1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
82
[
FRL­
7400­
3]

RIN
2060­
AJ27
Protection
of
Stratospheric
Ozone:
Phaseout
of
Chlorobromomethane
Production
and
Consumption
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)

ACTION:
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM)

SUMMARY:
With
this
action,
EPA
is
proposing
to
add
chlorobromomethane
(
CBM)
to
the
list
of
controlled
substances
subject
to
production
and
consumption
controls
in
accordance
with
both
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
(
Protocol)
and
EPA's
regulations
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
(
CAAA).
Today's
action
proposes
to
create
a
new
Group
(
Group
VIII)
of
class
I
substances
for
CBM,
and
to
designate
the
value
of
CBM's
"
ozone
depleting
potential"

(
ODP)
as
0.12.
In
accordance
with
the
Protocol,
today's
action
proposes
phasing
out
CBM
production
and
consumption
upon
publication
of
the
final
rule
with
permitted
exemptions.
Today's
action
also
proposes
to
restrict
trade
in
CBM
with
countries
who
are
not
Parties
to
the
Beijing
Amendments
to
the
Protocol.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
received
in
writing
by
[
Insert
date
30
days
from
publication
in
the
Federal
Register],
unless
a
public
hearing
is
requested.
If
a
public
hearing
takes
place,
it
will
be
scheduled
for
[
Insert
date
15
days
after
date
of
publication],
after
which
comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
Insert
date
45
days
after
date
of
publication].
Any
party
requesting
a
public
hearing
must
notify
the
contact
person
listed
below
by
5pm
Eastern
Standard
Time
on
[
Insert
date
7
days
after
2
publication].
After
that
time,
interested
parties
may
call
EPA's
Stratospheric
Ozone
Protection
Information
Hotline
at
1­
800­
296­
1996
to
inquire
with
regard
to
whether
a
hearing
will
be
held,
as
well
as
the
time
and
place
of
such
a
hearing.

ADDRESSES:
Public
comments
and
data
specific
to
this
action
should
be
submitted
in
duplicate
(
two
copies)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
(
6102),
Air
Docket
No.
A­
92­
13,
Section
XII,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
Street,
SW,
NW,
Room
M­
1500,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
If
you
plan
to
submit
comments,
please
also
notify
Jabeen
Akhtar,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Global
Programs
Division
(
6205J),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460,
(
202)
564­
3514.

Materials
relevant
to
this
proposed
rulemaking
are
contained
in
Public
Docket
No.
A­
92­
13,
Section
XII.
The
docket
is
located
in
room
M­
1500,
Waterside
Mall
(
Ground
Floor),
at
the
above
address.
The
materials
may
be
inspected
from
8:
00
am
until
5:
30pm,
Monday
through
Friday.
The
telephone
number
is
(
202)
260­
7548.
The
docket
may
charge
a
reasonable
fee
for
copying
docket
materials.

Information
designated
as
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
under
40
CFR,
Part
2,
Subpart
2,
must
be
sent
directly
to
the
contact
person
for
this
notice.
However,
the
Agency
is
requesting
that
all
respondents
submit
a
non­
confidential
version
of
their
comments
to
the
docket
as
well.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
The
Stratospheric
Ozone
Information
Hotline
at
1­
800­

296­
1996,
or
Jabeen
Akhtar,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Global
Programs
Division
(
6205J),

1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.,
20460,
(
202)
564­
3514;
akhtar.
jabeen@
epa.
gov.

Overnight
or
courier
deliveries
should
be
sent
to
the
office
location
at
4th
floor,
501
3rd
Street,
NW,

Washington,
DC,
20001.
You
may
also
visit
the
Ozone
Depletion
web
site
of
EPA's
Global
Programs
Division
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
index.
html
for
further
information
about
EPA's
Ozone
Protection
regulations,
the
science
of
ozone
depletion,
and
other
topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

This
document
concerns
proposed
amendments
to
the
production
and
import
controls
for
ozone­
3
depleting
substances
(
ODS).
The
proposed
amendment
concerns
the
addition
of
a
new
controlled
substance,
chlorobromomethane
(
CBM),
to
the
list
of
substances
already
subject
to
controls
related
to
production,
import,
export,
destruction,
transhipment,
essential
uses,
and
feedstock
uses.

The
regulated
categories
that
may
be
affected
by
this
proposed
action
include:

Category
SIC
NAICS
Examples
of
Potentially
Regulated
Entities
1.
Industrial
organic
chemicals,
NEC
2.
Pharmaceutical
preparations
3.
Pesticides
and
agricultural
chemicals,
NEC
4.
Chemicals
and
allied
products,
NEC
5.
Testing
laboratories,
except
veterinary
testing
labs
6.
Medical
and
diagnostic
laboratories
7.
Research
and
development
in
the
physical,

engineering
and
life
sciences
2869
2834
2879
5169
8734
8071
8731
and
8733
325199
325412
32532
42269
54138
6215
54171
Producers,
importers,
or
exporters
of
CBM
Transformers
of
CBM
Transformers
of
CBM
Lab
suppliers
of
CBM
Lab
users
of
CBM
Lab
users
of
CBM
Lab
users
of
CBM
This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
proposed
action.
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
proposed
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
this
table
could
also
be
affected.
To
determine
whether
your
facility,
company,
business
organization,
etc.,

could
be
regulated
by
this
proposed
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
82.1(
b)
of
Title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR).
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
proposed
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
"
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT"
section.
4
Table
of
Contents
I.
What
is
the
scientific
and
legal
background
for
the
regulations
to
phase
out
ozone­
depleting
substances?

II.
What
chemicals
are
addressed
by
today's
proposed
action
and
how
are
they
used?

A.
CBM
as
a
fire
extinguishing
agent
B.
CBM
as
an
explosion
protection
agent
C.
CBM
as
a
solvent
D.
CBM
as
a
feedstock
E.
Process
agents
III.
What
are
the
elements
of
the
international
agreement
to
regulate
CBM?

A.
Preliminary
discussions
on
controlling
CBM
B.
The
"
Beijing
Amendments"
and
its
provisions
regarding
CBM
IV.
What
are
the
new
US
requirements
proposed
by
today's
action?

A.
Legal
authority
B.
Specific
elements
of
today's
proposed
action
1.
Listing
CBM
and
controls
2.
Ban
on
Trade
with
non­
Parties
3.
Essential
Use
Exemptions
4.
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
(
a)
Producers
(
b)
Importers
(
c)
Exporters
(
d)
Destroyers
(
e)
Transformers
(
f)
Transhipments,
heels,
and
essential
uses
(
g)
Laboratory
essential
uses
5
V.
What
other
stratospheric
protection
regulations
will
relate
to
CBM
following
today's
proposed
action?

VI.
What
are
the
supporting
analyses?

A.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA),
5
USC
601
et
seq.

C.
Executive
order
12866
D.
Applicability
of
Executive
Order
13045
 
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
F
Executive
Order
13132
(
Federalism)

G.
Executive
Order
13175
(
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments)

H.
The
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
I.
Executive
Order
13211
(
Energy
Effects)

I.
What
is
the
scientific
and
legal
background
for
regulations
to
phase
out
ozone­
depleting
substances?

International
and
national
regulatory
activities
to
phase
out
ozone­
depleting
substances
(
ODSs)

arose
from
scientific
findings
linking
ODSs
with
stratospheric
ozone
depletion.
The
stratospheric
ozone
layer
protects
the
Earth
from
penetration
of
harmful
ultraviolet
(
UV­
B)
radiation.
Scientific
evidence
links
the
release
of
certain
man­
made
halocarbons,
including
chlorofluorocarbons
(
CFCs),
halons,
carbon
tetrachloride,
methyl
chloroform,
and
methyl
bromide,
to
the
depletion
of
the
stratospheric
ozone
layer.

Ozone
depletion
harms
human
health
and
the
environment
through
increased
incidence
of
cataracts,

certain
skin
cancers,
suppression
of
the
immune
system,
damage
to
plants
including
crops
and
aquatic
organisms,
increased
formation
of
ground­
level
ozone
and
increased
weathering
of
outdoor
plastics.
6
In
response
to
the
body
of
evidence
linking
chlorofluorocarbons
and
other
chlorinated
and
brominated
compounds
to
ozone
depletion,
the
international
community
reached
agreement
in
1987
on
a
landmark
treaty.
This
treaty,
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
("
Montreal
Protocol"
or
"
Protocol")
was
originally
signed
by
46
nations,
including
the
United
States.
The
Protocol
establishes
controls
on
the
production
and
consumption
of
ozone
depleting
chemicals.
The
Protocol
has
been
amended
and
adjusted
numerous
times
in
the
15
years
since
its
original
signing,
and
183
nations
have
now
ratified
the
original
Protocol
(
as
of
1/
24/
02).

The
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
direct
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
issue
regulations
to
implement
the
provisions
of
the
Protocol
within
the
United
States.
Accordingly,
EPA
developed
a
scheme
of
production
and
consumption
controls
relative
to
substances
addressed
by
the
Protocol.
The
current
regulatory
requirements
of
the
Stratospheric
Ozone
Protection
Program
implement
the
provisions
of
the
Protocol
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
by
limiting
the
production
and
consumption
of
ozone­
depleting
substances.
These
regulatory
requirements
are
codified
at
Subpart
A
to
Part
82
of
Volume
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A).
As
the
control
measures
of
the
Protocol
have
been
amended
or
adjusted,
and
in
consideration
of
other
factors,
Subpart
A
has
also
been
amended.
For
example,
following
the
amendments
to
the
Protocol
made
at
the
Fourth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
in
Copenhagen
in
1992,
a
number
of
changes
to
the
control
provisions
of
the
Protocol
were
made,
including
an
accelerated
phaseout
of
ODS
production
and
consumption.
EPA
published
a
final
regulation
in
December
of
1993,
implementing
the
United
States'
obligation
under
the
Copenhagen
amendments
(
58
FR
65018).
Other
regulations
amending
Subpart
A
include
those
published
on
December
20,
1994
(
59
FR
65478),
May
10,
1995
(
60
FR
24970),
August
4,
1998
(
63
FR
41625),
and
October
5,
1998
(
64
FR
53290).

In
the
context
of
the
regulatory
program,
the
use
of
the
term
consumption
may
be
misleading.

Consumption
does
not
mean
the
"
use"
of
a
controlled
substance,
but
rather
is
defined
as
the
formula:

consumption
=
production
+
imports
­
exports,
of
controlled
substances
(
Article
1
of
the
Protocol
and
Section
601
of
the
CAA).
Furthermore,
the
objective
that
consumption
shall
not
exceed
zero,
except
for
exempted
uses
(
as
is
the
ultimate
objective
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
CAA
for
all
ozone­
depleting
1The
terms
chlorobromomethane
and
bromochloromethane
are
synonymous.
They
both
refer
to
the
chemical,
CH
2
BrCl.
Both
terms
can
be
found
in
industry,
scientific,
and
regulatory
documents.

7
substances)
is
achieved
through
a
ban
on
production
and
on
import.
Quantities
of
exports
are
not
controlled
as
such
(
although
trade
in
controlled
substances
with
non­
Parties
to
the
Protocol
is
controlled
for
reasons
explained
in
section
IV.
C.
3.
of
this
Preamble).
Yet
by
setting
production
and
import
in
the
above
equation
equal
to
zero,
any
positive
quantity
of
export
in
the
above
equation
will
result
in
a
value
for
consumption
which
is
less
than
zero.
Under
the
regulatory
program
established
by
EPA
to
implement
the
Montreal
Protocol,
limited
exceptions
to
the
ban
on
the
import
of
phased­
out
class
I
controlled
substances
exist
if
the
substances
are:
(
1)
previously
used,
(
2)
imported
for
essential
uses
as
authorized
by
the
Protocol
and
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A,
(
3)
imported
for
destruction
or
transformation
only,
or
(
4)
a
transhipment
(
i.
e.,
from
one
foreign
country
through
the
U.
S.,
to
another
foreign
country)
or
a
heel
(
a
small
amount
of
controlled
substance
remaining
in
a
container
after
discharge)
(
40
CFR
82.4(
d),
82.13(
g)(
2)).

II.
What
chemicals
are
addressed
by
today's
proposed
action
and
how
are
they
used?

Today's
proposed
action
will
affect
only
one
chemical,
chlorobromomethane
(
CBM).
1
CBM
is
a
chemical
compound
found
in
trace
quantities
in
the
atmosphere
with
both
natural
and
man­
made
sources.
Research
indicates
that
CBM
has
an
atmospheric
lifetime
of
~
0.21
­
0.25
yr­
1.
The
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
designated
the
ODP
of
CBM
as
0.12.
This
value
is
consistent
with
an
examination
of
scientific
investigations
on
this
topic,
which
concluded
that
an
appropriate
range
for
the
ODP
of
CBM
is
0.07
­
0.15
(
See
64
FR
22985,
4/
18/
99).

Preliminary
research
indicates
that
the
past
and
current
major
industrial
applications
of
CBM
have
been
in
4
main
areas:
in
the
fire
protection
sector,
as
an
explosion
suppression
agent,
as
a
solvent,
and
as
a
feedstock
in
the
manufacture
of
other
chemicals.
Informal
discussions
with
CBM
producers
indicate
that
the
majority
of
CBM
is
produced
for
feedstock
use.
EPA
seeks
comment
as
to
whether
any
other
uses
of
CBM
exist
that
have
not
been
captured
in
the
following
subsections.
8
A.
CBM
as
a
fire
extinguishing
agent
Halogenated
agent
fire
extinguishers
were
initially
developed
in
the
early
1900s
and
filled
an
important
fire
protection
niche.
Halogenated
agent
extinguishers
were
efficient
on
fires
in
materials
where
water
or
largely
water
solutions
were
ineffective,
such
as
on
fires
involving
electrical
arcs
and
on
fires
involving
volatile
liquids.

Increasing
concerns
about
short
and
long­
term
adverse
health
effects
of
CBM
on
the
lungs,

kidneys,
skin,
and
liver
led
to
the
end
of
this
agent's
acceptability
as
a
fire
extinguishing
agent
for
use
in
areas
occupied
by
humans.
In
the
1960s,
Underwriters'
Laboratories,
Inc.
withdrew
recognition
of
fire
extinguishing
agents
with
a
toxicity
classification
exceeding
a
certain
threshold.
This
action
affected
CBM,
carbon
tetrachloride
and
methyl
bromide
as
fire
extinguishing
agents.
In
the
early
1980s,
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
banned
the
use
of
both
carbon
tetrachloride
and
CBM
as
fire
extinguishing
agents
in
areas
where
employees
can
be
exposed
to
the
agent
or
its
side
effects.
OSHA
does,
however,
permit
the
use
of
CBM
as
an
explosion
suppression
agent
in
unoccupied
spaces
(
29
CFR
Part
1910,
Subpart
L,
Appendix
A
(
Section
160)).

Preliminary
research
by
EPA
also
indicates
that
CBM
was
used
in
some
military
applications
(
e.
g.,

in
aircraft
fire
protection).
However,
Department
of
Defense
(
DoD)
officials
indicate
that
no
current
requirements
exist
or
are
expected
to
exist
for
CBM,
and
that
today's
proposed
action
will
not
adversely
affect
DoD.

B.
CBM
as
an
explosion
protection
agent
CBM
is
an
effective
explosion
protection
agent.
Explosions
affect
many
industries
such
as
plastics,

forest
products,
powdered
foods,
waste
disposal,
grain,
coal,
chemical,
petrochemical,
food
processing,

brewing,
and
pharmaceutical.
Explosions
are
broadly
classified
as
deflagrations
or
detonations,

depending
upon
the
speed
at
which
the
combustion
zone
propagates.
Five
primary
methods
exist
for
controlling
deflagrations:
prevention,
containment,
venting,
suppression,
and
isolation.
CBM
and
other
halon
agents
were
used
in
explosion
suppression
systems.
Such
systems
operate
by
detecting
an
explosion
in
its
early
stages
and
introducing
a
suppressant
(
e.
g.,
CBM)
that
prevents
the
combustion
9
reaction
from
continuing.

EPA
research
indicates
that
one
U.
S.
company
historically
manufactured
explosion
protection
systems
containing
CBM.
Manufacture
and
sale
of
such
systems
ended
in
the
early
1990s
.
No
significant
imports
of
such
systems
into
this
country
are
known.
It
is
estimated
that
several
hundred
such
explosion
protection
systems
are
currently
deployed
among
various
facilities
throughout
the
United
States.
An
EPA
regulation,
published
on
April
28,
1999
(
64
FR
22982),
found
CBM
to
be
unacceptable
as
a
substitute
for
Halon
1301
in
total
flooding
applications
in
the
fire
suppression
and
explosion
protection
sector.
EPA
published
this
rule
under
Section
612
of
the
CAAA,
which
authorizes
EPA
to
develop
a
program
for
evaluating
alternatives
to
ozone­
depleting
substances.
The
program
generates
lists
of
acceptable
and
unacceptable
substitutes
for
each
of
the
major
industrial
use
sectors.
EPA
refers
to
this
program
as
the
Significant
New
Alternatives
Policy
(
SNAP)
program.
In
the
April
1999
action,
the
SNAP
program
found
that
other
alternative
Halon
1301
replacement
agents
existed
with
zero
or
lower
ozone­
depleting
potential
than
CBM.

C.
CBM
as
a
solvent
CBM
has
been
considered
as
a
potentially
promising
cleaning
agent,
either
alone
or
as
a
solvent
blend.
Under
EPA's
SNAP
program,
the
Agency
received
an
application
requesting
consideration
of
CBM
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
113
and
methyl
chloroform
in
solvents
cleaning
of
metals,
electronics,
and
in
precision
cleaning.

In
a
regulation
published
on
April
28,
1999
(
noted
above),
EPA
determined
that
CBM
was
unacceptable
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
113,
methyl
chloroform
(
MCF),
and
HCFC­
141b
in
metals
cleaning,
electronics
cleaning
and
precision
cleaning
because
numerous
other
alternative
substances
exist
with
lower
environmental
risks
(
64
FR
22982).
That
regulation
also
established
that
CBM
is
unacceptable
in
aerosols
(
as
a
solvent)
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
113,
methyl
chloroform,
and
HCFC
141b,

and
in
adhesives,
coatings,
and
inks
(
as
a
carrier
solvent)
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
113,
methyl
chloroform,
and
HCFC
141b.
10
D.
CBM
as
a
feedstock
According
to
preliminary
research
by
EPA,
approximately
80%
of
CBM
produced
in
the
past
has
been
used
as
a
feedstock
in
the
manufacture
of
pharmaceutical
products,
water
treatment
chemicals,

and
a
biocide.
Today's
proposed
action
would
not
affect
production
or
import
(
except
for
import
from
non­
Party
countries;
see
section
IV.
C.
1.)
of
CBM
when
that
CBM
is
subsequently
transformed,
as
it
is
when
it
is
used
as
a
feedstock.
"
Transform"
means
to
use
and
entirely
consume
(
except
for
trace
quantities)
a
controlled
substance
in
the
manufacture
of
other
chemicals
for
commercial
purposes
(
See
40
CFR
82.3).
The
definition
of
"
production"
of
controlled
substances
in
§
82.3
explicitly
excludes
"
the
manufacture
of
a
controlled
substance
that
is
subsequently
transformed"
and
therefore
production
controls
will
not
apply
to
such
manufacture.
Also,
§
82.4
(
c)
and
(
d)
exclude
controlled
substances
"
that
are
transformed
or
destroyed"
from
the
Class
I
import
prohibition.

E.
Process
agents
The
Parties
to
the
Protocol
recognize
that
certain
controlled
ozone­
depleting
substances,
because
of
their
unique
chemical
and/
or
physical
properties,
can
facilitate
an
intended
chemical
reaction
and/
or
inhibit
an
unintended
chemical
reaction.
The
term
"
process
agent"
is
used
to
refer
to
controlled
substances
in
such
applications.
Controlled
substances
are
typically
used
in
chemical
processes
as
process
agents
for
at
least
two
of
the
following
unique
chemical
and/
or
physical
properties:
(
1)

Chemically
inert
during
a
chemical
reaction;
(
2)
physical
properties
(
e.
g.,
boiling
point,
vapor
pressure,

specific
solvency);
(
3)
to
act
as
a
chain
transfer
agent;
(
4)
to
control
the
desired
physical
properties
of
a
process
(
e.
g.,
molecular
weight,
viscosity);
(
5)
to
increase
plant
yield;
(
6)
non­
flammable/
non­
explosive;

and
(
7)
to
minimize
undesirable
by­
product
formation.
Source:
Process
Agents
Task
Force
(
PATF),

2001
(
available
at
http://
www.
teap.
org/
html/
process_
agents_
reports.
html).

Formally,
the
term
"
process
agents"
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
means
"
the
use
of
controlled
substances
for
the
applications
listed
in
table
A"
of
Decision
X/
14
of
the
Meetings
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
(
Handbook
for
the
International
Treaties
for
the
Protection
of
the
Ozone
Layer.
Ozone
Secretariat,
UNEP,
Nairobi,
Kenya,
p.
85.
Available
at
11
http://
www.
unep.
org/
ozone/
Handbook2000.
shtml).
Presently,
four
controlled
substances
are
listed
as
process
agents:
carbon
tetrachloride
(
CTC),
CFC­
11,
CFC­
12,
and
CFC­
113.
These
are
used
in
the
manufacture
of
chlorine,
polymers,
chlorinated
(
intermediate)
products,
pharmaceuticals,
and
pesticides
and
other
agricultural
chemicals.

Controlled
substances
produced
or
imported
as
process
agents
(
as
listed
in
table
A
of
Decision
X/
14)
for
use
in
plants
and
installations
that
were
in
operation
before
January
1,
1999,
are
not
counted
in
the
calculation
of
production
and
consumption
of
controlled
substances
from
January
1,
2002,
and
thereafter.
That
is,
production
and
import
of
controlled
substances
as
process
agents
listed
in
table
A
of
Decision
X/
14
are
not
subject
to
production
and
import
restrictions
under
the
Montreal
Protocol.
In
the
case
of
non­
Article
5
Parties
such
as
the
U.
S.,
the
emissions
of
controlled
substances
in
these
processes
must
be
reduced
to
insignificant
levels
as
defined
in
table
B
of
Decision
X/
14.

Parties
may
propose
additions
to
the
list
of
controlled
substances
designated
as
process
agents
by
sending
a
detailed
proposal
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat,
which
will
forward
them
to
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
(
TEAP).
The
Panel
will
then
investigate
the
proposed
change
and
make
a
recommendation
to
the
Parties
whether
or
not
the
proposed
use
should
be
added
to
the
list
by
decision
of
the
Parties.

EPA
received
a
letter
from
one
stakeholder
requesting
that
their
use
of
CBM
as
a
solvent
in
the
process
of
producing
a
polymer
additive
be
considered
a
process
agent
use.
EPA
has
approved
this
company's
use
of
CBM
as
a
process
agent
use
and
has
submitted
a
request
to
the
TEAP
to
add
this
use
of
CBM
to
the
list
of
process
agents
in
Table
A
of
Decision
X/
14
and
to
change
the
emissions
limit
for
the
United
States
in
Table
B
to
reflect
this
addition.
EPA
seeks
comment
as
to
whether
any
other
applications
of
CBM
exist
that
should
be
submitted
for
consideration
as
a
process
agent.
Commenters
should
provide
detailed
information
on
the
quantities
of
chemicals
involved,
the
chemical
process,
and
the
products.
EPA
also
seeks
comment
as
to
the
anticipated
impacts,
if
any,
of
this
proposed
rule
on
such
potential
process
agent
uses.

III.
What
are
the
elements
of
the
international
agreement
to
regulate
CBM?
2April
1999
Report
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel,
Part
V,
2.7.1.

12
A.
Preliminary
discussions
on
controlling
CBM
Interest
in
banning
production
of
CBM
was
first
raised
in
the
Montreal
Protocol
forum
in
1998.
At
the
Tenth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
in
November,
1998,
the
suggestion
was
made
that
the
Parties
immediately
ban
CBM.
CBM
was
recognized
as
a
"
new"
and
unregulated
substance
with
a
high
ODP.
In
response
to
concern
that
CBM
was
being
aggressively
marketed
to
developing
countries
as
an
"
ozone­
safe"
alternative
solvent,
and
that
unhindered
global
production
of
CBM
could
significantly
harm
or
threaten
the
ozone
layer,
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
agreed
at
the
Tenth
Meeting
to
take
measures
to
discourage
its
production
and
marketing.
The
1999
Report
of
the
Technology
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
included
a
recommendation
for
regulatory
controls
of
CBM
from
the
Solvents
Technical
Options
Committee
(
STOC):

"
In
view
of
the
predicted
quantities
of
CBM,
if
the
market
for
this
substance
is
developed
unhindered
and
the
ODP,
which
is
within
the
same
range
as
HCFCs
regulated
under
the
Montreal
Protocol,
the
STOC
recommends
that
the
Parties
consider
appropriate
action
to
prevent
or
limit
further
depletion
of
the
ozone
layer
due
to
this
substance."
2
It
should
be
noted
that
there
was
reason
to
believe
that
a
significant
future
market
for
CBM
might
exist
in
the
absence
of
regulation.
For
example,
industry
had
identified
CBM
as
a
potentially
promising
cleaning
agent
in
the
1990s;
and
as
mentioned
above,
EPA's
SNAP
program
had
received
an
application
requesting
consideration
of
CBM
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
113
and
methyl
chloroform
in
solvents
cleaning
of
metals,
electronics,
and
in
precision
cleaning.
Although
EPA's
1999
regulation
noted
above
(
64
FR
22982)
determined
that
CBM
was
unacceptable
as
a
substitute
for
CFC­
113,
methyl
chloroform
(
MCF),

and
HCFC­
141b
in
metals
cleaning,
electronics
cleaning
and
precision
cleaning,
as
well
as
unacceptable
as
a
substitute
for
Halon
1301
in
total
flooding
applications
in
the
fire
suppression
and
explosion
protection
sector,
these
restrictions
do
not
control
CBM
use
outside
of
the
United
States.

B.
The
"
Beijing
Amendments"
and
their
provisions
regarding
CBM
The
Parties
to
the
Protocol
at
the
Eleventh
Meeting
("
Beijing
Amendments")
agreed
to
list
CBM
as
a
controlled
substance
and
establish
its
phaseout
schedule.
The
specific
terms
of
the
Beijing
13
Amendments
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
unep.
org/
ozone/
Beijing­
Amendment.
shtml
and
also
in
the
Docket
to
this
proposed
rulemaking.
The
Parties
agreed
to
add
a
new
group
of
controlled
substances
to
Annex
C.
This
new
group,
Group
III,
consists
of
a
single
entry,
chlorobromomethane,
which
was
assigned
an
ODP
of
0.12.
Furthermore,
the
Parties
agreed
to
add
a
new
Article
("
Article
2I:

Bromochloromethane")
to
the
Protocol
which
specifies
that
as
of
January
1,
2002,
the
consumption
and
production
of
the
controlled
substance
in
Group
III
of
Annex
C
shall
not
exceed
zero,
except
for
production
or
consumption
necessary
to
satisfy
uses
that
may
be
agreed
by
the
Parties
in
the
future
to
be
essential.

The
Protocol
contains
no
exemptions
from
production
controls
for
CBM
to
meet
the
"
basic
domestic
needs"
of
"
Article
5"
parties
as
it
does
for
many
other
groups
of
ODSs.
For
other
ODSs,
the
Montreal
Protocol
allows
Parties
to
exceed
their
level
of
baseline
production
to
accommodate
the
"
basic
domestic
needs"
of
Article
5
countries.
Article
5
countries
are
defined
by
the
Parties
as
developing
countries
whose
annual
calculated
level
of
consumption
of
controlled
substances
falls
below
certain
thresholds.

The
basis
for
allowances
for
Article
5
Parties
has
been
described
previously
(
52
FR
47496,
12/
14/
87).

For
certain
ODSs,
the
Protocol
allows
excess
production
for
Article
5
countries
and
EPA
has
accordingly
provided
for
such
excess
production
in
its
regulations
(
see
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A,
82.9(
a)).
In
contrast,
when
the
control
measures
set
forth
in
the
Protocol
do
not
provide
for
such
excess
production,

no
"
Article
5"
provision
has
been
granted
in
EPA
regulations.
Because
Article
2I
of
the
Protocol,
which
specifies
controls
on
CBM,
does
not
include
the
provision
for
granting
Article
5
allowances
for
CBM,
such
a
provision
will
not
be
made
with
today's
proposed
action
(
see
discussion
in
Section
IV.
C.
5.
a).

In
addition
to
the
control
measures
described
above,
the
Beijing
Amendments
add
to
the
Protocol
a
ban
on
import
of
CBM
from,
and
export
of
CBM
to,
non­
Parties
to
the
Beijing
Amendments.
Under
the
terms
of
the
Beijing
Amendments,
each
Party
is
required
to
implement
this
trade
ban
on
CBM
within
1
year
of
the
date
of
entry
into
force
of
the
Amendments.
In
general,
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
its
amendments,
bans
on
imports
from
and
exports
to
non­
Parties
reflect
an
agreed
strategy
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
to
encourage
ratification
of
each
successive
amendment
package
to
the
Protocol
and
to
ensure
that
controlled
ozone­
depleting
substances
are
not
provided
to
countries
that
14
have
not
agreed
to
control
measures.

Finally,
as
with
most
other
groups
of
ODSs
regulated
under
the
Montreal
Protocol,
the
phaseout
of
CBM
production
and
consumption
accommodates
the
future
possibility
of
"
essential
use"
allowances.
At
the
Fourth
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
in
Copenhagen
(
November
23­
25,
1992),
the
Parties
established
criteria
for
determining
"
essential
uses"
that
could
be
exempted
from
the
phaseout
of
production
and
importation.
These
criteria
and
the
nomination
process
are
described
in
more
detail
in
earlier
Federal
Register
notices
(
64
FR
50084,
9/
15/
99).

IV.
What
are
the
new
U.
S.
requirements
proposed
by
today's
action?

A.
Legal
authority
Several
provisions
of
the
CAA
provide
the
legal
authority
for
today's
proposed
action.
Section
602(
a)
provides
EPA
with
the
general
authority
to
list
Class
I
substances.
Section
602(
a)
requires
EPA
to
add
to
the
list
of
Class
I
substances
those
substances
that
it
finds
cause
or
contribute
significantly
to
harmful
effects
on
the
stratospheric
ozone
layer.
Section
602(
a)
also
requires
the
listing
of
new
substances,
pursuant
to
subsection
602(
c),
that
have
an
ozone­
depleting
potential
of
0.2
or
greater.

Section
602(
c)
requires
that
the
Administrator
place
newly
added
Class
I
substances,
to
the
extent
consistent
with
the
Montreal
Protocol,
either
into
an
existing
Group
or
a
new
Group.
As
explained
in
Section
III
A
of
today's
proposed
action,
EPA
believes
that
CBM
may
cause
or
contribute
significantly
to
the
harmful
effects
on
the
stratospheric
ozone
layer.
Whenever
EPA
adds
a
substance
to
the
Class
I
list,

EPA
is
also
required
by
Section
602(
e)
to
assign
a
numerical
value
representing
the
substance's
ozonedepleting
potential
(
ODP).
Section
602(
e)
requires
this
ODP
numerical
value
to
be
consistent
with
the
Montreal
Protocol
if
such
ODP
is
specified
by
the
Montreal
Protocol.

Those
substances
listed
as
a
Class
I
(
or
Class
II)
substance
are
then
subject
to
the
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
as
set
forth
and
implemented
under
Section
603.
Section
603(
b)
requires
that
on
a
quarterly
basis,
or
other
such
basis
as
EPA
may
prescribe,
a
report
be
filed
with
EPA
regarding
the
amount
of
substance(
s)
produced,
imported,
and
exported
during
the
preceding
reporting
period.

Section
604
sets
forth
the
general
phase­
out
schedule
of
Class
I
substances
and
exceptions
to
the
15
phase­
out.
Section
604(
a)
requires
EPA
to
promulgate
regulations
implementing
the
phase­
out
schedule
for
Class
I
substances
set
forth
in
the
CAA.
The
Section
604
phaseout
date
for
most
Class
I
substances
is
January
1,
2000;
however,
under
Section
602(
d),
EPA
may
establish
a
later
phaseout
date
for
a
newly
listed
substance
if
the
Section
604
phaseout
date
is
unattainable,
considering
when
the
substance
is
listed.

Section
614(
b)
requires
that
Title
VI
of
the
CAAA
be
"
construed,
interpreted,
and
applied
as
a
supplement
to
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
Montreal
Protocol,
...,
and
shall
not
be
construed,

interpreted,
or
applied
to
abrogate
the
responsibilities
of
the
United
States
to
implement
fully
the
provisions
of
the
Montreal
Protocol."
Section
614(
b)
requires
that
in
the
case
of
any
conflict
"
between
any
provision
of
this
title
and
any
provision
of
the
Montreal
Protocol,
the
more
stringent
provision
shall
govern."
Thus,
today's
proposed
actions
list
CBM
and
put
in
place
the
phaseout
controls
consistent
with
the
Montreal
Protocol.

B.
Specific
elements
of
today's
proposed
action
1.
Listing
CBM
and
controls
Today's
proposed
action
would
create
a
new
Group
(
Group
VIII)
of
class
I
substances,
place
CBM
in
this
new
Group,
and
assign
CBM
an
ODP
of
0.12.
Today's
proposed
action
would
establish
a
full
ban
on
CBM
production
and
import.
This
ban
would
not
apply
to
the
production
or
import
of
CBM
that
is
subsequently
transformed
or
destroyed,
or
to
imports
of
transhipments
or
heels
(
see
Section
I).
No
interim
phasedown
levels
are
proposed;
that
is,
production
and
import
are
unrestricted
until
the
effective
date
of
the
ban.
It
should
be
noted
that
EPA
is
not
proposing
baseline
allowances
for
CBM
and
therefore
will
not
at
this
time
collect
information
on
baseline
production
and
consumption
of
CBM.

Today's
action
does
not
propose
production
for
the
"
basic
domestic
needs"
of
Article
5
countries
for
reasons
described
in
Section
III
B
of
this
Preamble.
After
the
total
phaseout
of
CBM
production
and
import,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
may
authorize
inclusion
of
CBM
in
the
exemption
for
laboratory
and
analytical
uses,
described
in
greater
detail
in
Section
IV.
B.
2
of
this
Preamble.
EPA
is
proposing
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
persons
who
produce,
import,
destroy,
16
transform,
tranship,
or
export
CBM,
as
well
as
for
CBM
authorized
for
essential
uses.
In
addition,
EPA
is
proposing
that
persons
wishing
to
import
used,
recycled
or
reclaimed
CBM
must
comply
with
the
petition
process
described
in
40
CFR
82.4(
j)
and
82.13(
g)(
2),
(
3)
and
(
4).

EPA
is
proposing
that
the
effective
date
for
all
of
today's
proposed
actions
would
be
30
days
from
the
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
Under
Section
604(
b)
of
the
CAA,
unless
otherwise
stated,
the
phaseout
date
for
Class
I
substances
is
January
1,
2000.
However,
pursuant
to
Section
602(
d),
EPA
may
establish
a
later
phaseout
date
for
a
newly
listed
substance
if
the
Section
604(
b)
date
is
unattainable.
Because
the
January
1,
2000
phaseout
date
is
in
the
past,
it
is
obviously
unattainable.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
establish
a
later
phaseout
date
linked
to
the
publication
date
of
the
final
rule.

Today's
proposed
effective
date
takes
into
consideration
that
the
Beijing
Amendments
entered­

intoforce
under
the
Protocol
on
February
25,
2002,
for
Parties
that
have
ratified
the
amendment
package.

The
U.
S.
Senate
gave
their
advice
and
consent
to
the
ratification
of
the
Beijing
Amendment
package
on
October
9,
2002,
but
the
U.
S.
must
still
officially
deposit
its
instrument
of
ratification
with
the
United
Nations.
Ninety
days
following
the
date
the
U.
S.
officially
deposits
the
instrument
of
ratification
for
the
Beijing
Amendment
package,
the
U.
S.
assumes
obligations
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
Beijing
Amendment.
Thus,
EPA
needs
to
have
put
in
place
(
prior
to
the
deposit
of
the
instrument
of
ratification)

final
regulatory
programs
that
will
implement
and
ensure
U.
S.
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Beijing
Amendment
package.

2.
Ban
on
trade
with
non­
Parties
Today's
action
also
proposes
to
prohibit
CBM
import
from
and
export
to
a
foreign
state
that
is
not
a
Party
to
the
1999
Beijing
Amendments
to
the
Protocol.
In
accordance
with
previously
established
provisions
under
the
Protocol,
current
EPA
regulations
(
60
FR
24970;
40
CFR
82.4(
l))
prohibit
certain
class
I
controlled
substances
from
export
to
or
import
from
foreign
states
not
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
or
specific
amendment
packages
to
the
Protocol
(
e.
g.,
the
London
Amendments).

With
today's
action,
EPA
is
proposing
adding
a
new
subparagraph,
§
82.4(
l)(
5)
regarding
a
CBM
17
trade
ban
that
would
become
effective
30
days
after
the
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
However,
in
going
forward
with
today's
proposal,
EPA
wishes
to
note
that
it
is
also
considering
alternative
dates
for
making
the
trade
ban
effective.
EPA
is
also
considering
an
effective
date
immediately
upon
publication
of
the
final
rule.
This
other
approach
is
being
considered
because
under
the
Protocol,
the
CBM
trade
ban
will
go
into
effect
one
year
from
entry­
into­
force
of
the
Beijing
Amendments.
Since
the
Beijing
Amendments
entered­
into­
force
on
February
25,
2002,
the
effective
date
of
the
trade
ban
for
those
countries
that
have
ratified
the
Amendments
would
be
February
25,
2003.

An
effective
date
for
the
trade
ban
for
the
U.
S.
could
therefore
be
on
or
after
this
2003
date.

The
U.
S.
Senate
gave
their
advice
and
consent
to
the
ratification
of
the
Beijing
Amendment
package
on
October
9,
2002,
but
the
U.
S.
must
still
officially
deposit
its
instrument
of
ratification
with
the
United
Nations.
Ninety
days
following
the
date
the
U.
S.
officially
deposits
the
instrument
of
ratification
for
the
Beijing
Amendment
package,
the
U.
S.
assumes
obligations
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
Beijing
Amendment.
Thus,
EPA
needs
to
have
put
in
place
(
prior
to
the
deposit
of
the
instrument
of
ratification)
final
regulatory
programs
that
will
implement
and
ensure
U.
S.
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
Beijing
Amendment
(
including
the
trade
ban
on
CBM).

A
revised
list
of
Parties
that
have
ratified
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
successive
amendments
to
the
Protocol
is
published
as
Annex
1
in
Appendix
C
to
Subpart
A
with
today's
proposed
action.
For
the
purposes
of
the
trade
ban
proposed
in
today's
action,
companies
should
refer
to
Appendix
C
to
Subpart
A
of
Part
82
to
identify
nations
that
have
not
yet
ratified
the
Beijing
Amendments,
although
this
list
will
likely
change
by
the
time
a
final
rule
is
published.
CBM
imports
from
or
exports
to
these
nations
that
have
not
ratified
the
Beijing
Amendments
would
be
prohibited.
EPA
will
publish
notices
on
a
periodic
basis
to
update
this
list
(
Appendix
C)
to
reflect
when
Parties
ratify
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
its
amendments.
For
additional
information
on
countries
that
have
ratified
the
Protocol
and
its
amendments,
visit
the
website
of
the
United
Nations
Environment
Program
(
UNEP)
Ozone
Secretariat
at
www.
unep.
org/
ozone/
and
look
for
the
"
Status
of
Ratification."

3.
Essential
Use
Exemptions
18
Article
2I
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
allows
for
the
possibility
of
"
essential
use"
exemptions
from
the
phaseout
established
for
CBM.
The
Parties
to
the
Protocol
established
a
process
in
Decision
IV/
25
by
which
they
can
determine
what
uses
of
a
controlled
substance
are
considered
"
essential
uses."
In
contrast,
the
CAA
delineates
several
specific
exemptions
under
which
uses
of
ODS
may
be
considered
to
be
exempt
from
the
phaseout
of
ODSs.
Thus,
a
use
that
is
considered
an
"
essential
use"
under
the
Protocol,
taking
into
account
more
recent
decisions
under
the
Protocol,
may
or
may
not
be
specifically
exempt
from
the
phaseout
under
the
CAA.
Section
614
of
the
CAA
dictates
that
the
more
stringent
provision
should
prevail
when
there
is
a
conflict
with
the
Protocol.
In
some
instances
the
CAA
may
contain
the
more
stringent
provision.

In
2001,
EPA
provided
a
de
minimis
exemption
for
essential
laboratory
uses
of
class
I
ODSs
based
on
the
criteria
listed
in
Appendix
G
of
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
82.
Production
and
import
of
class
I
controlled
substances
for
certain
narrowly
defined
laboratory
and
analytical
applications
are
exempt
from
the
production
and
import
phaseout
(
See
66
FR
14760
(
3/
13/
01)).
The
criteria
identifying
exempt
applications
are
specified
in
Appendix
G
to
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A.
Furthermore,
the
production
and
import
of
class
I
controlled
substances
for
laboratory
and
analytical
applications
must
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
specified
in
40
CFR
82.13(
v)
to
(
z)
of
Subpart
A,
which
are
summarized
later
in
this
Preamble.

On
February
11,
2002,
EPA
extended
this
exemption
through
the
year
2005,
while
eliminating
the
following
uses,
consistent
with
Decision
XI/
15:
(
1)
Testing
of
oil,
grease
and
total
petroleum
hydrocarbons
in
water;
(
b)
Testing
of
tar
in
road­
paving
materials;
and
(
c)
Forensic
finger­
printing
(
67
FR
6352).
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
have
not
extended
the
global
laboratory
and
analytical
essential­
use
exemption
indefinitely.
This
issue
is
further
discussed
at
66
FR
14767
(
3/
13/
01).

4.
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
If
EPA
designates
CBM
as
a
class
I
ODS,
existing
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
40
CFR
82.13
will
apply
to
production,
importation,
destruction,
transformation,
transhipments,
export,
or
19
essential
uses
of
CBM.
Potentially
affected
parties
are
urged
to
consult
the
relevant
regulatory
paragraphs
in
40
CFR
Part
82.13,
Subpart
A.
In
addition,
guidance
and
reporting
forms
for
these
requirements
are
available
from
EPA's
Stratospheric
Ozone
Hotline
((
800)
296­
1996).
Today's
proposal
to
extend
the
existing
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
to
CBM
will
not
take
effect
until
EPA's
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
has
been
finalized.
This
process
is
described
in
Section
VII.
E.

(
a)
Producers
EPA
is
proposing
that
entities
that
produce
CBM,
as
for
other
class
I
controlled
substances,
would
submit
a
report
to
the
EPA
Administrator
within
120
days
of
publication
of
the
final
rule,
describing
in
detail
how
daily
production
quantities
are
measured
and
recorded,
including
how
fugitive
losses
are
accounted
for
and
the
estimated
percent
efficiency
of
production
process.
These
entities
would
also
maintain
detailed
records
pertaining
to
(
i)
the
quantity
of
controlled
substances
produced
at
each
facility
and
the
purposes
for
which
they
are
produced,
used,
and
sold,
with
certain
written
verifications;
(
ii)

quantities
of
other
chemicals
produced
within
each
facility
and
quantities
of
inputs
used
in
the
production
of
controlled
substances;
and
(
iii)
shipments
of
controlled
substances
produced
at
each
facility.
These
entities
would,
in
addition,
submit
a
quarterly
report
identifying
quarterly
production
amounts
and
amounts
sold,
transferred,
or
exported
(
and
specifying
amounts
transformed
or
destroyed
by
the
producer
or
recipient),
with
appropriate
verifications;
and
a
list
of
the
essential­
use
(
including
laboratory
essential
use)
allowance
holders
from
whom
orders
were
placed
and
the
quantity
of
essential­
use
controlled
substances
requested
and
produced,
with
appropriate
verifications.
See
40
CFR
Part
82,

Subpart
A
(
§
82.13)
for
the
complete
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

(
b)
Importers
According
to
EPA's
existing
requirements
for
ODSs,
a
person
may
import
a
used
class
I
controlled
substance
if
they
comply
with
the
petition
process
described
in
40
CFR
82.4(
j)
and
82.13(
g)(
2),(
3)
and
(
4).
Under
the
Protocol
and
the
CAA,
the
import
of
"
used
controlled
substances"
does
not
count
against
a
country's
obligation
to
completely
phase
out
import.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
that
with
the
listing
of
20
CBM
as
a
class
I
controlled
substance,
an
importer
of
used,
recycled,
or
reclaimed
CBM
would
become
subject
to
the
requirements
specified
in
these
sections.
Specifically,
importers
of
used,
recycled,
or
reclaimed
controlled
substances
and
transshipments
would
need
to
fulfill
the
import
petition
process.

This
process
requires
that
for
each
individual
shipment
of
greater
than
150
lbs,
at
least
15
working
days
before
the
shipment
leaves
the
foreign
port
of
export,
the
importer
must
submit
to
EPA
a
petition
including
the
identity
and
quantity
of
the
controlled
substance;
information
pertaining
to
the
source,

foreign
owner,
and
exporter
of
the
controlled
substance,
and
information
regarding
the
previous
use
and
identity
of
foreign
reclaimer;
information
on
import
port
of
entry,
vessel,
and
dates
of
shipment;
and
the
intended
use
of
the
controlled
substance
(
40
CFR
82.13(
g)(
2)
and
(
g)(
3)).

EPA
is
also
proposing
that
entities
that
import
CBM,
would
also
be
subject
to
the
standard
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
importers
of
class
I
substances.
These
include
the
requirement
to
maintain
detailed
records
of
the
quantity
of
each
controlled
substance,
including
information
and
documentation
pertaining
to
the
amounts
that
may
be
in
mixtures,
that
are
used,

recycled
or
reclaimed,
that
are
for
use
or
sold
for
use
in
processing
resulting
in
their
transformation
or
destruction,
and
that
are
imported
for
essential
uses;
and
including
documentation
and/
or
certification
relating
to
port
of
entry,
country
from
which
the
substance
was
imported,
bill
of
lading,
the
US
customs
entry
form,
and
intended
use
of
the
imported
substance.
Such
entities
must
also
submit
to
EPA
a
quarterly
report
summarizing
the
records
described
above
and
including
certifications
regarding
the
intended
use
of
controlled
substances
(
e.
g.,
transformation,
destruction,
essential
uses).
In
the
case
of
imports
of
used
(
including
recycled
or
reclaimed)
controlled
substances,
or
heels
of
controlled
substances,
bills
of
lading
or
invoices
must
be
labeled,
indicating
that
the
controlled
substance
is
used,

recycled,
reclaimed,
or
a
heel,
as
appropriate.
See
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13)
for
complete
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

(
c)
Exporters
EPA
is
proposing
that
exporters
of
CBM,
as
for
other
class
I
controlled
substances,
would
submit
information
within
45
days
after
the
end
of
the
control
period,
including
the
names
and
addresses
of
the
21
exporter
and
the
recipient
of
the
exports,
the
type
and
quantity
of
the
controlled
substances
exported,

percentage
which
is
used,
recycled,
or
reclaimed,
date/
port
of
export,
amount
exported
to
Article
5
countries,
and
documentation
or
certification
relating
to
purchaser's
or
importer's
intent
to
transform
or
destroy
the
controlled
substance.
Exporters
of
class
I
controlled
substances
must
also
label,
in
the
case
of
exports
of
used
(
including
recycled
or
reclaimed)
controlled
substance,
bills
of
lading
or
invoices,

indicating
that
the
controlled
substance
is
used,
recycled,
or
reclaimed.
See
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13)
for
the
complete
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

(
d)
Destroyers
EPA
is
proposing
that
entities
that
destroy
CBM,
as
with
other
class
I
controlled
substances,
would
submit
a
one­
time
report
stating
the
destruction
unit's
efficiency
and
the
methods
used
to
determine
destruction
efficiency
and
to
record
the
volume
destroyed.
Changes
to
these
methods
must
be
reported
within
60
days
of
the
change.
The
report
must
also
include
names
of
other
regulations
applicable
to
the
destruction
process.
Such
entities
must
also
provide
the
producer
or
importer
from
whom
they
purchased
or
received
the
controlled
substances
with
a
verification
that
controlled
substances
will
be
used
in
processes
that
result
in
their
destruction.
Destroyers
of
class
I
controlled
substances
must
also
report
the
names
and
quantities
of
class
I
controlled
substances
destroyed
for
each
control
period
within
45
days
of
the
end
of
the
control
period.
See
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13)
for
the
complete
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

(
e)
Transformers
EPA
is
proposing
that
entities
that
transform
CBM,
as
for
other
class
I
controlled
substances,
would
provide
the
producer
or
importer
of
the
controlled
substances
the
IRS
certification
that
the
controlled
substances
are
to
be
used
in
processes
resulting
in
their
transformation,
and
report
the
names
and
quantities
of
class
I
controlled
substances
transformed
for
each
control
period
within
45
days
of
the
end
of
the
control
period.
See
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13)
for
the
complete
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
22
(
f)
Transhipments,
heels,
and
essential
uses
EPA
is
proposing
that
entities
that
bring
back
a
container
with
a
heel
of
CBM
to
the
United
States
would
report
quarterly
the
amount
brought
into
the
United
States,
certifying
that
the
residual
amount
in
each
shipment
is
less
than
10%
of
the
volume
of
the
container
and
will
remain
in
the
container
and
be
included
in
a
future
shipment,
be
recovered
and
transformed
or
destroyed,
or
be
recovered
for
a
nonemissive
use.
They
would
also
have
to
report
on
the
final
disposition
of
each
shipment
within
45
days
of
the
end
of
the
control
period.
Entities
that
transship
a
controlled
substance
must
maintain
records
that
indicate
that
the
controlled
substance
shipment
originated
in
a
foreign
country
destined
for
another
foreign
country,
and
does
not
enter
interstate
commerce
with
the
United
States.
Entities
that
were
allocated
essential­
use
allowances
and
submitted
an
order
to
a
producer
or
importer
for
a
controlled
substance
must
report
the
quarterly
quantity
received
from
each
producer
or
importer.
See
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13)
for
the
complete
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

(
g)
Laboratory
essential
uses
EPA
is
proposing
that
CBM
to
be
used
in
laboratory
applications
be
exempted
from
the
ban
in
the
same
manner
that
all
other
Class
I
ODSs
are
exempted
for
laboratory
uses.
In
addition,
laboratory
distributors
who
sell
CBM
under
this
exemptions
would
be
subject
to
the
reporting
requirements
outlined
in
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13).
These
reporting
requirements
are
as
follows:
Laboratory
distributors/
suppliers
must
report
quarterly
the
quantity
received
of
each
class
I
controlled
substance
from
each
producer
or
importer.
Distributors
must
also
keep
on
record
certifications
from
customers
who
purchase
CBM
(
or
any
Class
I
ODS)
stating
that
the
CBM
will
only
be
used
in
laboratory
applications
defined
in
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13),
Appendix
G.
(
Laboratory
customers
purchasing
a
controlled
substance
under
the
global
laboratory
essential­
use
exemption
must
provide
the
producer,

importer
or
distributor
with
a
one­
time­
per­
year
certification
for
each
controlled
substance
that
the
substance
will
only
be
used
for
laboratory
applications
and
not
be
resold
or
used
in
manufacturing).

Distributors
must
report
quarterly
the
quantity
of
the
controlled
substance
purchased
by
each
laboratory
customer.
If
the
controlled
substances
are
only
sold
as
reference
standards
for
calibrating
laboratory
23
analytical
equipment,
the
distributor
may
write
a
letter
to
the
EPA
Administrator
requesting
permission
to
submit
these
reports
annually
rather
than
quarterly.
See
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
A
(
§
82.13)
for
complete
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

V.
What
other
stratospheric
protection
regulations
will
relate
to
CBM
following
today's
proposed
action?

A
regulation
originally
published
on
February
11,
1993
(
58
FR
8136)
and
amended
at
60
FR
4020
(
January
19,
1995)
establishes
requirements
pertaining
to
labeling
of
products
containing
or
made
with
ozone­
depleting
substances.
The
text
of
that
regulation
(
as
well
as
Fact
Sheets
about
it)
can
be
found
at
the
following
web
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
title6/
labeling/
labeling.
html.
The
labeling
requirements
apply
to
products
manufactured
with,
containers
of,
and
products
containing
specific
ozone­
depleting
substances
pursuant
to
section
611of
the
CAAA.
Specifically,
the
regulations
require
products
that
are
manufactured
with
a
process
using
a
class
I
substance;
products
containing
a
class
I
substance;
and
containers
of
a
class
I
or
class
II
(
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(
HCFCs))
substance
or
mixture
to
bear
a
"
clearly
legible
and
conspicuous"
warning
statement.
Manufacturers,
distributors,
wholesalers,
and
retailers
of
products
manufactured
with,
containers
of,
and
products
containing
CBM
would
therefore
be
required
to
comply
with
the
labeling
requirements
which
would
become
applicable
to
CBM
one
year
after
its
final
listing
as
a
class
I
ODS;
See
40
CFR
Part
82,
Subpart
E.

VI.
What
are
the
supporting
analyses?

A.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.

Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
24
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Section
204
of
the
UMRA
requires
the
Agency
to
develop
a
process
to
allow
elected
State,
local,
and
tribal
government
officials
to
provide
input
in
the
development
of
any
proposal
containing
a
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandate.

Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
Today's
proposed
ban
on
production
and
import
is
expected
to
have
minimal
economic
impact
because
production
and
import
for
feedstock
uses
(
which
represent
the
majority
of
current
production
and
import
uses)
are
exempt
from
the
ban.
Furthermore,
CBM
use
has
been
largely
curtailed
by
prior
environmental
and
safety
regulations
in
the
fire
protection,
explosion
suppression,
and
solvent
sectors.
Therefore
the
proposed
ban
of
CBM
is
not
expected
to
significantly
affect
the
regulated
community.

Based
upon
research
and
information
available
to
EPA
at
this
time,
EPA
understands
that
the
regulated
community
directly
impacted
by
today's
proposed
action
is
restricted
in
size.
Potentially
regulated
entities
include
entities
that
produce,
export,
or
import
CBM;
entities
that
use
CBM
in
a
process
that
results
in
its
transformation
or
destruction;
entities
that
are
laboratory
suppliers
of
CBM;
and
entities
with
laboratory
uses
of
CBM.
For
all
of
these
entities,
there
would
be
new
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
imposed
by
today's
proposed
action,
but
these
are
estimated
to
be
minimal
(
approximately
25
a
total
for
the
industry
of
$
200,000
per
year;
see
VII.
B.
for
explanation
of
this
estimate).

Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
or
205
of
the
UMRA.

EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
are
expected
to
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments;
therefore,
we
are
not
required
to
develop
a
plan
with
regard
to
small
governments
under
section
203.
Finally,
because
this
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
a
significant
intergovernmental
mandate,
the
Agency
is
not
required
to
develop
a
process
to
obtain
input
from
elected
State,
local,
and
tribal
officials
under
section
204.

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
USC
601
et
seq.

The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
that
is
identified
by
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
Code
in
the
Table
below;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
The
size
standards
described
in
this
section
apply
to
all
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
programs
unless
otherwise
specified.
The
size
standards
themselves
are
expressed
either
in
number
of
employees
or
annual
receipts
in
millions
of
dollars,
unless
otherwise
specified.
The
number
of
employees
or
annual
receipts
indicates
the
maximum
allowed
for
a
concern
and
its
affiliates
to
be
considered
small.
26
Category
SIC
Code
NAICS
Code
SIC
small
business
size
standard
(
in
number
of
employees
or
millions
of
dollars)

1.
Industrial
organic
chemicals,
NEC
2.
Pharmaceutical
preparations
3.
Pesticides
and
agricultural
chemicals,
NEC
4.
Chemicals
and
allied
products,
NEC
5.
Testing
laboratories,
except
veterinary
testing
labs
6.
Medical
and
diagnostic
laboratories
7.
Research
and
development
in
the
physical,

engineering
and
life
sciences
2869
2834
2879
5169
8734
8071
8731
and
8733
325199
325412
32532
42269
54138
6215
54171
1,000
750
500
100
$
5.0
$
5.0
$
5.0
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
proposed
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

Briefly,
the
following
entities
may
potentially
be
affected
by
this
regulation:
entities
that
produce,

export,
or
import
CBM;
entities
that
use
CBM
in
a
process
that
results
in
its
transformation
or
destruction;

entities
that
are
laboratory
suppliers
of
CBM;
and
entities
with
laboratory
uses
of
CBM.
For
all
these
entities,
there
are
new
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
imposed
by
today's
proposed
action.

See
the
section
entitled
"
Paperwork
Reduction
Act."
It
is
estimated
that
total
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
will
cost
approximately
an
industry­
wide
total
of
$
200,000
for
the
universe
of
potentially
regulated
entities,
consisting
of
approximately
130
companies.

In
addition
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements,
today's
proposed
action
bans
the
production
and
import
of
CBM.
There
are
only
2
known
producers
of
CBM
in
the
United
States.
These
27
are
large,
multinational
corporations
and
not
small
entities.
In
addition,
informal
discussions
with
these
producers
indicate
that
virtually
all
of
their
CBM
production
is
for
customers
who
transform
CBM;
this
production
is
not
subject
to
the
CBM
phaseout
implemented
by
today's
proposed
action.
Regarding
import,
EPA
records
indicate
that
during
the
years
1995­
1999
(
the
years
for
which
data
were
available),

22
companies
had
imported
CBM
during
one
or
more
years.
Of
these,
16
had
imported
CBM
in
only
one
of
the
5
years
of
record.
Informal
discussions
with
the
primary
importer
(
responsible
for
77%
of
the
imported
CBM)
indicate
that
80­
85%
of
their
imports
are
for
transformation.
Thus,
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
action
on
CBM
importers
will
also
be
limited
(
providing
that
import
is
from
countries
that
are
Parties
to
or
in
compliance
with
the
Beijing
Amendments).
EPA
sent
letters
on
February
28,
2001,
and
again
on
April
25,
2001,
to
all
importers
for
which
addresses
could
be
found,
as
well
as
others,
notifying
them
of
EPA's
anticipated
implementation
of
the
1999
Beijing
Amendments
to
the
Montreal
Protocol,

including
the
ban
on
production
and
import,
and
new
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.
To
date,
no
adverse
concern
has
been
expressed
by
any
small
business
recipient
of
the
letter.

Today's
proposed
action
also
bans
trade
in
CBM
with
countries
which
are
not
Parties
to
or
in
compliance
with
the
Beijing
Amendments
to
the
Montreal
Protocol.
EPA
believes
that
this
provision
of
today's
proposed
rule
will
not
significantly
impact
the
regulated
community
because
extremely
limited
demand
is
believed
to
exist
for
non­
feedstock
purposes,
as
explained
in
earlier
sections
of
this
Preamble,
and
because
it
is
expected
that
demand
for
CBM
for
feedstock
purposes
could
potentially
be
met
by
domestic
production.

Although
this
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
notes
that
it
has
conducted
outreach
to
consult
with
and
notify
the
potentially
affected
community
of
today's
proposed
action.

C.
Executive
Order
12866
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
this
proposed
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
a
"
significant"
regulatory
action
as
one
that
is
28
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

(
1)
have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more,
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review.

D.
Applicability
of
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045:
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"

(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"

as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5­
501
of
the
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
implements
an
obligation
of
the
United
States
to
implement
fully
the
provisions
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
is
not
directly
based
on
health
or
safety
risks.
3On
March
5,
2001,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
approved
EPA's
request
for
the
extension
of
approval
of
this
ICR.
The
request
for
extension
was
submitted
by
EPA
on
November
29,
2000.
With
that
approval,
OMB
stated
that
it
"
understands
that
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
developing
several
rules
that
would
result
in
revisions
to
this
collection...
EPA
will
need
to
revise
this
collection
as
part
of
those
rulemaking
processes."
This
ICR
revision
is
one
such
revision.

29
E.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
will
be
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.

An
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
1432.
22)
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
email
at
auby.
susan
@
epa.
gov
,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566­
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr..
The
information
requirements
are
not
enforceable
until
OMB
has
approved
them.

As
explained
in
EPA's
ICR
document,
EPA's
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
is
revising
the
previously
approved
information
collection
by
the
same
title.
3
Today's
proposed
action
will
impose
new
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
associated
with
the
production,
import,
export,
recycling,

destruction,
transhipment,
and
feedstock
use
of
CBM.
Specifically,
producers,
importers,
and
exporters
will
be
required
to
submit
to
EPA
quarterly
reports
of
the
quantity
of
CBM
in
each
of
their
transactions;

they
will
also
be
required
to
report
the
quantity
of
CBM
transformed
or
destroyed.
Producers,
importers,

and
exporters
of
CBM
must
also
maintain
records
such
as
Customs
entry
forms,
bills
of
lading,
sales
records,
and
canceled
checks
to
support
their
quarterly
reports.
The
quarterly
reports
may
be
faxed
or
mailed
to
EPA,
where
they
will
be
handled
as
confidential
business
information.
EPA
will
store
the
submitted
information
in
a
computerized
database
designed
to
track
production,
import,
and
export
balances
and
transfer
activities.
EPA
is
currently
exploring
the
possibility
of
having
reports
filled
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
over
a
secure
Web
site.
If
and
when
electronic
reporting
would
occur,
EPA
would
change
its
guidance
document
and
its
ICR
to
indicate
a
change
in
burden
hours.
EPA
will
use
the
information
to
ensure
that
the
U.
S.
maintains
compliance
with
the
Protocol
requirements
and
to
report
annually
to
United
Nations
Environment
Programme
the
U.
S.
activity
in
CBM.
EPA
will
store
the
30
submitted
information
in
a
computer
system
designed
to
track
production,
import,
and
export
balances
and
transfer
activities.
EPA
estimates
that
the
information
collection
will
involve
approximately
133
respondents:
2
producers,
2
exporters,
8
importers,
100
laboratory
certifiers,
8
transformers
and
destroyers,
6
essential
use
allowance
holders,
2
laboratory
suppliers,
and
5
laboratory
suppliers
(
reference
standards).
The
total
annual
industry
burden
and
cost
are
estimated
at
2,580
hours
and
$
201,350,
of
which
$
3,000
are
annual
operating
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,

maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,

NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
"
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA."
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
[
INSERT
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
[
INSERT
DATE
30
DAYS
AFTER
PUBLICATION
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
31
F.
Executive
Order
13132
(
Federalism)

Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

This
proposed
rule
will
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.

Today's
proposed
rule
is
expected
to
primarily
affect
private
sector
entities
that
either
produce,

import,
export,
transform,
or
use
or
supply
CBM
for
laboratory
purposes.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
current
uses
of
CBM
by
public
sector
entities.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13175
(
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments)

Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments"

(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes."

This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
32
in
Executive
Order
13175.

Today's
proposed
rule
is
expected
to
primarily
affect
private
sector
entities
that
either
produce,

import,
export,
transform,
or
use
or
supply
CBM
for
laboratory
purposes.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
current
uses
of
CBM
by
tribal
governments
or
their
communities.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13175,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
tribal
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

H.
The
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
("
NTTAA"),
Public
Law
No.
104­
113,
Section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
Today's
proposed
action
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

I.
Executive
Order
13211
(
Energy
Effects)

This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use,"
(
66
FR
28355
(
5/
22/
01))
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.
33
List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
82
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Chemicals,

Chlorobromomethane,
Exports,
Imports,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Halon,
Ozone
layer.

____________________

Dated:
October
18,
2002.

_______________________________

Christine
Todd
Whitman,

Administrator.
34
For
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
40
CFR
Part
82
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
82­
PROTECTION
OF
STRATOSPHERIC
OZONE
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
82
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7414,
7601,
7671­
7671q.

Subpart
A
­
Production
and
Consumption
Controls
2.
Section
82.3
is
amended
by:

a.
Adding
in
alphabetical
order
the
definition
of
Beijing
Amendments.

b.
Revising
the
last
sentence
in
the
definition
of
Controlled
substances.

The
revision
and
addition
read
as
follows:

§
82.3
Definitions.

*****

Beijing
Amendments
means
the
Montreal
Protocol,
as
amended
at
the
Eleventh
Meeting
of
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
in
Beijing
in
1999.

*****

Controlled
substance
***
Class
I
substances
are
further
divided
into
eight
groups,
Group
I,
Group
II,

Group
III,
Group
IV,
Group
V,
Group
VI,
Group
VII,
and
Group
VIII,
as
set
forth
in
appendix
A
to
this
subpart.
35
*****

3.
Section
82.4
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(
b),

b.
Revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(
d),

c.
Adding
paragraph
(
l)(
5).

The
revisions
and
addition
read
as
follows:

§
82.4
Prohibitions.

*****

(
b)
Effective
January
1,
1996,
for
any
class
I,
Group
I,
Group
II,
Group
III,
Group
IV,
Group
V,
or
Group
VII
controlled
substances,
and
effective
January
1,
2005,
for
any
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance,

and
effective
[
Insert
date
30
DAYS
FROM
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
FEDERAL
REGISTER],

for
any
class
I,
Group
VIII
controlled
substance,
no
person
may
produce,
at
any
time
in
any
control
period,
(
except
that
are
transformed
or
destroyed
domestically
or
by
a
person
of
another
Party)
in
excess
of
the
amount
of
conferred
unexpended
essential­
use
allowances
or
exemptions
under
this
section,
or
the
amount
of
unexpended
Article
5
allowances
as
allocated
under
§
82.9
for
that
substance
held
by
that
person
under
the
authority
of
this
subpart
at
that
time
for
that
control
period.
***

*****

(
d)
Effective
January
1,
1996,
for
any
class
I,
Group
I,
Group
II,
Group
III,
Group
IV,
Group
V,
or
Group
VII
controlled
substances,
and
effective
January
1,
2005,
for
any
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance,

and
effective
[
Insert
date
30
DAYS
FROM
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
FEDERAL
REGISTER]

for
any
class
I,
Group
VIII
controlled
substance,
no
person
may
import
(
except
for
transhipments
or
heels),
at
any
time
in
any
control
period,
(
except
for
controlled
substances
that
are
transformed
or
36
destroyed)
in
excess
of
the
amount
of
unexpended
essential­
use
allowances
or
exemptions
as
allocated
under
this
section
for
that
substance
held
by
that
person
under
the
authority
of
this
subpart
at
that
time
for
that
control
period.
***

*****

(
l)
***

(
5)
Import
or
export
any
quantity
of
a
controlled
substance
listed
in
Class
I,
Group
VIII,
in
Appendix
A
to
this
subpart,
from
or
to
any
foreign
state
not
Party
to
the
Beijing
Amendments
(
as
noted
in
Appendix
C,

Annex
1,
to
this
subpart),
unless
that
foreign
state
is
complying
with
the
Beijing
Amendments
(
as
noted
in
Appendix
C,
Annex
2,
to
this
subpart).

*****

4.
Section
82.13
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
paragraph
(
a).

b.
Revising
paragraph
(
f)(
1)
introductory
text.

The
revisions
read
as
follows:

§
82.13
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.

(
a)
Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
set
forth
in
this
section
take
effect
on
January
1,
1995.
For
class
I,
Group
VIII
controlled
substances,
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
set
forth
in
this
section
take
effect
on
[
Insert
date
30
DAYS
FROM
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
37
*****

(
f)***

(
1)
Within
120
days
of
May
10,
1995,
or
within
120
days
of
the
date
that
a
producer
first
produces
a
class
I
controlled
substance,
whichever
is
later,
and
within
120
days
of
[
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE]

for
class
I,
Group
VIII
controlled
substances,
every
producer
who
has
not
already
done
so
must
submit
to
the
Administrator
a
report
describing:

*****

5.
Appendix
A
to
Subpart
A
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
H.
to
read
as
follows:

Appendix
A
to
Subpart
A
of
Part
82
 
Class
1
Controlled
Substances
Class
1
controlled
substances
ODP
*****

H.
Group
VIII:

CH
2
BrCl
(
Chlorobromomethane)
0.12
6.
Appendix
C
to
Subpart
A
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

Appendix
C
to
Subpart
A
of
Part
82
 
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol,
and
Nations
Complying
With,
But
Not
Parties
To,
The
Protocol
Annex
1
to
Appendix
C
of
Subpart
A
­­
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
(
as
of
January
24,
2002)
38
The
check
mark
[

]
means
the
particular
country
ratified
the
Protocol
or
the
specific
Amendment
package.
Amendment
packages
are
identified
by
the
name
of
the
city
where
the
amendment
package
was
negotiated
and
agreed.
Updated
lists
of
Parties
to
the
Protocol
and
the
Amendments
can
be
located
at:
www.
unep.
org/
ozone/
ratif.
shtml.

Foreign
State
Montreal
Protocol
London
Amendments
Copenhagen
Amendments
Montreal
Amendments
Beijing
Amendments
Albania

Algeria



Angola

Antigua
and
Barbuda




Argentina




Armenia

Australia




Austria




Azerbaijan




Bahamas



Bahrain




Bangladesh




Barbados



Belarus


Belgium



Belize



Benin



Bolivia




Bosnia
and
Herzegovina

Botswana



Brazil



Brunei
Darussalam

Bulgaria




Burkina
Faso



Foreign
State
Montreal
Protocol
London
Amendments
Copenhagen
Amendments
Montreal
Amendments
Beijing
Amendments
39
Burundi





Cambodia

Cameroon



Canada





Cape
Verde




Central
African
Republic

Chad




Chile





China


Colombia



Comoros


Congo





Congo,
Democratic
Republic
of



Costa
Rica



Cote
d'Ivoire


Croatia




Cuba



Cyprus


Czech
Republic





Denmark



Djibouti




Dominica


Dominican
Republic



Ecuador



Egypt




El
Salvador




Estonia



Ethiopia

Foreign
State
Montreal
Protocol
London
Amendments
Copenhagen
Amendments
Montreal
Amendments
Beijing
Amendments
40
European
Community




Federated
States
of
Micronesia





Fiji



Finland





France



Gabon





Gambia


Georgia




Germany





Ghana



Greece



Grenada




Guatemala





Guinea


Guyana




Haiti




Honduras



Hungary




Iceland




India


Indonesia



Iran,
Islamic




Ireland



Israel



Italy




Jamaica



Japan



Jordan





Kazakhstan


Foreign
State
Montreal
Protocol
London
Amendments
Copenhagen
Amendments
Montreal
Amendments
Beijing
Amendments
41
Kenya




Kiribati

Korea,
Democratic
People's
Republic
of





Korea,
Republic
of




Kuwait



Kyrgyzstan

Lao,
People's
Democratic
Republic

Latvia



Lebanon




Lesotho

Liberia



Libyan
Arab
Jamahiriya


Liechtenstein



Lithuania



Luxembourg





Madagascar





Malawi



Malaysia





Maldives




Mali


Malta


Marshall
Islands



Mauritania

Mauritius



Mexico



Moldova



Monaco




Mongolia



Foreign
State
Montreal
Protocol
London
Amendments
Copenhagen
Amendments
Montreal
Amendments
Beijing
Amendments
42
Morocco



Mozambique



Myanmar


Namibia


Nauru

Nepal


Netherlands





New
Zealand





Nicaragua



Niger




Nigeria




Norway





Oman



Pakistan



Palau





Panama




Papua
New
Guinea


Paraguay




Peru



Philippines



Poland




Portugal



Qatar



Romania




Russian
Federation


Rwanda

Saint
Kitts
&
Nevis




Saint
Lucia





Saint
Vincent
and
the
Grenadines



Foreign
State
Montreal
Protocol
London
Amendments
Copenhagen
Amendments
Montreal
Amendments
Beijing
Amendments
43
Samoa





Sao
Tome
and
Principe





Saudi
Arabia



Senegal




Seychelles



Sierra
Leone





Singapore




Slovakia




Slovenia




Solomon
Island




Somalia





South
Africa



Spain




Sri
Lanka




Sudan



Suriname

Swaziland

Sweden




Switzerland



Syrian
Arab
Republic




Tajikistan


Tanzania,
United
Republic
of


Thailand



The
Former
Yugoslav
Republic
of
Macedonia




Togo





Tonga

Trinidad
and
Tobago




Foreign
State
Montreal
Protocol
London
Amendments
Copenhagen
Amendments
Montreal
Amendments
Beijing
Amendments
44
Tunisia




Turkey



Turkmenistan


Tuvalu




Uganda




Ukraine


United
Arab
Emirates

United
Kingdom





United
States
of
America



Uruguay




Uzbekistan



Vanuatu



Venezuela



Viet
Nam



Yemen




Yugoslavia

Zambia


Zimbabwe



Annex
2
to
Appendix
C
of
Subpart
A
­­
Nations
Complying
with,
But
Not
Parties
to,

the
Protocol
[
Reserved]

7.
Appendix
F
to
Subpart
A
is
amended
by:

a.
Removing
entries
F
and
G,

b.
Under
A.
Class
I:
by
adding
entries
6,
7,
and
8.

The
additions
read
as
follows:

Appendix
F
to
Subpart
A­­
Listing
of
Ozone
Depleting
Chemicals
45
Controlled
Substance
ODP
AT
L
CLP
BLP
A.
Class
I
*****

6.
Group
VI:

CH3Br­
Bromomethane
(
Methyl
Bromide)
0.7
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

7.
Group
VII:

CHFBr2­
1.00
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

CHF2Br­(
HBFC­
22B1)
0.74
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

CH2FBr...........................................................
0.73
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2HFBr4
0.3
­
0.8
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2HF2Br3
0.5
­
1.8
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2HF3Br2..........................................................
0.4
­
16
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2HF4Br
0.7
­
1.2
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2H2FBr3
0.1
­
1.1
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2H2F2Br2........................................................
0.2
­
1.5
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2H2F3Br
0.7
­
1.6
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2H3FBr2
0.1
­
1.7
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2H3F2Br.........................................................
0.2
­
1.1
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C2H4FBr
0.07
­
0.1
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3HFBr6
0.3
­
1.5
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3HF2Br5.........................................................
0.2
­
1.9
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3HF3Br4
0.3
­
1.8
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3HF4Br3
0.5
­
2.2
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­
46
C3HF5Br2.........................................................
0.9
­
2.0
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3HF6Br
0.7
­
3.3
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H2FBr5
0.1
­
1.9
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H2F2Br4.......................................................
0.2
­
2.1
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H2F3Br3
0.2
­
5.6
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H2F4Br2
0.3
­
7.5
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H2F5Br.........................................................
0.9
­
1.4
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H3FBR4
0.08
­
1.9
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H3F2Br3
0.1
­
3.1
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H3F3Br2........................................................
0.1
­
2.5
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H3F4Br
0.3
­
4.4
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H4FBr3
0.03
­
0.3
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H4F2Br2........................................................
0.1
­
1.0
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H4F3Br
0.07
­
0.8
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H5FBr2
0.04
­
0.4
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H5F2Br.........................................................
0.07
­
0.8
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­

C3H6FB
0.02
­
0.7
­­­
[
reserved]
C
8.
Group
VIII:

CH2BrCl
(
Chlorobromomethane)
0.12
­­­
[
reserved]
­­­­­
