unexpected emissions of CFC-11 measured in the atmosphere \27\ and
concern from commenters regarding potential for misuse of the petition
process, the Agency is finalizing revisions that are narrower than the
proposal and is only providing this flexibility for halon banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For more information, see the discussion in section III.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's decision is based in part on the need for used halons
exceeding the need for other used class I ODS. The Montreal Protocol's
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) issued a report in
September 2018, available in the docket, noting continued demand for
halons, in particular for servicing fire suppression equipment for
civilian aviation.\28\ Civil aircraft will continue to need halon to
meet fire protection requirements for lavatory bottles, handheld
extinguishers, engine nacelles, auxiliary power units, and cargo
compartments \29\ until there is a transition to alternatives for all
applications on new aircraft as well as to service the civil aircraft
fleet. The EPA agrees with the comment that there is a large installed
base of fire suppression equipment that requires future servicing and
retrofitting that equipment to use alternatives may not always be
feasible, and this point supports its decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ UNEP. (2018) Montreal Protocol on Substances on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel. September 2018 Volume 2 Decision XXIX/8 on the
Future Availability of Halons and their Alternatives; pg. 1-32.
Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/index.php.
    \29\ FAA (2004). ``FAA Halon ARC Final Report Findings &
Recommendations'' Halon Replacement Aviation Rulemaking Committee;
pg. 1-49. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/browse/committeeID/397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since production and consumption of halons were phased out in the
United States and other non-Article 5 countries in 1994, many
countries, organizations, and private sector companies established
halon banks, which are physical locations where previously-used and
recovered halons are aggregated from different sources and stored.\30\
The EPA agrees with the comment that banks do not typically have the
complete information required by the EPA's petition process. When a
used ODS is imported for reuse under the existing process, the import
petition must contain information about the used ODS including contact
information from each source facility from which the material was
recovered and the name, make, and model number of the equipment from
which the material was recovered. Petitioners sourcing used ODS from
banks, therefore, rarely have enough records to provide all the
information required in the petition process, and as a result the
petitions are subject to denial. In considering these comments, the
Agency recognizes that providing increased flexibility for halons,
while still allowing the Agency to verify that only used material is
being imported, allows for halon to be more easily sourced from
overseas banks, increasing halon available to service aircraft, oil and
gas facilities, and other fire suppression applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Halons were phased out in Article 5 countries in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide further response to the comment expressing concern that
reducing the requirements for import petitions for used ODS could lead
to potential misuse of the petition process, the Agency notes that it
will continue to be able to request additional information from
petitioners sourcing halon from banks. For instance, the Agency may
request additional information on whether the country where the halon
bank is located has production of halon for feedstock use or stockpiles
of virgin halon. If petitioners fail to respond to requests from the
Agency for additional information, the EPA may issue an objection
notice on that basis, as clarified in revisions to 40 CFR
82.13(g)(3)(i)(A) finalized in this rulemaking.
    HRC also commented that restricting this relief to government banks
or banks authorized by a national government unnecessarily limits its
effectiveness. HRC states that national government ODS banks are not
usually a source for

halons for civilian uses because they are designated for military use,
and many national governments do not ``authorize'' privately-operated
banks or reclamation facilities. HRC suggests the EPA define bank as
``a facility run by a national government or privately run that
collects and stores previously-recovered ozone-depleting substances for
reuse at a later date.''
    The EPA disagrees with the comment that the Agency amend the
definition of ``halon bank'' to include privately-run banks regardless
of whether they are government authorized. While the EPA supports the
notion of providing more flexibility for imports of used halon to meet
ongoing demand for halon, the Agency does not have sufficient
information about the nature of such banks to determine whether or not
such an expansion is appropriate at this time. In particular, the
Agency would need to further consider whether it is possible to provide
such flexibility while ensuring that doing so does not create an avenue
for illegal imports of virgin halon into the United States. This is
particularly important given the existence of stockpiles of virgin
halon, for example halon 1211,\31\ and the ongoing production of halon
for use as a feedstock.\32\ The Agency may consider if there are ways
to establish such flexibility while ensuring compliance with the CAA
and Montreal Protocol and may decide that it is appropriate to propose
additional changes in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ UNEP (2014). TEAP Report of the Halons Technical Options
Committee Vol. 3 2014 Supplementary Report #2 Global Halon 1211,
1301, and 2402 Banking. Available at https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/HTOC%202014%20Supplementary%20Report2%20-%20Global%20Halon%201211%201301%20and%202402%20Banking.pdf.
    \32\ UNEP (2018). TEAP 2018 Assessment Report. Available at
http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-41/presession/Background-Documents/TEAP_2018_Assessment_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is thus revising the regulations at 40 CFR 82.3 to add a
definition for ``halon bank'' to mean a facility run by a national
government or privately run and authorized by a national government
that collects and stores previously-recovered halon for reuse at a
later date. As described in 40 CFR 82.13(g)(2)(iii) and (xv), if used
halon is stored in a halon bank, the petitioner need not provide
certain source information, though the petitioner should provide it if
available so as to better allow the EPA to verify that the halon is
used. The petitioner must indicate that the halon is from a halon bank
by providing an official letter from the appropriate government agency
in the country where the material is stored indicating that the halon
is used and that the halon bank is authorized to collect used halon.
The letter may also provide any additional information available to
help demonstrate that the halon is used. Providing this official
letter, does not mean that the EPA will automatically approve the
petition as the EPA retains the right to request additional information
and/or issue an objection notice if the information is insufficient.
    With regards to the petition process for used ODS more generally
(including petitions for used halons from halon banks), the EPA is
finalizing as proposed a provision stating that the Agency may request
other information to verify substances are used before issuing a non-
objection notice. This information could include, but is not limited
to: Photos of each unit that contained the used ODS, with serial
numbers visible; photos of a representative sample of the cylinders,
with serial numbers visible; a description of the facility from which
the used ODS originates, including information regarding what is
produced at the facility, the location of the facility, and how long
the facility has been in the location; a description of each unit from
which the used ODS originates; links to websites showing brochures,
photographs, and/or descriptions of each different unit from which the
used ODS originates; copies of the original, signed work orders
authorizing collecting of the used ODS; copies of the paperwork showing
that the company completed the work; copies of payment to the company
that collected the used ODS for their services, with redactions for
confidential or sensitive information such as bank account numbers;
copies of business licenses from the government authorizing collection
companies to do this type of work; and information on how transport
will occur within the exporting country and to the United States. For
used ODS from Europe, the EPA could request a screenshot of the
European Commission export license; the name and contact information
for the European Commission official who signed the Export License; and
copies of all paperwork required for movement within the European
Union, such as the ``Notification document for transboundary movement/
shipments of waste.''
    The EPA is not collecting all such information for each petition
and thus is not revising the regulatory text to require that it be
provided in every petition. However, the Agency does wish to provide
notice to petitioners that it may request additional information to
confirm that the ODS is used and, as proposed, is amending the
regulations in this rulemaking at 40 CFR 82.13(g)(3)(i)(A) to make
clear that failure to provide such information when requested would be
grounds for issuing an objection notice.
    In response to a statement in the proposal that purity sampling
might be among the information the Agency might request in considering
a petition to import used ODS, the Agency received comments from HRC
requesting that the EPA not request purity sampling of used ODS for
import as a method of determining whether an ODS is new or used. The
commenter states that requesting this information for halons would be
ineffective and in the case of used system cylinders possibly
dangerous. HRC describes how used halons are often imported in the
original system cylinders (some of which can be 20 to 40 years old).
These cylinders may have actuation methods that are explosive in nature
as they are intended to release the contents of the cylinder in ten
seconds or less. They also have pressures as high as 600 pounds per
square inch and if actuated accidentally can be extremely dangerous.
HRC states that there is no safe way to sample these cylinders for
purity testing without completely emptying the contents of the
cylinder. HRC acknowledges that halon stored in bulk tanks can be
sampled and purity information could be provided but asserts that this
would not be an effective method to distinguish between new and used
halons because in some cases used halons are imported in bulk after
being reclaimed to industry specifications, and purity sampling could
result in these halons being deemed to be new when they are actually
used.
    The Agency has considered the comments from HRC and agrees that
requiring halon purity testing in some cases could unintentionally
cause the inadvertent release of halons. As a result of the comments,
the Agency now understands that purity sampling of halon held in bulk
containers is almost always available and could be useful in limited
situations in combination with other information to help verify the
material is used. Therefore, the EPA intends to limit any purity
testing requests to halon that is in bulk containers or in other
situations where the purity testing should not result in unintended
releases of halons.
    HRC also commented on the Agency's proposal to allow for an
application for an export license in lieu of an actual

export license. The commenter states that some national governments do
not provide such licenses and requests that the EPA remove the
provision in 40 CFR 82.13(g)(2)(xii). For example, as noted in the
proposal Canada, the largest exporter of used ODS to the United States,
requires the EPA to approve the export before they issue an export
license. As such, petitioners are only able to provide the submitted
application for an export license with their petition. Considering
this, as noted in the proposal, the Agency has worked with Canada to
accept the submitted application in lieu of the export license.
However, as HRC notes, there may be other countries that also require
approval prior to export from the importing country such as a non-
objection notice.
    The EPA recognizes that some countries, including the United
States, do not require or provide export licenses. However, most
governments do provide some form of acknowledgement, such as a letter
from a national ozone unit noting the ability to export or even an
email acknowledgement. The Agency does not find it appropriate to
remove all forms of acknowledgement from the exporting government in
the petition process and disagrees with the suggestion to remove 40 CFR
82.13(g)(2)(xii). An official communication from the government
acknowledging the export helps ensure the petitioned amount is equal to
or less than the amount that arrives at the United States port of
entry. This process also allows for the government of the exporting
country to evaluate the effects of the export on their own fire
suppression sector and hold consultations ahead of concurring with the
export. Therefore, the Agency is amending 40 CFR 82.13(g)(2) and
82.24(c)(3) to allow importers of used class I and class II substances,
respectively, to provide in lieu of an export license, as is required
under the existing regulations, either an application for an export
license or an official communication from the appropriate government
agency. The option of providing an official communication is a change
from the proposal, resulting from the information provided by the
commenter highlighting for the EPA that some governments do not require
or provide export licenses. As proposed, the EPA is also finalizing a
requirement for an English translation of the export license
application, export license, or official communication to facilitate
the Agency's review.
    The Agency also received a comment from American Pacific, which
states they could better meet the servicing demand for the HCFC-123-
based fire suppression agent Halotron[supreg] I if the Agency
establishes a streamlined petition process for importing recycled HCFC-
123. American Pacific asserts that source requirements for class II
substances in 40 CFR 82.24(c)(3)(iv) are disproportionally burdensome
and hinder any recycled HCFC-123 import opportunity. Based on American
Pacific's consultations with major recyclers and reclaimers of HCFC-
123, the commenter states that many reclaimers find the source
information requirements to be extremely burdensome. In response to
comments supporting waiving source information for class II substances,
the EPA notes that it did not propose to relax the import petition
requirements for class II ODS. The Agency concludes that it would not
be appropriate to extend this exemption to class II substances at this
time because of continued global production of these substances and
thus the greater likelihood that virgin material may be illegally
imported into the United States under the guise of being used. Source
information requirements help to ensure that the imported substance is
used by documenting for example the name, make, and model numbers of
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment from which the class II
substance was removed. The Agency has consistently taken measures to
avoid illegal imports of virgin ODS and has typically only considered
relaxing any import requirements for used material after production and
consumption phaseouts. The EPA may consider proposing to extend
exemptions for source requirements in 40 CFR 82.24(c)(3)(iii) through
(vi) for class II substances or otherwise providing flexibility for
these requirements to make the process less burdensome in a subsequent
rulemaking potentially closer to the global production and consumption
phaseout for HCFCs.
    National Refrigerants suggests that the EPA include a provision to
facilitate the import and reclamation of used HFCs that contain a trace
amount of class I ODS. The EPA responds that establishing a process for
importing used HFCs for reclamation is not necessary as no allowances
are needed to import HFCs.\33\ In this circumstance, the importer would
need to petition for the used ODS portion of the mixture. The EPA did
not propose to establish a separate process for importing mixed gases
that contain ODS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Reporting of HFC imports is required under other EPA
regulatory requirements, see https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other aspects of the proposed changes to the import petition
process for used ODS, the EPA did not receive adverse comment. The EPA
is finalizing those proposed changes to the petition process to ensure
accuracy, speed review, and facilitate the import of used ODS, while
maintaining requirements that help assure that the material being
imported is used. In particular, the EPA is updating the requested
contact information by requiring email addresses and removing fax
numbers. The EPA is also requiring that petitioners provide the
commodity code associated with the ODS to be imported. The commodity
codes are classifications for goods and services traded among
countries. This will match the Agency's other import and export
requirements in 40 CFR 82.13(g) and (h) and 82.24(c) and (d) and help
to ensure that the data are correctly entered in Customs and Border
Protection's Automated Commercial Environment and International Trade
Data System (ACE/ITDS).
    As proposed, the EPA is also updating the commodity codes for HCFC-
123 and HCFC-124 in appendix K. The U.S. International Trade Commission
is responsible for periodically updating the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States Annotated (HTSA). The HTSA provides the applicable
tariff rates and statistical categories for all merchandise imported
into the United States. It is based on the international Harmonized
System, the global system of nomenclature that is used to describe most
world trade in goods. This action conforms the commodity codes for
HCFC-123 and HCFC-124 in the appendix with those currently in effect
and in use by the U.S. International Trade Commission.
    The existing regulations for petitions for imports of used material
also require that if the imported substance is intended to be sold as a
refrigerant, the petition must include contact information for the U.S.
reclaimer who will bring the material to the standard required under
section 608 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 82, subpart F,\34\ if it is not
already reclaimed to those specifications. The EPA is finalizing its
proposal to add ``EPA-certified'' to the description of reclamation
facilities in the provisions containing this requirement, 40 CFR
82.13(g)(2)(xiii) and 82.24(c)(3)(xiii). This will highlight

the existing expectation for petitions to import used material to be
sold as a refrigerant that the reclamation facility that will receive
the material in the United States must be EPA-certified.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Clarifications to subpart F are being finalized in 40 CFR
82.13(g)(2)(xiii) to match 40 CFR 82.24(b)(2)(xiii). This was not
addressed in the proposal.
    \35\ The EPA's reclamation program is described at https://www.epa.gov/section608/stationary-refrigeration-refrigerant-reclamation-requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Agency is allowing flexibility for the timing of the
import, which is particularly useful when the Agency issues non-
objection notices towards the end of the year. The EPA previously
required the import to occur in the same control period (i.e., calendar
year) that the non-objection notice was issued. However, this can
result in petitioners postponing their requests until the start of the
next year. To avoid that unnecessary delay, the EPA proposed to provide
importers one year from the date stamped on the non-objection notice to
import that shipment. The EPA received one comment, from HRC, in
support of providing flexibility on the timing of imports. The
commenter states that the requirement that the import occur in the same
calendar year can cause logistical challenges. To avoid such delays and
logistical problems, the EPA is finalizing this change as proposed.
ii. Changes to the Exemption for the Import Petitions Process for
Hydrostatic Testing
    As noted above, the EPA proposed to exempt aircraft halon bottles
containing halon 1211 from the import petitions process when being
imported for hydrostatic testing. The proposal would allow the same
exemption for aircraft halon bottles containing halon 1211 as already
exists for halon 1301 aircraft halon bottles. The EPA received
supportive comments on this proposal from The Alliance and HRC and no
adverse comments; it also received comments suggesting that the
exemption be extended to aircraft halon bottles imported for other
purposes. For the reasons discussed below, the Agency is finalizing the
changes as proposed.
    The existing regulations at 40 CFR 82.3 defined ``aircraft halon
bottle'' \36\ as a vessel used as a component of an aircraft fire
suppression system containing halon 1301. To facilitate the import and
testing of more types of aircraft halon bottles for hydrostatic
testing, the EPA is extending the definition of ``aircraft halon
bottle'' in 40 CFR 82.3 to also include vessels containing halon 1211,
as proposed. Because the existing regulations in 40 CFR 82.13(g)(2)
exempt aircraft halon bottles that are imported for hydrostatic testing
from the import petition process, revising this definition would extend
this exemption to such vessels containing halon 1211. This exemption
facilitates proper maintenance of bottles containing halon 1211 and
allows transit and testing to occur more quickly for such bottles.
Promoting proper maintenance of these additional fire suppression
devices helps ensure the bottles operate correctly to extinguish fires
on aircraft. Proper maintenance of the storage vessels also prevents
the accidental emission of this high-ODP compound. The EPA notes that
the exemption of imports of aircraft halon bottles containing halon
1211 for hydrostatic testing only exempts them from the petition
process. Recordkeeping and reporting are currently required, and will
continue to be required, for the import and export of aircraft halon
bottles. Importers of such bottles also still need to maintain import
records, as set forth in 40 CFR 82.13(g)(1) and submit quarterly
reports within 30 days of the end of the applicable quarter in
accordance with 40 CFR 82.13(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ An aircraft halon bottle is considered a ``used controlled
substance'' as defined in 40 CFR 82.3, which is a controlled
substance that has been recovered from its intended use system (and
may include controlled substances that have been, or may be
subsequently, recycled or reclaimed). Halon is placed into aircraft
halon bottles and the bottles are then inserted into a fire
suppression system. When the system is dismantled or the bottles are
removed from the system, the halon contained in the bottles is
considered used since it was removed from the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HRC comments that halon bottles supplied by aerospace original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to service global aircraft fleets are
sometimes imported into the United States for purposes other than
hydrostatic testing (e.g., spares restocking, customer returns, etc.).
HRC states that such additional purposes tend to be intermittent,
involve limited quantities, and in most cases involve equipment that
was originally exported from the United States by the aerospace OEM. As
such, HRC states they should not be subject to the same level of
scrutiny as other used ODS imports.
    The EPA is not making the revisions suggested in this comment as it
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and the EPA does not have enough
information about restocking or customer returns of aircraft halon
bottles to support such a change. For example, the EPA currently lacks
information on what type of containers would be imported for restocking
or customer returns. Controlled products as defined in 40 CFR 82.3,
which include fire extinguishers, are exempt from the petitions process
because they are not controlled substances, as defined in 40 CFR 82.3.
Aircraft halon bottles are not considered controlled products because
they do not function unless connected to the onboard fire suppression
system. Rather they are components of larger fire suppression systems
used on aircraft (see 74 FR 10185, March 10, 2009). The EPA also lacks
information on how these vessels are currently being imported, such as
whether the imports have historically been approved through the import
petition process, what the quantity of aircraft halon bottles imported
for this purpose might be, and the frequency of petitions by the
aviation industry to determine the burden reduction opportunity. The
EPA also lacks a description of restocking and customer returns and how
this contributes to safety and maintenance of these aircraft halon
bottles. All of this information would be useful in considering whether
to consider proposing a change to the exemption for aircraft halon
bottles in a future rulemaking.
iii. Imports for Destruction
    This portion of the document discusses two sets of changes to the
import process for ODS specifically imported for destruction, which
were proposed and are being finalized.\37\ First, the EPA is
establishing a streamlined approach for importing used ODS for
destruction called the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for
Destruction. Second, the EPA is extending that approach to virgin ODS,
as there was no existing mechanism defined in the regulations for the
EPA to pre-approve import of virgin ODS for destruction. The EPA
received three comments on its proposal to create this process for both
used and virgin ODS. The Agency received supportive comments on a
streamlined approach and extending the approach to virgin material, but
one commenter expresses concern about the potential for illegal
imports. After considering the comments, the Agency is finalizing many
of these provisions as proposed and is also adding requirements to
obtain more information on the chain of custody after ODS is imported
under this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The EPA refers to the import of ODS intended to be
destroyed in the United States throughout this document as ``imports
for destruction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODS from decommissioned equipment, unwanted stockpiles, and
mixtures that are contaminated and cannot be reclaimed are often
imported into the United States for destruction. Facilitating the
destruction of ODS is beneficial to the environment since it averts ODS
emissions into the

atmosphere and thus supports the overarching goal of Title VI to
protect stratospheric ozone. The Montreal Protocol's Scientific
Assessment Panel estimated that capture and destruction of CFC, halon,
and HCFC banks \38\ in 2015 could avoid 1.8 million ODP-weighted metric
tons of future emissions through 2050 and return stratospheric chlorine
levels at mid-latitudes to 1980 levels more than six years sooner than
in the baseline scenario.\39\ The EPA recognizes that there is ongoing
commercial demand for certain substances, as discussed earlier in this
document with respect to halons and other ODS. Some ODS may, however,
be unwanted and thus susceptible to release; this risk may be higher
when they are stored in countries that do not have adequate capability
to properly reclaim or destroy them. A process for the import of ODS
for destruction helps facilitate the destruction of such ODS and
reduces the risk of such releases. Destruction of unwanted ODS in the
United States supports the ongoing availability of destruction options
of ODS worldwide and may also generate revenue for domestic destruction
facilities.\40\ More information on the destruction facilities that
destroy ODS and their technologies is available in the report in the
docket titled ``U.S. Destruction in the United States and Abroad.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As used here, ``banks'' refers to the total ODS that have
already been manufactured but not yet released to the atmosphere.
This can include ODS contained within closed cell foams, installed
in appliances, held in original containers, etc. This definition is
broader than the definition of the term ``halon bank'' being
finalized in this action.
    \39\ UNEP. (2014) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014
World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project--Report No. 55 pg. 1-416. Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/report.html.
    \40\ EPA. (2018) ``U.S. Destruction in the United States and
Abroad'' pg. 1-63. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/ods-destruction-in-the-us-and-abroad_feb2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the EPA's petition process for the import of
used ODS is designed to allow the Agency to verify prior use of the
material so that virgin ODS are not entering the United States under
the pretense of being ``used.'' Under the existing regulations at 40
CFR 82.13(g)(2) and 82.24(c)(4), anyone wishing to import used class I
or class II ODS, respectively, for destruction must submit a petition
providing the same information as for any other petition to import used
ODS. It is then the obligation of the second-party destruction facility
to provide a verification report to the importer or producer that the
material was destroyed (40 CFR 82.13(k) and 82.24(e)). Importers are
required to keep records on imports for destruction of ODS under 40 CFR
82.13(g)(1) and 82.24(c)(2) and to submit quarterly reports, in
accordance with 40 CFR 82.13(g)(4) and 82.24(c)(1). The regulations
contain an exception to the prohibition on import of virgin ODS without
consumption allowances in the case of imports for destruction but do
not provide a specific process for such imports.
    To facilitate the importation of used ODS for destruction, the EPA
proposed to create a new petition process for the import of used and
virgin ODS for destruction, called a Certification of Intent to Import
ODS for Destruction, in 40 CFR 82.13(g)(5) and 82.24(c)(6). Under this
proposed process, the importer would submit the petition at least 30
working days before the shipment's departure from the foreign port.
After review, the EPA would send either a non-objection notice or an
objection notice. The proposed period was shorter than the
corresponding period for the import petition process, which is 40
working days from departure, because the petition would contain less
information for the EPA to review and verify. The proposal was based on
the expectation that 30 working days is enough for the EPA to review
the petition and that this timeframe will not impede the import. The
Agency proposed to use the same objection notice conditions as in the
existing petition process for importing used ODS for reuse, such as if
the petition provides insufficient information or if it contains false
or misleading information. The EPA also proposed to require that the
petitioner submit a destruction verification 30 days after destruction
under 40 CFR 82.13(g)(6) and 82.24(c)(7). The Agency is finalizing the
supporting prohibitions in 40 CFR 82.4(j)(2) and 82.15(b)(3) to
prohibit the import of ODS for destruction without having received a
non-objection notice consistent with the new Certification of Intent to
Import ODS for Destruction.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR 82.4(j)(2) and
82.15(b)(3) included different proposed effective dates. The EPA is
finalizing both changes effective 30 days after publication of the
rule to harmonize these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the public comments received, as described below,
the EPA is finalizing this process largely as proposed. The Agency is
also making some changes to what was proposed based on its
consideration of public comments. In general terms, this new process
omits collecting the detailed source information that is required in
import petitions, as that information is not necessary if the ODS is to
be destroyed. Instead, it is more important for the EPA to collect
information from the petitioner about the destruction. In particular,
the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction finalized in
this rulemaking does not include the following elements (which are
included in the existing import petition process): information about
all previous source facilities from which the ODS was recovered; a
detailed description of the previous use at each source facility and a
best estimate or documents indicating when the specific controlled
substance was put into the equipment at each source facility; a list of
the name, make and model number of the equipment from which the
material was recovered at each source facility; contact information of
all persons to whom the material was transferred or sold after it was
recovered from the source facility; or a description of the intended
use of the ODS.
    The EPA is omitting these information elements because they are
collected for import petitions to verify that the material is used, and
the Agency concludes it is not necessary to verify that ODS is used if
it is being imported for destruction. Simplifying the information
requirements decreases the regulatory burden on existing importers who
followed the import petition process to import used ODS for
destruction. In addition, the information requirements for petitions to
import used ODS had the potential to hinder imports for destruction if
petitioners were unable to provide all the necessary information.
Certain elements, such as information about each piece of equipment or
each source facility from which the controlled substance was removed,
might have been particularly difficult for petitioners to provide
because used controlled substances intended for disposal are often part
of a mixture of chemical waste recovered from a variety of systems and
detailed information pertaining to each system may not be available.
Although the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction
relaxes the information requirements for importing used ODS for
destruction compared to the existing import petition process, the EPA
concludes that this relaxation benefits the environment because
companies wishing to import used ODS into the United States for
destruction will be able to do so more easily, and therefore more used
ODS may be destroyed. This is consistent with the overarching goal of
Title VI to protect stratospheric ozone.

    To better ensure that the ODS is destroyed, the EPA is adding
provisions 40 CFR 82.13(g)(9) and (10) and 82.24(c)(10) and (11) to
require importers and intermediaries that aggregate ODS for destruction
\42\ to keep certain records about the destruction of the ODS. In
particular, the EPA is requiring that importers of ODS for destruction
maintain: A copy of the certificate of intent to import for
destruction; a copy of the non-objection notice; a copy of the export
license, export license application, or official communication from the
appropriate government agency; Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
entry documents for the import that must include the commodity codes;
records of that date, amount, and type of controlled substance sent for
destruction per shipment; an invoice from the destruction facility
verifying shipment was received; and a copy of the destruction
verification. The EPA is requiring that intermediaries maintain:
transactional records that include the name and address of the entity
from whom they received the ODS and to whom they sent the ODS; records
that include the date and quantity of controlled substances received
and sent for destruction; and a copy of the destruction verification if
they are the final aggregator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The discussion of the requirements for intermediaries is
included in the response to the comment received from ClimeCo which
is discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also extending the Certification of Intent to Import ODS
for Destruction to imports of virgin ODS for destruction. While modeled
in large part on the petition to import used ODS, there are also
benefits to facilitating the import of virgin ODS for destruction.
Virgin ODS that are to be destroyed may be imported without consumption
allowances (see 40 CFR 82.4(d) and 82.15(b)). However, under existing
regulations there was no established regulatory mechanism for the EPA
to review and pre-approve those imports. As such, shipments may have
been held at the port while the EPA determined whether the import is in
fact bound for destruction. In some instances, proactive importers have
petitioned the Agency to import virgin ODS for destruction and the EPA
has allowed these imports on a case-by-case basis. However, the absence
of an established regulatory mechanism for such approvals has created
some uncertainty for these imports. Moreover, establishing regulatory
requirements for such imports creates a mechanism to ensure that
imports of virgin ODS for destruction are destroyed.
    Providing an established mechanism to import virgin ODS for
destruction is beneficial to importers and the EPA. Having a
transparent process that allows approval to occur before the shipment
reaches the port facilitates such imports and reduces potential delays
and costs associated with the prior approach to imports of virgin ODS
for destruction, as well as providing more certainty as to which
imports can proceed. In turn, this encourages imports of unwanted
virgin ODS for destruction, potentially avoiding the emission of such
ODS. As noted above, this is consistent with an overarching goal of
Title VI, to protect stratospheric ozone. The extension also closes a
gap in regulatory provisions for the import of virgin material for
destruction. As discussed previously in this document, the EPA
originally established the import petition process for used ODS to
verify that virgin ODS was not being imported under the pretext of
being used to circumvent the regulatory requirements for expending
consumption allowances. In the same way, the EPA concludes that a
mechanism is needed to verify that virgin ODS imported for destruction
are destroyed and that claims of importing for destruction are not used
to circumvent the requirement to expend consumption allowances. In
addition, the EPA has historically used the petition process as a
mechanism to approve imports of used material for destruction and has
applied an analogous but simpler process to imports of virgin material
for destruction on a case-by-case basis. Based on this experience and
these common goals for imports of used and virgin ODS for destruction,
the EPA concludes that having the same process for imports for
destruction of both used and virgin ODS is both feasible and
appropriate. Furthermore, establishing a consistent regulatory process
for used and virgin ODS simplifies the administration of this approach
because the same requirements generally apply regardless of the type of
ODS to be imported for destruction. Thus, the EPA is finalizing the
proposal to have the same requirements for both used and virgin ODS in
this new process.
    The EPA is also revising the definitions of ``individual shipment''
and ``non-objection notice'' at 40 CFR 82.3, both of which previously
referred only to the import of used material. As proposed, the EPA is
amending these definitions by removing references to ``used''
controlled substances, so that ``individual shipment'' and a ``non-
objection notice'' may apply to shipments of virgin ODS imported for
destruction under a Certification of Intent to Import for Destruction,
as well as to shipments of used ODS.
    As for the import petitions process, the Agency is finalizing
revisions that provide for flexibility for the timing of imports for
destruction. In the previous petitions process, the EPA required the
import to occur in the same control period (i.e., calendar year) that
the non-objection notice was issued. The EPA is finalizing a provision
that non-objection notices issued for the Certification of Intent to
Import for Destruction allow a year from the date of the notice to
import the material. Therefore, once a non-objection notice is issued,
the person receiving the non-objection notice is permitted to import
the individual shipment within a year of the date stamped on the non-
objection notice. For instance, if a non-objection letter is date-
stamped October 1, the import of that material could occur up to and
including September 30 of the following year but not thereafter. This
provides flexibility to imports for destruction that may not operate on
a calendar year basis.
    As noted above, the EPA received three supportive comments for the
portions of the proposed rule addressing the Certification of Intent to
Import for Destruction. The Agency also received one comment suggesting
changes to the proposed provisions. The first commenter suggesting
changes to the proposal requests that the Agency require imports for
destruction be sent directly to the destruction facility, instead of
allowing for it to be sent to intermediaries. Specifically, ClimeCo, a
company that assists in projects that destroy class I substances,
states that several destruction facilities and offset project
developers have imported ODS into the United States for destruction but
have not shipped it directly to the destruction facility. They state
that the ODS was shipped to intermediate facilities before being
``bulked up,'' in other words aggregated with other ODS, and sent to a
destruction facility. The commenter states this could create
opportunities for bad actors to manipulate, re-direct, or re-sell the
imported ODS. ClimeCo suggests that the EPA require the ODS entering
the United States be shipped directly to a destruction facility without
any intermediate handling, processing, or other activities.
    The EPA agrees that it is important to minimize the possibility
that an ODS imported for destruction is diverted and sold illegally
rather than being destroyed. The EPA notes that the importer has an
obligation to ensure that

it identifies a destruction facility for all ODS imported for
destruction, obtains a destruction verification once the destruction is
complete, and submits that verification to the EPA. It is ultimately
the importer's responsibility to ensure the imported ODS is destroyed
in the required time frame, regardless of whether they engage an
intermediate aggregator to facilitate the destruction. In light of
these responsibilities, the EPA disagrees that it is necessary to
prohibit intermediaries from aggregating ODS in a manner that
facilitates destruction. However, after considering this comment, the
EPA concludes that additional provisions are appropriate to address the
concerns about the potential for material being diverted during the
aggregation process. As discussed previously in this document and in
the proposal, a mechanism is needed to verify that virgin ODS imported
for destruction are destroyed and that claims of importing for
destruction are not used to circumvent the requirement to expend
consumption allowances and it also discussed the benefits of
establishing the same process for imports of used and virgin ODS for
destruction. (See 84 FR 41533, August 14, 2019). EPA is therefore
requiring importers to provide in the Certification of Intent to Import
ODS for Destruction the contact information of all persons who will
aggregate ODS prior to it being sent to the destruction facility. Thus,
the entire chain of custody from import to destruction must be known by
the importer and the EPA prior to the EPA authorizing the import.
Providing this information to the EPA helps the Agency track the chain
of custody of imported ODS for destruction and ensure that it is
destroyed. Providing this information is less burdensome to an importer
than not allowing aggregation of imported ODS for destruction, as the
commenter suggests. Thus, the EPA is finalizing provisions at 40 CFR
82.13(g)(5) and (10) and 82.24(c)(6) and (11).
    To ensure accountability and allow for the Agency to verify, as
needed, the material that intermediaries receive is transferred for
destruction, the EPA is finalizing additional requirements in 40 CFR
82.13(g)(10) and 82.24(c)(11). Intermediaries aggregating ODS after it
is imported, but prior to destruction, must keep records of the name,
address, date, and amount of imported ODS bound for destruction that
they receive from another entity and transfer to another entity. These
records could include sales or other transactional records already
generated during the normal course of business, so long as they include
the required information. Additionally, the intermediary must maintain
a record of the destruction verification if they are the final
intermediary to receive the ODS prior to destruction. These additional
provisions are intended to address the concern raised in comments on
the proposal about the potential for material being diverted during the
aggregation process. Further, establishing mechanisms to ensure that
key information from both importers and intermediaries is available to
the EPA helps meet the Agency's ability to fully track the chain of
custody of imported ODS for destruction and ensure that it is
destroyed, consistent with the goals described in the proposal. The EPA
concludes that these provisions combined will allow for the EPA to
check compliance and determine whether ODS imported for destruction is
actually destroyed, even if it is aggregated prior to destruction.
iv. Prohibiting the Sale of Illegal Imports
    The EPA proposed to prohibit the sale of illegal imports. The
Agency received supportive comments on this proposal and no adverse
comments. However, one commenter requested that the EPA prohibit the
sale of disposable cylinders. For the reasons described in below, the
Agency is finalizing the prohibition as proposed.
    Based on the EPA's experience with the CFC phaseout, the incentive
to illegally import class II substances will continue to increase after
the allocation for HCFC-22 reaches zero in 2020. HCFC-22 is the most
widely used HCFC in the United States and the EPA anticipates continued
demand for HCFC-22 beyond 2020. In addition, there continues to be risk
of illegal imports of class I substances. To allow for better
enforcement of these requirements, the EPA proposed to add to 40 CFR
82.4(s) and 82.15(g)(8) an express prohibition against the sale or
distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of any class I or
class II substance, respectively, that the seller knows, or has reason
to know, was illegally imported into the United States.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The EPA has previously issued restrictions on sale as a
means for implementing restrictions on consumption. See, e.g., 40
CFR 82.4(h) (``No person may sell in the U.S. any Class I controlled
substance produced explicitly for export to an Article 5 country'');
82.4(n)(2) (``Any person selling unused class I controlled
substances produced or imported under authority of essential-use
allowances or the essential-use exemption for uses other than an
essential-use is in violation of this subpart.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In finalizing this proposal, the EPA is relying primarily on its
authority under sections 604(c) and 605(c) of the CAA. Section 604(c)
directs the Administrator to promulgate regulations to ``insure that
the consumption of class I substances in the United States is phased
out and terminated'' in accordance with the applicable schedules for
the phaseout and termination of production of class I substances under
the CAA. Similarly, section 605(c) directs the Administrator to
promulgate regulations to ``insure that the consumption of class II
substances in the United States is phased out and terminated'' in
accordance with the applicable schedules for the phaseout and
termination of production of class II substances under the CAA.
``Consumption'' is defined in section 601 of the CAA as the amount of a
substance produced in the United States, plus the amount of that
substance imported, minus the amount exported.
    The EPA remains concerned about the potential for illegal import of
ODS. This concern is based largely on the risk that such illegal
imports would interfere with the already-completed phaseout of
consumption of class I substances and the ongoing phaseout of
consumption of class II substances. ODS that is imported without
allowances generally counts toward the United States' consumption cap
unless additional action is taken to remove the ODS from the U.S.
market (e.g., the illegally imported ODS is destroyed or re-exported in
the same year). There are no allowances for class I ODS as they have
all been phased out. Furthermore, following the 2020 stepdown, there is
a greater risk that illegal imports of HCFC-22 not destroyed or re-
exported could cause an exceedance of the cap set forth under the
Montreal Protocol and CAA.
    To address this concern, as proposed, the EPA is strengthening its
ability to enforce the phaseout of ODS by adding at 40 CFR 82.4(s) and
82.15(g)(8) an express prohibition against the sale or distribution, or
offer for sale or distribution, of any class I or class II substance,
respectively, that the seller knows, or has reason to know, was
imported into the United States in violation of the import
regulations.\44\ These revisions to the regulations clarify that it is
illegal to sell or distribute any material that the seller knows or had
reason to know was imported into the United States without expending
the appropriate consumption allowances or otherwise qualifying for an
exemption

provided for in the regulations (e.g., for transformation or
destruction, or for used ODS). The revisions also explicitly state that
every kilogram of illegally imported material sold or distributed, or
offered for sale or distribution, constitutes a separate violation.
They also include an exception for actions that are needed to re-export
the controlled substance in such a situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR 82.4(s) and
82.15(g)(8) included different proposed effective dates. The EPA is
finalizing both changes effective 30 days after publication of the
rule to harmonize these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of this change is to strengthen the EPA's ability to
enforce against illegal trade, which in turn helps ensure that
consumption remains under the Montreal Protocol and CAA caps.\45\ This
change also increases the EPA's compliance and enforcement options
where the Agency is not able to identify the importer. For example,
these provisions facilitate the EPA's ability to pursue investigations
where distributors or other sellers of CFCs attempt to sell virgin CFCs
in the domestic market knowing that they were imported into the United
States after the phaseout of CFCs, which occurred in 1996, without
qualifying for any exemption from the consumption phaseout. Actions
taken against such distributors not only address their violations but
could also allow the Agency to gather the necessary information to
identify the smuggler who illegally imported the material in the first
place and to pursue compliance and enforcement action against them
under existing authorities in 40 CFR 82.4 and 82.15, which will help
deter illegal imports. Avoiding illegal imports helps to maintain the
complete phaseout of class I ODS and achieve the phaseout of class II
ODS, which is consistent with sections 604(c) and 605(c) of the CAA, as
well as with the overarching goals of Title VI of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The addition of these prohibitions to the regulatory text
does not change any regulated entity's obligations under the
existing statutory and regulatory provisions, nor does it limit the
Agency's ability to enforce, or to take measures to assure
compliance with, the existing provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This change also encourages distributors to be more cautious when
purchasing ODS that seem suspiciously priced or packaged. Since the
phaseout of class I ODS, the EPA has warned distributors of the risk of
purchasing black market ODS and provided information on ways to
identify illegally-imported material. While the incentive to circumvent
the import controls will always exist, the EPA intends for these
provisions to reduce the market for smuggled ODS, which will reduce
illegal imports.
    The Agency received supportive comments from The Alliance and
National Refrigerants. EIA submitted supportive comments also
requesting that the EPA prohibit the sale of disposable cylinders. EIA
states that the majority of known ODS smuggling cases are facilitated
by the use of disposable cylinders, also referred to as ``non-
refillable containers.'' Disposable cylinders are containers charged
with refrigerant, sold, used for servicing or commissioning equipment,
and then discarded. The Agency responds that EIA's suggestion is beyond
the scope of this rulemaking because it was not included in the
proposed rule and that the Agency does not believe it prudent at this
time to act on the suggestion without soliciting input from refrigerant
distributors and other affected stakeholders. The Agency may consider
in the future whether a ban on disposable cylinders could guard against
illegal import of refrigerants and may consider proposing such a
prohibition in a future rulemaking.
    EIA also commented that the EPA should work more closely with other
agencies to help prevent illegal imports. The EPA responds that the
Agency has worked closely with other agencies and in particular with
CBP to ensure compliance with the phaseout of ODS under sections 604,
605, and 606 of the CAA. Historically, the Agency has participated on
interagency tasks forces to address potential illegal imports of ODS.
Recent illegal imports have demonstrated to the Agency that additional
regulatory clarity is needed to address the potential for domestic
distribution of illegally imported material, as such material would
generally be considered consumption. After considering all the comments
on this issue, the Agency is finalizing its proposal to prohibit the
sale or distribution or offer for sale or distribution of illegally
imported ODS in 40 CFR 82.4(s) and 82.15(g)(8), for the reasons
discussed above.

I. Electronic Reporting and Updates to Other Provisions of the
Production and Consumption Control Program

    The EPA proposed to require the use of an electronic reporting
system for producers, importers, exporters, transformers, and
destroyers of ODS in 40 CFR 82.3, 82.13, 82.14, 82.23, and 82.24 and to
clarify the certification requirements for methyl bromide quarantine
and preshipment uses in 40 CFR 82.4 and 82.13. The EPA did not receive
any adverse comments on these proposals. For the reasons discussed
below, the EPA is finalizing these provisions as proposed.
i. Electronic Reporting and Changes to Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR
82.3, 82.13, 82.14, 82.23, and 82.24
    The EPA proposed to require that reports, petitions, and related
reports be submitted through Central Data Exchange (CDX), and the
Agency proposed to consolidate and harmonize requirements for class I
and II substances for ease or reporting. The Agency received supportive
comments on this proposal and no adverse comments. For the reasons
described below, the Agency is finalizing these requirements as
proposed.
    The EPA is finalizing as proposed the requirements for the use of
the Agency's CDX to submit reports electronically. The compliance date
for this requirement is 30 days after the publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register, in part to ensure that stakeholders have
adequate time to register in CDX. To achieve this, the EPA is updating
the definition of ``Administrator'' in 40 CFR 82.3, defining ``Central
Data Exchange'' in Sec.  82.3, adding a new section at Sec.  82.14 with
instructions on the process for electronic reporting, and revising
provisions at Sec. Sec.  82.13(c) and 82.24(a)(1) to indicate that
reporters must comply with the requirement to report electronically
through CDX. Thus, the EPA is amending the definition of
``Administrator'' to note that electronic reporting is required for the
reports and petitions that are available in CDX, which includes the
majority of reports under subpart A, as well as the import petitions
and the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction. The EPA
is also adding the definition of ``Central Data Exchange'' in Sec.
82.3 and providing instructions on how to register in CDX and submit
information electronically in Sec.  82.14.
    The Agency has provided the option of electronic reporting for most
submissions since 2008, and many stakeholders have transitioned to an
electronic reporting system. The regulatory changes reflect the current
practices of the vast majority of reporting entities. Electronic
reporting allows for faster review and transmission of submissions to
the EPA. Additionally, all information submitted electronically is
linked in an improved tracking system, which facilitates document
management and allows companies to more easily manage past and future
submissions.
    The EPA monitors company compliance, in part, through the
recordkeeping and reporting regulations at 40 CFR 82.13 and 82.24. The
regulatory changes in this final rule will

ease the reporting burden. For example, the EPA is removing reporting
elements in 40 CFR 82.23(a)(i)(F) and 82.24(b)(1)(iv) and (c)(1)(vi)
that require the reporter to calculate values from data already
provided. Requiring this is unnecessary because the requirement to
report electronically through CDX means these values can automatically
be calculated and populated. This will save reporting entities time in
reporting and reduce errors in submissions. The EPA is also finalizing
a change in 40 CFR 82.13(h)(1)(iii) and 82.24(d)(1)(iii) \46\ to report
the quantity (rather than the percentage) of used, recycled, or
reclaimed class I and class II substances. This change improves
consistency with the importer reporting requirements and corresponds
with the way companies report their annual data. It also streamlines
the exporter reporting forms by eliminating the need for an entity to
calculate a percentage. The EPA is also removing references to expended
and unexpended production and consumption allowances at 40 CFR
82.13(f)(3)(iv) and (g)(4)(vii), as they can be calculated
automatically with the use of electronic reporting forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The preamble to the proposed rule discussed the EPA's
intent to make this change at both 40 CFR 82.13(h) and 82.24(d),
though the regulatory text accompanying the proposal contained text
for only 40 CFR 82.13(h)(1)(iii). In order to ensure that the
regulatory revisions fully implement the objective described in the
preamble to the proposal, the EPA is revising 40 CFR
82.24(d)(1)(iii) in this final action to include the prohibition
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other regulatory changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions harmonize the requirements for class I and class II
substances. For example, under the existing regulations, the timeframe
that submitters have to make revisions to forms for class I and class
II substances is not the same. The EPA is adding a provision for
reports for class I substances under 40 CFR 82.13 that revisions can be
made within 180 days of the end of the applicable reporting period.
This change is consistent with the previously established regulations
in 40 CFR 82.24 for revisions to reports for class II substances.
Likewise, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 82.13 and 82.24 to clarify that
forms for both class I and class II ODS must be submitted
electronically through CDX within 45 days of the end of the control
period to harmonize the reporting timeframes for the two classes of
ODS.
    The EPA is amending 40 CFR 82.24(d)(1) to clarify that exporters
who submit a Request for Additional Consumption Allowances (RACA) must
still include that export on their quarterly exporter report. Under 40
CFR 82.20, companies may submit a request for additional consumption
allowances if they export class II substances that were previously
produced in or imported into the United States using consumption
allowances. The existing regulatory text at 40 CFR 82.24(d)(1) excluded
quarterly reporting for those RACAs even though exporters do typically
include those exports in their quarterly reporting. Thus, for ease of
review by the EPA, and for consistency of reporting by exporters, the
Agency is finalizing a requirement that all exports be included in the
quarterly export report even if the EPA had issued additional
consumption allowances to the exporter for that export. The EPA is also
amending the reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13(v) to add the
contact information for the source company from which the material was
purchased and the laboratories to whom the material is sold. Lastly,
the EPA is revising class I reporting requirements for exporters by
replacing the term ``Employee Identification Number'' with the correct
term ``Employer Identification Number'' in 40 CFR 82.13(h).
ii. Changes to Methyl Bromide Provisions in 40 CFR 82.4 and 82.13
    As discussed in more detail in the preamble to the proposed rule,
the EPA proposed several changes to the QPS provisions under section
604(d)(5) of the CAA. In part, these changes were proposed in response
to the misuse of QPS methyl bromide by applicators and distributors in
the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, which led to human exposures
and life-altering illnesses for some of the people exposed. Methyl
bromide is highly toxic. Studies in humans indicate that the lung may
be severely injured by the acute (short-term) inhalation of methyl
bromide. Acute and chronic (long-term) inhalation of methyl bromide can
lead to neurological effects in humans. To help prevent future
exposures stemming from misuse of QPS methyl bromide and protect human
health, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the QPS provisions to: (1)
Clarify that it is a violation to sell or use methyl bromide produced
under the QPS exemption for any uses other than QPS applications; (2)
extend the existing certification requirement to all purchasers of QPS
methyl bromide; and (3) make non-substantive changes to 40 CFR 82.4 and
82.13 to improve readability. The Agency did not receive any comments
on these proposed provisions. For the reasons discussed below, the
Agency is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
    The EPA's regulations implementing section 604(h) of the CAA set
January 1, 2005 as the production and import phaseout date for methyl
bromide (40 CFR 82.4(b), (d)). Certain exceptions apply, including an
exemption for methyl bromide produced or imported for quarantine and
preshipment applications. Quarantine applications and preshipment
applications are both defined at 40 CFR 82.3. Quarantine applications
are treatments to prevent the introduction, establishment, and/or
spread of quarantine pests (including diseases), or to ensure their
official control. These can include commodities entering or leaving the
United States or any State (or political subdivision thereof).
Preshipment applications are those non-quarantine applications applied
within 21 days before export to meet the official requirements of the
importing country or existing official requirements of the exporting
country. The recordkeeping and reporting regulations relating to QPS
methyl bromide appear at 40 CFR 82.13 and establish specific
requirements for producers, importers, distributors, and applicators,
including in some instances a written certification that the methyl
bromide will be used only for QPS applications in accordance with the
definitions in 40 CFR 82.3.
    First, the Agency is adding an express statement at 40 CFR 82.4(r)
that no person may sell or use QPS methyl bromide for any purpose other
than QPS applications. The existing regulations at 40 CFR 82.13(y)(1)
and (z)(2) require certification statements from distributors,
applicators, commodity owners, shippers or their agents that methyl
bromide ``will be used only for quarantine and preshipment
applications.'' Similarly, 40 CFR 82.13(f)(2)(xviii) and (xix) describe
the exempted quantities of methyl bromide as ``produced solely for
quarantine and preshipment applications.'' The EPA interprets this
existing text as already prohibiting the use of methyl bromide produced
or imported under the QPS exemption for any uses other than QPS
applications. However, the EPA is adding an express statement of the
prohibition at 40 CFR 82.4(r) to provide clarity to this prohibition;
this revision does not change the existing requirements. The revisions
at 40 CFR 82.4(r) also explicitly state that every kilogram of methyl
bromide produced or imported under the authority of the QPS exemption
and sold or used for a use other than QPS is a separate violation.
    Second, the EPA is finalizing as proposed the extension of the
existing certification requirement to all

purchasers of QPS methyl bromide, including purchasers who purchase for
further distribution. Under the existing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13(f)(2)(xviii), producers of methyl bromide
must maintain certifications that methyl bromide produced for QPS
applications has been purchased by distributors or applicators to be
used only for QPS applications. Under 40 CFR 82.13(y), distributors of
QPS methyl bromide must certify when they purchase or receive QPS
material from producers and importers that the controlled substances
will be used only for QPS applications. Applicators of QPS methyl
bromide must also certify to distributors that the controlled substance
will only be used for QPS applications under the existing regulation at
40 CFR 82.13(z).
    The purpose of this certification requirement when established was
to ensure that anyone selling or purchasing QPS methyl bromide verified
that they will comply with requirements under Title VI of the CAA (see
66 FR 37760, July 19, 2001). However, the EPA identified a gap in this
certification chain when the material is sold through multiple
distributors before reaching the applicator. When one distributor sells
to a second distributor, neither distributor was required to certify or
maintain a certification that the material will be used only for a QPS
application. The sales and misapplications of QPS methyl bromide in
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands demonstrate that distributors
may not have been aware of, or may have ignored, the limitations on the
use of this material. The EPA is extending the certification
requirement to all purchasers of QPS methyl bromide. This is meant to
help ensure that distributors are knowledgeable about the requirements
for the sale of QPS methyl bromide. Distributors are more likely to
make themselves aware of those requirements, and to be mindful of the
fact that QPS methyl bromide can be used only for QPS applications, if
they are required to sign a certification addressing these requirements
and to provide it before each purchase. This will fill the gap in the
distribution chain and ensure the original intent of the regulation is
implemented.
    More specifically, the EPA is extending the existing requirement in
40 CFR 82.13(y) that every distributor of QPS methyl bromide certify to
the producer or importer from whom the distributor purchased or
received the material that quantities purchased or received will be
sold only for quarantine applications or preshipment applications. The
EPA is extending this requirement to also require such a certification
when the material is purchased or received from a distributor.
Likewise, the EPA is extending the existing requirement that such
distributors receive from any applicator, to whom they sold or
delivered the methyl bromide, a certification, prior to delivery of the
quantity, stating that the quantity will be used or sold solely for
quarantine or preshipment applications in accordance with definitions
in subpart A. The EPA is extending this requirement to sales and
deliveries to any exporter or distributor. The Agency is not making
parallel revisions for exporters because the invoice or sales agreement
required in 40 CFR 82.13(h)(2)(viii) is adequate for this purpose.
    The EPA is also finalizing a revision that the distributor certify
that the distributor is selling the material for a QPS application
rather than certify that it will be used for a QPS application, as is
required in the existing regulations. This will better align the rule
text with the distributor's role. The proper sale of the material is
within the distributor's control whereas the use may not be, given that
the material may be resold by another distributor and applied by an end
user or third-party applicator.
    Third, the EPA is finalizing as proposed non-substantive changes to
40 CFR 82.4 and 82.13 that improve readability and clarity. The EPA is
editing 40 CFR 82.13(h)(2), which contains the recordkeeping
requirements for exporters of certain ``types'' of methyl bromide by
companies that did not produce the material. The EPA is making edits to
clarify what is meant by ``type'' of methyl bromide. The final rule
more clearly states that the provision requires reporting of the
quantity of methyl bromide exported for transformation, destruction,
critical use, and QPS uses. These are the only exempted uses of methyl
bromide, and this statement matches the information requested in the
existing reporting forms. The EPA is removing the requirement in the
existing provision that exporters state how much of the exports are of
``used, recycled or reclaimed material.'' Unlike other ODS, methyl
bromide is a product that is registered and controlled under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and thus is
not sold ``used'' or ``recycled'' or ``reclaimed.'' Therefore, these
adjectives are not applicable to methyl bromide and this phrase is not
needed.
    Lastly, the EPA is replacing references to ``class I, Group VI
controlled substances'' with ``methyl bromide'' where appropriate for
readability throughout 40 CFR 82.4 and 82.13. ``Class I, Group VI
controlled substances'' is how methyl bromide is classified under the
EPA's regulations in appendix A to subpart A, but methyl bromide is the
only compound within this category. Using the common name will improve
the readability of the QPS regulations.

J. Addition of Polyurethane Foam Systems Containing CFCs to the
Nonessential Products Ban

    The EPA proposed to add polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs
to the list of nonessential products at 40 CFR part 82, subpart C. The
Agency received supportive comments from The Alliance and EIA and is
finalizing as proposed for the reasons discussed below. This provision
has the effect of prohibiting the sale or distribution, or offer for
sale or distribution, of any polyurethane foam system containing CFCs
in interstate commerce.
    Historically, CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 were used as foam blowing
agents, but CFC production has been globally phased out since 2010.
Nevertheless, an unexpected increase of CFC-11 emissions has been
detected in the atmosphere. Recent reports indicate that this is the
result of new production of CFC-11 in China likely for use in
foams.\47\ \48\ \49\ \50\ \51\ Except for feedstock applications,
production and import of CFCs has been prohibited in the United States
and many other countries since 1996 \52\ and globally production and
consumption of CFCs have been phased out since 2010 under the Montreal

Protocol. The nonessential products ban implemented under section 610
of the CAA already prohibits sale or distribution, and the offer for
sale or distribution, of certain products manufactured with or
containing CFCs, including most plastic foam products. After reviewing
the EPA's import restrictions and the nonessential product ban, the
Agency identified the potential for sale or distribution, or offer for
sale or distribution, of imported polyurethane foam systems \53\
containing illegally-produced CFCs. The EPA is not currently aware of
any imports of CFC-11 polyurethane systems into the United States, but
the Agency is finalizing revisions to amend the list of nonessential
products in 40 CFR 82.66 to address this gap and to ensure that the
United States does not inadvertently contribute to demand for CFCs and
prevent CFC emissions in the United States. The EPA is also adding a
definition of ``polyurethane foam systems'' in 40 CFR 82.62 to
correspond with the amendment to the list of nonessential products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Montzka, S.A., Geoff S. Dutton, G.S., Yu, P., Ray, E.,
Portmann, R.W., Daniel, J.S., Kuijpers, L., Hall1, B.D., Mondeel,
D., Siso, C., Nance, J.D., Rigby, M., Manning, A.J., Hu, L., Moore,
F., Miller, B.R., and Elkins, J.W. ``An unexpected and persistent
increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11'' Nature 557;
(2018): 413-429.
    \48\ WMO. (2018) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014
World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project--Report No. 55 pg. 1-416. Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/report.html.
    \49\ Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). (2018) Blowing
It: Illegal Production and Use of Banned CFC-11 in China's Foam
Blowing Industry. Available at: https://eia-global.org/reports/20180709-blowing-it-illegal-production-and-use-of-banned-cfc-11-in-chinas-foam-blowing-industry.
    \50\ Rigby, M. et al. ``Increase in CFC-11 emissions from
eastern China based on atmospheric observations.'' Nature 569.7757
(2019): 546-550.
    \51\ UNEP. (2019) Decision XXX/3 TEAP Task Force Report on
Unexpected Emissions of Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11). Available
at http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-31/presession/Background%20Documents/TEAP-TF-DecXXX-3-unexpected_CFC11_emissions-september2019.pdf.
    \52\ Historically, limited amounts of CFC production and
consumption were authorized after the phaseout for essential uses.
    \53\ These systems are also referred to as polyols, which are
defined in Montreal Protocol reports as pre-blended foam chemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also adding in 40 CFR 82.64(h) a prohibition on the sale
or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of the products
identified as being nonessential in Sec.  82.66(f). While the EPA did
not include specific text for the prohibition at 40 CFR 82.64(h) in the
proposal, the Agency discussed in the proposal that the proposed
changes would prohibit the sale or distribution, or offer for sale or
distribution, of polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs (see, e.g.,
84 FR 41535, August 14, 2019). In order to ensure that the regulatory
revisions fully implement the objective described in the preamble to
the proposal, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 82.64(h) in this final action
to include the prohibition described above. This revision is wholly
consistent with the description of the EPA's intent for this regulation
as set forth in the preamble to the proposal.
    With respect to the added definition, the EPA is defining
``polyurethane foam systems'' in 40 CFR 82.62 as an item consisting of
two transfer pumps that deliver ingredients (polyisocyanate or
isocyanate from one side and a mixture including the blowing agent,
catalysts, flame retardants, and/or stabilizers from the other side) to
a metering/mixing device which allows the components to be delivered in
the appropriate proportions. In such systems, the components are sent
to a mixing gun and dispensed as foam directly to a surface such as a
roof or tank, usually to provide thermal insulation. These polyurethane
foam systems are packaged and sold as complete systems, containing all
the ingredients including the polyisocyanate and the blowing agent.
    A polyurethane foam system is not a bulk ODS because the ODS is
contained in a system and packaged as a product. Under the regulations
in subpart A, bulk CFCs are a ``controlled substance'' and thus are
subject to import controls such as the consumption allowance regime
under 40 CFR 82.4. However, the definition of ``controlled substance''
in 40 CFR 82.3 excludes ``any such substance or mixture that is in a
manufactured product other than a container used for the transportation
or storage of the substance or mixture.'' Because the CFCs in a
polyurethane foam system are contained in a system that is sold as a
product, they are not subject to the same import controls as bulk CFCs.
If polyurethane foam systems are imported and sold through distribution
chains in the United States, they could result in emissions of CFCs
during their use. These foam systems are also distinct from a plastic
foam product in that the foam product has already been blown. Plastic
foam products manufactured with or containing a CFC are already listed
as a nonessential product at 40 CFR 82.66(c) and are banned from sale
or distribution, and from being offered for sale or distribution, in
interstate commerce at 40 CFR 82.64(c).
    The revisions to the nonessential product ban in this rulemaking
are made under section 610 of the CAA, titled ``Nonessential products
containing chlorofluorocarbons.'' That statutory section directs the
EPA to issue regulations identifying nonessential products that
``release class I substances into the environment (including any
release occurring during manufacture, use, storage, or disposal)'' and
``prohibit[ing] any person from selling or distributing any such
product, or offering any such product for sale or distribution, in
interstate commerce.'' Section 610(b)(1) and (2) specify that this
prohibition shall apply to ``chlorofluorocarbon-propelled plastic party
streamers and noise horns'' and ``chlorofluorocarbon-containing
cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic and photographic
equipment.'' Section 610(b)(3) provides that the prohibition shall
apply to other consumer products determined by the EPA to release class
I substances into the environment (including releases during
manufacture, use, storage, or disposal) and to be nonessential.
    Section 610 further states that in determining whether a product is
nonessential, the EPA shall consider the following criteria: ``the
purpose or intended use of the product, the technological availability
of substitutes for such product and for such class I substance, safety,
health, and other relevant factors.'' The CAA requires the EPA to
consider each criterion listed in section 610 but does not establish
either a ranking or a methodology for comparing their relative
importance, nor does it require that any minimum standard within each
criterion be met. Thus, section 610 provides the EPA discretion in
determining how to consider the listed criteria and the relative weight
to give to each. In addition, section 610 gives the EPA latitude to
consider ``other relevant factors'' beyond the specific criteria set
forth in the statute.
    As indicated above, polyurethane foam systems are products that
release blowing agent to the environment during use. If CFCs are used
as the blowing agent, they would be emitted during the use of such
systems. In taking this final action to add polyurethane foam systems
containing CFCs as a nonessential product, the EPA considered the
purpose or intended use of these systems, the technological
availability of substitutes, and safety and health considerations. The
first criterion, the purpose or intended use, relates to the importance
of the product, in terms of benefits to society, specifically whether
the product is sufficiently important that the benefits of its
continued production outweigh the associated danger from the continued
use of a class I ODS in it, or alternatively, whether the product has
little benefit, such that even a lack of available substitutes might
not prevent the product from being considered nonessential. While foam
products, particularly closed-cell rigid polyurethane foams, have
provided benefits to society, for more than two decades U.S.
manufacturers have replaced the use of CFCs in foam production without
compromising these benefits.
    The intended use of polyurethane foam systems is often for
insulation in buildings and residences. While insulation has benefits,
such as reducing energy use and costs associated with heating and
cooling, in previous rulemakings the EPA's consideration of this
criterion has also been informed by consideration of whether use of the
class I substance in the product is nonessential (see 58 FR 4474,
January 15, 1993 and 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002). For example, use
of a class I

substance in a product may be considered nonessential where substitutes
are readily available, even if the product itself is important (see 58
FR 4474, January 15, 1993, and 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002). This is
reasonable because if the social benefits from a product can be
provided by a similar product without use of the class I substance,
that tends to support the conclusion that the product using the class I
substance is nonessential. U.S. manufacturers successfully transitioned
from using class I substances for foam products more than two decades
ago, meaning that they were able to also replace the use of class I
substances in foam blowing systems. Moreover, the same U.S. industry
also replaced the use of class II substances in these plastic foam
products. There are alternative foam blowing agents that can be used in
foam systems as well as alternative methods and products for insulating
buildings and residences that do not use class I substances. For
instance, there are a variety of insulation types that can be applied
throughout the building envelope to save energy and reduce leaks in
buildings and homes with a similar R-value as a polyurethane foam
system intended for use in insulation. The R-value refers to an
insulating material's resistance to conductive heat flow and is
measured or rated in terms of its thermal resistance. Alternative non-
polyurethane foam insulation products with similar R-values include
fiberglass, cellulose, and rigid foam boards.
    For the criterion of technological availability of substitutes, the
EPA considers the existence and accessibility of alternative products
or alternative chemicals for use in, or in place of, products releasing
class I substances. As first explained in 1993, the EPA interprets this
criterion to include both currently available substitutes and
potentially available substitutes (see 58 FR 4474, January 15, 1993).
There are numerous substitutes for CFCs in polyurethane foam systems
that are listed as acceptable under the SNAP program and have been
widely used by the foam industry since the mid-1990s.\54\ As the EPA
stated in the initial class I nonessential products rule, in sectors
where the great majority of manufacturers have already shifted to
substitutes, the use of a class I substance in that product may very
well be nonessential (see 58 FR 4474, January 15, 1993). As in previous
considerations of this criterion, in this rulemaking the EPA is
examining sectors where the market has previously switched to
substitutes. The class I nonessential products ban that included
plastic foam products was promulgated more than two decades ago and
there were also subsequent restrictions on the use of class II
substances for polyurethane foam systems. All U.S. manufacturers have
therefore switched from CFCs to non-ODS alternatives such as
hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide,
water, and other compounds listed as acceptable substitutes under SNAP
in foam blowing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The current list of SNAP-approved substitutes for foam
blowing is available here: https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-foam-blowing-agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the criteria of safety and health, as in prior rules related to
the nonessential product ban (see 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002), the
EPA interprets these criteria to mean the effects on human health and
the environment of products releasing CFCs or their substitutes. As in
past rules, in evaluating these criteria, the EPA considered the direct
and indirect effects of product use, and the direct and indirect
effects of alternatives, such as ODP, flammability, toxicity,
corrosiveness, energy efficiency, ground-level air hazards, and other
environmental factors (see 66 FR 57514, January 14, 2002). The ODPs of
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 are 1. For the purposes of evaluating other
direct and indirect effects for foam systems, there is not a
substantive difference between foam systems and plastic foam products,
given that the former is a precursor for the latter. In developing the
initial class I nonessential products ban, the Agency provided
information in the docket concerning the known alternatives at that
time. Subsequently, alternatives that were already in use, as well as
additional alternatives for foam-blowing, have been evaluated and
listed as acceptable under the SNAP program, such as
hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroolefins, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide,
and water. The current SNAP list of acceptable substitutes is more
expansive than what was considered in the initial class I nonessential
products ban. The range of alternatives includes those that have ODPs
ranging from zero to between 0.00024 and 0.00034, significantly lower
than the ODPs of CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114, all of which are 1. The
Montreal Protocol's TEAP also provides a quadrennial global assessment
of alternatives for foam blowing, including information concerning many
of the direct and indirect factors identified above.\55\ The EPA
considered all these sources of information when deciding whether to
add to the list of banned products foam systems that contain phased-out
CFCs and considered that U.S. industry has already successfully
transitioned away from using CFCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ UNEP. 2018 TEAP Report Available at http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-41/presession/Background-Documents/TEAP_2018_Assessment_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering all these factors together, the EPA concludes that
polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs meet the criteria in section
610 of the CAA for listing as a nonessential product and is adding them
to the list of nonessential products in 40 CFR 82.66(f) and prohibiting
their sale in 40 CFR 82.64(h).

K. Updates to 40 CFR 82.3, 82.104, and 82.270 Related to Destruction

    The EPA proposed to update and harmonize definitions related to ODS
destruction in 40 CFR 82.3, 82.104, and 82.270, by adding to the list
of destruction technologies and amending the definition of
``destruction'' to allow inclusion of destruction technologies that
incidentally result in commercially useful end products. The EPA
received supportive comments from The Alliance on the proposal to
update the list of destruction technologies consistent with the
Montreal Protocol, and no adverse comments on this aspect of the
proposal. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is finalizing these
revisions as proposed.
    The EPA added a definition of the term ``destruction'' to 40 CFR
82.3 in 1993 (see 58 FR 65047-65048, December 10, 1993). The existing
regulatory definition of ``destruction'' includes a limited list of
technologies that may be used for destruction. When the EPA established
the initial list of destruction technologies, the Agency also noted
that it intended to propose authorizing use of additional destruction
technologies through future rulemakings, as such technologies are
approved by the Parties (see 58 FR 65049, December 10, 1993). Revising
the definition of destruction to include these technologies will not
affect the applicability of other regulatory requirements relating to
use of these technologies.
    In the revisions finalized in this rulemaking, the Agency is
updating the definition of ``destruction'' in 40 CFR 82.3, as proposed,
to add destruction technologies that have been approved by the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol since the issuance of the 1993 rule. The
Agency is adding these destruction

technologies so that industry in the United States has a greater
variety of technology options for the destruction of ODS. All of these
technologies are capable of destroying ODS or converting them into
byproducts and can be grouped into three broad categories:
Incineration, plasma, and other non-incineration technologies. The EPA
is adding the following incineration technology: Porous thermal
reactor. Porous thermal reactors are high-temperature systems with a
porous layer that facilitates the decomposition of ODS and other
industrial waste gases. Destruction takes place in an oxidizing
atmosphere with a continuous supply of an auxiliary gas. For plasma,
the EPA is adding nitrogen plasma arc, portable plasma arc, argon
plasma arc, microwave plasma, and inductively coupled radio frequency
plasma to allow for greater industry flexibility for using plasma
destruction technologies. Although they reach higher temperatures than
incineration technologies, plasma technologies are considered to be
non-incineration technologies because they involve the thermo-chemical
decomposition of organic material in a limited oxygen environment.
Lastly, the EPA is also adding four non-incineration technologies:
Chemical reaction with hydrogen and carbon dioxide, gas phase catalytic
de-halogenation, superheated steam reactor, and thermal reaction with
methane.
    The EPA is also amending the definition of ``destruction'' to
modify the statement that the process must not result in a commercially
useful end product. The EPA is finalizing revisions to harmonize the
definitions of the term ``destruction'' at 40 CFR 82.3, 82.104, and
82.270. These two existing definitions are intended to convey the same
meaning but are slightly different. For instance, the definition in 40
CFR 82.104 refers to a code of good housekeeping contained in a United
Nations Environment Programme report while the definition in 40 CFR
82.3 does not. In addition, both provide a list of destruction
technologies approved under decisions of the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol. The list at 40 CFR 82.3 contains seven technologies while the
list at 40 CFR 82.104 contains five.\56\ Both lists are out of date in
that they fail to include certain technologies that can destroy ODS or
convert them into byproducts and have been approved under more recent
decisions of the Parties. Similarly, the existing prohibition on
disposing of halons in 40 CFR 82.270 includes an exception for
destruction that also provides an outdated list of destruction
technologies. The EPA is therefore harmonizing these three definitions
of destruction and updating the list of destruction technologies to
allow the use of more destruction technologies in the United States. An
explanation of these technologies appears in the EPA's report on
destruction ``ODS Destruction in the United States and Abroad,'' which
is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Similarly, the definition of ``completely destroy'' at 40
CFR 82.104 refers to using ``one of the five'' destruction processes
approved by the Parties. The EPA is also removing this outdated
language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also revising the definition of ``destruction'' in 40
CFR 82.104 and the prohibition in 40 CFR Sec.  82.270 by removing the
outdated lists found in those provisions and adding a cross reference
to the list of destruction technologies in 40 CFR 82.3. This conforms
the list of destruction technologies that can be used across subparts
A, E, and H of 40 CFR part 82. The destruction technologies finalized
through this action in Sec.  82.3 are also applicable to these other
subparts, although the EPA notes that the listing of municipal waste
incinerators in the existing regulations at 40 CFR 82.3 is limited to
the destruction of foams, and thus the added cross reference to 40 CFR
82.3 in Sec.  82.270 does not make that technology available for the
exception for the destruction of halons at 40 CFR 82.270.
    As noted above, the EPA is also amending the definitions of
``destruction'' at 40 CFR 82.3 and 82.104 to modify language regarding
commercially useful end products. The EPA is also editing provisions in
40 CFR 82.104 (subpart E, ``The Labeling of Products Using Ozone-
Depleting Substances'') and 40 CFR 82.270 (subpart H, ``Halon Emissions
Reduction'') to conform with the changes in this definition. The
previously existing definition contained a restriction that a
destruction technology cannot result in a commercially useful product.
The EPA is revising that restriction in part because one of the
destruction technologies that this action adds to the definition of
destruction breaks down ODS into substances that have commercial
viability. The process ``Chemical Reaction with hydrogen and carbon
dioxide'' converts fluorinated compounds to hydrofluoric acid,
hydrochloric acid, carbon dioxide, chlorine, and water. The reaction
technology separates and collects the byproducts at a high purity
allowing for them to be sold, potentially improving the economics of
using this technology. Because the EPA has concluded that a process
that would otherwise qualify as ``destruction'' should not fail to
qualify simply because one of the outputs is a commercially useful end
product, it is revising the definition of ``destruction'' so that the
mere existence of such an end product does not bar the technology from
being used. The revisions further clarify that for destruction
processes, the commercial usefulness of the end product is secondary to
the act of the ODS destruction. Thus, the changes to the definition of
destruction recognize that while production of a commercially useful
end product is not the primary purpose of a destruction process, the
destruction process may nevertheless result in a commercially useful
product.
    The clarification that the usefulness of an end product should be
secondary to ODS destruction is intended to maintain a distinction
between the terms ``destruction'' and ``transformation.'' The EPA
established the definitions of ``destruction,'' ``production,'' and
``transformation'' in the 1993 rule (see 58 FR 65048-65049, December
10, 1993). Among other things, the Agency excluded from the definition
of ``production'': (1) Amounts of controlled substances that are
destroyed using approved destruction technologies and (2) the
manufacture of a controlled substance that is subsequently transformed.
Similarly, the regulatory import prohibitions excluded both amounts
destroyed, and amounts transformed. The definition of ``destruction''
noted that it does not result in a commercially useful end product
whereas the definition of ``transformation'' noted that it occurs in a
process specifically for the manufacture of other chemicals for
commercial purposes. Thus, the original distinction in the definitions
of these two terms related to whether the process was undertaken to
intentionally result in a commercially useful end product or not. The
distinction mattered (and is still relevant) because as explained in
the 1993 rule, if a portion of the ODS remained after destruction, the
destroyed portion could be excluded from production under the
destruction exclusion, but the material had to be entirely consumed in
the process (except for trace quantities) to qualify for the
transformation exclusion (see 58 FR 65048, December 10, 1993).
    Intent has been an important aspect of the distinction between
``destruction'' and ``transformation'' since the EPA first promulgated
these definitions. For example, in the 1993 rule establishing the
definition of ``destruction,'' in a discussion of whether heat or
energy are commercially useful end products, the

Agency said ``[t]he intent of the destruction process is to destroy the
substance, for which a byproduct in the way of heat or energy may be
produced, rather than production of an end product being the goal of
the destruction activity.'' (See 58 FR 65049, December 10, 1993). This
discussion recognizes that something useful may incidentally result
from destruction. Similarly, the 1993 rule recognized the possibility
of a destruction technology converting ODS into other useful
substances. In explaining the inclusion of reactor cracking as a
destruction technology, the EPA stated ``[s]ince 1983, this process has
treated waste gases resulting from the production of CFCs. The gases
are converted to hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, carbon dioxide,
chlorine, and water. The two acids are usable in-house and/or
marketable, and the chlorine is scrubbed, leaving only water vapor,
oxygen, and carbon dioxide as waste gases.'' (See 58 FR 65047, December
10, 1993).
    Consistent with that recognition and with the inclusion of a new
destruction technology with commercially useful end products, the EPA
concludes that the creation of a commercially useful end product should
not in itself preclude a technology from being listed in the definition
of ``destruction.'' The creation of such an end product does not change
whether chemical decomposition occurs. Many destruction processes
incinerate the chemicals, but other technologies break down the
controlled substance. In breaking down the chemical, it is possible
that the result includes a commercially valuable end product that is
not a controlled substance. ``Transformation,'' on the other hand,
means to use and entirely consume a controlled substance in the
manufacture of other chemicals for commercial purposes. Thus, the
purpose is to create new compounds using the ODS as a feedstock rather
than the decomposition of ODS as a waste.
    Accordingly, to update the regulatory text but preserve a
distinction between transformation and destruction, the EPA is amending
the definitions of ``destruction'' at 40 CFR 82.3 and 82.104 by
removing the previously existing restriction that a destruction
technology cannot result in a commercially useful product and by also
adding a clarification that, while destruction might result in a
commercially useful end product, such usefulness would be secondary to
the act of destruction.

L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions in 40 CFR 82.3, 82.4, 82.9, 82.10,
82.12, 82.13, 82.16, and 82.24

    The EPA proposed to remove obsolete provisions from several
sections of part 82. The Agency received supportive comments from The
Alliance on this proposal and no adverse comments. For the reasons
described below, the EPA is finalizing the removal of outdated
provisions for class I ODS related to Article 5 allowances,
transformation and destruction credits, and transfers of allowances
issued prior to the phaseout as proposed for ease of reading and to
reduce confusion. The EPA is also removing definitions and reporting
provisions for HCFC-141b exemption allowances and export production
allowances.
i. Class I Article 5 Allowances
    Before the global phaseout of CFCs and other class I ODS, the EPA
historically had provided additional production allowances, known as
``Article 5 allowances,'' for production of certain class I ODS for
export to and use by Article 5 countries consistent with the Montreal
Protocol.\57\ These are countries that were subject to a later
production and consumption phaseout schedule than non-Article 5
countries such as the United States. Section 82.9(a) of the existing
regulations granted Article 5 allowances until 2010, when the phaseout
of these substances was completed in Article 5 countries. Because these
provisions no longer have any purpose or effect, the EPA is removing
the schedule for issuing Article 5 allowances found at 40 CFR 82.9(a)
and the corresponding recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40
CFR 82.13(f)(2)(v) and (f)(3)(ix). Section 82.9(b) of the existing
regulations provides that holders of Article 5 allowances may produce
class I controlled substances for export to Article 5 countries and
transfer Article 5 allowances. Because there are no more holders of
Article 5 allowances, the EPA is removing these provisions as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ For the purposes of the Montreal Protocol, this is called
production for basic domestic need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Class I Allowances and Credits Related to Transformation and
Destruction
    Before the domestic phaseout of class I ODS, the EPA historically
had provided additional production allowances in cases where class I
ODS were destroyed or transformed. Because these provisions no longer
have any purpose or effect, the EPA is removing these provisions and
removing references to these obsolete allowances in certain other
provisions.
    Section 82.9(e) of the existing rules contains the provisions
related to such allowances, including detailing the information needed
in a request for allowances based on having destroyed or transformed a
specified quantity of class I ODS. The EPA stopped issuing such
allowances in 1996 for all class I controlled substances (except methyl
bromide) and in 2005 for methyl bromide. The EPA is removing 40 CFR
82.9(e) and related obsolete reporting and recordkeeping requirements
in 40 CFR 82.13(f)(2)(iv), (g)(1)(xv), and (g)(4)(xi) and (i).
    Section 82.9(f) authorized persons who were nominated for an
essential use exemption to obtain destruction and transformation
credits between 1996 and 2000. The EPA established these provisions
because of the difference between the phaseout date for class I
substances under the CAA and the phaseout date for the same substances
under the Montreal Protocol. These provisions include a description of
the information needed and the grounds for which the EPA can disallow
the request. Section 82.4(f) addresses production and import with
destruction and transformation credits. The EPA stopped issuing such
credits in 2000. Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or
effect, the EPA is removing 40 CFR 82.4(f) and 82.9(f).
iii. Class I Consumption Allowances
    Before the phaseout of class I ODS, the EPA historically had
provided additional consumption allowances where class I ODS were
exported, transformed or destroyed, or where an amount of production
was transferred from another Party to the Montreal Protocol. Section
82.10 contains provisions related to these additional consumption
allowances, including detailing the information needed in a request for
them. The EPA stopped issuing those allowances in 1996 for all class I
controlled substances (except methyl bromide) and in 2005 for methyl
bromide. Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect,
the EPA is removing 40 CFR 82.10 in its entirety. The EPA is also
finalizing the removal of references to 40 CFR 82.10 from the
definition of ``consumption allowance'' in 40 CFR 82.3, as well as from
the provisions in 40 CFR 82.9(c) and 82.13(h)(1) and (2) as those
references are no longer applicable. As discussed earlier in this
document, the EPA is entirely removing 40 CFR 82.9(e) and (f) in this
action, and it is also removing Sec.  82.13(i), as its provisions are
no longer needed. Accordingly, the

references to Sec.  82.10 in those provisions will also be removed.
iv. Transfer of Class I Allowances
    The EPA historically had allowed for the transfer of production and
consumption allowances for class I substances in various ways. Under
section 607 of the CAA, the EPA was required to issue regulations
providing for inter-pollutant allowance transfers and allowance
transfers between companies. For class I substances, those regulations
appear at 40 CFR 82.12. Due to the class I phaseout, the EPA no longer
allocates production or consumption allowances for class I substances.
Because these provisions no longer have any purpose or effect, the EPA
is removing provisions related to pre-1996 allowance transfers for
class I ODS (and pre-2005 for methyl bromide) found at 40 CFR 82.12, by
revising paragraph (a)(1) and removing paragraph (b)(1), as any such
transfers occurred years ago and these provisions no longer have any
purpose or effect.
    As discussed earlier in this section, the EPA is removing certain
provisions governing class I Article 5 allowances and destruction and
transformation credits. The EPA is therefore also removing provisions
allowing for the transfer of class I Article 5 allowances and
destruction and transformation credits found at 40 CFR 82.12(a)(2),
(b)(2) through (5), and (c) as those provisions are longer needed.
v. HCFC-141b Allowances
    In 2003, the EPA issued regulations (see 68 FR 2820, January 21,
2003) to ensure compliance with the first reduction milestone in the
HCFC phaseout. In that rule, the EPA established chemical-specific
consumption and production baselines for HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, and HCFC-
142b for the initial regulatory period ending December 31, 2009. The
rule phased out the production and import of HCFC-141b effective
January 1, 2003 (see 40 CFR 82.16(b)). The EPA created a petition
process at 40 CFR 82.16(h) to allow applicants to request ``HCFC-141b
exemption allowances'' to produce or import small amounts of HCFC-141b
beyond the phaseout. The Agency removed 40 CFR 82.16(h) from the
regulations and terminated the HCFC-141b exemption allowance program,
effective January 1, 2015 (79 FR 64267, October 28, 2014). At that
time, the EPA did not remove definitions and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that pertain only to HCFC-141b exemption
allowances. In the current rulemaking, the EPA proposed to remove those
provisions, and is now finalizing those revisions as proposed, as
described in the following paragraphs.
    In this action, the EPA is removing the definitions in 40 CFR 82.3
specific to HCFC-141b production or import after the 2003 phaseout, in
particular, the definitions of ``Formulator,'' ``HCFC-141b exemption
allowances,'' and ``Unexpended HCFC-141b exemption allowances.'' The
definitions for HCFC-141b exemption allowances are no longer relevant
since the EPA has removed the substantive regulations that these
definitions support. For the same reasons, the EPA is removing
references to HCFC-141b in the definition of ``Confer,'' but is
retaining the remainder of that definition. The EPA is also removing
references and recordkeeping and reporting requirements specifically
relating to HCFC-141b exemption allowances. These edits are made by
removing 40 CFR 82.24(b)(1)(ix) and (xi), (b)(2)(xiv), (c)(1)(xi),
(c)(2)(xvi),and (g).
    The EPA also created provisions at 40 CFR 82.18(b) to allow
producers to use ``export production allowances'' to produce HCFC-141b
for export beyond the phaseout. These allowances ended in 2010 and
therefore these provisions have no further purpose or effect. The EPA
is retaining the definition of export production allowances and certain
references where appropriate to provide context to the reader but is
removing the recordkeeping and reporting provisions. These edits are
made in 40 CFR 82.16(e)(1) and (2) and 82.24(b)(2)(iv), and by removing
Sec.  82.24(b)(1)(iv) and (ix), (b)(2)(xii), and (d)(2).

M. Other Comments Not Related to the Proposal

    The EPA received a comment that is unrelated to the proposed rule
on the management and destruction of ODS held in banks in relation to
the venting prohibition in section 608 of the CAA. In this comment, EIA
notes that a substantial bank of ODS persists in the United States,
including of CFC-11 contained in foams as well as other class I and
class II ODS substances contained in existing refrigeration and air-
conditioning equipment or stockpiles. They state that despite a growing
bank of ODS found to be available for recovery from retired equipment,
the rate of proper disposal of these substances through either
reclamation or destruction has declined. The commenter suggests that
the low rates of reclamation and destruction in the United States,
particularly of class II ODS, indicates that significant quantities of
these substances are likely being vented in violation of section 608 of
the CAA. They argue that in order to enforce the venting prohibition
and encourage responsible management and disposal of the remaining bank
of ODS, the EPA should propose additional measures on lifecycle ODS
management. The EPA notes that this comment pertains to section 608 of
the CAA and the regulations under 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, and is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which did not propose and is not
finalizing any changes to the subpart F requirements. As the comment is
not relevant to this final action, no response is required.

IV. Economic Analysis

    The EPA considered the incremental costs and benefits associated
with this rulemaking, which primarily stem from changes to reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. In total, the EPA estimates that the
quantified costs and benefits of this rule results in a net savings of
$13,000 per year. The Agency analyzed the quantitative costs and
benefits associated with transitioning to electronic reporting, the
streamlined import petition process for used halons, exempting halon
1211 in aircraft bottles from the import petitions process,
establishing the Certification of Intent to Import ODS for Destruction,
adding a recordkeeping requirement for certain distributors of methyl
bromide QPS applications, and labeling containers of Halotron[supreg]
I. The quantifiable costs and benefits of this rule primarily result
from the revisions to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements and
the requirement to use electronic reporting. For the phaseout of ODS,
the EPA previously considered the domestic costs and benefits of the
United States' phaseout.\58\ Many of the regulatory revisions finalized
in this action, such as the removal of obsolete requirements, will not
result in any new costs or benefits. The EPA has provided in the docket
technical support documents that consider the costs and the benefits
commensurate with changes to the ODS phaseout regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The following documents are available in the docket: ``EPA.
1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990 to 2010;''
``EPA. 1992. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Compliance with Section 604
of the Clean Air Act for the Phaseout of Ozone Depleting
Chemicals;'' and ``EPA. 1993. Addendum to the 1992 Phaseout
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Accelerating the Phaseout of CFCs,
Halons, Methyl Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride, and HCFCs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronic reporting allows for faster review and transmission of
submissions to the EPA. Additionally, all information submitted
electronically is linked in an improved tracking system, which
facilitates document management and allows companies to more easily

manage past and future submissions. The estimated burden hours and
labor costs will decrease as a result of the complete transition from
paper to electronic reporting, including removing unnecessary data
elements and auto-populating others. Similarly, the estimated Agency
burden hours and labor costs decreases. The streamlined petitions
process for importing used halons and the new Certification of Intent
to Import ODS for Destruction both decrease the estimated respondent
burden. Specifically, the number of reporting elements for importers
for destruction is reduced from 13 to 9, reducing burden hours per
response by four hours. The EPA also estimates that exempting halon
1211 used in aircraft bottles from the petition process reduces the
number of responses per respondent by one. These changes are detailed
in the supporting statement for the Information Collection Request
available in the docket to this rule.
    The EPA estimates that redesigning the existing labels on
containers of Halotron[supreg] I will result in a one-time cost of
approximately $4,000. Administrative and graphic design labor costs are
estimated based on the total amount of hours required to redesign
existing labels as well as hourly labor costs. Hourly costs include
wages, overhead rates, and fringe rates. Additional information on this
analysis is available in the docket titled ``Estimated costs of
Regulatory Changes to Labeling of Containers of HCFC Fire Suppression
Agent, 2020-2029.''
    There are also unquantifiable effects of this rule. Prohibiting
both the sale of QPS methyl bromide for non-QPS purposes and the sale
of illegally imported ODS is designed to improve compliance with the
existing provisions. These costs are unquantifiable as the scale of
these sales is not known but are anticipated to be small due to the
illegality of such sales. The prohibition on sales and distribution of
polyurethane foam systems containing CFCs will have no cost because
there is no evidence to suggest this practice is occurring in the
United States. Updating the definition of destruction allows for the
use of new destruction technologies that are currently not in use in
the United States but can now be employed with the additional
technologies. Additional destruction of unwanted ODS in the United
States may generate revenue for domestic destruction facilities.
Lastly, the removal of obsolete provisions is not anticipated to have
any material cost or benefit.
    Previous analyses provide information on the costs and benefits of
the United States' ODS phaseout, and specifically the phaseout of all
HCFCs through 2030, but do not quantify the costs and benefits of each
individual phaseout step for each individual chemical. A memorandum
summarizing these analyses, including the original regulatory impact
analysis for the full phaseout of ODS, is available in the docket.\59\
This rule allows for the production and consumption of HCFC-123 and
HCFC-124 that will otherwise not be allowed in the absence of this
rulemaking. These HCFCs will then be used to service existing fire
suppression, refrigeration, and air-conditioning equipment, as modeled
in the 2019 Final Servicing Tail Report. This rule relieves a
regulatory prohibition on production and consumption of HCFC-123 and
HCFC-124 and results in greater benefits than taking no action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ EPA 2008, ``HCFC Cost Analysis'' and EPA 2018, ``Overview
of CFC and HCFC Phaseout.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In finalizing the level of allocation for HCFC-123, the EPA
considered the quantities needed to satisfy estimated demand for HCFC-
123 to service equipment manufactured before 2020 and the amount of
HCFC-123 that will likely be reclaimed annually, and thus be available
to meet part of the demand for HCFC-123. The Agency is issuing
consumption allowances equal to the 2020 estimated HCFC-123 demand for
servicing existing refrigeration and air-conditioning and fire
suppression equipment for years 2020 through 2022 and then decreasing
the number of allowances issued in each subsequent year by an equal
amount each year such that there are zero allowances issued in 2030.
This allocation will avoid stranding existing equipment due to an
inadequate supply of HCFCs while achieving a complete phaseout of
production and consumption by 2030. As discussed in Section III of this
document, a viable reclamation market is a necessary element in
achieving those two goals. Issuing allowances in excess of demand would
suppress the reclamation market and result in less supply to service
equipment after the 2030 phaseout. In the near term, the final
allocation provides sufficient allowances to meet the near-term needs
of the market while also fostering reclamation and transition. A final
allocation that is significantly too high or too low could adversely
affect the availability of reclaimed HCFC-123 for the fire suppression
sector because reclamation is the only source of HCFC-123 for the
manufacture of new fire suppression equipment once stockpiles of
previously-imported material is exhausted. Thus, if the reclaim market
is suppressed from 2020 through 2029, there will be less supply and
higher costs for HCFC-123 for the manufacture of new fire suppression
equipment and less supply and higher costs as the phaseout progresses
since the supply of HCFC-123 will eventually only be from the recycling
or reclamation market.
    The EPA finds there is no significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities (SISNOSE). The EPA performed a sales test to
assess the economic impact of a regulatory option on small businesses
and compared the results of the sales test. This analysis is available
in the docket. Based on the screening analysis of allowance holders of
HCFC-123 and HCFC-124, this rulemaking has no SISNOSE because it is
expected to result in a small net benefit to small businesses through
the ability to continue producing, importing and/or selling HCFC-123
and HCFC-124. The EPA notes that there are only eight companies total
that hold consumption allowances for HCFC-123 and HCFC-124, only three
of which are small businesses.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13771, because this
final rule is expected to result in no more than de minimis costs.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned the EPA
ICR number 1432.34. You can find a copy of the ICR and supporting
statement in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized
here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
    This ICR covers provisions under the Montreal Protocol and Title VI
of the CAA that establish limits on total U.S. production, import, and
export of ODS. The EPA monitors compliance with the

CAA and commitments under the Montreal Protocol through the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements established in the regulations
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. The EPA informs the respondents that they
may assert claims of business confidentiality for any of the
information they submit. Information claimed as confidential will be
treated in accordance with the procedures for handling information
claimed as confidential under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and will be
disclosed to the extent, and by means of procedures, set forth in
subpart B. If no claim of confidentiality is asserted when the
information is received by the EPA, it may be made available to the
public without further notice to the respondents (40 CFR 2.203).
    Respondents/affected entities: Producers, importers, exporters, and
certain users of ozone depleting substances; methyl bromide
applicators, distributors, and end users including commodity storage
and quarantine users.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory--Sections 603(b) and
114 of the CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 98.
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, annually, and as needed.
    Total estimated burden: 2,940 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $363,683, includes $7,400 annualized capital
or operation & maintenance costs.
    The ICR addresses changes to the existing reporting and
recordkeeping programs that are approved under OMB control number 2060-
0170.
    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities potentially subject to increased costs from this action
include allowance holders, distributors, applicators, and end users of
methyl bromide and importers of ODS. The EPA estimates that the total
incremental savings associated with this final rule is $13,000 per year
in 2019 dollars.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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 in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O.
12866. The Agency nonetheless has reason to believe that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone
results in greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation
to the earth's surface. The following studies describe the effects of
excessive exposure to UV radiation on children: (1) Westerdahl J,
Olsson H, Ingvar C. ``At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial
role for the development of malignant melanoma,'' Eur J Cancer 1994:
30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM Japson J. ``Melanoma and sun exposure: an