Ethyl Corporation,
Ameribrom, 

Inc., and Great Lakes Chemical Corporation), and one of the 

largest U.S. methyl bromide users (Trical), submitted two letters 

to the Administrator regarding the addition of methyl bromide 

to the list of ozone-depleting substances. The first letter 

discussed the Group's opposition to the Agency's use of section 

303 to take emergency action, emphasizing that the threat to 

the ozone layer posed by anthropogenic sources of methyl bromide 

was as yet undetermined. The second letter again discussed the 

scientific uncertainty with respect to methyl bromide's effects 

in the atmosphere and called for the Agency to deny the
NRDC/EDF/FOE 

petition. 

   The Working Group letter also questioned the degree of certainty


associated with the ODP and whether most emissions of methyl 

bromide were anthropogenic or from natural sources. The letter 

further discussed uncertainties about the degree to which the 

chemical breaks down in the soil versus in the atmosphere. 

   c. Responses to the section 114 Information Request. To respond 

to the petition on methyl bromide, EPA initiated efforts to 

determine the extent of current methyl bromide usage in the 

U.S. and the availability of substitutes in order to assess 

the environmental and economic impacts of a potential phaseout 

of methyl bromide. To this end, EPA requested information from 

the public on methyl bromide production, application, and
emissions, 

along with information on alternatives, under section 114(a) 

of the Clean Air Act. (Section 114(a) authorizes the Agency 

to obtain information needed to carry out provisions of the 

Act from any person who the Administrator believes may have 

information necessary for that purpose.) At the request of many 

respondents, the deadline for receipt of responses was extended 

from April 10, 1992 until May 15, 1992 so that organizations 

and individuals could gather more information and conduct more 

comprehensive assessments of methyl bromide usage. This was 

the longest extension possible that would still allow EPA to 

use information it receives in meeting its statutory deadline 

for responding to the petition from the environmental groups. 

EPA recognizes that the time period is inadequate for many to 

develop new information which would be useful to the Agency 

in making final decisions concerning methyl bromide. EPA encourages


these groups to continue in their efforts to gather such
information 

and assures all interested parties that any new information 

submitted during the comment period for this proposal will be 

considered before final action is taken. 

   EPA received responses from the following types of
organizations: 

Local farmers and farm cooperatives, dealers and shippers of 

agricultural crops, nurseries, agriculture and forest institutes, 

state departments of agriculture and natural resources, state 

agricultural extension services, agricultural research stations, 

and non-profit coalitions and associations. Almost all of the 

respondents expressed concern about the impacts of phasing out 

methyl bromide because of its importance as a fumigant to control 

pathogens, pests, and weeds present in soil, pest infestations 

on imported and exported commodities, and pests present in
structures, 

such as residential buildings and storage areas. 

   Among other things, many respondents expressed concern that 

the scientific evidence supporting a phaseout of methyl bromide 

is still uncertain and that any decision to phase out methyl 

bromide based on this preliminary information would be premature. 

Specifically, respondents argued that it is still uncertain 

whether methyl bromide has an ODP of 0.6 and whether anthropogenic 

methyl bromide contributes significant atmospheric levels of 

bromine relative to non-anthropogenic (natural) sources. 



4. Today's Proposal 



   The issue of the ODP of methyl bromide was first addressed 

in the UNEP Scientific Assessment, which concluded that the 

best estimate of the ODP of methyl bromide is 0.6 with an
uncertainty 

range of 0.44 to 0.69 (The June 1992 report estimated the ODP 

to be .7, and acknowledged. The assessment was conducted by 

over a hundred of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, 

was co-chaired by leading atmospheric scientists from NASA and 

NOAA, and included those international experts directly involved 

in the calculations of ODP. This document has been widely peer-

reviewed, and is considered the basis for decision-making by 

world governments in the context of ongoing deliberations under 

the Montreal Protocol. 

   Following that assessment, the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel 

commissioned a report that suggested that the uncertainty range 

associated with the ODP calculation for methyl bromide is a 

factor of ten (i.e., the highest possible ODP is ten times the 

lowest possible ODP) ("A Literature Survey of Atmospheric Methyl 

Bromide and Stratospheric Ozone," November 14, 1991, revised 

February 12, 1992). This report surveys the existing literature 

regarding those factors that affect the ozone depletion potential 

of methyl bromide. It concludes that the uncertainties associated 

with computation of the ODP of methyl bromide are large enough 

to render the ODP uncertain by a factor of ten. 

   Unlike the UNEP Assessment, however, the industry's report 

had not undergone any formal peer review. In reviewing the report, 

the Agency found that a key assumption leading to the estimate 

of a large degree of uncertainty in the ODP of methyl bromide-

the uncertainty assigned to the rate constant for destruction 

of methyl bromide by hydroxyl radicals-is incorrect by over 

a factor of ten (see May 28, 1992 memorandum to docket, Joel 

Levy, EPA). Correction of this error substantially reduces the 

uncertainty in the ODP of methyl bromide related to this factor. 

   In fact, recent laboratory remeasurement (Mellouki et al., 

submitted to Geophys. Res. Lett., May, 1992) of the rate constant 

for reaction of methyl bromide with hydroxyl radicals indicates 

that the rate is slower than that assumed in the UNEP assessment. 

This finding, if correct, means that the atmospheric lifetime 

of methyl bromide is greater than previously thought and that 

the ODP of methyl bromide is higher than the UNEP value of 0.6. 

Conversely, a faster reaction rate with the hydroxyl radical 

reported in another study (reported by Poulet et al to the Geophys.


Res. lett., November 1992), stated that even after a five to 

ten percent HBr branching, which cannot be ruled out in conjunction


with the atmospheric lifetime of 1.3 years (assuming oceanic 

uptake), could yield an ODP range of 0.15 to 0.53. 

   In addition, the industry report derived its error range 

by combining computational factors assumed to lie simultaneously 

at the extremes of their individual uncertainties. Aside from 

the fact that the largest extreme is overstated by an order 

of magnitude, as explained above, this methodology derives the 

greatest possible uncertainty, rather than the most probable 

uncertainty. 

   In order to review the data and analysis presented in this 

report, and any additional information currently available related 

to the potential impact of methyl bromide on ozone depletion, 

a two-day science workshop was conducted on June 2-3 by the 

Methyl Bromide Global Coalition, an international group
representing 

primarily producers of this compound. The workshop was attended 

by more than 40 international scientific experts including many 

of the same participants in the Montreal Protocol's Science 

Assessment. Based on the information presented at the workshop, 

an update of that assessment was prepared under the chairmanship 

of Dr. Robert Watson of NASA and Dr. Daniel Albritton of NOAA. 

This report was peer reviewed by the participants in the workshop 

and other experts and was made available to governments for 

use in the recent negotiations related to the Montreal Protocol. 

The report is titled, "Methyl Bromide and the Ozone Layer: A 

Summary of Current Understanding," and a copy has been included 

in the docket. 

   The findings of the updated assessment concluded 0.7 is the 

current best estimate. The report examines a number of key areas 

and uncertainties related to the impact of methyl bromide on 

the ozone layer. 

   One of the key conclusions of the report is that, "these 

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." 

   The report examines additional information that affects the 

ODP of methyl bromide. As mentioned above, new analysis of the 

reaction rate between methyl bromide and the hydroxyl radical 

shows that the rate may be slower than previously thought which 

would increase the atmospheric lifetime and ODP of this compound. 

As a result, the best estimate of the ODP of methyl bromide 

was revised upward from 0.6 to 0.7. 

   Several issues related to the ODP of methyl bromide were 

also discussed in the Assessment update. First, the 0.7 ODP 

is calculated on the basis that loss in the troposphere through 

removal by the hydroxy radical is the only significant tropospheric


loss mechanism. This assumes that no significant removal occurs 

involving the oceans or any terrestrial sinks (e.g., loss through 

absorption by trees). Very limited data were presented which 

suggested that the levels of methyl bromide in a coastal region 

of the ocean are saturated and therefore that the oceans are 

a net source of methyl bromide. No data was available to either 

support or negate whether other regions of the oceans represent 

a significant net source or sink of methyl bromide. However, 

very preliminary calculations suggest that if the oceans were 

a significant sink for methyl bromide, that the resulting decrease 

in its ODP would not be significant enough to lower the ODP 

to less than 0.2. Nor was any data presented concerning the 

existence of a significant terrestrial sink for this compound. 

Despite these assessments, removal processes in surface water 

could be significant, and remain to be quantified.

   The second area of uncertainty concerning the ODP of methyl 

bromide involves the qualification of the rate of formation 

of HBr in the stratosphere and other related reaction rates. 

If the rate of HBr formation were to be greater than the ODP, 

BrO and ozone loss would be lower. The report also states that 

the lack of definitive data for HBr and larger scattering of 

observed BrO make it difficult to rule out this possibility. 

In contrast, the assessment update states that "if recent
laboratory 

measurements indicating a faster rate of HOBr formation (via 

BrO plus HO2) are correct, then the ODP would be greater." Under 

this scenario, bromine from methyl bromine would be channeled 

into a series of reactions that would increase rather than decrease


the rate of destruction of ozone. Because of the limited
information 

and large uncertainties associated with each of these
possibilities, 

the updated assessment relied on only the reaction with the 

hydroxyl radical as the basis for its estimate of ODP.

   Finally, the assessment points out that the 0.7 ODP calculation 

is based on an analysis of the steady state impact on the ozone 

layer calculated over a period of several hundred years. Because 

of its short atmospheric lifetime, the impact of methyl bromide 

occurs over a period of a decade or so. The ODP of methyl bromide 

over the next 20 years, when the risks of ozone depletion appear 

to be the largest, would be a factor of four larger (i.e., about 

3).

   The workshop and assessment update also examined the issue 

of the role of methyl bromide emissions from anthropogenic versus 

natural sources. A study sponsored by the Methyl Bromide Global 

Coalition suggests that somewhere between 30-60 percent of the 

methyl bromide used as a soil fumigant (by far its largest use) 

may be emitted to the atmosphere with the remainder degrading 

in the soil. The amount that degrades in the soil was dependent 

upon such factors as soil moisture, temperature, organic
concentrations 

in the soil, injection depth, use and thickness of tarp, etc.

   EPA is also aware of two studies, H. de Heer, et al. (1983) 

and Ph. Hamaker, et al. (1983) that measured the fraction of 

methyl bromide used as a soil fumigant that was emitted into 

the atmosphere. These studies were done in the Netherlands where 

concerns had been raised that ambient levels of methyl bromide 

might be creating a health risk for the population living near 

treated areas. The first study focussed on emissions from
greenhouses, 

and used a mass balance approach to calculate loss of methyl 

bromide that had been emitted. Study results presented the
percentage 

of methyl bromide that is emitted into the air for a range of 

experimental conditions, including methyl bromide dosages of 

20 and 102 g/m2, soil cover times of five and ten days, and 

air and soil temperatures ranging from eight to 25C. In
addition, 

the study explored the ability of using low density polyethylene 

and gas-tight plastic film covers and water-filled tubes laid 

down in areas of cover overlap to decrease methyl bromide release. 

The study concluded that over a three-week period following 

methyl bromide application, depending upon application dose, 

temperature, cover type, cover time, and how the cover was laid 

down, anywhere from 29 percent to 87 percent of the methyl bromide 

was emitted to the air.

   The second study focussed on emissions under field conditions, 

and used a mass balance approach based upon measurement of bromide 

ions in waters released into and discharged from public pumping 

stations. The amount of methyl bromide transformed in soil was 

determined by using the mass balance equation to calculate bromine 

ion contribution from effluent irrigation water. The study
presented 

methyl bromide emissions for two different 12-month periods 

that varied in methyl bromide dosage (100 and 40 g/m2), cover 

time (three and ten days), and the use of low density polyethylene 

or gas-tight soil covers. The study concluded that anywhere 

from 58 to 85 percent of the methyl bromide dosage was released 

to the air depending upon the above indicated conditions. These 

studies showed that emissions can be significantly reduced with 

reduced application amounts and increased cover time.

   Another study conducted by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) as part of its Pesticide Monitoring Program examined 

ambient levels of methyl bromide at a strawberry field that 

had been fumigated with this chemical compared to control sites. 

The study did not provide information concerning total emissions, 

but did provide limited insight into the level of emissions 

and when they occur. Samples were taken upwind and downwind 

from the site prior to, during, and four days after application 

of methyl bromide, which included a three-day cover time using 

a plastic tarp. Results showed that the highest concentrations 

of methyl bromide for the three sites sampled occurred on the 

day of application and ranged from 210 to 900 parts per million 

(ppm).

   Theoretical calculations of emissions of methyl bromide used 


to fumigate soil using models of soil transport and methyl bromide 

transformation have been reported at a recent workshop ("Analysis 

of the Potential Emissions to the Atmosphere from the Use of 

Methyl Bromide in Soil Fumigation," report to USDA, by Center 

for Pest Management Research and Extension, Division of Agriculture


and Natural Resources, University of California, April 7, 1992). 

Methyl bromide emissions are predicted to vary primarily with 

injection depth, organic content of the soil, and longevity 

of tarp cover. For representative soil and methyl bromide
fumigation 

conditions, a 45 percent loss of methyl bromide to the atmosphere 

is predicted for the first 14 days following injection into 

the ground. For the range of soil and injection conditions
considered, 

methyl bromide emissions are predicted to vary from 28 percent 

to 60 percent.

   Based on the emission rate suggested in the study sponsored 

by the Methyl Bromide Global Coalition, and information provided 

by industry on global production and use patterns, the Protocol's 

assessment update concluded that roughly half of all anthropogenic 

methyl bromide (except feedstock uses) is emitted into the
atmosphere.

   Several sets of atmospheric measurements of methyl bromide 

have revealed higher levels in the northern than southern
hemisphere. 

This is consistent with fumigation use patterns and could be 

an indicator of anthropogenic emissions. Also, as pointed out 

in the assessment update, oceanographic measurements of methyl 

bromide have been shown to be highly correlated with methyl 

chloride. However, no interhemispheric gradient is observed 

for methyl chloride, whose source is predominantly natural, 

and whose lifetime is similar to that of methyl bromide. This 

further suggests that the northern hemispheric excess of methyl 

bromide might be caused by anthropogenic emissions.

   Analysis of the interhemispheric ratio of methyl bromide 

results in the conclusion, cited in the assessment update, that 

anthropogenic methyl bromide accounts for roughly 25 percent 

plus or minus ten percent of methyl bromide emissions. This 

calculation is broadly consistent with the results obtained 

by comparing the total (anthropogenic plus natural) source of 

methyl bromide, derived from the measured atmospheric burden 

and an assumed lifetime of two years, with emissions calculated 

at 50 percent of reported production. The consistency of the 

two approaches also suggests that neither significant sources 

nor sinks of methyl bromide are missing from the analysis, and 

that the lifetime of methyl bromide is not significantly less 

than two years. The EPA acknowledges that one of the uncertainties 

related methyl bromide is the quantification of the natural 

sources.

   Finally, EPA notes that emissions levels are not relevant 

to the criteria for listing methyl bromide as a class I substance 

under section 602, but are an important consideration in evaluating


the magnitude of the risk that the compound poses to the ozone 

layer. It is sufficient for today's proposed listing that the 

ODP of methyl bromide is greater than 0.2, the
statutorily-prescribed 

trigger for adding substances to the class I list. 

   Finally, EPA is relying extensively on the Protocol's scientific


assessment as the basis for its listing decision and furthermore, 

will be compelled to adopt the ODP for methyl bromide once the 

1992 Copenhagen amendments enter into force, as provided in 

section 602(e) of the CAA. 



5. Group Assignment 



   For purposes of allowance exchanges, whenever a substance 

is added to the list of class I substances, section 602(c)(1) 

of the Act provides that it be assigned to an existing group 

or be placed in a new group. 

   The Agency proposes to place methyl bromide in a sixth group 

within class I, thus preventing production and consumption
allowances 

for other class I substances from being exchanged for methyl 

bromide production and consumption allowances. This follows 

the historical precedent under the Montreal Protocol and title 

VI of the Act whereby newly-listed class I substances have been 

added to a new group within the class. While section 602(c)(1) 

authorizes the Agency to assign a newly-listed substance to 

an existing group to the extent consistent with the Montreal 

Protocol, the Agency believes that methyl bromide should be 

added in a new group in the same manner it has been dealt with 

in the Copenhagen amendments. Placement in a new group will 

ensure that the development of substitutes is forced for the 

new substance. This is particularly important in the case of 

methyl bromide, because its use is entirely different than that 

of other class I substances. Were methyl bromide placed in an 

existing group, allowances for the production of the substance 

in that group could be transferred and used for methyl bromide 

production, thus relieving the pressure to develop methyl bromide 

substitutes in the near term. At the same time, the users of 

the substances for which allowances have been traded for methyl 

bromide may not have adequate substitutes available to them. 

The phaseout schedules for ozone-depleting substances vary partly 

as a result of differences in the expected pace and progress 

of the development of substitutes. To allow trading between 

substances with different substitutes is thus to risk undermining 

the purpose of the prescribed phaseout schedule. A separate 

group is thus appropriate, because the proposed phaseout schedule 

for this chemical differs from that of the other groups. The 

Agency does not wish to allow the accelerated phaseout of the 

other class I substances to be circumvented by allowing trading 

of methyl bromide allowances for allowances for other chemicals 

that would be phased out after 1995. 



6. Ozone Depletion Potential 



   The updated UNEP Scientific Assessment assigned an ODP of 

0.7 for methyl bromide. EPA has in the past relied on international


consensus assessments as the basis for its rulemakings. In section 

606, Congress specifically cites assessment under the Montreal 

Protocol as an example of "credible current scientific information"


which should be used in deciding on the scientific underpinnings 

of a decision to accelerate the phaseout schedule. This ODP 

is also the value adopted by the Parties to the Protocol at 

their November 1992 meeting. As noted earlier, under section 

602(e) the ODP assigned by the Parties will be dispositive once 

it enters into force. EPA therefore proposes to assign an ODP 

of 0.7 to methyl bromide (see discussion of the ODP and its 

uncertainty). 



D. Phaseout Schedule for Methyl Bromide 





1. Petitioners' Request 



   The NRDC petitioners requested that EPA use its authority 

under sections 303 and 606 to accelerate the phaseout schedule 

for methyl bromide. The Methyl Bromide Working Group and other 

industry participants, on the other hand, have protested both 

the listing and any phaseout of the substance whatsoever,
particularly 

in the near term. 



2. Statutory Standards 



   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 section 604(a) schedule is 

unattainable and extends that schedule pursuant to section 602(d). 

   Under section 602(d), in the case of any substance added 

to the list of class I or class II substances, 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 or deadline is unattainable, 

considering when such substance is added to the list. Also, 

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 in which 

the substance is added to the list of class I substances. 

   The statute does not specifically define what it means to 

"extend any schedule or compliance deadline." Nor does it
explicitly 

specify what standard the Agency is to apply in determining 

how to extend the phaseout schedule if the section 604 schedule 

is unattainable. Based on the statutory scheme, however, the 

Agency believes that Congress intended the Agency to replace 

the section 604 schedule where unattainable for a newly listed 

substance with the most stringent attainable production and 

consumption limits. 

   The Agency believes that section 602(d) reflects an obvious 

concern that newly listed substances might not have sufficient 

lead-time to meet the section 604 interim reductions immediately 

upon being listed. Particularly where a new substance is listed 

in the later years of the section 604 schedule, potentially 

significant reductions could easily prove unattainable if
immediately 

applicable. Under section 602(d), the Agency can avoid application 

of the section 604 schedule where unattainable. Once avoided, 

the sense of the statutory scheme is that the most stringent 

attainable schedule should be applied to the newly listed
substance. 

Anything less would be inconsistent with the broad purpose of 

the scheme to mandate phase-out of ozonedepletors as fast as 

possible. (See, for example, section 606(a)(2).) 

   The Agency does not believe the "extension" language was 

meant to limit the Agency only to "extending" the effectiveness 

of the specific interim reductions enumerated for "other class 

I substances" in section 604(a). For example, in a case where 

even the least stringent enumerated reduction (85 percent) is 

unattainable, the Agency believes it may nonetheless require 

a less stringent attainable reduction (e.g., a freeze) instead. 



3. Summary of Proposal and Response to Petitioners 



   Based on currently available information, the Agency believes 

that the section 604(a) schedule is unattainable. Moreover, 

for the reasons explained below, the Agency currently believes 

that the most stringent attainable interim phaseout schedule 

it can propose is a production and consumption freeze at 1991 

levels by January 1, 1994. 

   As noted above, the petitioners also requested that the Agency 

accelerate the schedule for methyl bromide under sections 303 

and 606. (The reader should consult the discussion of the statutory


standards under these provisions in the earlier part of this 

action.) Given the Agency's finding that the section 604(a) 

schedule is unattainable for methyl bromide, a fortiori the 

Agency believes an acceleration of that schedule is not warranted 

and the acceleration request in the petition should be denied. 

   At the same time, information continues to be collected and 

studies undertaken concerning alternatives for the uses of methyl 

bromide. The Agency will docket such information and studies 

as they become available, and if warranted, will consider interim 

reduction requirements. In particular, EPA notes that sections 

606(a) and 615 provide authority to accelerate any previously 

extended interim phaseout schedule for methyl bromide if
justifiable 

based on future developments. 



4. Most Stringent Attainable Schedule 



   As discussed in detail below, information the Agency now 

has indicates that substitutes for the uses of methyl bromide 

are currently available only on a very limited basis, but that 

a wide range of potential substitutes may be available prior 

to the year 2000. This is the case, in part, because U.S.
Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) regulations and requirements now effectively 

require the use of methyl bromide for quarantine purposes and 

because potential substitutes under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) must be registered by 

EPA before use. Approval of use of a substitute under both of 

these processes can require considerable testing and involve 

a lengthy period for review. The data requirements for pesticide 

registration under FIFRA are contained in extensive tables in 

40 CFR 158.202 through 158.740. Data on the following subjects 

are required for most use patterns: Chemical identity, directions 

for use, environmental fate, acute and chronic toxicity, and 

ecological effects. In addition, a tolerance or clearance under 

the FFDCA is required for a food use chemical. Other data may 

be required for particular use patterns and under specific
circumstances. 

   Based on the limited current availability of substitutes 

and the regulatory hurdles that must be overcome before new 

substances can be used as substitutes, the Agency believes that 

at least the near term interim reductions required by section 

604(a) are unattainable for methyl bromide. At the same time, 

however, in the absence of the results from the tests described 

above, the currently available information on alternatives is 

insufficient to determine what interim reductions are currently 

attainable. The Agency thus currently lacks an adequate basis 

for proposing interim reductions and is accordingly at this 

time only proposing a freeze on production at baseline levels. 

The Agency requests comment on this approach as well as further 

information that may become available regarding the availability 

of substitutes for methyl bromide which could serve as the basis 

for interim reductions. 

   The Methyl Bromide Working Group provided the Agency with 

information regarding methyl bromide uses and the availability 

and development of substitutes. As discussed above, the Agency 

additionally requested information on these topics pursuant 

to section 114 of the Clean Air Act and submissions were due 

under that request by May 15, 1992. This and other information 

revealed to the Agency that methyl bromide is a pesticide used 

primarily in three general areas: Soil fumigation; commodities 

fumigation; and commercial and residential space or building 

fumigation. Methyl bromide is used as a soil fumigant for the 

following crops: Blueberries, strawberries, watermelons, eggplant, 

cucumbers, raspberries, peppers, tomatoes, tobacco, and other 

winter vegetables as well as other non-food crops such as
ornamentals, 

turf, and shrubs. Commodities fumigated with methyl bromide 

include: Logs, lumber, processed foods, and a variety of imported 

and exported agricultural commodities including pecans, almonds, 

other nuts, oranges, nectarines, tangerines, grapefruits, sweet 

cherries, apples, cotton, grains, cut flowers, tobacco, and 

assorted vegetables and foreign fruits and vegetables. Methyl 

bromide also appears to be an important space fumigant for
structures 

used in shipment and storage of food items, including warehouses, 

trucks, railroad cars, food processing plants, barns, grain 

bins, and greenhouses. 

   The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has 

approved methyl bromide and in some cases its regulations
effectively 

require methyl bromide as a fumigation treatment for import, 

export and domestic interstate commerce in food and non-food 

commodities. Methyl bromide use is mandated by some USDA
regulations 

(7 CFR part 319) (7 CFR 301.38 through 301.96 and 7 CFR 318.13 

through 318.82) and substitutes are in some cases restricted 

by regulations under the FIFRA. 

   Information was also submitted to the Agency by the USDA 

and others regarding the extent of U.S. markets and non-food 

commodities that currently rely on methyl bromide fumigation 

and the potential economic costs of its regulation. The Agency 

notes, however, that these analyses typically assumed that methyl 

bromide would be banned immediately, considered a very limited 

range of alternatives, and were inconsistent with information 

on substitutes presented at the Technology and Economics Assessment


Workshop in mid-June. EPA believes these shortcomings substantially


undercut the utility of these studies. 

   Others submitting information regarding methyl bromide to 

the Agency also identified the following concerns. Regarding 

soil fumigation, many warned that unavailability of methyl bromide 

would result in the application of greater quantities of less 

potent alternative herbicides and fungicides which could present 

other environmental hazards, such as ground and surface water 

contamination. Also, some were concerned that unavailability 

of methyl bromide for commodity fumigation would lead to a
significant 

increase in invasions of foreign pests. 

   Based on currently available information, the Agency believes 

that much work remains to be done to identify acceptable
substitutes 

for methyl bromide. On June 16-18th, the United States hosted 

a conference of over 90 experts from over 20 countries on issues 

related to the use and possible substitutes for methyl bromide. 

This workshop was held under the auspices of the Montreal Protocol 

and was convened for the purposes of providing an update on 

technical and economic issues related to the use of methyl bromide 

for the Parties to the Protocol in upcoming negotiations. The 

meeting was co-chaired by Dr. Stephen Andersen and Mr. Steven 

Lee-Bapty, who had co-chaired the Technical and Economic Assessment


Report prepared this past year under the Protocol. 

   The assessment update concluded that methyl bromide is an 

economically important chemical widely used as a soil and commodity


fumigant and that no one single compound would likely be an 

appropriate substitute. A number of potential alternatives were 

identified in each of the major use categories. In addition, 

near-term steps to reduce emissions through changes in such 

measures as utilization rates, application techniques, and
recycling 

and recovery may offer significant opportunities for reductions. 

The assessment highlighted that there is no single alternative 

to methyl bromide in the broad spectrum of applications for 

which it is currently used and there are some applications for 

which there are limited or alternatives. 

   In the area of structural fumigation, the information available 

indicates that sulfuryl fluoride is available as one alternative. 

However, the information provided regarding this substitute 

indicates that overuse of a single chemical for such a particular 

application could increase pest resistance to that chemical, 

and usefulness of such a single alternative as a substitute 

for methyl bromide may therefore be limited. Other non-chemical 

alternatives include the use of heat and cold treatments, modified 

atmospheres, inert dust, and microwave treatments. Each of these 

methods appear to have some potential applicability, but also 

have their limitations. Additional research will be required 

to determine the extent to which they can substantially reduce 

the current use of methyl bromide in this application. 

   The area of soil fumigation is particularly critical because 

it represents the single largest use of methyl bromide. Other 

chemical fumigants may be possible for some crops in some areas. 

For example, Dazomet has the potential for substituting widely 

for methyl bromide but several issues must be resolved before 

the extent of such substitution becomes clear. For example, 

although it is approved for use in food crops in over 70 other 

countries, it is not approved for such application in the United 

States. Its current use in the U.S. is limited to non-food items, 

which currently represent only a small fraction of methyl bromide 

use. The registrant announced at the workshop that it would 

seek expanded registration in the near future, but this process 

could take a year or longer. As cited above, numerous tests 

are required for registration of a pesticide under FIFRA and 

associated food tolerances under the FFDCA. Even after the testing 

has been completed and submitted to the Agency, the review period 

may be extensive. 

   The reason for the extent of testing and the lengthy review 

period is that extensive data are needed for evaluating the 

risk posed through exposure in food: Various subchronic and 

chronic toxicity studies and data on the level of residues in 

each individual treated crop (in the case of a soil fumigant, 

each crop grown in treated soil). Residue chemistry data are 

generated in a tiered fashion, proceeding from identification 

of plant and animal metabolites through analytical methods to 

determine the residues, to measures of the magnitude of the 

residue in the individual crops. Magnitude of residue data can 

be collected only on a crop season basis. 

   After the data are collected, the Agency reviews the toxicity 

and residue data and conducts a dietary risk assessment to
determine 

whether residues in food which would be permitted by the proposed 

use meet the applicable statutory standards. Inadequate data 

or analytical methods for enforcement, or dietary risk concerns 

can delay the review process. Additionally, the person seeking 

the registration (usually the producer of the pesticide) must 

petition the Agency to establish the tolerance or exemption, 

a formal regulatory process culminating in rulemaking. 

   While limited field tests on strawberries (Strawberry Research 

Board), tobacco (G.S. Miner and D.A. Worsham, "Fumigation of 

Tobacco Plantbeds with Dazomet") and tree seedlings (letter 

to David Lee from Thomas D. Landis, with enclosure "Soil fumigation


in bareroot tree nurseries") suggest that Dazomet may be as 

effective against a wide range of pests as methyl bromide,
additional 

experience is needed to identify what if any limitations exist 

to its use. Other chemical fumigants include Telone and Telone 

C-17 which may have significant potential as substitutes, but 

the registration of these compounds has been suspended in
California 

due to ambient air quality concerns and these compounds undergoing 

special review by the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA.
Resolution 

of issues concerning the safety of their use is essential before 

expanded use to replace methyl bromide would be possible. 

   A number of non-chemical alternatives were also presented 

at the assessment workshop. These included such options as: 

Soil solarization, biological control agents (e.g., plant growth 

promoting rhizobacteria and fungal antagonists of nematodes); 

changes in cultural systems; and such emerging technologies 

as sodium azides and furfuraldehyde. It is important to recognize 

that additional research related to each of these options is 

critical to determine the extent to which they may become
significant 

alternatives to the current use of methyl bromide. 

   Finally, in the area of commodity fumigation and quarantine 

applications, concerns were voiced about the limited availability 

of alternatives for certain applications, particularly related 

to quarantine use. Alternatives discussed included increased 

use of phosphine for those commodities where it is an acceptable 

alternative, the use of controlled atmospheres, heat and cold 

treatments, and irradiation. Each of these options also requires 

additional analysis to determine the extent that they are viable 

alternatives for methyl bromide. 

   Although the synthesis report did point out potential
alternatives, 

and that there could be substantial anthropogenic emissions 

of methyl bromide, it did highlight that there is no single 

alternative for methyl bromide in the broad spectrum of
applications 

and no apparent alternatives for some applications. Further, 

the introduction of some alternatives may require government 

approval that could be a lengthy process. 



5. Today's Proposal 



   EPA believes that the preliminary evidence available within 

the time frame for this proposal demonstrates the unattainability 

of the environmental groups' suggested phaseout schedule for 

methyl bromide, and also points to the unattainability of at 

least the near-term reductions in the section 604(a) phaseout 

schedule for class I substances. Due to current data limitations 

and significant uncertainties regarding the availability of 

substitutes for methyl bromide, EPA believes under these
circumstances 

that a production and consumption freeze at 1991 baseline levels, 

is the most stringent schedule for the phaseout of methyl bromide 

that it can propose to establish in place of the section 604(a) 

schedule. 

   EPA believes that a freeze at a designated baseline year 

level would limit the potential environmental harm from increased 

use of methyl bromide. Moreover, given recent growth in the 

use of methyl bromide, a freeze at this time would require that 

near-term reductions steps (including reduced application rates, 

recovery and recycling, deeper injection and less permeable 

tarps) that are currently available would be employed and that 

efforts to develop and commercialize substitutes would be
accelerated. 

Given the unique circumstances (the existing restrictions on 

substitutes because of their agricultural use) that surround 

the need for regulatory approvals for many of the substitutes 

of methyl bromide, further reductions absent further developments 

on the timing of acceptance of substitutes would be premature. 

EPA is therefore proposing to extend the section 604(a) schedule 

to a freeze at 1991 baseline levels beginning January 1, 1994 

along with a January 1, 2000 phaseout date. 

   EPA recognizes that the Clean Air Act specifically limits 

extensions under section 602(d) to seven years after January 

1 of the year after the year in which the substance is added 

to the list of class I substances. The earliest year in which 

methyl bromide can be listed is 1993. If listed in 1993, EPA 

may not extend the phaseout schedule beyond January 1, 2001. 

Nevertheless, while EPA believes-based on current information-

that a production and consumption freeze is the most stringent 

schedule it can propose, EPA proposes that this extension continue 

until January 1, 2000 as specified in 604(b). 

   While EPA believes that current information suggests near-

term reductions are unattainable and does not, in any event, 

provide an adequate basis to propose specific interim reductions, 

neither does EPA have data to indicate that termination after 

January 1, 2000 will be unattainable. 

   EPA believes that January 1, 2000 is the appropriate phase-

out date at this time for two reasons. First, EPA does not believe 

it should extend the schedule beyond the final termination date 

specified in the Clean Air Act for class I substances absent 

an affirmative basis to believe that termination will be
unattainable 

at that time. 

   Second, were EPA able to comply with the Clean Air Act schedule 

for responding to the December 3, 1991 petition to list methyl 

bromide and thereafter for promulgating a final rule adding 

methyl bromide to the list, no extension could have been provided 

past January 1, 2000. (Section 602(c) provides that in a case 

where the Administrator proposes to add a substance to the list, 

he or she shall add, by rule, (or make a final determination 

not to add) such substance to such list within 1 year after 

receiving such petition.) In this case, EPA believes it should 

therefore conservatively propose to extend the schedule only 

until January 1, 2000. If listed in 1993, EPA will consider 

further extending the phaseout schedule until January 1, 2001, 

if appropriate based on information that becomes available in 

the coming years. 

   EPA is proposing to establish 1991 as the "representative" 

baseline year under section 601(2)(C) as the most recently
completed 

year during which methyl bromide was produced. This is also 

the base year adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

The Agency is publishing a request for information on 1991
production 

and consumption levels in a separate action and anticipates 

setting baseline production and consumption allowances based 

on that information. As a class I controlled substance, methyl 

bromide would also be subject to the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements under 40 CFR 82.13. 

   While the Clean Air Act mandates that-if methyl bromide is 

added to the class I list in 1993-no extension under section 

602(d) may extend the termination date beyond January 1, 2001, 

EPA is concerned about the possibility that this period may 

not ultimately provide adequate lead time for the development 

and approval of substitutes for all of the current uses of methyl 

bromide. This is particularly true in the case of quarantine 

and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide where substitutes may 

be the most difficult to develop and take the longest time to 

be accepted by the international community. The Agency believes 

that an essential use provision which allows the continued
production 

of this compound after the termination date if no substitutes 

have become available would be highly desirable. 

   Such an essential use provision was incorporated into the 

Montreal Protocol for all substances scheduled for phase-out. 

Furthermore, in listing and freezing production of methyl bromide, 

the Parties recognized that methyl bromide is essential for 

quarantine and pre-shipment purposes and specifically exempted 

these uses from any restrictions. Because methyl bromide was 

not specifically considered in the CAA, Title VI does not
explicitly 

authorize any essential use exemptions for this compound unlike 

other Class I substances. In light of this, EPA seeks comment 

on whether authority currently exists for the Agency to implement 

an essential use provision for methyl bromide. 

   The Agency will continue to work closely with researchers, 

environmentalists, and industry to evaluate new information 

on the ODP of methyl bromide and to encourage the development 

of substitutes for this compound. If it appears in the future 

that a more rapid phaseout of methyl bromide is attainable or 

practicable, the Agency may then propose to accelerate the phaseout


dates as authorized under sections 606 and 615 of the Act. 

   The Agency recognizes that its proposal under section 602(d) 

to extend the section 604 phaseout schedule is based on limited 

information available at the time of this rulemaking. While 

the Agency believes that currently available information supports 

the proposed extension as the most stringent phaseout schedule 

it can propose, the Agency understands that future developments 

could change this conclusion. The Agency believes that section 

606(a) provides authority to accelerate a phaseout schedule 

that has been extended under section 602(d), if justifiable 

based on future information. Further, the Agency believes that 

the petition provision of section 606(b) continues to be applicable


to such extended phaseout schedules. Using this authority or 

general authority under section 615, EPA could accelerate any 

previously extended phaseout schedule in light of future
developments. 

Furthermore, EPA believes that it has authority under section 

602 of the Clean Air Act to reconsider its decision to list 

and phaseout methyl bromide in the event that scientific
information 

becomes available indicating that the ODP proposed to be assigned 

today is incorrect. In section 602(a), Congress provided for 

listing of substances specifically named in that section and 

already known to be potent ozone depletors, and also set out 

criteria for EPA to add substances to the list. The criteria 

for additions to the class I list are as follows: First, pursuant 

to subsection (c), EPA is authorized to add to the list substances 

the Administrator finds causes or contributes significantly 

to harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer; and second, 

EPA shall, pursuant to subsection (c), add to such list all 

substances that the Administrator determines have an ODP of 

0.2 or greater. Section 602(c)(1) specifically authorizes EPA 

to add substances to the list by rule in accordance with the 

criteria set forth in subsection (a). 

   Section 602(c)(4) states that no substance referred to in 

subsection (a), including methyl chloroform, may be removed 

from the list of class I substances. EPA believes that Congress 

intended the "substances referred to in subsection (a)" only 

to include those substances specifically identified in subsection 

(a) itself. Newly listed substances such as methyl bromide would 

actually be listed under subsection (c), whereas subsection 

(a) only sets out the criteria for listing new substances. Unlike 

newly listed substances, those known ozone depletors specifically 

identified in subsection (a) are to be listed under subsection 

(a) and not subsection (c). These explicitly identified substances 

are clearly referenced in subsection (a). However, it seems 

reasonable to conclude that the specification of criteria for 

listing in subsection (a) does not constitute a "reference" 

to all those substances which may satisfy these criteria and 

hence be listed under subsection (c) in the future. 

   EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that Congress intended


to limit the Agency's discretion to remove from the list of 

class I substances only those that Congress itself expressly 

identified. EPA's decision whether to list a new substance must 

be based on the Agency's assessment of the substance's contribution


to stratospheric ozone depletion and ODP. In making this
assessment, 

the Agency must rely on the most current scientific evidence, 

which is always developing and never absolutely certain. A rule 

that the listing decision cannot be reversed might chill the 

Agency from controlling newly identified substances for which 

there is much evidence of their danger, since the Agency would 

be unable to respond to perhaps unexpected new evidence that 

the danger was previously overstated. The certainty demanded 

to make an irreversible decision would be increased without 

reason. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Agency be able 

to consider changes in scientific evidence is deciding whether 

to add the substance to the list. The Agency requests comment 

on this reasoning and its legal authority to delist a substance 

such as methyl bromide if future scientific developments warrant 

such action. 

   The Agency requests comment on the proposed baseline year 

and phaseout schedule for methyl bromide. EPA also requests 

comment on whether based on the current availability of
substitutes, 

a 50 percent cut by 1997 or other interim reductions should 

be required, section 604 phaseout schedule should be maintained 

or, the environmental groups' suggested schedule should be adopted.




6. Applicability of section 611 Labeling Requirements 



   In the response to comments document to the final rule on 

labeling, the Agency responded to questions regarding whether 

products grown with methyl bromide should be labeled. In its 

document, the Agency stated that it considers the processes 

involved in growing, harvesting, storing, and transporting of 

food such as fruits and vegetables, to be an agricultural process 

rather than a manufacturing process. As a result of its revised 

interpretation of "manufactured with," EPA's intention is to 

not include these processes under the definition of manufactured 

with. For purposes of section 611, EPA defines "manufacture" 

as "the mechanical or chemical transformation of materials or 

substances into new products or to assemble component products." 

EPA believes that the agricultural processes mentioned above 

are excluded from the definition of manufacture, and therefore 

not subject to the labeling requirements. 



7. Essential Use Exemption 



   Congress had recognized the need to exempt certain ozone 

depleting substances as essential uses in section 604 of the 

Amended Clean Air Act. At the time of passage of the Act, Congress 

had not anticipated the listing and control of methyl bromide. 

However, with methyl bromide's listing as a class I substance, 

the Agency recognizes its current important role as a pesticide, 

and that there are certain applications for which there are 

currently no replacements. Given that there may be "essential 

uses" for methyl bromide in the future, the Agency requests 

comment on its authority under the Clean Air Act to exempt
"essential 

uses" for this chemical, and comments on the timing of when 

such a review process should occur. In addition, the agency 

asks comments on specific use exemptions for this chemical. 



E. Addition of Hydrobromofluorocarbons to the List of Class 

I Substances and to the Phaseout Schedule 





1. Summary 



   At the fourth meeting or the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, 

the Parties agreed to amend the Protocol to require termination 

of production and consumption of HBFCs, beginning January 1, 

1996. These chemicals added as Group II of Annex C to the Protocol,


have generally parallel chemical structures to the HCFCs listed 

in Group I of Annex C to the Protocol, with bromine atoms taking 

the place of chlorine atoms. The ODP's for many HCFCs are
identified 

in Group II of Annex C as a range and are based on estimates. 

The ODPs for these substances are less certain than where the 

ODP is listed as a single number based on laboratory measurements. 

The upper value in the ODP range is the estimate of the ODP 

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 agreed, however, that the ODPs under 

the Protocol for the HBFCs shall be the upper value in the range. 

In every case for the HBFCs listed in Group II of Annex C, the 

upper value exceeds 0.2. 

   As with the Parties' agreement regarding methyl bromide, 

the Parties' agreement to amend the Protocol to list the identified


HBFCs as controlled substances, to assign the specific ODPs, 

and to phase out production beginning in 1996, will enter into 

force by January 1, 1994, provided that twenty Parties have 

ratified the amendments. If twenty Parties have not ratified 

the amendments by that date, then these amendments will enter 

into force ninety days after the twentieth instrument of
ratification 

is deposited by a Party. 

   As explained with respect to methyl bromide, section 602(e) 

of the Clean Air Act provides that the ODP of a substance specified


under section 602 of the Clean Air Act shall be consistent with 

the ODP specified for that substance under the Protocol. Also, 

section 602(a) provides that the Administrator shall, pursuant 

to subsection (c), add to the class I list all substances that 

the Administrator determines have an ODP of 0.2 or greater. 

As the Parties agreed to ODPs for the HBFCs that are all above 

0.2, once the Protocol amendments specifying these ODPs enter 

into force, these ODPs will control listing under the Clean 

Air Act. Also, for the same reasons explained with respect to 

methyl bromide, EPA believes it has authority to remove any 

of these HBFCs from the class I list if future scientific
developments 

warrant such action. 

   EPA is preceding now to list these compounds as class I
substances 

because of the information presented at Copenhagen on behalf 

of the Scientific Assessment Panel, that the ODPs of these
compounds 

are above 0.2. 

   Once listed, class I substances are automatically subject 

to the phaseout schedule specified in section 604 of the Clean 

Air Act. As explained earlier in this action, 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. Moreover, section 614 of 

the Clean Air Act provides that in the case of conflict between 

any provision of this title and any provision of the Montreal 

Protocol, the more stringent provision shall govern. Therefore, 

the Agency must establish phaseout schedules at least as stringent 

as those agreed to by the Parties, once those agreements enter 

into force. Hence, the January 1, 1996 phaseout date agreed 

to by the Parties is the least stringent phaseout date EPA may 

propose to be effective when the Parties' agreement enters into 

force. 

   However, EPA proposes to freeze production and consumption 

of HBFCs beginning January 1, 1994, in addition to the January 

1, 1996 phaseout date. EPA is aware of only one HBFC that is 

commercially produced. This substance-CHF2Br, also referred 

to as HBFC-22B1-is used as a fire suppressant and has been
evaluated 

as a substitute for certain halon uses. It has an ODP of 0.74, 

which is higher than some of the other substances already on 

the class I list and subject to the accelerated phaseout proposed 

elsewhere in this action. Furthermore, use of this substance 

is quite limited, and it is manufactured by only one company 

and has a limited market potential. In addition, it appears 

likely that there will be suitable and economically acceptable 

substitutes available for all uses of this substance prior to 

phase-out in 1996. EPA requests comment on the need for interim 

reductions prior to the January 1, 1996 termination date. 

   Further, EPA believes it has authority to provide for a limited 

exception to the production and consumption limits for essential 

uses of this substance, if they arise. EPA believes this authority 

derives not from the essential use provisions of section 604, 

but from its authority to adjust phaseout schedules under section 

602(d). As explained with respect to methyl bromide, EPA is 

authorized under section 602(d) to extend the phaseout schedule 

for newly listed substances if the statutory schedule is
unattainable. 

But no extension may extend the termination date more than 7 

years after January 1 of the year after the year in which the 

substance is added to the list. 

   Assuming this substance is listed in 1993, the termination 

date may not be extended past January 1, 2001. EPA believes 

it may allow for essential uses of this HBFC as an exercise 

of this extension authority, but only until the latest possible 

termination date under the Clean Air Act. Also, since the phaseout 

schedule must be no less stringent than that specified in the 

Montreal Protocol, any limited essential use exception must 

be no less stringent than any such exceptions provided in the 

Montreal Protocol, once the listing of this substance enters 

into force under the Protocol. EPA requests comment on this 

reasoning, and the legal authority for an essential use exemption 

for such newly listed substances. 

   EPA proposes 1991 as the baseline year for establishing
production 

and consumption allowances for the HBFCs, including HBFC-22B1. 

EPA requests comment on this choice of baseline year, particularly 

since HBFCs have generally not been produced except for the 

one substance identified. EPA is proposing that HBFCs constitute 

a separate group within class I substances because of the different


schedule of this compound to HCFCs or halons, and because of 

the unique circumstance concerning the limited production and 

use of compounds within this class. By assigning it to a separate 

group, efforts will be focussed on developing alternatives by 

1996 for these compounds. 

   In a separate action, EPA is requiring persons that
manufactured, 

imported, exported or transformed HBFC-22B1 or any other HBFC, 

in 1991 to provide information on their activities during that 

year, for purposes of establishing the allowances for HBFCs 

that are listed as class I substances. 

   The Agency requests comment on the proposed 1991 baseline 

year and phaseout schedule for HBFCs, in light of available 

substitutes, and on the attainability of the schedule. 



2. Legal Authority 



   The authority to add substances to the list of class I
controlled 

substances is contained in section 602 of the Clean Air Act, 

which has been discussed extensively in connection with the 

listing of methyl bromide. The authority to accelerate the phaseout


of class I substances is contained in section 606 of the Act, 

which has already been discussed in connection with the phaseout 

of other class I substances. 



3. Applicability of section 611 labeling requirement to HBFCs 



   As discussed above under the section on labeling of methyl 

bromide, any newly listed class I or class II substance will 

fall within the CAA requirements for labeling under section 

611. Given that the only known use of an HBFC is for fire fighting 

purposes, a use which is the same as that of halons, the Agency 

does not anticipate any new or unanticipated issues not dealt 

within the context of its previous rulemaking establishing its 

labeling program. Nonetheless, EPA is asking comments on any 

issues related to the applicability of section 611 to HBFCs, 

including a proposed effective date for labeling of one year 

after a final action to add the compounds to the list of Class 

I substances. 



F. Trade Restrictions 





1. Montreal Protocol Trade Requirements 



   Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol, as amended, requires 

Parties to the Protocol to implement certain trade restrictions 

with regard to foreign states that are not Parties to the Protocol 

as originally agreed to in 1987, or as subsequently amended. 

Paragraph 8 of Article 4 provides that the trade bans are not 

to be applied to foreign states not party that have been
determined, 

by a meeting of the Parties, to be in compliance with the phase-

out and trade provisions of the Protocol. 

   a. 1987 Montreal Protocol Trade Provisions. Article 4 paragraph 

1 of the Montreal Protocol, as adopted in 1987, requires the 

Parties to ban bulk imports of the chemicals listed in Annex 

A of the Protocol{5} from foreign states that are not Parties 

to the 1987 Montreal Protocol within one year of the Protocol's 

entry into force.{6} Accordingly, EPA promulgated final regulations


implementing this provision at 40 CFR 82.4(d). (See 56 FR 9528, 

March 6, 1990). 

      {5} Annex A chemicals are listed in 40 CFR part 82,
appendix 

      쿌, as Class I, Groups I and II.

      {6} The 1987 Montreal Protocol entered into force on 

      쿕anuary 1, 1989.

   The Montreal Protocol as adopted in 1987 also contained
provisions 

in paragraph 2 of Article 4, that required Parties operating 

under Article 5 paragraph 1 (pertaining to developing countries) 

to ban bulk exports of the Annex A chemicals to foreign states 

not party beginning January 1, 1993. Finally, Article 4 paragraph 

3 of the 1987 Montreal Protocol required the Parties to develop 

an annex listing products containing the Annex A chemicals within 

three years of the date of entry into force of the Protocol, 

and to ban imports of those products from foreign states not 

Party to the Protocol within one year of the effective date 

of the Annex.{7} (The obligation to ban the imports of products 

would not apply to any Party that objected to the annex.)

      {7} Although not covered by today's proposal, Article 

      4, paragraph 4 of the Protocol provides for the Parties


      퀃o determine the feasibility of restricting the import 

      쿽f products produced with Annex A controlled
substances. 

      쿟his determination must be made within five years of 

      퀃he Protocol's entry into force, i.e. by January 1,
1994.

   b. Trade Provisions Added by the 1990 London Amendments to 

the Montreal Protocol. The Protocol's Article 4 trade bans were 

revisited and amended at the Second Meeting of the Parties to 

the Montreal Protocol held in London in June 1990. The London 

Amendments, which entered into force on August 10, 1992, revised 

the Article 4 trade restrictions agreed to in 1987 in several 

respects: (1) Paragraph 1 was amended to specify January 1, 

1990 as the date the ban on bulk imports from foreign states 

not party of Annex A substances was to go into effect, (2)
paragraph 

2, as amended, extends the ban on exports to foreign states 

not party of Annex A substances to all Parties (not just the 

Article 5, paragraph 1 "developing countries"), (3) paragraph 

3 was amended to specify January 1, 1992, as the date by which 

the list of products containing Annex A substances must be
developed 

by the Parties. In addition, the London Amendments require the 

Parties to the London Amendments to ban bulk imports from
(paragraph 

1 bis.) and exports to (paragraph 2 bis.) foreign states that 

are not Parties to the London Amendments of twelve additional 

ozone depleting chemicals (listed in Annex B to the Protocol, 

as amended).{8} These last Annex B trade restrictions are required 

to take effect one year after the date of entry into force of 

the London Amendments, i.e. August 10, 1993.{9} 

      {8} The Annex B chemicals are listed in 40 CFR part 82,


      쿪ppendix A, as Class I, Groups III, IV, and V.

      {9} See Decisions IV/1 and IV/16 paragraph 2(b) of the 

      쿑ourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.


      쿚ther provisions added to Article 4 of the Montreal
Protocol 

      쿫y the London Amendments, not pertinent to today's
proposal, 

      쿶nclude: elaboration of an annex of products containing


      쿌nnex B substances, a study on the feasibility of
restricting 

      퀃rade in products made with controlled substances, and 

      쿽bligations to discourage exports to non-Parties of
technology 

      퀃o produce and utilize controlled substances.

   c. Elaboration of the List of Products Containing Annex A 

Substances. On June 21, 1991, the Third Meeting of the Parties 

in Nairobi adopted "A List of Products Containing Controlled 

Substances Specified in Annex A" (Annex D to the Protocol), 

in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 3 of the Montreal Protocol,


as amended. Annex D, which became effective on May 27, 1992 

(with one Party objecting),{10} specifies the following six 

product categories: 

      {10} See Decision IV/15 paragraph 1 of the Fourth
Meeting 

      쿽f the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

   1. Automobile and truck air conditioning units (whether
incorporated 

in vehicles or not), 

   2. Domestic (i.e. residential use) and commercial refrigeration 

and air conditioning/heat pump equipment (when containing
controlled 

substances in Annex A as a refrigerant and/or in insulating 

material of the product), 

   3. Aerosol products, except medical aerosols, 

   4. Portable fire extinguishers, 

   5. Insulation boards, panels and pipe covers, and 

   6. Pre-polymers.{11} 

      {11} EPA considered whether the ban applies to all
imports 

      쿽f products on the list, or only to the listed products


      퀇hen they are charged with a controlled substance. This


      쿶ssue arises because the "refrigeration/air
conditioning/heat 

      쿾ump" category has a notation specifying that the ban 

      쿪pplies to those products when they contain the
controlled 

      퀂ubstance "as a refrigerant and/or in insulating
material". 

      쿟his could be read to imply that imports from
non-parties 

      쿽f the other 5 categories are banned, regardless of
whether 

      퀃he product actually contains a controlled substance. 

      쿐PA believes, however, that such a reading would be
inconsistent 

      퀇ith the intent of paragraph 3. The ban, therefore, is 

      쿾roposed to apply only to products actually containing 

      쿪n Annex A controlled substance at the time they are 

      쿶mported.

   The ban on importation from foreign states not party of products


from these categories is required to begin one year from the 

effective date of Annex D, or May 27, 1993.{12}

      {12} See Decision IV/16 paragraph 1 of the Fourth
Meeting 

      쿽f the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Article 10 of 

      퀃he Vienna Convention specifies how the effective dates


      쿽f annexes are calculated. Pursuant to those provisions


      쿌nnex D was circulated to the parties by the UN
Directorate 

      쿽n November 27, 1991, and became automatically
effective 

      퀂ix months thereafter on May 27, 1992, for those
Parties 

      퀃hat did not object. The United States did not object.

   d. Revisions to the Trade Provisions by the Copenhagen
Amendments. 

At the Fourth Meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen on November 

23-25, 1992, the Parties adopted the following decisions pertaining


to the Montreal Protocol Article 4 trade bans: 

   (1) Decisions IV/1 and IV/17 paragraph 2(b) confirm August 

10, 1992 as the date the London Amendments "enter into force", 

and the August 10, 1993 deadline specified in today's proposal 

for the Class I Groups III, IV, and V bulk imports and exports 

trade bans. 

   (2) Decision IV/5 adopts, among other matters, a procedure 

for dealing with non-compliance by Parties with Protocol
requirements 

(Annex IV to the Fourth Meeting of the Parties), and an indicative 

list of measures that might be taken in respect of non-compliance 

(Annex VI to the Fourth Meeting of the Parties). Among other 

matters these annexes indicate that non-compliance could result 

in "suspension of the operation of * * * specific rights and 

privileges under the Protocol, * * * including * * * trade * 

* *." 

   (3) Decision IV/16, paragraph 1, confirms that Annex D of 

the Protocol ("A List of Products Containing Controlled Substances 

Specified in Annex A") entered into force on May 27, 1992. This 

means that the deadline for the imports ban on such products 

specified in today's proposal of May 27, 1993. 

   (4) Decision IV/16, paragraph 3, adopts the conclusions in 

document UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/3 distributed prior to the Fourth Meeting 

of the Parties, regarding the Harmonized System (HS) customs 

code numbers for the products listed in Annex D of the Montreal 

Protocol. That document contains the following two conclusions 

pertinent to the ban on imports of controlled products proposed 

today, and the inclusion of Appendix D of the proposed rule: 



   [a. A] set of the HS customs code numbers have been compiled 

for the products containing controlled substances as listed 

in Annex D to the Montreal Protocol, so as to facilitate the 

implementation of the Protocol * * *. 

   [b.] While some products can be readily associated with HS 

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. 

(Emphasis added). 



   (5) Decision IV/17 paragraph 2(a) clarifies that Article 

4 paragraph 2 (Annex A bulk export ban) applies only to states 

not parties to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. This interpretation 

of Article 4 paragraph 9 of the Protocol clarifies that a foreign 

state's "Party" or "non-Party" status is dependent on whether 

the state has ratified the original "Montreal Protocol", the 

"London Amendments", or the "Copenhagen Amendments" out of which 

the particular trade ban in question arises. 

   (6) Decision IV/17B sets forth the determination of the Parties 

that Colombia (a non-Party) has made a demonstration of compliance 

under Article 4 paragraph 8, and is, therefore, exempt from 

the Article 4 trade bans. 

   (7) Decision IV/17C constitutes a provisional determination 

of compliance, pursuant to Article 4 and 8, until the fifth 

meeting authorizes the Parties to suspend the trade bans in 

paragraphs 2 and 2 bis of Article 4 (Class I exports) in October/ 

November 1993,{13} with regard to any non-Party that submits 

a demonstration of compliance with the Protocol to the Secretariat 

by March 31, 1993. 

      {13} See Decision IV/29 regarding the Fifth Meeting of 

      퀃he Parties.

   (8) Decision IV/27 directs the Technology and Economic
Assessment 

Panel to study the feasibility, as required by Article 4 paragraph 

4, of banning or restricting the imports of products made with 

Annex A substances (Class I, Groups I and II), and to report 

its findings to the Secretariat by March 31, 1993, for
consideration 

by the Fifth meeting of the Parties. 

   (9) Finally, Decision IV/28 directs the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel to develop a list of products containing Annex 

B (Class I, Groups III, IV, and V) substances for consideration 

by the Sixth Meeting of the Parties in 1994 as required by Article 

4 paragraph 3 bis. 

   These decisions are discussed elsewhere in this package to 

the extent they are pertinent to today's proposal. 

   The Parties also adopted a number of amendments to the Article 

4 trade bans of the Protocol (the "Copenhagen Amendments"; see 

Decision IV/4 of the Parties, adopting Annex III to the report 

of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties) as follows: 

   (1) New paragraph 1 ter would ban imports from foreign states 

not party of Annex C, Group II ozone depleting substances (HBFCs) 

within 1 year of the date the Copenhagen Amendments enter into 

force.{14} 

      {14} The Copenhagen Amendments would add two new lists 

      쿽f ozone depleting substances Annex C Group I (HCFCs) 

      쿪nd Group II (HBFCs (C+H+F+Br chemicals)), and Annex 

      쿐 (methyl bromide).

   (2) New paragraph 2 ter would ban exports to foreign states 

not party of HBFCs commencing 1 year of the Copenhagen Amendments 

entry into force. 

   (3) New paragraph 3 ter would require that the Parties elaborate


an annex listing products containing HBFCs within 3 years of 

the date the Copenhagen Amendments enter into force; and would 

require all Parties to the Copenhagen Amendments that do not 

object to the list to ban imports of such products from foreign 

states not party within 1 year of said annex becoming effective. 

   (4) New paragraph 4 ter would require that the Parties to 

the Copenhagen Amendments determine the feasibility of banning 

or restricting imports of products produced with, but not
containing, 

HBFCs within 5 years of the date the Copenhagen Amendments enter 

into force. In addition, if the Parties determine that such 

a ban is feasible, this paragraph would require the Parties 

to elaborate an annex listing products made with HBFCs, and, 

except for Parties objecting, to ban or restrict imports of 

the products within 1 year of the annex becoming effective. 

   (5) Amendments to Article 4, paragraph 8 would ensure that 

the trade ban exemptions for foreign states not party determined 

by the Parties to be complying with the Protocol, would cover 

all of the Article 4 bans (including any new bans resulting 

from future amendments to the Protocol). 

   (6) Finally, new paragraph 10, would require the Parties 

to decide whether to extend the Article 4 trade bans to Annex 

C, Group I and Annex E ozone depleting substances (i.e. HCFCs 

and Methyl Bromide, respectively) by January 1, 1996. Article 

3 of Annex 3 provides that the Copenhagen Amendments will "enter 

into force" on January 1, 1994, if ratified by 20 Parties to 

the Protocol, or 90 days following ratification by 20 Parties. 

EPA will propose implementing regulations at that time for the 

trade restrictions embodied in those amendments. 

   e. Trade Bans in Today's Proposal. The regulations in today's 

proposal would extend the prohibitions on trade with respect 

to foreign states not party specified in the existing rules 

at 40 CFR 82.4(d), in several respects. First, bulk exports 

from the U.S. to foreign states that are not Party to the 1987 

Montreal Protocol of Annex A substances (Class I, Groups I and 

II) would be banned as of the effective date of the final rule. 

However, EPA has advised all exporters of the Protocol
Restriction's 

on bulk exports, and is requesting that all exporters refrain 

from exporting bulk chemical to non-papers beginning March 31, 

1993. Currently U.S. exports to foreign states not party of 

Annex A chemicals constitute less than 15% of total U.S. exports 

of these chemicals. The impact of this ban on U.S. trade is, 

therefore, expected to be minimal. 

   Also, pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 added by the 

London Amendments, today's proposal would amend 40 CFR 82.4(d) 

to ban bulk imports and exports of chemicals listed in Annex 

B to the Protocol (see Class I, Groups III, IV, and V in Appendix 

A of 40 CFR Part 82, subpart A), beginning August 10, 1993, 

between the U.S. and foreign states not Party to the 1990 London 

Amendments. Current U.S. exports of Annex B chemicals to foreign 

states not party comprise less than 15% of total U.S. exports 

in this category. Moreover, there have been no U.S. imports 

of Annex B chemicals from foreign states not party over the 

last three years. The domestic impact of today's proposal is, 

therefore, expected to be minimal. 

   Finally, the regulations proposed today would also ban imports 

into the U.S. from foreign states that are not Party to the 

1987 Montreal Protocol of products containing controlled substances


listed in Annex D ("controlled products") beginning May 27, 

1993. Today's action includes, in revised Appendix D to this 

subpart, a proposed non-inclusive list of harmonized tariff 

schedule classifications for items that may fall within one 

of the six Annex D product categories. It would be difficult 

to elaborate a definitive list of products for several reasons: 

   (1) Harmonized Schedule Classification System. The Harmonized 

Schedule classification system, which is used by over 100
countries, 

is standardized up to the 6-digit or "international level" (e.g. 

8415.00). At the international-level, the classification system 

is fairly stable, subject to review only once every four years. 

Each country may, however, independently further classify products.


The United States classifies products at the 8-digit or "legal 

level" (e.g. 8415.00.04) to implement the U.S. Customs duty 

functions. This level of classification may be changed by Congress 

or the President at any time, or pursuant to a bi-lateral free-

trade agreement. In addition, products are classified further 

to the 10-digit or "statistical" level, and reported to the 

U.S. Census based on U.S. Customs Entry Form information. EPA 


will rely on the Census information to implement the imports 

ban requirements. 

   (2) There are no independent International Harmonized Schedule 

classifications for the six product categories in Annex D, although


they have been proposed by the Parties through appropriate avenues.


Moreover, because Annex D products are manufactured in many 

different forms, and subject to innovation, there is no single 

classification system that could be easily applied. Appendix 

D, therefore, elaborates a suggestive list of products that 

have been classified under the Harmonized Schedule system and 

that appear to fall within one of the six Annex D categories. 

Any of the products included in Appendix D may contain class 

I, Group I or II, controlled substances, and if one does contain 

such a substance it may not be imported from a non-Party. As 

was noted above, the difficulties in identifying Harmonized 

Schedule codes were discussed at the recent meeting of the Parties 

in Copenhagen. See Decision IV/16 paragraph 3. Consistent with 

the conclusions of the Parties reached at the Copenhagen meeting, 

the import from a non-Party of a product that, although not 

included in appendix D of today's proposal, falls within one 

of the six Annex D product categories and contains a Group I 

or II controlled substance, is also banned. Under today's proposal 

it would be the importer's responsibility to ensure that any 

Annex D product (whether listed in Appendix D or not) imported 

from a non-Party in fact does not contain a Group I or II
controlled 

substance. 

   Information currently available to EPA indicates that imports 

from foreign states not party in each of the Annex D product 

categories, are small or non-existent.{15} Given the large number 

of Parties to the 1987 Montreal Protocol (see, below), the apparent


limited volume of imports to the U.S. from foreign states not 

party of Annex D products, and the apparent wide availability 

of the controlled products from U.S. manufacturers, the impact 

of this ban on the U.S. economy is expected to be nominal. EPA 

asks for comment on Appendix D of today's proposal, including 

the extent of any trade with foreign states not party and
information 

about additional products that could be referred to under the 

six specified categories. 

      {15} Source: According to information provided by the 

      쿌ir-Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Heating Institute 

      (ARI) more than 95% of total imports of refrigeration 

      쿪nd air conditioning products (category 2) comes from 

      쿛arties. Similarly, according to the Polyisocyanurate 

      쿔nsulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA), there is 

      쿻o current trade with non-Parties in insulation
products 

      (category 5).

   e. Parties to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and 1990 London 

Amendments. In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 9, the trade 

restrictions of the Montreal Protocol apply to any foreign state 

that has not "agreed to be bound by the control measures in 

effect for that substance". Whether a foreign state is subject 

to some or all of the trade bans proposed today will, therefore, 

depend upon the extent to which it has accepted the pertinent 

provisions of the Protocol. (See Decision IV/17A paragraph 2(a) 

of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.) 

Specifically, a foreign state that has ratified the Montreal 

Protocol as adopted by the Parties in 1987, but not the 1990 

London Amendments, would be a non-Party for purposes of the 

Annex B bulk chemicals imports and exports ban. EPA, therefore, 

proposes to amend 40 CFR part 82, appendix C from part 82, and 

the definition of "Party" to distinguish between Parties to 

the 1987 Montreal Protocol and to the London or Copenhagen
Amendments. 

In addition, EPA is amending appendix C to add references to 

several foreign states that became Parties since the appendix 

was first published. EPA intends to update Appendix C periodically.


These changes will help ensure against the unintended imposition 

of the trade bans on trade with foreign states that become Parties 

after the rules are promulgated.{16}

      {16} Pursuant to the provisions of the Vienna
Convention 

      쿪nd the Montreal Protocol, the official record of
United 

      쿙ations treaty ratification is maintained by and
available 

      쿯rom the Depositary of the United Nations Secretariat, 

      쿚ffice of Legal Affairs, New York. In addition, up to 

      쿭ate information on the status of ratification of the 

      쿘ontreal Protocol and its amendments is published every


      퀃hree months, and can be obtained from, the United
Nations 

      쿐nvironment Programme (UNEP), P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, 

      쿖enya, or by calling the U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone 

      쿛rogram Hotline. A copy of the most recent issue is
available 

      쿯or viewing in the docket for this rulemaking.

   The following foreign states are currently Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol as initially agreed to in 1987 (excludes the 

Annex B bulk chemical trade restrictions): Algeria, Argentina, 

Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, 

Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, 

Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech 

and Slovak Federal Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, 

Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, 

Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, 

Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Libyan Arab 

Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macaw, Malawi, Malaysia, 

Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands (including
Netherlands 

Antilles and Aruba), New Zealand (not including Cook Islands 

and Niue), Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, 

Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation (i.e. former 

USSR), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, 

Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, 

Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, 

Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom,{17} Uruguay, 

U.S., Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, and the European Economic 

Community (EEC). Except as is explained further below regarding 

foreign states not party that are complying with the Protocol, 

foreign states not listed above are foreign states not party 

to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and will be subject to the trade 

bans proposed today pursuant to that authority unless and until 

they become Parties.

      {17} See Status of
Ratification/Accession/Acceptance/Approval 

      쿽f: I. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the 

      쿚zone Layer (1985), II. The Montreal Protocol on
Substances 

      퀃hat Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), III. The Amendment


      퀃o the Montreal Protocol (1990), October 1992
(Eighteenth 

      쿔ssue), prepared by the United Nations Environment
Programme 

      (UNEP/OxL.Rat.18, 31 October 1992).

   The following foreign states are currently Parties to the 

London Amendments (including the Annex B bulk chemical trade 

restrictions): Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, 

Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ireland,


Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, 

Netherlands (including Aruba), New Zealand (not including Cook 

Islands and Niue), Norway, Russian Federation (i.e. former USSR), 

South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United
Kingdom,{18} 

U.S., and the European Economic Community (EEC). Except as is 

explained further below regarding, foreign states not party 

that are complying with the Protocol, foreign states not listed 

above are foreign states not party to the London Amendments 

and will be subject to the trade bans proposed today pursuant 

to that authority unless and until they become Parties. 

      {18} See Status of
Ratification/Accession/Acceptance/Approval 

      쿽f: I. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the 

      쿚zone Layer (1985), II. The Montreal Protocol on
Substances 

      퀃hat Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), III. The Amendment


      퀃o the Montreal Protocol (1990), October 1992
(Eighteenth 

      쿔ssue), prepared by the United Nations Environment
Programme 

      (UNEP/OxL.Rat.18, 31 October 1992).

   Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Montreal Protocol specifies 

one exception to the restrictions on trade with foreign states 

not party. Specifically, paragraph 8 provides that the trade 

prohibitions of Article 4 do not apply to any non-Party that 

is determined by a meeting of the Parties to be complying with 

Articles 2, 2A to 2E and 4 of the Protocol. 

   Appendix D of the current rule was previously reserved for 

the listing any such foreign state. EPA proposes to redesignate 

Appendix D and use it to specify the list of products containing 

Annex A substances. In addition, in the event of any determinations


by the Parties under Article 4 paragraph 8, that information 

will be added to the rule as an amendment to the table of states 

listed in appendix C. 

   At the recent meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen two decisions


were reached pertaining to this Article 4, paragraph 8 of the 

Protocol. Specifically, Decision IV/17B bis sets forth the
determination 

of the Parties that Colombia (a non-Party) has made a demonstration


of compliance under Article 4 paragraph 8, and is, therefore, 

exempt from the Article 4 trade bans. In addition, by Decision 

IV/17C, the Parties may suspend the trade bans in paragraphs 

2 and 2 bis of Article 4 (Class I exports) until the Fifth Meeting 

of the Parties in October/November 1993,{19} with regard to 

any non-Party that submits a demonstration of compliance with 

the Protocol to the Secretariat by March 31, 1993. 

      {19} See Decision IV/29 regarding the Fifth Meeting of 

      퀃he Parties.

   Accordingly, the trade bans of part 82 will not apply to 

Colombia. In addition, EPA proposes that it will give public 

action as to any country that submits a demonstration as provided 

in Decision IV/17C. Since the determination specified by that 

decision is, however, temporary in nature EPA proposes that 

it would not amend Appendix C in the event of any such showing. 

   These trade restrictions under the Protocol only apply to 

a "State not party" to the Protocol. As such, they do not apply 

to Taiwan. The U.S. has data indicating that Taiwan is in
compliance 

with the reduction provisions of the Protocol. 

   f. Compliance. Section 82.13 of the existing regulations 

specifies recordkeeping and reporting requirements for trade 

in all Class I bulk chemicals, as part of the stratospheric 

ozone allowance and phase-out scheme. Because those information 

requirements are expected to be adequate to enforce the trade 

restrictions on bulk chemicals proposed today, no additional 

information requirements are proposed. 

   With regard to the new provisions on trade in controlled 

products, today's proposal does not specify any recordkeeping 

or reporting requirements. Under this approach compliance with 

the ban on imports of such products from foreign states not 

party would be enforced, in cooperation with U.S. Customs, relying 

on standard import documentation (e.g. U.S. Customs Entry Form 

3361 and Entry Summary Form 7501, which among other things includes


the Harmonized Schedule Commodity codes and the country of origin 

for the import). 

   EPA, however, asks for comment on whether the information 

requirements contained in 40 CFR 82.13 for bulk chemicals should 

be required for controlled products in the final rules. Although 

the ban only applies to controlled products when they actually 

contain the listed substance, requiring recordkeeping and reporting


of all imports from foreign states not party of products within 

the six appendix D product categories would provide a mechanism 

to focus compliance investigations, as well as an added incentive 

for the foreign states not party to ratify the Protocol. 

   Under such an approach 82.13(g) would be revised to require 

each person that imports a product included in one of the six 

product categories specified in new appendix D, from a non-Party 

to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, to comply with specified
recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements during each control period. Among 

these, importers would be required to maintain records of the 

quantity and dollar value of each product within the six controlled


product categories imported from a non-Party, information verifying


whether the product contains a controlled substance and, if 

so, which controlled substance the product contains; the date 

on which the product was imported; the port of entry through 

which the product passed into the United States; the country 

from which the product was imported; and the Harmonized Schedule 

commodity code for the product. In addition each calendar quarter, 

any such importer would be required to submit report to the 

Administrator specifying the quantity of the product imported 

from the non-Party (in dollar value), for the previous calendar 

quarter and a certification that the product did not contain 

a Group I or II controlled substance. EPA asks for comment on 

what the burden of these requirements would be. 

   g. Definitions. Several new definitions and revisions are 

proposed today to conform the scope of the bans to the Montreal 

Protocol, as amended. (In the event these definitions are adopted, 

technical amendments will be made to this part in the final 

as needed.) For example, the definition of "Party" in 40 CFR 

part 82 is revised to (1) distinguish between Annex A parties 

and Annex B parties, (2) make specific reference to unusual 

situations and (3) refer to Appendix C for a comprehensive list 

of all countries in the world and the status of each country's 

ratification of the agreements. Under the Montreal Protocol 

the UN Directorate as the official record of what foreign states 

are "Parties". EPA intends to periodically update Appendix C 

to help ensure against the unintended imposition of the trade 

bans proposed today to trade with any foreign state that becomes 

a Party after today's proposal is promulgated in final. 

   In addition, today's proposal would amend the definition 

of "importer" found at 40 CFR 82.3(l) to conform to the definition 

used in regulations promulgated pursuant to the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, see 40 CFR parts 720 and 763. This revision would 

broaden the definition of "importer", currently limited to the 

"importer of record", to include the actual owner, the cosigner, 

and the transferee, of the import. This change is being proposed 

to ensure that requirements imposed on importers are not
incorrectly 

applied only to import agents but to those Parties most directly 

responsible for these activities. Public comment is requested 

on the need for this change and any potential consequences. 



2. Legal Authority 



   The ratification by the United States of international
agreements 

obligates the United States to implement their mandatory
provisions. 

The Vienna Convention, signed by the United States in 1985, 

was ratified by the United States Senate and brought into force 

for the United States on August 27, 1986. This agreement
establishes 

the legal framework for the development of international protocols 

on ozone protection. The Montreal Protocol, as signed by the 

Parties in 1987, was ratified by the United States on April 

21, 1988, and entered into force (following ratification by 

11 Parties) on January 1, 1989. The London Amendments to the 

Montreal Protocol, signed by the Parties in 1990, were ratified 

by United States on December 18, 1991, and entered into force 

on August 10, 1992. 

   Section 615 of the Act provide EPA with the authority to 

promulgate the proposed 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. This language


is substantially similar to that contained in pre-1990 Clean 

Air Act section 157(b), which was the statutory basis of EPA's 

original rules implementing the 1987 Montreal Protocol (including 

trade restrictions similar to those being proposed here). 

   The 1990 Amendments added title VI to the Act, which prescribes 

many specific measures for protecting stratospheric ozone (e.g., 

the section 604 phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, the 

section 608 recycling requirements, and the section 610
nonessential 

products ban). In the context of these new provisions, the carry-

over of the section 157(b) language in section 615 provides 

gap-filling authority to permit the Agency to take actions in 

addition to those prescribed elsewhere in the title. Thus, while 

title VI does not itself prescribe trade restrictions, the Agency 

believes that section 615 provides authority for the Administrator 

to implement the trade provisions of the Montreal Protocol. 

   Implementation of the Protocol's trade provisions through 

the regulations proposed here, will help safeguard the ozone 

layer in several ways. First, the bans would prevent shipments 

of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) from the U.S., which fully 

regulates ODS production and consumption, to foreign states 

not party with no regulatory infrastructure to control their 

use. Limiting access to ODS in this way, will reduce opportunities 

for their release into the atmosphere. Moreover, the bans on 

imports to the U.S. from foreign states not party of controlled 

substances and controlled products would help discourage shifts 

of ODS production to foreign states not party by eliminating 

the U.S. as a market for such production. Such shifts, if not 

deterred, could undermine the production, consumption and phaseout 

regime contemplated by both the Clean Air Act and the Montreal 

Protocol. Ultimately, the Protocol trade restrictions provide 

a strong encouragement for foreign states not party to participate 

in the global initiative established by the Protocol for
controlling 

the short-term use and ultimate phaseout of ozone-depleting 

substances. Accordingly, EPA has authority to implement the 

Protocol's trade restrictions by virtue of its authority. Under 

section 615 to promulgate regulations controlling substance 

practices and activities that may reasonably be anticipated 

to effect the stratosphere. 

   Section 614(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, clarifies 

and confirms the authority and responsibility of the EPA
Administrator 

to implement the United States' obligations under the Montreal 

Protocol, specifically addressing the Administrator's authority 

to implement the Protocol's trade provisions. As a conflict 

of laws provisions, section 614(b) provides in relevant part 

that in the case of conflict between any of the Clean Air Act 

and the Montreal Protocol, the more stringent provision shall 

govern. In addition, that subsection indicates that nothing 

in title VI of the Act shall detract from the Administrator's 

authority to implement the Article 4 trade restrictions. Thus, 

section 614(b) implicitly assumes that the Agency has the authority


to implement the trade provisions of the Protocol. 



IV. Other Issues 





A. Addition of HCFCs to the EPCRA Section 313 List 



   The NRDC/EDF/FOE petition requested that the Agency add the 

HCFCs and methyl bromide to section 313 of the Emergency Response 

and Community Right to Know Act. The current list of chemicals 

includes all current class I ozone-depleting chemicals under 

section 313(e). Any person may petition for the addition of 

other chemicals to the list. The Administrator is required to 

respond to the petition within 180 days by initiating a rulemaking 

to list the chemical or by publishing an explanation as to why 

the petition is denied. 

   The Alliance requested that HCFCs not be listed. According 

to this group, the presumed toxic health and environmental effects 

of these compounds derive from a complex and delayed chain of 

events that are not fully understood. Also according to the 

Alliance, the ozone depletion problems of the HCFCs can and 

are being addressed by the specific provisions of the Clean 

Air Act, such as section 608, that can reduce the emissions 

of these chemicals. 

   The Agency is dealing with the NRDC/EDF/FOE petition to add 

the HCFCs to the EPCRA section 313 list in a separate proceeding. 

A Federal Register action proposing to list the HCFCs was published


on June 24, 1992 (57 FR 28159). 



B. Postponement of Labeling of Products Manufactured With Ozone-

Depleting Substances 



   The Alliance requested that EPA's rulemaking under section 

611 of the Act require only labeling of containers or products 

containing CFCs. The petition stated that EPA should not promulgate


requirements to label any products manufactured with CFCs or 

containing or manufactured with HCFCs until at least 1995. The 

petitioners argued that the purpose of the labeling provisions 

is to accelerate the phaseout of these chemicals and stated 

that, with an accelerated phaseout schedule, these labeling 

provisions serve no purpose except to misallocate resources 

without any environmental benefit. EPA will be addressing these 

issues in the context of its final action on labelling.



C. Suggestions for the Implementation of Section 612



   AHAM, the Alliance, and other commenters also had suggestions 

concerning the application of the significant new alternatives 

program (SNAP) implementing section 612. These issues will be 

dealt with in a separate notice dealing with that section of 

the Act. EPA recognizes the need to provide decisions as to 

the acceptability of various substitutes as quickly as possible 

and has taken steps to inform the public about its likely
activities 

under this section.



D. Treatment of Recycled and Used Ozone Depleting Substances 

When Calculating Consumption



   Decision IV/24 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol, provides that recycled and used bulk chemicals 

should not be included when calculating consumption of controlled 

substances. That Decision also specifically annuls Decision 

I/12H of the First Meeting of the Parties, which read "Imports 

and exports of bulk used controlled substances should be treated 

and recorded in the same manner as virgin controlled substances 

and included in the calculation of the Party's consumption limits".


EPA is proposing to modify its definition to exclude recycled 

substances from the requirement of expending consumption allowances


for imports. Moreover, consistent with the interpretation, the 

public should note that consistent with that decision, exports 

of recycled and used bulk chemicals are not creditable toward 

consumption allowances under 82.10. EPA asks for comment as 

to whether any further revisions to part 82 would be helpful 

to effectuate this intent of the Parties.

   The Parties to the Protocol have requested that data on imports 

and exports of recycled HCFCs and halons be reported on an annual 

basis to UNEP. Therefore, EPA proposes that companies report 

imports and exports of recycled HCFCs and halons on an annual 

basis.



E. Transshipment



   Pursuant to Decision IV/14 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol, transshipments of bulk controlled 

substances from one foreign state, through the United States 

or one of its territories, to a foreign state of final destination 

should not be included when calculating consumption of controlled 

substances. This situation is distinguished in Decision IV/14 

from imports and subsequent re-exports of controlled substances, 

which must be accounted for. Transshipments can be distinguished 

from imports that are re-exported with the former applicable 

to bulk import that are not repackaged prior to export. EPA 

proposes to revise the rules to clarify this treatment. Today's 

revisions would not amend the definition of "import", which 

is broadly defined in section 601(7) of the Clean Air Act, since 

such a revision would inadvertently change the scope of the 

Stratospheric Ozone Program with regard to matters other than 

consumption accounting. Instead the revisions define the term 

"transshipment" and specifically except transshipments, as
appropriate, 

from pertinent consumption allowance provisions of the part 

82, subpart A. This approach is consistent with section 602(b) 

of the Act, which provides that the term consumption "shall 

be construed in a manner consistent with the Montreal Protocol."



F. Destruction and Insignificant Quantities



   In today's action, the Agency proposes to eliminate 82.40(e) 

of its phaseout regulation that allowed for an exemption from 

production restrictions for any controlled substance that is 

a coincidental, unavoidable byproduct (CUBP) and is subsequently 

contained and destroyed by the maximum achievable control
technology 

or MACT. Section 82.40(e) gave effect to the Joint Explanatory 

Statement of the Committee of the Conference of the 1990 Clean 

Air Act Amendments (Conference Report) that indicated that Congress


wanted the Agency to implement an exemption of such production. 

The Agency is proposing to eliminate the CUBP regulation. The 

Agency is also proposing to implement in its regulation the 

recent decisions of the Parties in Copenhagen that addressed 

both destruction (Decision IV/11) and "insignificant quantities" 

(Decision IV/12). As will be described below, EPA believes that 

the implementation of these two decisions is consistent with 

Conference Report and will provide more clarity as to the
definition 

of production and the conditions under which destruction is 

allowed. Today's proposal allows credit for destruction of ozone 

depleting chemicals similar to credit received for the
transformation 

of such chemicals, and exempts from any control ozone depleting 

chemicals produced in "insignificant quantities". The Agency 

believes that these changes pose insignificant harm and lessen 

the administrative burden of 82.4.

   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.

   The Agency proposes the definition of "destruction" to be 

technologies approved for destruction by the Parties that result 

in expiration of the chemical without any commercially useful 

end product being produced. The Agency proposes this definition 

to distinguish destruction from transformation, which requires 

that the resulting endproduct serve a commercial purpose. The 

Agency requests comment on this definition of destruction.

   The Agency believes that with the adoption of this definition 

of destruction, a modified definition of production consistent 

with the Protocol, and proposed recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements described below, the concern for destruction expressed


in the Conference Report language is minimized.

   The Agency believes it has the authority to modify 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." (Emphasis added.) 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 

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 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, as explained below, the approach


adopted by the Parties 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;


the Parties have now treated destruction in a manner that satisfies


them, however. Furthermore, by requiring reliable documentation 

of the amount destroyed, EPA's proposed implementing regulations 

address the concerns raised in the conference language. EPA 

requests comment on its authority to adopt the Protocol Parties' 

approach to destruction. 

   The Agency believes that the implementation of these decisions 

will result in insignificant environmental damage yet will minimize


disruptions for companies that require controlled substances 

past the phaseout date. Companies will be allowed to use these 

chemicals past the phaseout provided that they are either used 

in essential uses, transformed, as is currently allowed under 

the regulations, or destroyed. Companies will only receive credit 

for the volume of controlled substances that have been destroyed 

by one of these five destruction technologies. 

   Section 82.4(e)(1)(v) defines MACT, for the purposes of
destroying 

CUBP product, as a destruction process with 99.99% efficiency. 

Under the current regulations, companies could only claim the 

CUBP exemption for carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform 

destroyed at this efficiency rating. The Agency had developed 

this efficiency rating for these two chemicals, as well as others, 

when they were characterized as hazardous wastes under section 

343(a) and 40 CFR 266.104. 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)(iv) to exempt 

CUBP from production limits. Since this destruction rating
currently 

applies only to CUBP, the Agency is proposing today to grant 

full credit for the destruction of these two commercially produced 

chemicals when they are covered by RCRA section 343(a) and 40 

CFR 266.104 in order to receive 100 percent credit. The Agency 

believes that this destruction efficiency represents MACT, and 

is the highest destruction efficiency that industry can achieve 

for these chemicals in these situations. If the Agency were 

only to grant allowances equal to 99.99 percent of the volume 

intended to be destroyed, 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. 

   The 99.99 percent efficiency applies to the destruction of 

methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride when these chemicals 

are regulated by RCRA. However, under some situations these 

chemicals are not covered by RCRA, but by regulations to be 

promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Companies 

are required to control air emissions under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act. In a recently proposed rule published on December 

31, 1992 (57 FR 62608), the Agency proposed that when organic 

hazardous air pollutants are released through process vents, 

companies may route these emissions to a gaseous/fume oxidation 

incinerator for destruction. The Agency has proposed that such 

incinerators may operate with an efficiency of 98 percent. For 

the purposes of this rulemaking, the Agency proposes that when 

regulations promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

apply rather than RCRA, and the 98 percent destruction efficiency 

is achieved by incinerators to which emissions of carbon
tetrachloride 

and methyl chloroform are routed, the Agency proposes to grant 

the full allotment of allowances to replace chemicals that are 

destroyed under these conditions. In situations where section 

112 regulations apply, but a destruction efficiency of less 

than 98 percent is achieved, the Agency proposes to approve 

only those allowances only to the portion destroyed. (The
consequences 

of this are discussed below in the connection with the destruction 

of controlled substances other than methyl chloroform and carbon 

tetrachloride.) The Agency requests comments on these approaches 

and whether these conditions could apply to other controlled 

substances. 

   The Agency is concerned that these five approved destruction 

technologies, although capable under test situations of destroying 

controlled substances at a 99.99% efficiency rate, may not be 

as efficient as is required for carbon tetrachloride and methyl 

chloroform under either RCRA or section 112 of the Clean Air 

Act. If existing regulations under other environmental statutes 

do not cover the destruction of these controlled substances, 

then EPA proposes to grant allowances only for those volumes 

that have indeed been destroyed. For example, if an approved 

technology destroys only 80% of the chemical, then the Agency 

will only approve allowances equal to that portion destroyed. 

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. Furthermore, to release controlled 

substances to the environment (through emissions of controlled 

substances that had not been destroyed) for uses not deemed 

"essential" would constitute a violation of the phaseout since 

companies will only be able to produce or obtain these chemicals 

after 1995 for essential uses, transformation, or for uses where 

the controlled substance is subsequently destroyed. 

   EPA is today proposing that persons who destroy controlled 

substances through the use of these approved technologies be 

granted production and consumption allowances equal to the verified


amount destroyed. 

   The Agency proposes to treat credit for destruction of
controlled 

substances similarly to credit granted for the transformation 

under 82.9 and 82.10. Persons who do not produce controlled 

substances but who destroy carbon tetrachloride, may receive 

both production and consumption allowances, depending whether 

the controlled substance had been produced in the United States 

or imported, equal to the volume destroyed if such persons submit 

a request for allowances. This request should include the following


information: the identity and address of the person; the quantity 

and level of controlled substance destroyed; a copy of the invoice 

or receipt documenting the sale of the controlled substance; 

the name of the person from whom the controlled substance were 

purchased; the type of destruction process used to destroy the 

controlled substance; the citation of federal or state regulations 

that may apply to the destruction process; and the method used 

to determine the volume destroyed. 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. 

   Companies that receive allowances for destruction may then 

trade those allowances under the regulatory provisions established 

in 82.12 of the current regulations. In the past, companies 

that received allowances for transformation traded those allowances


to the producers of the feedstock controlled substances. 

   Such persons who request allowances for destruction must 

also maintain the following records: Dated records of the quantity 

and the level of controlled substance destroyed; description 

of measurements taken to indicate volume destroyed; and copies 

of invoices or receipts documenting the sale of the controlled 

substance to the person. The Agency requires this recordkeeping 

in order to verify any requests for allowances due to destruction. 

   The Agency intends to treat destruction of carbon tetrachloride,


a Class I, Group IV chemical, in a manner similar to the
transformation 

of carbon tetrachloride. The primary use of carbon tetrachloride 

is as a feedstock in the production of other chemicals. In the 

past, the Agency found it burdensome to require companies that 

transformed carbon tetrachloride to request allowances, receive 

those allowances from EPA, and then trade those allowances back 

to the producers. Such a process did affect the chemical industry, 

and slowed and even stopped at times, the production of other 

chemicals for which carbon tetrachloride is a feedstock. To 

alleviate this problem, the Agency promulgated regulations that 

allowed producers of carbon tetrachloride to manufacture this 

chemical without consuming allowances provided that such production


served as a feedstock in the production of another chemical. 

Producers that manufactured carbon tetrachloride are required 

to report with their quarterly production report those volumes 

sold for transformation and the companies to whom they sold 

the chemical. Non-producers who transform carbon tetrachloride 

must also report and keep dated records. In this action, the 

Agency proposes a similar regime. The Agency believes that the 

non-transformed quantities of carbon tetrachloride that are 

produced are used in processes where they are destroyed. Carbon 

tetrachloride is used as a specialty chemical and solvent, but 

poses significant health hazards and, therefore, ambient emissions 

are tightly controlled, either under RCRA or section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act. In many cases, destruction is the control 

process to minimize or eliminate these emissions. The Agency 

is concerned that treatment of carbon tetrachloride similarly 

to the other controlled substances could significantly affect 

this market. For this reason, the Agency proposes to treat credit 

for destruction in a manner similar to treatment of transformation 

of this chemical. 

   Producers and importers of carbon tetrachloride must report 

the amount of carbon tetrachloride sold to each person who then 

subsequently destroys the chemical and the Internal Revenue 

Service Certificates showing that the purchaser of carbon
tetrachloride 

intends to destroy the chemical. The producer and importer must 

also keep these records on file. 

   Companies that purchase carbon tetrachloride and who then 

destroy the chemical must keep the following records: the identity 

and address of the person; the quantity and level of controlled 

substance destroyed; a copy of the invoice or receipt documenting 

the sale of the controlled substance; the name of the person 

from whom the controlled substance were purchased; the type 

of destruction process used to destroy the controlled substance; 

the name of other relevant federal or state regulations that 

may apply to the destruction process; and the method used to 

determine the volume destroyed. These same companies must report 

every quarter the following information: the name and address 

of the person and the name and telephone number of a contact 

person; the names and addresses of the persons that produced 

or imported the Group IV controlled substance purchased and 

destroyed and the name and telephone number of the contact person; 

the address of the facility at which destruction took place; 

the type of approved destruction technology used to destroy 

the carbon tetrachloride; the citations of other relevant federal 

or state regulations that may apply to the destruction process; 

and the method used to determine the volume destroyed. 

   Companies who produce controlled substances and who then 

destroy those chemicals must report the volume destroyed on 

their quarterly production report in a similar manner as
transformation, 

but also keep the applicable recordkeeping requirements of the 

Non-producers. 

   The Agency requests comments on these data requirements. 

Although the Agency believes that these are adequate requirements, 

more stringent requirements could be considered. For example, 

these approved destruction technologies are regulated under 

other statutes, such as RCRA, or 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 requests comment on whether such 

recordkeeping and reporting should be part of Title VI regulations,


or should the Agency develop more detailed requirements. For 

example, 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 

Agency requests comments on whether the Agency should adopt 

such standards, or whether existing regulations minimize such 

emissions. 

   The Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on ODS Destruction 

Technologies recommends that atmospheric releases of controlled 

substances shall be monitored at all facilities with air emission 

discharges. For controlled substances, this report recommends 

flow meters or continuously recording weighing equipment for 

individual containers should be used. At a minimum, containers 

should be weighed "full" and "empty" to establish quantities 

destroyed. In today's Action, the Agency is proposing this minimum 

standard to determine the volume destroyed, but requests comment 

on whether more sophisticated monitoring devices such as flow 

meters should be required. In addition, the Agency requests 

comments 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. 

   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 requests 

comments on 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.



Insignificant Quantities



   EPA is also proposing to implement 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 controlled 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  

   In either of these situations, the Parties recognized that 

insignificant quantities of controlled substances may be emitted 

during product manufacture or handling. 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, EPA today is proposing 

to exempt 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 a process agents and 

resulting 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. EPA has not previously included 

controlled substances produced or used in these contexts either 

in baseline calculations or in the calculation of production 

and consumption. As a result, this clarification should have 

no impact on past or future allocations. 

   EPA carefully considered the environmental implications of 

this decision and its relationship to current regulations. First, 

as it relates to environmental protection, EPA has 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 US, 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, they 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, 82.40 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 Parties decision on 

this matter and on destruction, and the presently available 

information on the very small quantities of substances involved 

relative to the 1989 production of ozone depleting substances, 

EPA is today proposing to repeal the requirements of 82.40. 

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 82.40. With this proposal, 

all companies that meet these conditions are exempt from production


and consumption control and do not need to file exemption requests 

under 82.40. Finally, it fashions a more workable allowance 

system that will be necessary as we move forward toward a more 

rapid phaseout.  

   In proposing these actions, EPA is mindful of the portion 

of the Parties decision which 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 have become significant. 

   Today's proposal also covers inadvertent production of methyl 

bromide. While, at present, EPA is aware that substantial emissions


of methyl bromide are inadvertently produced during the manufacture


of polyethylene, EPA is working with these manufacturers to 

ensure that these emissions are substantially reduced. Also, 

of specific relevance are the proposed organic hazardous air 

pollutants (57 FR 62608) regulations designed to restrict air 

emissions of hazardous organic chemicals which are likely to 

result in major reductions of these emissions. EPA will monitor 

the progress of related manufacturers to ensure that residual 

emissions are indeed insignificant. 



V. Impact of Proposed Action 



   The Agency developed a cost benefit analysis of various possible


phaseout schedules presented in the petitions as well as the 

schedule for an accelerated phaseout of ozone depleting compounds 

proposed 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 incremental


benefits of these scenarios are approximately equal with the 

lower bound estimate of $160 billion to a higher bound estimate 

of $680 billion. 

   As such analysis indicates that various schedules yield
comparable 

net benefits, the Agency chose the schedule that it is proposing 

today 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. The retrofit 

cost under EPA's proposed schedule is lower, approximately $2 

billion. Retrofitting within the air-conditioning and refrigeration


sectors is extremely disruptive, requiring users to examine 

their current inventory of equipment to determine where
retrofitting 

is needed. The Regulatory Impact Analysis did not consider the 

cost of obtaining the information necessary for owners to proceed 

with retrofitting of equipment. Owners must inventory existing 

equipment, plan for the appropriate retrofits, determine when 

the retrofits must occur, have knowledge of the available
refrigerants 

due to allowable production and recycling, and plan to purchase 

new equipment containing the alternatives in the future. In 

addition, the servicing sector may be strained to accommodate 

the necessary retrofits to meet the phaseout schedule. Under 

a less stringent reduction schedule, these sectors would require 

less retrofitting because they would be able to purchase more 

new equipment to meet the less stringent reductions. 

   Furthermore, all of the phaseout schedules considered would 

require significant recycling. 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 proposing a less stringent schedule for 

the phaseout of HCFCs rather than the proposed NRDC schedule 

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 

proposed by NRDC. 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 proposing today a less stringent phaseout of HCFCs than that 

requested by NRDC. The cost of the Alliance petition and EPA's 

proposed schedule for HCFCs are comparable. 



VI. Additional Information 





A. Executive Order 12291 



   Executive Order (E.O.) 12291 requires preparation of a
Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for major rules, defined by the order as those 

likely to result in: 

   (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; 

   (2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual 

industries, Federal, State or local government agencies, or 

geographic industries; or 

   (3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 

States-based industry to compete with foreign based enterprises 

in domestic or export markets. 

   EPA has determined that these regulations meet the criteria 

of a major rule. The Agency estimates that annual industry costs 

will exceed $100 million. A regulatory impact analysis has been 

prepared to analyze these costs and has been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget for review. 



B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 



   The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires 

that federal agencies examine the impacts of regulations on 

small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. section 601(a), whenever an agency 

is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking, it must 

prepare and make available a regulatory flexibility analysis 

(RFA). 

   The Agency originally published an RFA to accompany the August 

12, 1988 final rule (53 FR 30566) that placed the initial limits 

on the production and consumption of CFCs and halons. That RFA 

analysis was also updated as Appendix G of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the regulations implementing the section 604 Clean 

Air Act phaseout schedule. For this rulemaking an addendum to 

that appendix was prepared to examine the impact of the
acceleration 

of the phaseout and the phaseout of HCFCs on small businesses. 

The analysis indicates that these actions are not expected to 

have a substantial impact on small entities. 

   Major changes in control plans are only required in a few 

sectors. For two of the sectors, household refrigeration and 

motor vehicle air-conditioning, the impact on small entities 

of additional recycling is examined in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis for the Agency's regulations under section 608 of the 

Clean Air Act. Although the control measures required by that 

section also contribute to the acceleration of the phaseout 

of the ozone-depleting substances, the costs of recycling to 

small businesses are not due to today's rule, but rather to 

the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 608. It is likely 

that motor vehicle air-conditioning retrofits will be carried 

out as a result of today's rule in ten percent of the existing 

stock and costs will be borne by the automobile owner, thus 

resulting in no costs to small businesses. Even in the worst 

case scenario, however, where automobile owners simply decide 

to forego air- conditioning, it is likely that this will have 

only a small impact on small businesses because only ten percent 

of the existing market is involved and air-conditioning repairs 

account for only a small portion of the services provided by 

an automobile repair shop. 

   Chillers and process refrigeration will also require retrofits, 

but these costs are expected to be borne again by the end-user, 

and will only be a small fraction of the total cost of operating 

the building or refinery. Due to the nature of the market for 

sterilization, solvent cleaning and portable extinguishers, 

the impacts of the additional controls in these sectors are 

expected to be minimal. The analysis shows that in the foam-

blowing sector, industry is moving in the direction of using 

substitute blowing agent. Because of this rapid switch and high 

expected growth rates, it is unlikely that significant small 

business closures will result from the accelerated phaseout 

of CFCs. In addition, because of the large amount of time available


for companies to plan for the HCFC phaseout, it is unlikely 

that large impacts on small entities will result from this portion 

of the proposed rules. 

   Under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605, I certify that the regulation promulgated in this notice 

will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 

small entities.



List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 



   Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, Imports, Ozone layer, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone.



   Dated: January 19, 1993.



William K. Reilly,

Administrator.



[FR Doc. 93-6130 Filed 3-17-93; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
     

Top of page


Local Navigation




Jump to main content.