[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1092-1096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-324]



[[Page 1091]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of 1999 Essential-Use 
Allowances; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 1092]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-6217-1]
RIN 2060-AI26


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of 1999 Essential-
Use Allowances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is allocating essential-use allowances 
for the 1999 control period. The United States nominated specific uses 
of controlled ozone-depleting substances (ODS) as essential for 1999 
under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 
(Protocol). The Parties to the Protocol subsequently authorized 
specific quantities of ODS for 1999 for the uses nominated by the 
United States. Essential-use allowances permit a person to obtain 
controlled ozone-depleting substances as an exemption to the January 1, 
1996 regulatory phaseout of production and import. Essential-use 
allowances are allocated to a person for exempted production or 
importation of a specific quantity of a controlled substance solely for 
the designated essential purpose.

DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Protection 
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 or Tom Land, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric 
Programs, 6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460, 202-564-
9185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Allocation of 1999 Essential-Use Allowances
III. Response to Comments
IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis
    A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

I. Background

    The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 
(Protocol) sets specific deadlines for the phaseout of production and 
importation of ozone depleting substances (ODS). At their Fourth 
Meeting in 1992, the signatories to the Protocol (the Parties) amended 
the Protocol to allow exemptions to the phaseout for uses agreed by the 
Parties to be essential. At the same Meeting, the Parties also adopted 
Decision IV/25, which established both criteria for determining whether 
a specific use should be approved as essential and a process for the 
Parties to use in making such a determination.
    The criteria for an essential use as set forth in Decision IV/25 
are the following:
    ``(1) That a use of a controlled substance should qualify as 
`essential' only if:
    (i) It is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the 
functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual 
aspects); and
    (ii) There are no available technically and economically feasible 
alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of 
environment and health;
    (2) That production and consumption, if any, of a controlled 
substance for essential uses should be permitted only if:
    (i) All economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the 
essential-use and any associated emission of the controlled substance; 
and
    (ii) The controlled substance is not available in sufficient 
quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled 
controlled substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries' 
need for controlled substances.''
    Decision IV/25 also sets out the procedural steps for implementing 
this process. It first calls for individual Parties to nominate 
essential-uses. These nominations are then to be evaluated by the 
Protocol's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP or the Panel) 
which makes recommendations to representatives of all Protocol Parties. 
The final decision on which nominations to approve is to be taken by a 
meeting of the Parties.
    The initial cycle of implementing this Decision has been completed 
in the context of halons which were phased out of production at the end 
of 1993. This initial timetable separated nominations for halons from 
those for other ozone-depleting substances. EPA issued a Federal 
Register document requesting nominations for essential uses of halons 
(February 2, 1993; 58 FR 6786). In response, the Agency received over 
ten nominations, but was able to work with applicants to resolve their 
near-term requirements. As a result, the U.S. did not nominate any uses 
for continued halon production in 1994. About a dozen other nations put 
forth nominations which were reviewed by the Technical and Economic 
Assessment Panel. Because the Panel determined that in each case 
alternatives existed or that the existing supply of banked halons was 
adequate to meet near-term needs, it did not recommend approval of any 
of the nominations. In November of 1993, at the Fifth Meeting, the 
Parties unanimously adopted the recommendation of the Panel not to 
approve any essential uses for the production or consumption of halons 
in 1994.
    EPA issued a second document for essential-use nominations for 
halons on October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53722). These nominations covered 
possible production of halons in 1995 for essential uses. In response 
to this inquiry, EPA received no nominations.
    Only one nomination (from France) was received by the TEAP for 
production and consumption of halons for an essential use in 1995. The 
TEAP did not recommend approval of this nomination.
    EPA also issued a Federal Register document requesting nominations 
for essential-use applications which would need to continue beyond the 
1996 phaseout of consumption and production allowances for CFCs, methyl 
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and hydrobromofluorocarbons (May 20, 
1993, 58 FR 29410). EPA received 20 applications in response to this 
document. For several of these applications, EPA determined that the 
criteria contained in Decision IV/25 had not been satisfied. For 
example, two applications sought CFCs for servicing existing air-
conditioning equipment. EPA rejected these applications on the basis 
that if all economically feasible steps were taken prior to the 1996 
phaseout, then adequate supplies of banked and recycled CFCs should be 
available. However, in rejecting these nominations, the United States 
noted that servicing existing air-conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment remains a major challenge to the successful transition from 
the use of CFCs and that a future nomination in this area might be 
necessary if a combination of retrofits, replacements, recycling, 
recovery at disposal, and banking do not adequately address these 
needs.

[[Page 1093]]

    Of the responses to the Federal Register request for essential-use 
applications, the United States submitted essential-use nominations to 
the Protocol Secretariat for the following uses of CFCs: metered dose 
inhalers and other selected medical applications; rocket motor assembly 
for the Space Shuttle; aerosol wasp killers; limited use in a specified 
bonding agent and polymer application; and a generic application for 
laboratory uses under specified limitations. (Letter from Pomerance to 
UNEP, September 27, 1993).
    Nominations from the U.S. and other countries for over 200 specific 
uses were submitted to the Montreal Protocol Secretariat and provided 
to the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel for review. In March 
1994, the Panel issued the ``1994 Report of the Technology and Economic 
Assessment Panel.'' The Report includes the Panel's recommendations for 
essential-use production and consumption exemptions. The Panel 
recommended that essential-use exemptions be granted for nominations 
of: methyl chloroform in solvent bonding for the Space Shuttle; CFCs 
used in metered dose inhalers; and specific controlled substances 
needed for laboratory and analytical applications. For each of the 
other nominations submitted, the TEAP determined that one or more of 
the criteria for evaluating an essential-use had not been satisfied. 
For example, in the case of several of the U.S. nominations, the report 
states that alternatives are available and therefore the essential-use 
exemption is not warranted.
    In every year since 1994, the Parties have reviewed recommendations 
by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and made final 
decisions on essential-use authorizations. Today's action follows 
decisions taken by the Parties after considering recommendations by the 
TEAP in 1997 and 1998.
    In 1993, the Parties to the Protocol modified the timetable for 
submission of essential-use nominations to combine both halons and all 
the other class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) and to 
reduce the overall length of time between nomination and decision. 
According to Decision V/18, essential-use nominations for halon 
consumption and production for 1995 and beyond, and essential-use 
nominations for all the other class I controlled substances (except 
methyl bromide) for 1997 and beyond, must be submitted to the 
Secretariat prior to January 1st of the year prior to the year for 
which production and consumption is being sought. The Parties again 
revised the timetable for essential-use nominations in Decision VIII/9 
requiring submission by 31 January in the year in which decisions would 
be taken for subsequent years. EPA revised the domestic schedule 
accordingly so a Federal Register document calling for essential-use 
applications for class I controlled substances for future years is 
published prior to the Protocol deadline for submission to the Ozone 
Secretariat.
    Decision V/18 directed the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 
to develop a ``handbook on essential-use nominations'' (Handbook). The 
July 1994 Handbook contained forms and instructions for how to apply 
for an essential-use exemption. Subsequent decisions by the Parties to 
the Protocol created additional criteria for essential-use 
authorizations now reflected in the August 1997 Handbook on Essential-
use Nominations. The Handbook may be obtained from the Stratospheric 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Ozone 
Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol in Nairobi. The Handbook can also 
be downloaded from the TEAP website at: http://www.teap.org/html/
teap__reports.html.

II. Allocation of 1999 Essential-Use Allowances

    In today's action, EPA is allocating essential-use allowances for 
the 1999 control period to entities listed in Table I for exempted 
production or import of the specific quantity of class I controlled 
substances solely for the specified essential-use.

     Table I.--Essential Uses Agreed To by the Parties To the Protocol for 1999 and Essential-use Allowances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Quantity
                      Company/entity                            Class I controlled substance          (metric
                                                                                                      tonnes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (i) Metered Dose Inhalers for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC)--   CFC-11...............................           899.5
 Armstrong Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim              CFC-12...............................          2157.4
 Pharmaceuticals, Glaxo Wellcome, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer,     CFC-114..............................           183.6
 Schering Corporation, 3M.
Medisol Laboratories, Inc................................  CFC-11...............................            67.3
                                                           CFC-12...............................           115.3
                                                           CFC-114..............................             9.6
Aeropharm Technology, Inc................................  CFC-11...............................            80.1
                                                           CFC-12...............................           160.2
Sciarra Laboratories, Inc................................  CFC-11...............................             0.5
                                                           CFC-12...............................             1.5
                                                           CFC-114..............................             0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   (ii) Cleaning, Bonding and Surface Activation Applications for the Space Shuttle Rockets and Titan Rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/      Methyl Chloroform....................            56.7
 Thiokol Rocket.
United States Air Force/Titan Rocket.....................  Methyl Chloroform....................             3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  (iii) Laboratory and Analytical Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Exemption (Restrictions in Appendix G Apply)......  All Class I Controlled Substances                 \1\
                                                            (except Group VI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No quantity specified.


[[Page 1094]]

    The International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) 
consolidated requests for an essential-use exemption to be nominated to 
the Protocol as an agent of its member companies for administrative 
convenience. By means of a confidential letter to each of the companies 
listed above, EPA will allocate essential-use allowances separately to 
each company in the amount requested by it for the nomination.
    Applications submitted by the entities in Table I requested class I 
controlled substances for uses claimed to be essential during the 1999 
control period. The applications provided information in accordance 
with the criteria set forth in Decision IV/25 of the Protocol and the 
procedures outlined in the ``Handbook on Essential-Use Nominations.'' 
The applications request exemptions for the production and import of 
specific quantities of specific class I controlled substances after the 
phaseout as set forth in 40 CFR 82.4. The applications were reviewed by 
the U.S. government and nominated to the Protocol Secretariat for 
analysis by the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its 
Technical Option Committees (TOCs). The Parties to the Montreal 
Protocol approved the U.S. nominations for essential-use exemptions 
during the Ninth Meeting in 1997 (Decision IX/18). Today's action 
allocates essential-use allowances to United States entities based on 
nominations decided upon by the Parties to the Protocol.
    The 1999 global essential-use exemption for analytical and 
laboratory applications published in today's rule does not alter the 
strict requirements both in 40 CFR 82.13 and in appendix G to 40 CFR 
part 82, subpart A. The restrictions for the global laboratory and 
analytical essential-use exemption listed in appendix G include 
requirements regarding purity of the class I controlled substances and 
the size of the containers. In addition, there are detailed reporting 
requirements in Sec. 82.13 for persons that take advantage of the 
global laboratory and analytical essential-use exemption for class I 
controlled substances. The strict requirements are established because 
the Parties to the Protocol, and today's rule, do not specify a 
quantity of essential-use allowances permitted for analytical and 
laboratory applications, but establish a global essential-use 
exemption, without a named recipient.
    Any person obtaining class I controlled substances after the 
phaseout under the essential-use exemptions in today's action is 
subject to all the restrictions and requirements in other sections of 
40 CFR part 82, subpart A. Holders of essential-use allowances or 
persons obtaining class I controlled substances under the essential-use 
exemptions must comply with the record keeping and reporting 
requirements in Sec. 82.13 and the restrictions in Appendix G.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment pointing out that, in accordance with the 
direct final rule published on August 4, 1998 (63 FR 41625) and the 
related subsequent notice on October 5, 1998 (63 FR 53290), the 
regulatory citation in the propose rule published on November 20, 1998 
(63 FR 64437) should be changed from Sec. 82.4(r)(2) to 
Sec. 82.4(t)(2). With this action, EPA makes this appropriate change to 
the paragraph citation to be consistent with changes made in prior 
rules.

IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector.
    Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written 
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final 
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before 
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, 
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider 
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Section 204 of the UMRA requires the 
Agency to develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal 
government officials to provide input in the development of any 
proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. Because this rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal government it is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA 
has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments; 
therefore, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small 
governments under section 203. Finally, because this rule does not 
contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not 
required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state, 
local, and tribal officials under section 204.

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide the Office of 
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The final rule does not impose any enforceable duties on 
these

[[Page 1095]]

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not add any information collection requirements or 
increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
previously approved the information collection requirements contained 
in the final rule promulgated on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.16).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies or matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule does not 
impose any enforceable duties on Indian tribal governments. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities since essential-use allocations 
are granted to large pharmaceutical manufacturing corporations and not 
small entities such as small businesses, not-for-profit enterprises or 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    EPA concluded that this final rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, therefore, I hereby 
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not 
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
and safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

[[Page 1096]]

I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, 
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Ozone layer, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 31, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

    1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls

    2. Section 82.4(t)(2) is amended by revising the table to read as 
follows:


Sec. 82.4  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (t) * * *
    (2) * * *

     Table I.--Essential-Uses Agreed To by the Parties to the Protocol for 1999 and Essential-Use Allowances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Quantity
                      Company/entity                            Class I controlled substance          (metric
                                                                                                      tonnes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (i) Metered Dose Inhalers for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) 1-- CFC-11...............................           899.5
 Armstrong Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim              CFC-12...............................          2157.4
 Pharmaceuticals, Glaxo Wellcome, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer,     CFC-114..............................           183.6
 Schering Corporation, 3M.
Medisol Laboratories, Inc................................  CFC-11...............................            67.3
                                                           CFC-12...............................           115.3
                                                           CFC-114..............................             9.6
Aeropharm Technology, Inc................................  CFC-11...............................            80.1
                                                           CFC-12...............................           160.2
Sciarra Laboratories, Inc................................  CFC-11...............................             0.5
                                                           CFC-12...............................             1.5
                                                           CFC-114..............................             0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (ii) Cleaning, Bonding and Surface Activation Applications for the Space Shuttle Rockets and Titan Rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/      Methyl Chloroform....................            56.7
 Thiokol Rocket.
United States Air Force/Titan Rocket.....................  Methyl Chloroform....................             3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  (iii) Laboratory and Analytical Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Exemption (Restrictions in Appendix G Apply)......  All Class I Controlled Substances               (\2\)
                                                            (except Group VI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) consolidated requests for an essential-use
  exemption to be nominated to the Protocol as an agent of its member companies for administrative convenience.
  By means of a confidential letter to each of the companies listed above, EPA will allocate essential-use
  allowances separately to each company in the amount requested by it for the nomination.
\2\ No quantity specified.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-324 Filed 1-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P