[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70795-70804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-6906-4]
RIN 2060-AI41
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Incorporation of Clean Air Act
Amendments for Reductions in Class I, Group VI Controlled Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is taking direct final action on the
accelerated phaseout regulations that govern the production, import,
export, transformation and destruction of substances that deplete the
ozone layer under the authority of Title VI of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are undertaking these revisions
to implement recent changes (Oct. 21, 1998) to the CAA, which direct
EPA to conform the U.S. methyl bromide phasedown schedule to the
schedule for industrialized nations under the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). Specifically,
today's amendments reflect the Protocol's reductions in the production
and consumption of class I, Group VI controlled substances (methyl
bromide) for the 2001 calendar year and subsequent calendar years, as
follows: beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent reduction in baseline
levels; beginning January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction in baseline
levels; and, beginning January 1, 2005, the complete phaseout of class
I, Group VI controlled substances.
[[Page 70796]]
DATES: This rule will become effective on January 29, 2001 without
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by December
28, 2000. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule
will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this rulemaking should be submitted in duplicate
(two copies) to: Air Docket No. A-2000-24, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room M-1500, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Public
Docket No. A-2000-24. The docket is located in room M-1500, Waterside
Mall (Ground Floor), at the above address. The materials may be
inspected from 8 am until 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday. We may charge
a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Information
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm Eastern
Standard Time, or Amber Moreen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., 20460, (202) 564-9295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are revising the methyl bromide phaseout
regulation as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we
view these revisions, directly mandated by the statutory language
established by Congress, as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to update the methyl bromide phaseout schedule if
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on January 29,
2001 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by
December 28, 2000. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on these revisions to part 82 subpart A should do so at this
time. EPA reiterates that the phasedown and phaseout levels and dates
are statutorily required, and that it therefore has no discretion to
alter the schedule.
Recognizing the expressed intent of Congress in recent changes to
the CAA to include certain types of exemptions, the preamble to today's
direct final rule also notifies the public of our intent to propose
future rulemakings concerning quarantine and preshipment exemptions, as
well as the post-phaseout critical and emergency use exemptions.
Table of Contents
I. What is the Legislative and Regulatory Background of the Phaseout
Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances?
II. What is Methyl Bromide?
III. What is the Regulatory Background Relating Specifically to
Methyl Bromide?
IV. How is EPA Phasing Out Methyl Bromide?
a. What does the Protocol say about the phaseout of methyl
bromide?
b. What is the legal authority for phasing out methyl bromide?
c. What are today's phasedown changes?
V. What Are the Additional Changes Necessary to Facilitate the New
Phaseout Schedule?
VI. Are the Existing Regulations being Amended to Reflect the
Critical and Emergency Use Provisions (Sec. 82.3 (Definitions) and
Sec. 82.7)?
a. What Exemptions Does the Montreal Protocol Provide Beginning
in 2005?
b. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for granting a
critical use exemption after the phaseout?
c. What is the CAA legal authority for implementing the critical
use exemption?
d. How will the U.S. incorporate the critical use exemption?
e. What is the Protocol authority for granting an emergency use
exemption?
f. What is the CAA legal authority for implementing the
emergency use exemption?
g. How will the Decision IX/7 affect emergency agricultural uses
in the U.S.?
VII. Will Production Allowances be Available for Export to
Developing Countries (Sec. 82.9)?
a. What does the Protocol say about 2001 production allowances
for export to developing countries?
b. How did the U.S. provide for Article 5 allowances in the CAA?
c. What production for export to Article 5 countries will be
allowed past 2001?
VIII. How do Today's Changes Affect the Economic Impact of the
Phaseout?
IX. What are the Supporting Analyses?
a. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
b. Regulatory Flexibility
c. Executive Order 12866
d. Applicability of Executive Order 13045--Children's Health
Protection
e. Paperwork Reduction Act
f. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
g. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
h. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
i. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
I. What Is the Legislative and Regulatory Background of the
Phaseout Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances?
The current regulatory requirements of the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program that limit production and consumption of ozone-
depleting substances were promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) in the Federal Register on December 20, 1994
(59 FR 65478), May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24970), August 4, 1998 (63 FR
41625), and October 5, 1998 (63 FR 53290). The regulatory program was
originally published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR
30566), in response to the 1987 signing, by the U.S. and other
countries, of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer (Protocol).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Several revisions to the original 1988 rule were issued on
the following dates: February 9, 1989 (54 FR 6376), April 3, 1989
(54 FR 13502), July 5, 1989 (54 FR 28062), July 12, 1989 (54 FR
29337), February 13, 1990 (55 FR 5005), June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24490)
and June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25812) July 30, 1992 (57 FR 33754), and
December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements contained in the final rules published in the
Federal Register on December 20, 1994 and May 10, 1995 establish an
Allowance Program. The Allowance Program and its history are described
in the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register
on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56276). The control and the phaseout of the
production and consumption of class I ozone-depleting substances as
required under the Protocol and the CAA are accomplished through the
Allowance Program.
In developing the Allowance Program, we collected information on
the amounts of ozone-depleting substances produced, imported, exported,
transformed and destroyed within the U.S. for specific baseline years
for specific chemicals. This information was used to establish the U.S.
production and consumption ceilings for these chemicals. The data were
also used to assign company-specific production and import rights to
companies that were in most cases producing or importing during the
specific year of data collection. These production or import rights are
called ``allowances.'' Due to the complete phaseout of many of the
ozone-depleting chemicals, the quantities of allowances granted to
companies for those chemicals were gradually reduced and eventually
eliminated. Production allowances and consumption allowances continue
to exist for only one specific class I controlled ozone-depleting
substance--methyl bromide.
[[Page 70797]]
All other production or consumption of class I controlled substances is
prohibited under the Protocol and the CAA, but for a few narrow
exemptions.
In the context of the regulatory program, the use of the term
consumption may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the ``use'' of
a controlled substance, but rather is defined as the formula:
production + imports--exports, of controlled substances (Article 1 of
the Protocol and Section 601 of the CAA). Class I controlled substances
that were produced or imported through the expenditure of allowances
prior to their phaseout date can continue to be used by industry and
the public after that specific chemical's phaseout under these
regulations, unless otherwise precluded under separate regulations.
The specific names and chemical formulas for the class I controlled
ozone-depleting substances are in Appendix A and Appendix F in Subpart
A of 40 CFR Part 82. The specific names and chemical formulas for the
class II controlled ozone-depleting substances are in Appendix B and
Appendix F in Subpart A.
Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption
of class I, Group II substances (halons) on January 1, 1994, and all
other class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) on January
1, 1996, a very limited number of exemptions exist, consistent with
U.S. obligations under the Protocol. The regulations allow for the
manufacture of phased-out class I controlled substances, provided the
substances are either transformed, or destroyed (40 CFR 82.4(b)). They
also allow limited manufacture if the substances are (1) exported to
countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol or (2) produced for
essential uses as authorized by the Protocol and the regulations.
Limited exceptions to the ban on the import of phased-out class I
controlled substances also exist if the substances are: (1) previously
used, (2) imported for essential uses as authorized by the Protocol and
the regulations, (3) imported for destruction or transformation only,
or (4) a transhipment or a heel (a small amount of controlled substance
remaining in a container after discharge) (40 CFR 82.4(d),
82.13(g)(2)).
II. What Is Methyl Bromide?
Methyl bromide is an odorless and colorless gas used in the U.S.
and throughout the world as a fumigant. Methyl bromide, which is toxic
to living things, is used in many different situations to control a
variety of pests, such as: insects, weeds, pathogens, and nematodes.
Additional characteristics and details about the uses of methyl
bromide, as well as information on the basis for listing methyl bromide
as a class I substance, can be found in the proposed rule published in
the Federal Register on March 18, 1993 (58 FR 15014) and the final rule
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018).
Updated information on methyl bromide can be found at the following
sites of the World Wide Web: www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ and www.teap.org or
by contacting the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-
1996.
III. What Is the Regulatory Background Relating Specifically to
Methyl Bromide?
The Parties to the Protocol established a freeze in the level of
methyl bromide production and consumption for industrialized countries
at the 1992 Meeting in Copenhagen. The Parties agreed that each
industrialized country's level of methyl bromide production and
consumption in 1991 should be the baseline for establishing the freeze.
EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register on December 10,
1993, listing methyl bromide as a class I, Group VI controlled
substance, freezing U.S. production and consumption at this 1991 level,
and, in Sec. 82.7 of the rule, setting forth the percentage of baseline
allowances for methyl bromide granted to companies in each control
period (each calendar year) until the year 2001 (58 FR 65018).
Consistent with the CAA requirements for newly listed class I ozone-
depleting substances, this rule established a 2001 phaseout for methyl
bromide. In the rule published in the Federal Register on December 30,
1993 (58 FR 69235), we established baseline methyl bromide production
and consumption allowances for specific companies in Sec. 82.5 and
Sec. 82.6.
At their 1997 meeting, the Parties agreed to establish the phaseout
schedule for methyl bromide in industrialized countries. The U.S.
Congress followed by amending the CAA (in Oct. 1998) to direct EPA to
promulgate regulations reflecting the Protocol phaseout date of 2005,
with interim phasedown steps in 1999, 2001, and 2003. EPA promulgated a
regulation that was published in the Federal Register on June 1, 1999
(64 FR 29240), instituting the initial interim reduction of 25 percent
in the production and import \2\ of methyl bromide for the 1999 and
2000 control periods. Currently, we grant 75 percent of the 1991
baseline methyl bromide allowances for each control period until 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The formula for ``consumption'' is production + import--
export. Because ``consumption'' encompasses ``production and
import'', consumption is included by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect to publish a proposed rule adding exemptions for
production and import of quantities of methyl bromide that are used for
quarantine and preshipment in late 2000. That proposal may also include
a proposed ban on trade of methyl bromide with non-Parties to the
Protocol, as decided by the Parties in 1997.
IV. How Is EPA Phasing Out Methyl Bromide?
a. What Does the Protocol Say About the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide?
As stated in Section I of this preamble, the U.S. was one of the
original signatories to the Protocol. The U.S. ratified the Protocol on
April 21, 1988. Today's amendment is designed to complete
implementation of article 2H of the Protocol. Paragraphs 3 through 5
establish the remaining phaseout schedule for methyl bromide:
3. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
commencing on 1 January 2001, and in the twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled
substance in Annex E does not exceed, annually, fifty percent of its
calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party producing the
substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated
level of production of the substance does not exceed, annually,
fifty percent of its calculated level of production in 1991 * * *
4. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
commencing on 1 January 2003, and in the twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled
substance in Annex E does not exceed, annually, thirty percent of
its calculated level of consumption in 1991. Each Party producing
the substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its
calculated level of production of the substance does not exceed,
annually, thirty percent of its calculated level of production in
1991 * * *
5. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
commencing on 1 January 2005, and in each twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled
substance in Annex E does not exceed zero. Each Party producing the
substance shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated
level of production of the substance does not exceed zero * * *
Thus, Article 2H establishes obligations for the U.S. to reduce and
eventually phase out its production and import of
[[Page 70798]]
methyl bromide \3\, apart from exemptions discussed later in this
preamble and quantities of methyl bromide used for quarantine and
preshipment uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The formula for ``consumption'' is production + import -
export. Because ``consumption'' encompasses ``production and
import'', phasing out ``production and import'', in effect, also
phases out consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What Is the Legal Authority for Phasing Out Methyl Bromide?
In response to ratification of the Protocol, Congress enacted, and
President Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAA or the Act) that included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone
Protection. As mentioned in section III of this preamble, Congress
amended Title VI of the CAA with Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus
Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No.
105-277; October 21, 1998), directing EPA to reflect in its regulations
the Protocol's most recent phasedown schedule for methyl bromide, and
providing authority to create certain types of exemptions.
Today's amendments are designed to ensure that the U.S. meets its
obligations under the Protocol and the CAA. Section 764(a) of the 1999
Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public
Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998) requires EPA to bring the schedule
for the phaseout of methyl bromide into accordance with the Protocol.
Specifically, the amendments direct EPA to:
* * * not terminate production of methyl bromide prior to
January 1, 2005. The Administrator shall promulgate rules for
reductions in, and terminate the production, importation, and
consumption of, methyl bromide under a schedule that is in
accordance with, but not more stringent than, the phaseout schedule
of the Montreal Protocol Treaty as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this subsection.
This language, which amends Section 604 of the CAA, adding a new
paragraph (h), requires us to extend the timeline for the phasedown in
Sec. 82.7 so that it is in accordance with the current phasedown
schedule under the Protocol. Thus, we are changing the phaseout date
from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2005.
EPA derives its authority for today's action from Section 604(h) of
the Act.
c. What Are Today's Phasedown Changes?
In accordance with the Protocol's methyl bromide phaseout schedule,
we are changing the percentage of baseline allowances for class I,
Group VI substances granted in Sec. 82.7. We are granting the following
allowances to the companies listed in Sec. 82.5 and Sec. 82.6 for
methyl bromide: 50 percent of baseline production and consumption
allowances for 2001 and 2002; 30 percent of baseline production and
consumption allowances for 2003 and 2004; and 0 percent of baseline
production and consumption allowances beginning January 1, 2005.
V. What Are the Additional Changes Necessary To Facilitate the New
Phaseout Schedule?
Many sections of Part 82 of the current regulations contain the
original methyl bromide phaseout date, January 1, 2001. To update the
regulations, we are changing many instances of ``January 1, 2001,''
when referencing methyl bromide, to ``January 1, 2005.'' In addition,
in adding Group VI controlled substances to 82.4(b), we are providing
for the production of methyl bromide past the phaseout date using
Article 5 allowances.
VI. Are the Existing Regulations Being Amended To Reflect the
Critical and Emergency Use Provisions (Sec. 82.3 (Definitions) and
Sec. 82.7)?
a. What Exemptions Does the Montreal Protocol Provide Beginning in
2005?
Because the CAA, by requiring consistency with the Montreal
Protocol, does not allow these exemptions to be available until the
complete phaseout in 2005, they cannot be utilized during the required
interim phasedown period between now and December 31, 2004. Today, we
are creating two reserved sections in the regulations, at Sec. 82.4 (v)
for critical use exemptions and at Sec. 82.4 (w) for emergency use
exemptions. Beyond reserving these sections, EPA is not amending Part
82 by adding the processes for these exemptions at this time. Because
we are not adding the processes at this time, we are not requesting
comment on these exemptions at this time. EPA intends to publish a
proposal for a submittal process, timing, and the procedures by which
the U.S. government would make determinations for both exemptions in a
future notice and comment rulemaking. Any unsolicited comments
addressing the critical and emergency use exemptions will be addressed
in relation to that future proposal.
b. What Is the Montreal Protocol Authority for Granting a Critical Use
Exemption After the Phaseout?
In recognition that substitutes may not be available by 2005 for
certain important methyl bromide uses, the Protocol provides an
exemption in Article 2H, paragraph 5 for critical uses.
Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period
commencing on 1 January 2005, and in each twelve-month period
thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled
substance in Annex E does not exceed zero * * * This paragraph will
apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level
of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses
agreed by them to be critical uses.
While not specifying which uses might be ``critical,'' the Parties
established criteria and some procedural steps for determining whether
a specific use should be approved as critical at their Ninth Meeting
(1997) in Decision IX/6. Apart from quantities used for quarantine or
preshipment, and limited production for export to Article 5 countries,
production and import of methyl bromide are only permitted past January
1, 2005 for those uses approved under Decisions IX/6 or IX/7.
In Decision IX/6, the Parties agreed as follows:
(a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as `critical'
only if the nominating Party determines that:
(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of
availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a
significant market disruption; and
(ii) There are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are
acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are
suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination * * *
Under paragraph 1(a), a Party nominating a specific use as being
critical in its submission to the Protocol Parties must determine both
that the unavailability of methyl bromide for this use would result in
a significant market disruption and that there is a lack of acceptable
and suitable alternatives. The Decision goes on to specify:
(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide
for a critical use should be permitted only if:
(i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been
taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of
methyl bromide;
(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and
quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide,
also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl
bromide;
(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being
made to evaluate, commercialize and secure national regulatory
approval of alternatives and substitutes * * * Non-Article 5 Parties
must demonstrate that research programmes are in
[[Page 70799]]
place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes * * *
The above paragraph of Decision IX/6 requires that a nomination further
demonstrate to the Parties that the use of methyl bromide is minimized,
that methyl bromide is not available through means other than
production, and that alternatives are actively being pursued.
Paragraph (2) of Decision IX/6 requests the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) to evaluate the nominations according to the
criteria in paragraphs 1(a)(ii) and 1(b). In essence, 1(a)(ii) and 1(b)
direct TEAP to evaluate a proposed exemption according to:
(1) The availability of, as well as efforts to find, receive
approval of, and market, alternatives for that particular use;
(2) Efforts to minimize use and emissions; and,
(3) The potential for meeting that need through banked or recycled
methyl bromide.
c. What Is the CAA Legal Authority for Implementing the Critical Use
Exemption?
Any critical use exemption must comply with the provisions of the
CAA. Section 604(d)(6), added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
No. 105-277; October 21, 1998), states that:
To the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol, the
Administrator, after notice and the opportunity for public comment,
and after consultation with other departments or institutions of the
Federal Government having regulatory authority related to methyl
bromide, including the Secretary of Agriculture, may exempt the
production, importation, and consumption of methyl bromide for
critical uses.
With this most recent amendment to the CAA, Congress authorizes EPA to
provide critical use exemptions. Furthermore, by requiring consistency
with the Protocol, Congress obligates EPA to provide these exemptions
only according to the timeframe specified in the Protocol (after
January 1, 2005) and only (as specified in Article 2H, Paragraph 5)
``to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of
production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by
them to be critical uses.''
d. How Will the U.S. Incorporate the Critical Use Exemption?
Consistent with the Montreal Protocol and Congress's recent
addition to the CAA, the critical use exemption cannot apply until the
complete phaseout, in 2005. The Protocol, as explained in ``a'' and
``b'' of this section, specifies in Paragraph 5 of Article 2H that,
``commencing on 1 January 2005 * * * [the phaseout] will apply save to
the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or
consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be
critical uses.'' The CAA, as described in ``b'' above, requires this
schedule by providing the critical use exemption ``to the extent
consistent with the Montreal Protocol.'' Thus, we are not delineating
specifics related to this exemption in today's action. However, we
intend to permit limited continued production for critical uses agreed
to by the Parties to the Protocol for the period after January 2005.
We are reserving a section of the regulation for a future
rulemaking to incorporate the critical use provisions from the Protocol
and the CAA into our domestic allowance program. We plan to propose in
a future rulemaking the creation of a new class of exemptions that may
be referred to as ``critical use allowances.'' In that future
rulemaking, we plan to propose details related to critical use
exemption procedures and criteria, as well as request nominations for
critical uses needed beyond 2005. The details of the critical use
exemption have yet to be defined. We plan to hold stakeholder meetings
in the near future to solicit ideas in developing a proposal for the
implementation of a streamlined critical use exemption process in
accordance with U.S. obligations under the Protocol and consistent with
CAA requirements.
The economic and geographical issues that are unique to methyl
bromide and its applications will be considered as we develop the
details of the exemption program, including the submittal process,
timing, and the procedures we will use in making determinations for
this exemption. The process for obtaining a critical use exemption
could resemble the process used for essential use exemptions for other
Class I ozone-depleting substances like CFCs (Decision IV/25; 58 FR
6786, 29410, 53722). However, because of the economic and geographical
issues unique to methyl bromide and its applications, it is possible
that the critical use exemption process could also vary significantly
from the essential use process.
e. What Is the Protocol Authority for Granting an Emergency Use
Exemption?
As discussed above, the Parties also established the emergency use
exemption for methyl bromide at their Ninth Meeting (Decision IX/7).
Decision IX/7 allows the Parties to consume,
* * * in response to an emergency event * * * , quantities not
exceeding 20 tonnes of methyl bromide. The Secretariat and the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel will evaluate the use
according to the `critical methyl bromide use' criteria and present
this information to the next meeting of the Parties for review and
appropriate guidance on future such emergencies, including whether
or not the figure of 20 tonnes is appropriate.
As can be seen from the language of Decision IX/7, the emergency
use exemption is essentially an abbreviated critical use process
allowing limited consumption of methyl bromide in response to an
emergency. Because Article 2H does not contemplate consumption for
critical uses prior to the complete phaseout in 2005, neither the
critical use exemption nor its abbreviated form--the emergency use
exemption--will be available until that date. Each emergency use
will be evaluated by the Parties after its occurrence. EPA plans to
provide details of an emergency use process in the same future
proposal addressing the complete critical use process.
f. What Is the CAA Legal Authority for Implementing the Emergency Use
Exemption?
While this exemption is not explicitly included as a separate item
in the most recent Congressional changes to the CAA [Section 764 of the
1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law No. 105-277)], we believe that Congress' grant of authority
in 604(d)(6) to exempt critical uses is sufficiently broad to cover not
only the full critical use process but also the abbreviated form of
this process, that is, the emergency use exemption.
g. How Will Decision IX/7 Affect Emergency Agricultural Uses in the
U.S.?
Because the emergency use exemption will not be available until the
complete phaseout (2005), we are not delineating specifics related to
this exemption in today's action. However, we intend to permit limited
production for emergency uses beginning in 2005. To incorporate the
Protocol's emergency use Decision into our domestic allowance program,
we may create, through a future rulemaking, a new class of exemptions
to be referred to as ``emergency use allowances.'' In a future
rulemaking, we plan to propose criteria and processes for exempting and
using methyl bromide for an emergency event after January 1, 2005.
[[Page 70800]]
VII. Will Production Allowances be Available for Export to
Developing Countries (Sec. 82.9)?
a. What Does the Protocol Say About 2001 Production Allowances for
Export to Developing Countries?
The Parties believed that during the phasedown period, existing
production facilities in industrialized countries should be able to
supply developing countries (Parties operating under Article 5,
paragraph 1, of the Protocol), thereby decreasing incentives for
construction of new plants in those countries. Thus, the Protocol
allows industrialized countries to produce limited, additional methyl
bromide explicitly for export to developing countries during the
phasedown in the industrialized countries. Article 2H, paragraph 5, of
the Protocol states that,
* * * in order to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the
Parties operating under Paragraph 1 of Article 5, [each Party's]
calculated level of production may, until 1 January 2002 exceed [the
relevant] limit by up to fifteen percent of its calculated level of
production in 1991; * * *
The Beijing adjustments that added the above text entered into force on
July 28, 2000.
b. How Did the U.S. Provide for Article 5 Allowances in the CAA?
Domestically, the Protocol provisions that allow limited production
for export to Article 5 countries are reflected in section 604 of the
CAA. The current phaseout requirements for methyl bromide appear in
section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
No. 105-277). In adding section 604(h), Congress also added a provision
to 604(e) that specifically addresses production of methyl bromide for
export to developing countries. This provision, section 604(e)(3),
states that:
* * * the Administrator may, consistent with the Protocol,
authorize the production of limited quantities of methyl bromide,
solely for use in developing countries that are Parties to the
Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol.
Thus, the CAA directs EPA to be consistent with the Protocol in
creating Article 5 allowances. As stated in ``a'' of this section,
Article 2H, paragraph 5 of the Protocol allows, prior to January 1,
2002, production for export to Article 5 countries of up to 15 percent
of the 1991 baseline. Therefore, today's amendments to the phaseout
regulations reflect this Article 5 allowance for 2001.
c. What Production for Export to Article 5 Countries Will Be Allowed
Past 2001?
As explained above, the CAA specifies that we provide the
allowances for export to Article 5 countries in accordance with the
Protocol. The Protocol allows industrialized countries to produce
limited, additional methyl bromide explicitly for export to developing
countries during and after the phasedown in the industrialized
countries.
Article 2H, paragraph 5 of the Protocol states that from January 1,
2002 until January 1, 2005,
* * *[the calculated level of production] may exceed [the relevant]
limit by a quantity equal to the annual average of its production of
the controlled substance in Annex E for basic domestic needs for the
period 1994 to 1998 inclusive.
Furthermore, the Protocol provides a more relaxed methyl bromide
phaseout schedule for developing countries. Article 5 countries are
obligated to phase out methyl bromide completely by January 1, 2015.
The difference between the methyl bromide phasedown schedule in
developing and industrialized countries creates the possibility for
developing countries to import methyl bromide beyond the phaseout in
industrialized countries (i.e., past January 1, 2005). Thus, an
allowance for export is needed past the U.S. domestic phaseout. Article
2H, paragraph 5 bis., provides that:
* * * commencing on 1 January 2005 and in each twelve-month
period thereafter, [each Party's] calculated level of production of
[methyl bromide] for the basic domestic needs of the Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not exceed eighty per
cent of the annual average of its production of the substance for
basic domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1998 inclusive.
The Protocol goes on to specify in Article 2H, paragraph 5 ter.
that:
* * * commencing on 1 January 2015 and in each twelve-month
period thereafter, [each Party's] calculated level of production of
[methyl bromide] for the basic domestic needs of the Parties
operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not exceed zero.
The 1995 to 1998 average production for export to Article 5 countries
was specified as the post-2001 baseline for production for export to
Article 5 countries at the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in Beijing. Because the Adjustments made in Beijing
replace the 1991 production baseline with this new baseline, we will be
granting allowances to produce methyl bromide for export to Article 5
countries beyond 2001 in a rulemaking to be completed before 2002. We
need time to ensure the technical accuracy of the Article 5 allowance
amounts for 2002 and beyond. We plan to, as soon as possible,
promulgate another rule laying out the allowances for export to Article
5 countries past 2001 according to the CAA and the Protocol. From 2002
to 2005, we plan to grant the average of the 1995 through 1998
production for export to Article 5 countries. From 2005 to 2015, when
the developing countries phase out methyl bromide (except for
previously discussed exemptions), we plan to grant the current
industrialized countries' production allowance for export to Article 5
countries of 80% of the 1995 through 1998 average of production for
export to Article 5 countries.
Because we are not adding the Article 5 Allowances past 2001 at
this time, we are not requesting comment on these allowances at this
time. EPA intends to publish a proposal for these allowances in a
future notice and comment rulemaking in 2001. Any unsolicited comments
addressing Article 5 Allowances past 2001 will be addressed in relation
to that future proposal.
VIII. How Do Today's Changes Affect the Economic Impact of the
Phaseout?
In preparing the final rule that established the original 2001
phaseout date for methyl bromide (58 FR 69235), we conducted a Cost
Effectiveness Analysis, dated September 30, 1993, under the title,
``Part 2, The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Phaseout of
Methyl Bromide'' (Docket A-92-13, Document Number IV-A-23). In
preparing for the initial interim 25% reduction, we conducted an
addendum to the 1993 analysis (Docket A-92-13, Document Number II-A-
41). For today's interim and final reductions in methyl bromide
production and import, we conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis as an
update to the 1993 analysis, and in addition to the 1999 addendum. This
RIA was not used as a basis for deciding on phasedown and phaseout
percentages and dates. Rather, the dates are dictated by the Montreal
Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1998. The original (1993)
annualized cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout, adjusted to 1998
dollars, is $159 million. The results of the updated analysis, which
will be available in conjunction with our forthcoming proposed rule
addressing quarantine and preshipment, are expected to indicate that
extending the phaseout deadline will result in cost savings, when
compared to the cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout.
[[Page 70801]]
IX. What Are the Supporting Analyses?
a. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number 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. 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 federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for the private sector.
However, the rule implements mandates specifically and explicitly set
forth by the Congress in section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by Section
764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277), without the exercise of
any policy discretion by EPA. In particular, this rule implements the
directive in section 604(h) of the CAA to promulgate a methyl bromide
phaseout schedule that is in accordance with the schedule under the
Montreal Protocol. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. Because this rule extends the current
phaseout, the rule reduces costs. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
We determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments;
therefore, we are not required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments under section 203. Finally, because this rule does not
contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not
required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state,
local, and tribal officials under section 204.
b. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as:
(1) A small business that is identified by the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code in the Table below. The size standards
described in this section apply to all Small Business Administration
(SBA) programs unless otherwise specified. The size standards
themselves are expressed either in number of employees or annual
receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise specified. The number
of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a
concern and its affiliates to be considered small.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size
Type of enterprise SIC code/ division standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Organic Chemicals......... 2813................... 1,000
Wholesale Trade...................... Division F............. 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and
(3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
Today's direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small
entities, as it regulates large, multinational corporations that either
produce, import or export class I, group VI ozone-depleting substances.
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 a ``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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this an ``economically significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted
this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
d. Applicability of Executive Order 13045--Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation.
[[Page 70802]]
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements
a Congressional directive to phase out production and import of methyl
bromide in accordance with the schedule under the Protocol.
e. 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. 1432.17).
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.
f. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This rule 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule regulates large,
multinational corporations that either produce, import or export class
I, group VI ozone-depleting substances. It implements mandates
specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 604(h)
of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277),
without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
g. 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 implements requirements specifically set forth by
Congress in section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of the
1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law No. 105-277), without the exercise of any discretion by
EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order
13084 do not apply to this rule.
h. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
i. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rule will be effective January 29, 2001.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Methyl bromide,
Ozone layer.
Dated: November 17, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 70803]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls
2. Section 82.4 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a),
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b),
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (c),
d. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d),
e. Removing the second sentence of paragraph (h) and adding two
sentences in its place,
f. Revising the first 2 sentences of paragraph (k),
g. Adding and reserving paragraphs (v) and (w).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 82.4 Prohibitions.
(a) Prior to January 1, 1996, for all Groups of class I controlled
substances, and prior to January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI
controlled substances, no person may produce, at any time in any
control period, (except that are transformed or destroyed domestically
or by a person of another Party) in excess of the amount of unexpended
production allowances or unexpended Article 5 allowances for that
substance held by that person under the authority of this subpart at
that time for that control period. * * *
(b) Effective January 1, 1996, for any class I, Group I, Group II,
Group III, Group IV, Group V, or Group VII controlled substances, and
effective January 1, 2005, for any class I, Group VI controlled
substances, no person may produce, at any time in any control period,
(except that are transformed or destroyed domestically or by a person
of another Party) in excess of the amount of conferred unexpended
essential-use allowances or exemptions under this section, the amount
of unexpended Article 5 allowances as allocated under Sec. 82.9, or the
amount of conferred unexpended destruction and transformation credits
as obtained under Sec. 82.9 for that substance held by that person
under the authority of this subpart at that time for that control
period. * * *
(c) Prior to January 1, 1996, for all Groups of class I controlled
substances and prior to January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI
controlled substances, no person may produce or (except for
transhipments, heels or used controlled substances) import, at any time
in any control period, (except for controlled substances that are
transformed or destroyed) in excess of the amount of unexpended
consumption allowances held by that person under the authority of this
subpart at that time for that control period. * * *
(d) Effective January 1, 1996, for any class I, Group I, Group II,
Group III, Group IV, Group V, or Group VII controlled substances, and
effective January 1, 2005, for any class I, Group VI controlled
substances, no person may import (except for transhipments or heels),
at any time in any control period, (except for controlled substances
that are transformed or destroyed) in excess of the amount of
unexpended essential-use allowances or exemptions as allocated under
this section or the amount of unexpended destruction and transformation
credits obtained under Sec. 82.9, held by that person under the
authority of this subpart at that time for that control period. * * *
* * * * *
(h) * * * In addition to total production permitted under paragraph
(f) of this section, effective January 1, 2001, for class I, Group VI
controlled substances, a person may, at any time, until January 1,
2002, produce 15 percent of baseline production as apportioned under
Sec. 82.5 for export to Article 5 countries. No person may, at any
time, in any control period until January 1, 2000, produce class I,
Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV, and Group V controlled
substances, and no person may, at any time until January 1, 2002,
produce class I Group VI controlled substances for export to Article 5
countries in excess of the Article 5 allowances allocated under
Sec. 82.9(a). * * *
* * * * *
(k) Prior to January 1, 1996, for all Groups of class I controlled
substances, and prior to January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI
controlled substances, a person may not use production allowances to
produce a quantity of a class I controlled substance unless that person
holds under the authority of this subpart at the same time consumption
allowances sufficient to cover that quantity of class I controlled
substances nor may a person use consumption allowances to produce a
quantity of class I controlled substances unless the person holds under
authority of this subpart at the same time production allowances
sufficient to cover that quantity of class I controlled substances.
However, prior to January 1, 1996, for all class I controlled
substances, and prior to January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI
controlled substances, only consumption allowances are required to
import, with the exception of transhipments, heels and used controlled
substances. * * *
* * * * *
(v) Critical use exemption. [Reserved]
(w) Emergency use exemption. [Reserved]
3. Section 82.7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 82.7 Grant and phase reduction of baseline production and
consumption allowances for class I controlled substances.
For each control period specified in the following table, each
person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline production
and consumption allowances apportioned to him under Sec. 82.5 and 82.6
of this subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I
substances Class I Class I Class I Class I Class I
in groups I substances substances substances substances substances
Control period and III, in group in group IV in group V in group VI in group
(In II, (In (In (In (In VII (In
percent) percent) percent) percent) percent) percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................. 25 0 50 50 100 100
1995.............................. 25 0 15 30 100 100
1996.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0
1997.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0
1998.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0
1999.............................. 0 0 0 0 75 0
2000.............................. 0 0 0 0 75 0
2001.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 50 ...........
2002.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 50 ...........
2003.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 30 ...........
2004.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 30 ...........
[[Page 70804]]
2005.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 0 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Section 82.9 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2),
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text,
c. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text,
d. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(2),
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 82.9 Availability of allowances in addition to baseline
production allowances.
(a) * * *
(2) 15 percent of their baseline production allowances for class I,
Group VI controlled substances listed under Sec. 82.5 of this subpart
for each control period ending before January 1, 2002;
* * * * *
(e) Until January 1, 1996 for all class I controlled substances,
except Group VI, and until January 1, 2005 for class I, Group VI, a
person may obtain production allowances for that controlled substance
equal to the amount of that controlled substance produced in the United
States that was transformed or destroyed within the United States, or
transformed or destroyed by a person of another Party, in the cases
where production allowances were expended to produce such substance in
the U.S. in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. * * *
(1) Until January 1, 1996, for all class I controlled substances,
except Group VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI, a
person must submit a request for production allowances that includes
the following:
* * * * *
(2) Until January 1, 1996 for all class I controlled substances,
except Group VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI, the
Administrator will review the information and documentation submitted
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section and will assess the quantity of
class I controlled substance that the documentation and information
verifies was transformed or destroyed. * * *
(3) Until January 1, 1996 for all class I controlled substances,
except Group VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI, if
the Administrator determines that the request for production allowances
does not satisfactorily substantiate that the person transformed or
destroyed controlled substances as claimed, or that modified allowances
were not expended, the Administrator will issue a notice disallowing
the request for additional production allowances. * * *
* * * * *
5. Section 82.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(1) introductory text, the first sentence of (b), and the
first sentence of paragraph (c) introductory text as follows:
Sec. 82.10 Availability of consumption allowances in addition to
baseline consumption allowances.
(a) Until January 1, 1996 for all class I controlled substances,
except Group VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI, any
person may obtain, in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection, consumption allowances equivalent to the level of class I
controlled substances (other than used controlled substances or
transhipments) that the person has exported from the United States and
its territories to a Party (as listed in appendix C to this subpart).
(1) Until January 1, 1996 for all class I controlled substances,
except Group VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class I, Group VI, to
receive consumption allowances in addition to baseline consumption
allowances, the exporter of the class I controlled substances must
submit to the Administrator a request for consumption allowances
setting forth the following:
* * * * *
(b) Until January 1, 1996, a person may obtain consumption
allowances for a class I controlled substance (and until January 1,
2005 for class I, Group VI) equal to the amount of a controlled
substance either produced in, or imported into, the United States that
was transformed or destroyed in the case where consumption allowances
were expended to produce or import such substance in accordance with
the provisions of this paragraph. * * *
(c) A company may also increase its consumption allowances by
receiving production from another Party to the Protocol for class I,
Group I through Group V and Group VII controlled substances until
January 1, 1996 and for class I, Group VI controlled substances until
January 1, 2005. * * *
* * * * *
6. Section 82.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)
introductory text and (b)(1) as follows:
Sec. 82.12 Transfers.
(a) * * *
(1) Until January 1, 1996, for all class I controlled substances,
except for Group VI, and until January 1, 2005, for Group VI, and
person (``transferor'') may transfer to any other person
(``transferee'') any amount of the transferor's consumption allowances
or production allowances, and effective January 1, 1995, for all class
I controlled substances any person (``transferor'') may transfer to any
other person (``transferee'') any amount of the transferor's Article 5
allowances, as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Until January 1, 1996, for all class I controlled substances,
except Group VI, and until January 1, 2005 for Group VI, any person
(``convertor'') may convert consumption allowances or production
allowances for one class I controlled substance to the same type of
allowance for another class I controlled substance within the same
Group as the first as listed in appendix A of this subpart, following
the procedures described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-30109 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P