p.1 

OAR Box 1833 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

71) FED REG VOL 55 NO 30 FEBRUARY 

13,1990 

Docket Number: 

A-87-20 

Printed 11/14/200811:01:29 AM Sheet 71 ofl 72 
P.2 

41 

"Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 1990 / Rules and Regulations B 

Commands shall be issued through the 

CJCS. 

(b) Obtain reports, information, 

advice, and assistance, consistent with 

DoD Directive 7750.5, as necessary, in 

carrying out assigned functions. 

(c) Communicate directly with the 

heads of DoD Components. 

Communications to Commanders of the 

Unified and Specified Commands shall 

be coordinated with, and transmitted 

through, the CJCS. 

(d) Communicate with other 

Government Agencies, representatives 

of the legislative branch, and members 

of the public, as appropriate, in carrying 

out assigned functions. 

Dated: February 7,1990. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 90-3316 Filed 2-12-90; 8:45 am] 

BILLING COOE 3010-O1-U 

EMVIRONEMENTAL PROTECTBOM 

m C¥R Part 82 

[FRL-3S7S-8] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 

AGEMCV: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final amendment to the final 

rule. "~ —° 

SUMR3&RV: Today's notice amends EPA's 

August 12,1988 rule (40 CFR part 82) 

implementing the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances That Deplete the Ozone 

Layer, a treaty to limit the production 

and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons 

and halons. This amendment conforms 

EPA's rule with one of the agreements 

reached by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol concerning the implementation 

of the Protocol. This amendment 

implements the Parties' interpretation of 

"industrial rationalization", a term in 

the control article of the Protocol that 

defines the conditions under which a 

transfer of production can occur 

between Parties. According tc the 

Parties' interpretation, a Party can 

increase its production of the chemicals 

restricted under the Montreal Protocol 

by specified amounts only if there is a 

documented, corresponding decrease in 

production by another Party. Production 

may also increase if it is exported to 

Parties operating under Article 5 of the 

Protocol. Oua to unresolved data issues, 

today's notice continues to reserve 

appendix E under which-Article 5 

countries would be listed. This Notice 

does update the current list of Parties to 

the Protocol (appendix B). 

The Agency proposed this amendment 

on July 12,1989 (54 FR 29353). At that 

time EPA suspended § 82.11 of 40 CFR 

part 82 that allowed the United States 

limited increases in its production of 

controlled substances for exports to 

Parties. 

EPA also proposed three other 

amendments on July 12,1989. These 

amendments proposed expanding the 

definition of exports to include used and 

recycled controlled substances, granting 

of additional allowances to any person 

who uses controlled substances as a 

feedstock for other substances, and a 

new recordkeeping requirement 

mandating procedures to maintain 

records of spills or other releases. The 

Agency will promulgate these 

amendments at a later date after it has 

reviewed more carefully the comments 

submitted during the public comment 

period. 

EFF__TB-_ ©a-^^e^niacy______=_=-, 

FOBS FURTHER UNFOBKJATIOB* CONTACT: 

David Lee, Regulatory and Analysis 

Branch, Global Change Division, Office 

of Atmospheric and Indoor Air 

Programs, Office of Air and Radiation,. 

ANR^l45, 401 M St., SW., Washington, 

DC 20460, (202) 475-7497. 

SUPPLEOG-KrmKV INFORMATION: On 

August 12,1989, EPA promulgated a 

final rule to limit the production and 

consumption of certain 

clorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 

brominated compounds (halons) to 

reduce the risks of stratospheric ozone 

depletion. The rule requires a near-term 

freeze at 1386 levels of production and 

consumption (defined as production plus 

imports minus exports) of CFC-11, -12, -

113, -114, and -115 based on their 

relative ozone depletion weights, 

followed by a phased reduction to 80 

percent and 50 percent of 1986 levels 

beginning in mid-19G3 and mid-1938, 

respectively. It also limits production 

and consumption of Halon 1211,1301, 

and 2402 to 1986 levels beginning in 

1992. Under specified circumstances, 

limited mcreases in production (but not 

consumption) above these levels are 

permitted. 

This rule was promulgated under 

section 157(b) of the Clean Air Act and 

constituted the United States' 

implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol, which the United States 

ratified on April 21,1938. The final rule's 

control measures took effect when the 

Protocol entered into force on January 1, 

1989. 

The rule implements the Protocol's 

requirements to control production and 

consumption of the CFCs and halons 

specified above by allocating production 

and consumption allowances to firms 

that produced and imported these 

chemicals in 1988, based on their 1983 

levels of these activities. 

Today the Agency amends several 

sections of this final rule. These 

amendments are based on agreements 

concerning implementation of the 

Montreal Protocol reached by nations 

that are Parties to the Protocol at their 

first meeting in Helsinki, Finland, durinjthe week of May 1,1989. 

Today's amendments concern the 

Parties' interpretation of Article 2 of the 

Montreal Protocol. Article 2 allows 

increases in production of both groups 

of controlled substances by as much aa 

10 percent, and 15 percent for CFCs after 

July 1,1998, if that production is used to 

satisfy "the basic domestic needs" of 

developing countries or "for the 

purposes of industrial rationalization." 

Industrial rationalization io defined by 

the Protocol as "the transfer of all or a 

portion of the calculated level of 

production from one party to another, 

for the purposes of achieving economic 

efficiencies or responding to anticipated 

shortfalls in supply as a result of plant 

closures." 

In its final rule, EPA interpreted the 

term "industrial rationalization" to 

mean trade in controlled substances 

between Parties. The Agency believed 

that the trading provisions of the 

Protocol created a "bubble" of 

controlled substance production. If one 

Party increased its production by 10 or 

15 percent, it would have to export tbnt 

production to other Parties or decrease 

its imports from Parties in order to 

comply with its consumption limits. TinParty that imported the increased 

production would, in turn, have to 

decrease its own production, or export it 

to another Party. Since, under the 

Montreal Protocol, Parties' consumption 

limits are held constant while their 

production may rise somewhat, any 

increase in production by one Party 

would have to be offset by a d_creun'i in 

production by anothar Party or Parties. 

Therefore, the Agancy beliuved th.it 

exporting to Protocol Parties was 

tantamount to a transfer of production, 

and would meet condition*) of indu-jtri.il 

rationalization. Consequenily, EPA 

promulgated a finiii rule th'it ailoivod 

companies to increase production up to 

the 10 and 15 percent limits spacifisiil in 

the Protocol if the exporUi were; _•„_•! to 

Parties. 

At the Helsinki meetin;*, iha L'_rtit*:i 

determined that the term "industiiil 

rationalization" moans a documtiiitai 

transfer of production rights, rt-quhiui' « 

Party desiring to increase its production 
P.3 

5008 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 1990 / Rules and Regulations" 

"for the purposes of industrial 

rationalization" to obtain the agreement 

of another Party to decrease its 

production by the same amount. To 

comply with the Parties' interpretation 

of industrial rationalization, and to 

ensure internationally consistent 

implementation of the terms of the 

Montreal Protocol, EPA is amending its 

final rule to require any person seeking 

to increase its production for the 

purposes of industrial rationalization to 

obtain and document the agreement of 

another Party to offset that increase. 

At the same time, this amendment 

modifies § 82.11 to allow companies to 

increase their production up to the 10 or 

15 percent limit to satisfy the basic 

domestic needs of countries operating 

under Article 5 of the Protocol. Under 

Article 5 of the Protocol, Parties that are 

developing countries and whose annual 

calculated level of consumption of 

controlled substances is less than 6.3 

kilograms per capita on the date of entry 

into force for it are entitled to postpone 

their compliance with the control 

measures set forth in paragraphs 1 

through 4 of Article 2 by 10 years after 

the date specified in those paragraphs. 

According to the Protocol, no developing 

country Party has submitted data on its 

consumption of controlled substances as 

of the date the Protocol entered into 

force for it (i.e., January 1,1989 or later), 

as such information is not required. 

Indeed, many Parties, including most 

developing country Parties, have not yet 

complied with Article 7 of the Protocol 

that requires that countries report their 

levels of production and consumption of 

controlled substances in 1986 within 

three months of becoming Parties. As a 

result, there is little or no basis for 

determining whether any developing 

country Party consumed controlled 

substances at an annual calculated level 

of less than 0.3 kilograms per capita on 

the date the Protocol entered into force 

for it, and thus whether any developing 

country Party may. avail itself of the 

special treatment afforded by Article 5. 

The Secretariat has decided that 

under these circumstances, it cannot 

make and will not make a determination 

of which Parties should be considered to 

be operating under Article 5 until it . 

submits data demonstrating that its 

consumption of controlled substances as 

of the date the Protocol entered into 

force for it was less than 0.3 kilograms 

per capita. The Secretariat explained • 

that a different approach to 

identification of Article 5 Parties, would , 

risk allowing higher production and . •. 

consumption of controlled substances; 

than the Protocol, would otherwise. ,.: 

allow, or make an inporrect assumption ••. 

as to a Party's desire to operate under 

Article 5, or both. The Secretariat has 

requested this data from all Parties that 

wish to be considered Article 5 

countries so that the purpose of Article 5 

can be realized to the fullest extent 

possible. 

The United States does not wish to 

issue a list of likely Article 5 countries 

at this time. Industry action based on 

such a list may risk the U.S. compliance 

with the Montreal Protocol. Instead the 

United States will continue to work with 

UNEP to obtain the necessary data from 

Article 5 country Parties to determine 

their status under the Protocol. 

In its proposal, EPA listed countries 

believed to be Article 5 countries as of 

July 1,1989. However, this proposed list 

was erroneously based on data obtained 

from UNEP. In today's Notice, the 

Agency can only continue to reserve this 

appendix until a determination of the 

Article 5 countries can be made based 

on the relevant data. 

Comments on the Proposed Amendment 

During its public comment period, 

EPA received comments concerning this 

amendment from only two companies -

(Du Pont and Allied-Signal), both 

chemical producers. Allied-Signal's 

comments primarily addressed 

increases in production for exports to 

Article 5 countries while Du Pont's 

concerned the conditions of "industrial . 

rationalization". 

Allied-Signal requested that EPA 

publish a list of nonsignatory countries 

whose per capita consumption of. . 

controlled substances is less than 0.3 kg 

per year, so that producing companies 

could target their efforts to encourage 

such countries to join the Montreal 

Protocol. Although the Agency agrees 

that the requested list would serve a 

useful purpose, the Agency is unable to 

publish a list of all developing countries 

whose per capita consumption of 

controlled substances is less than 0.3 

kilograms at this time. Such information 

is difficult to obtain and must be verified 

by UNEP. As mentioned, UNEP has not 

obtained data from any country 

concerning their per capita consumption 

of controlled substances, and cannot 

make a determination of which would 

qualify as an Article 5.country. 

Allied-Signal also recommended that 

EPA allow companies to increase their, 

production for exports to any developing 

cpuntry.that meets the criterion of •.-• 

Ai-ticle 5 and once it has ratified the . . 

Protocol. The Agency notes, however, 

that Article 16 of the Montreal Protocol 

(Entry Into Force) states that after the; 

Protocol's entry into force, "any State or 

regional economic integration . • 

organization, shall become a Partyto 

[the Protocol) on the ninetieth day 

following the deposit of its instruments 

of ratification, acceptance, approval or 

accession." The Protocol also specifies 

that production may be increased to 

supply the "basic domestic needs of 

Parties operating under Article 5" 

(emphasis added). Since a country is not 

a Party to the Protocol until 90 days 

after it deposits its instrument of 

ratification, EPA cannot grant additional 

production allowances for exports that 

occur in the 90-day period between the 

date of a country ratification and the 

date on which the country becomes a 

Party. 

In another comment, Allied-Signal 

and Du Pont requested EPA to grant 

additional production allowance for 

exports to Article 5 countries that 

occurred after the first control period 

began (July 1,1989) but prior to 

promulgation of this amendment. EPA 

agrees that firms that have exported to 

Article 5 Parties during this control 

period should be permitted to increase 

production under the terms of the 

Protocol. However, as explained above, 

EPA cannot identify Article 5 Parties at 

this time. Once Article 5 countries have 

been identified and listed in appendix E. 

EPA will consider all past exports to 

Article 5 Parties as requests to increase 

production under the limits stipulated in 

Article 2 of the Protocol. 

Du Pont expressed concern that 

requests for increases in production for 

both the purposes of industrial 

rationalization and for exports to Article 

5 countries were limited by the same 

cap of 10 or 15 percent. Du Pont argued 

that increases in the production for the 

industrial rationalization should be 

limited to one production cap, if at all, 

and that increases in production for the 

purposes of exports to Article 5 

countries should be limited by another 

10 or 15 percent cap. Du Pont argued 

that since the industrial rationalization 

conditions were intended to maximize 

economic efficiency while exports to 

Article 5 countries were intended to 

assist developing countries, two 

separate goals, separate limits should 

apply. However, the Agency must 

strictly adhere to the terms of Article 2 

of the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal 

Protocol states in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 

of Article 2 that production may exceed 

the specified level by no more than 10 

[or 15] percent based on the 1986 level. 

Such "increase shall be permitted only 

so as to satisfy the basic domestic needs 

of the Patties operating under Article 5 

and for the purposes of industrial 

rationalization between Parties." The 

language of the Protocol thus clearly 

applies a single cap on production 
P.4 

:e_ 

/ Vol. 55, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 1990 / Rules and Regulations MJsD 

increases for both purposes, and it is the 

accepted consensus of the Parties that 

total increased production for a Party 

can never exceed its baseline 

production by more than 10 to 15 

percent. 

Du Pont also expressed concern that, 

as proposed, the amendment required a 

document from a diplomatic 

representative for a trade of production 

rights both to and from another country. 

The company suggested that such a 

document should be required only if the 

United States is increasing its 

production through a trade, and that 

EPA does not need such a document to 

approve a decrease in production when 

a company trades away its production 

rights. In response, the Agency agrees 

that such documentation should only be 

required when the United States accepts 

production rights from another country. 

Acknowledgment that the trading 

country intends to decrease its 

production is important for compliance 

purposes to prove to Parties that the 

United States could not exceed its 

production limits in accordance with the 

Protocol. However, when a company 

chooses to trade production rights to 

another country. The United States does 

not need to know if the recipient country 

increases its production. It is only 

important that the United States 

decrease its production. EPA can readily 

monitor that company's reduction in 

production through quarterly production 

reports and plant inspections. For this 

reason, the Agency has eliminated the 

proposed requirement that the domestic 

company obtain a document from the 

recipient country's U.S. embassy 

agreeing to accept the increase in 

production. 

For trades of production allowances 

to other countries, Du Pont argued that a 

document from the trading country's 

embassy in the United States, as 

required by the proposed amendment, 

may not be readily obtained. Du Pont 

believed that the embassy may be 

unfamiliar with this requirement and its 

related environmental issues. Under 

such conditions, the embassy may be 

slow in producing the necessary 

document. The company believed that 

other organizations more knowledgeable 

of the Montreal Protocol are more 

appropriate to provide the needed 

documentation requested by the 

regulation. EPA disagrees with this 

suggested change, The Protocol is a 

treaty negotiated by the Parties. As an 

international treaty, the Montreal ' 

Protocol falls within the purview of that 

country's diplomatic corp. Foreign 

embassies in the United States are the 

appropriate entities for this 

documentation since they represent the 

Parties within the United States. 

In the July 12 notice, the Agency 

requested comments on whether there is 

a need to consider, when reviewing a 

transfer of production rights to another 

Party, other factors such as the 

transfer's potential impact on the 

domestic economy, trade balances and 

the environment. EPA was concerned 

that during this phase-down period of 

controlled substances, the quickly 

changing market for these chemicals 

may pose disadvantages to local 

economies as plants are closed, and will 

adversely affect user groups that may 

become more dependent on foreign 

imports. One French firm, ATOCHEM, 

Groups Elf Aquitaine, recently 

purchased two of the domestic 

producers, Racon and Pennwalt. The 

French parent company could desire 

that its American companies transfer 

their production to France, and then use 

the increased production for exports to 

the United States. Such a transaction 

would affect employment in those areas 

where the closed plants were located 

and disadvantage domestic user 

industries dependent on those supplies. 

The Agency received comments from 

Du Pont on this issue. Du Pont argued 

that EPA should not consider the 

economy or trade implications in 

approving rationalization agreements. 

Such action would add unnecessary 

complications to the approval process. 

The company believed that the 

economic and trade effects would be 

minimal since the rationalization 

agreements are capped at 10 or 15 

percent of a Party's production 

allowances. 

The United States Department of 

Commerce, the United States Trade 

Representative and the Department of 

State commented that the government 

should review these other factors when 

reviewing a trade of production rights to 

another country. Comments cited the 

potential for such trades to impact -

adversely local employment due to plant 

closing, and domestic user groups due to 

increased dependency on foreign 

imports. The EPA believes, under some 

circumstances, it is important to 

consider these factors. Therefore, the 

Agency will reserve the right to include 

these factors in its review of requests to 

transfer production to other Parties. EPA 

will consult with the United States 

Trade Representative, the Department of 

Commerce and the State Department in 

consideration of these factors. 

Final Amendment 

Today EPA modifies two sections of 

the final regulation. The Agency amends 

182.9(c) under which a person may 

obtain authorization to convert potential 

production allowances to actual 

production allowances or reduce his 

available production allowances to tho 

extent he provides a documented 

transfer of production. To document a 

transfer from a Party, a person must 

obtain and submit to SPA a written 

statement from the Party's embassy in 

the United States that the Party aj*jrc.is 

to reduce its production by the 

calculated level of the production to bo 

transferred. The Agency has eliminated 

the proposed requirement that a person 

must obtain a written statement from 

the Party's embassy in the United Staten 

acknowledging that the Party has agreed 

to receive any transfer of production 

rights. For transfers to a Party for the 

purposes of industrial rationalization, 

the Agency will review the transfer 

request and approve the transfer 

provided that the company has 

sufficient allowances to trade. EPA mny, 

in consultation with the; United States 

Trade Representative, the Department of 

Commerce, and the State Department, 

consider in its review of the transfer 

request possible adverse economic, 

trade or environmental effects. All 

transfer requests must contain the namo 

and address of the person submitting th;) 

request and his contact, the name and 

address of the Party involved in tho 

transfer and its contacts, the amount of 

allowable authorization to convert 

requested or production transferred, and 

the control periods to which the trannfer 

applies. 

In addition, the Agency amends 

§ 82.11 to state that authorizations to 

convert potential production allowance!!* 

will also be granted upon proof of 

exports to Parties operating under 

Article 5 of the Protocol. 

The Agency also updates appendix _ 

"Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

Additional Bnformatiora 

1. Executive Order 12291 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12291 requir;*!) 

the preparation of a regulatory impact 

analysis for major rules, defined by tho 

order as those likely to result in: 

(1) An annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more; 

(2) A major increase in costs or prices 

for consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State or local government 

agencies, or geographic industries; or 

(3) Significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation or on the ability 

of the United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign based enterprises 

in domestic or export markets. 
P.5 

5010 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA determined that its August 12, 

1988 final rule to protect stratospheric 

ozone met with the definition of a major 

rule, and therefore prepared a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA). Since these 

amendments do not impose any 

significant burdens as defined by E.O. 

12291, the RIA prepared for the final rule 

fulfills the executive order's requirement 

for these proposals. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Changes to the information 

requirements as amended in today's 

notice have been submitted for approval 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 

information Collection Request 

document has been prepared by EPA 

(ICR No. 1432.03) and a copy may be 

obtained by writing Clara Levesque, 

Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M 

St. SW. (PM-223); Washington, DC 20460 

or by calling (202) 382-2468. 

Public reporting burden for this 

collection of information is estimated to 

increase an average of 3 hours per 

response, including time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Send comments regarding the burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to 

Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM223, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 

20460; and to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Paperwork 

Reduction Project (2060-0170), Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk 

Officer for EPA." 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601-612, requires that federal 

agencies examine the impacts of their 

regulations on small entities. Under 5 

U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(RFA). Such an analysis is not required 

if the head of the agency certifies that a 

rule will not have a significant economic, 

impact on a substantial number of small,", 

entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). EPA 

prepared an initial RFA in support of •its'' • 

final rule, and no additional RFA need..... ... 

be prepared for these amendments. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Stratospheric ozone. 

Dated: February 1,1990: 

William K. Reilly, 

Administrator. * 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

the Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR 

part 82 as follows: 

1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7157(b). 

2. Section 82.9 is amended by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§82.9 [Amended] 

**** * 

(c) A person may convert potential . 

production allowances, either granted to 

him under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section or obtained by him under § 82.12 

(transfer of allowances), to production 

allowances only to the extent authorized 

by the Administrator under § 82.11 

(Exports to Article 5 Parties) or under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. A person 

may obtain authorization to convert 

potential production allowances to 

production allowances by requesting 

issuance of a notice under § 82.11, by 

completing a transfer .of authorization 

under § 82.12, or in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(1) A nation listed in appendix B to 

this part (Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol) must agree either to transfer to 

the person at a specified time some 

amount of the calculated level of 

production that the nation is permitted 

under the Montreal Protocol or to 

receive from the person at a specified 

time some amount of the calculated 

level of production that the person is 

permitted under this part. For trades 

from a Party, the person must obtain 

from the principal diplomatic 

representative in that nation's embassy 

in the United States a document stating 

that the nation agrees to reduce its 

allowable calculated level of production 

by the amount being transferred to the 

recipient for the control period(s) to 

which the transfer applies. The person 

must submit to the Administrator a 

transfer request that includes a true 

copy of this document and that sets 

forth the following: 

(i) The.identity and address of the 

person; 

(ii) The identity of the Party; 

(iii) The names and telephone . . 

numbers of contact persons for the 

person and for the Party;, . ,•-{•, 

(iv) The amount of allowabl e . 

calculated leve l of production being , -

transferred; 

(y)The.control pertod(s) to which, thetransfer applies; 

(2)'After receiving a transfer request 

that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the 

Administrator may, at-his discretion, 

consider the following factors in 

deciding whether to approve such a 

transfer: 

(i) Possible creation of economic 

hardship; 

(ii) Possible effects on trade; 

(iii) Potential environmental 

implications; and 

(iv) A sufficient balance of 

unexpended production allowances. 

(3) The Administrator will issue the 

person a notice granting authorization to 

convert or deducting production 

allowances equivalent to the calculated 

level of production transferred, and 

specifying the control periods to which 

the transfer applies, provided that the 

request meets the requirement of 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section and. if 

necessary, paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. The change in production 

allowances will be effective on the date 

that the notice is issued. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 82.11 by revising the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 82.11 Exports to parties. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

this section, any person may obtain 

authorization to convert potential 

production allowances to production 

allowances by exporting controlled 

substances to nations listed in appendix 

E (Article 5 Parties). Authorization 

obtained under this section will be valid 

only during the control period in which 

the controlled substance departed the 

United States or its territories. A request 

for authorization under this section will 

be considered a request for consumption 

allowances under § 82.10 as well. 

4. Appendix B to part 82 is revised to 

read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 82 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Australia, 

Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, 

Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Fiji (Jan. 

21), France, German Democratic Republic, 

Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, 

Greece. Guatemala (Feb 5), Hungary, Iceland. 

Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan. Kenya,' -

Liechtenstein, Luxembourg. Malaysia, ' " 

Maldives. Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New 

Zealand, Nigeria, Norway; Panama, Portugal, 

Singapore, Spain; SriiLanka (March 15), 

Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic 

(March 12), Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, 

Tunisia, Uganda, USSR, United Arab 

Emirates; (March 22) United Kingdom. United 

States, Venezuela. 
P.6 

Register / Vol. 55, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 

Dates indicate the effective dates when a 

country becmes Party to the Protocol. 

[FR Doc. 90-3252 Filed 2-12-90; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-".* 

DEPARTMENT OF THE 8NTER0QR 

Office of the Secretary 

43 CFR Part 20 

Employee Responsibilities and 

Conduct 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

appendix C. 

SUMMARY: This, notice announces the 

availability of appendix C lo 43 CFR 

part 20. This appendix lists positions 

within the Department of the Interior for 

which Confidential Statements of 

Employment and Financial Interests 

(DI-212) are required to be filed. 

Appendix C has been updated as of 

December 1,1989 and has been printed 

as an agency document. This appendix 

will not be published in the Federal 

Register but will be available to the 

public upon request. 

EFFECTIVE OATE: December 1,1989. 

ADDRESS: Copies of appendix C may be 

obtained from the Deputy Ethics 

Counselor for each bureau or office 

within the Department of the Interior. 

You may address your request to the 

Deputy Ethics Counselor (also insert the 

name of the specific bureau or office), 

1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 

20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATICS* CONTACT: 

Mr. Gabriele J. Paone or Mr. Mason 

Tsai, Departmental Ethics and Audit 

Coordination Staff, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Washington, DC 20240, 

telephone number: (202) 343-5916. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOM: The 

Department of the Interior has received 

approval from the U.S. Office of 

Government Ethics to publish appendix 

C to 43 CFR part 20 as an agency 

document. The availability of this 

document is hereby announced in the 

Federal Register. The initial notice of 

this annual process was provided with 

the publication of 43 CFR part 20 as a 

proposed rule on October 6,1980 (45 FR 

66370). This arrangement meets 

administrative requirements which 

affect only Department of the Interior 

employees and at the same time defrays 

the cost of publishing the appendix C 

listing in the Federal Register. 

Appendix C lists Department of the 

Interior positions, in addition to GS (or 

GM)-15's for which a Confidential 

Statement of Employment and Financial 

Interests (Form DI-212) is required lo be 

filed by 5 CFR pari 735. Positions 

identified in appendix C are effective for 

the February 1,1930 filing deadline. The 

appendix C listings of positions have 

been approved by the U.S. Office of 

Government Ethics. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 20 

Conflicts of interest, Government 

employees. 

Authority: Appendix C to part 20 of title 43 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

published under Executive Order 12674, 30 FR 

6459, 3 CFR 1964-65 Comp., as amended (18 

U.S.C. 201 Note); 5 CFR 735.104; and 5 U.S.C. 

301. 

Each appendix C listing of positions 

was compiled by its respective bureau 

and office ethics counselor. 

Consolidation of bureau and office 

listings into one appendix C document 

was done by the Departmental Ethics 

and Audit Coordination Staff. 

Dated: February 5,1990. 

Charles E. Kay, 

Designated Agency Ethics Official and 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary— 

Policy, Budget and Administration. 

|FR Doc. 90-3272 Filed 2-12-90; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0310-RK-U . 

Bureau otf Land P_artag_meirift 

«3 CFR Public Land Order S7SS 

[OR-943-09-4214-10; GP9-220; OROR-19025, QR-19029, OR-19032, OR' 

19077] 

Partial Revocation ol? Slue Executive 

Orders Dated July 2,1910, and 

February 17,11915, and Opening ol? 

Lands Subject to Section 24 of tne 

Federa! Power Act; Oregon • 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Public land order. 

SUMMARY: This order revokes two 

Executive orders insofar as they affect 

1,914.01 acres of public lands withdrawn 

for the Bureau of Land Management's 

Powersite Reserve Nos. 26, 63, 66, and 

480. This action will open 533.55 acres to 

surface entry. This action will also open 

952.77 acres within Power Project No. 

2030 to surface entry, subject to the 

provisions of section 24 of the Federal 

Power Act. The lands not being opened 

are either acquired lands or within an 

overlapping Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) withdrawal. The revocation and 

opening are needed to permit 

conveyance of the lands to the State of 

Oregon. The lands have been and 

continue to be open to mineral leasing. 

The lands have been and continue to be 

open to mining, except for the acquired 

lands; the lands within Power Project 

No. 2030; and the lands within the BOR 

withdrawal. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15,19U0. 

FOR FURTHER INFORG3ATIOPS CONTACT: 

Champ Vaughan, BLM Oregon Stale 

Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 

97208, 503-231-0905. 

By virtue of the authority vested in Ih:) 

Secretary of the Interior by section 204 

of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, 90 Slat. 2751; 

43 U.S.C. 1714, and pursuant to tho 

determination by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission in DVOR-583, it 

is ordered as follows: 

1. The Executive Order dated July ?., 

1910, which established Powersite 

Reserve No. 26, is hereby revoked 

insofar as it affects the followinjdescribed lands: 

Willamette Meridian 

T. 11 S., R. 12 E., 

Sec. 22, that portion of lot 4 luci-tnd 

westerly of the centerline of tho 

Deschutes Riven 

Sec. 26, WM-SW'/i; 

Sec. 27, lots 4 and 5, SF.'ANW'/i, 

NW'ASE'/o, and those portions nf ths* 

SWViNE'A and NE'/oNW'/o locutod 

westerly of the centerline of the 

Deschutes River; 

Sec. 34, lots 2, 3, and 4, und WV^S.'-l'/^; 

Sec. 35, WV&NW'/i and NW'ASW%, 

T. 12 S., R. 12 E., 

Sec. 3, lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 0, and V.<A\f,VxJ'A; 

Sec. 10, lots 2, 3, 4, 6,11, und 14; 

Sec. 15, lots 3 and 4. 

The nreas described aggrej-ato 

approximately 1,234.84 acres in Jeff'triioii 

County. 

2. The Executive Order dated July 2, 

1910, which established Powersite 

Reserve Nos. 63 and 66, is hereby 

revoked insofar as it affects the 

following described lands: 

Willamette Meridian 

Powersite Reserve No. 63 

T. 11 S., R. 12 E., 

Sec. 35, SW'/4SW'/<i. 

T. 12 S.. R. 12 E., 

Sec. 2, lot 4, and those portions of Iota tt 

and 9 located westerly of tho ccnterlino 

of Crooked Riven 

Sec. 3, lots 9 and 10; 

Sec. 10. lots 1, 8, and 9; 

Sse. 14, NW>/4. 

The areas described aggregulo 

approximately 460.40 acres in Jefferson 

County. 

Willamette Meridian 

Powersite Reserve No. 66 

T. 11 S., R. 12 E., 

Sec. 22, lot 4 and SW^SEVi; 

Sec. 27, those portions of lot 3, WIVME'A, 

and that portion of the NEViNWVii