[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21130-21134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10416]
[[Page 21129]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Availability of Allowances To
Produce Methyl Bromide for Developing Countries; Final Rule and
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 82 / Monday, April 29, 2002 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 21130]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-7202-6]
RIN 2060-AJ74
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Availability of Allowances To
Produce Methyl Bromide for Developing Countries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This direct final rule extends the availability of limited
production rights to manufacture methyl bromide solely for export to
developing countries. The rule published in the Federal Register on
November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), allocated additional production
allowances, called Article 5 allowances, for the manufacture of methyl
bromide solely for export to developing countries only until January 1,
2002. Today's action extends this time limit on the allocation of
Article 5 allowances for methyl bromide until January 1, 2005, in
accordance with the Clean Air Act. The rationale for this extension
appears in the preamble to the direct final rule.
DATES: This rule will become effective on June 28, 2002 without further
notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by May 29, 2002. 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 proposed rulemaking should be submitted in
duplicate (two copies) to: Air Docket No. A-92-13, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail Code 6102,
Washington, DC, 20460. If sending comments by courier, they should be
delivered to Air Docket No. A-92-13, USEPA, 401 M Street, SW., Room M-
1500, Washington, DC, 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), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
materials may be inspected from 8am until 5:30pm, 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, or Tom Land, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Global Programs Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, (202)-564-9185, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are revising the methyl bromide phaseout
regulation as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we
view this revision 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 allocation of limited production
rights for the manufacture of methyl bromide solely for export to
developing countries if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be
effective on June 28, 2002 without further notice unless we receive
adverse comment by May 29, 2002. 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 this revision to part 82, subpart A should
do so at this time.
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. Will Production Allowances be Available for Export to Developing
Countries (Sec. 82.9)?
a. What does the Protocol say about production for export to
developing countries?
b. How did the U.S. provide for production for export to
developing countries under the CAA?
c. What production for export to Article 5 countries is allowed
under the Protocol past 2001?
d. How do EPA's regulations permit additional production for
export to Article 5 countries?
e. What level of production for export to Article 5 countries is
EPA allocating past 2001?
V. What are the Supporting Analyses?
a. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
b. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
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 13175: 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
[[Page 21131]]
allowances continue to exist for only one specific class I controlled
ozone-depleting substance--methyl bromide. 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 (40 CFR part 82)
allow for the manufacture of phased-out class I controlled substances,
provided the substances are either transformed, or destroyed. 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).
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 October 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 of methyl bromide for the
1999 and 2000 control periods. EPA promulgated a direct final rule in
the Federal Register on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795) establishing
the remaining reduction steps of 50 percent of baseline production and
consumption for 2001 and 2002, a 70 percent reduction from baseline
during 2003 and 2004, and a complete phaseout of methyl bromide
production and consumption in 2005 with the possibility of limited
exemptions for critical and emergency uses. The Agency also promulgated
an interim final rule in the Federal Register on July 19, 2001, (66 FR
37752) instituting exemptions for the production and import of
quantities of methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment
applications.
IV. Will Production Allowances Be Available for Export to
Developing Countries (Sec. 82.9)?
a. What Does the Protocol Say About Production for Export to Developing
Countries?
The Protocol provides a more relaxed methyl bromide phaseout
schedule for Article 5 countries (developing countries operating under
Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol), culminating in a complete
phaseout in 2015. The Parties believed that until the phaseout date for
developing countries, existing production facilities in industrialized
countries should be able to supply developing countries, 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 and after the phasedown in the
industrialized countries.
b. How Did the U.S. Provide for Production for Export to Developing
Countries Under 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
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
[[Page 21132]]
that are Parties to the Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal
Protocol.''
c. What Production for Export to Article 5 Countries Is Allowed Under
the Protocol Past 2001?
As explained above, the CAA specifies that any grant of allowances
for export to Article 5 countries be consistent 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.
In regard to the remaining years of the phasedown for
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.''
The Protocol also addresses the period between the complete
phaseout for industrialized countries (January 1, 2005) and the
complete phaseout for Article 5 countries (January 1, 2015). The
difference between the methyl bromide phaseout dates 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 production to export may be granted not only for 2002-
2004 but also past the U.S. domestic phaseout. Article 2H, paragraph 5
bis, provides that: ``[e]ach 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 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.''
Consistent with the 2015 phaseout for Article V countries, the
Protocol goes on to specify in Article 2H, paragraph 5 ter that:
``[e]ach Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing
on 1 January 2015 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its
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.''
d. How Do EPA's Regulations Permit Additional Production for Export to
Article 5 Countries?
EPA created a category of allowances called, ``Article 5
Allowances'' in Sec. 82.9 of the regulations to permit limited
production of controlled ozone-depleting substances explicitly for
export to developing countries. Each U.S. producer of an ozone-
depleting substance is granted ``Article 5 Allowances'' equal to an
additional specified percentage of their baseline production allowances
that are listed in Sec. 82.5. This quantity of additional production is
permitted solely for export to Article 5 countries.
e. What Level of Production for Export to Article 5 Countries Is EPA
Allocating Past 2001?
With today's action, EPA is extending the availability of Article 5
Allowances at a level of 15 percent of each company's baseline in
Sec. 82.5 for the 2002, 2003, and 2004 control periods. While this
level is consistent with the Protocol for 2002-2004, it may be that a
higher level would also be consistent with the Protocol for these
control periods.
In the future, the Agency will adjust the level of Article 5
allowances to be consistent with the maximum level permitted by the
Protocol as discussed above. The Agency will be seeking additional
information to confirm the accuracy of the amount of methyl bromide
shipped from the United States to Article 5 Parties during the new
baseline period (1995-1998) that was defined in the Protocol. EPA has
been unable to confirm the accuracy of the amount of methyl bromide
each U.S. producer shipped to Article 5 Parties during 1995 to 1998.
The quantity exported from the U.S. to Article 5 Parties includes: (1)
amounts produced through expending production allowances and
consumption allowances for which the U.S. companies then requested a
``refund'' of consumption allowances, and (2) amounts produced through
expending Article 5 allowances for explicit shipment to Article 5
Parties. One of the confounding factors in confirming data is that the
U.S., as one of the major world exporters of methyl bromide,
transhipped large quantities through Belgium to developing countries.
Some portion of the quantities that went to Belgium were acknowledged
to be explicitly for meeting the basic domestic needs of Article 5
Parties while the rest went to non-Article 5 Parties. We have been
unable to confirm data on shipments from the U.S. to developing
countries with the European Commission and the Ozone Secretariat.
EPA's preliminary analysis indicates that the average quantity of
methyl bromide for Article 5 countries for the period 1995 through 1998
is likely to be larger than the 15 percent being allocated with today's
rule. However, the Agency will be seeking additional information to
confirm data to adjust the grant of Article 5 allowances. We are
permitting production of methyl bromide explicitly for developing
countries at a level equal to 15 percent of the 1991 baseline in
Sec. 82.5, which is likely to be more stringent than the level agreed
to by the Parties to the Protocol.
The average production of methyl bromide exported to Article 5
countries during 1995 through 1998 was established as the post-2001
baseline to meet basic domestic needs at the Eleventh Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Beijing. Once the U.S. historical
data is confirmed, we plan to grant each U.S. company, for each
remaining control period up to 2005, the average quantity exported to
Article 5 countries from 1995 through 1998 as Article 5 Allowances.
From 2005 to 2015, when the methyl bromide reduction schedule begins
for developing countries (except for previously discussed exemptions),
we plan to grant to U.S. companies Article 5 allowances in an amount
not to exceed 80% of the baseline 1995--1998 average in accordance with
the provisions of the Beijing adjustments to the Protocol.
V. 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
[[Page 21133]]
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burden some 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 no federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local, or tribal government or the private sector.
Rather, it extends the availability of an exemption from a regulatory
prohibition. 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 Analysis
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 economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small
entities, small entities are defined as: (1) A small business that is
identified by the North American Industry Classification System code
(NAICS) in the Table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standard
Type of enterprise NAICS code (number of
employees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Chemical Wholesaling............. 422690 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.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This
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. We have
therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve regulatory
burden for all small entities.
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.
It has been determined by OMB and EPA that this action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review under the Executive
Order.
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. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it implements an exemption established in
the Montreal Protocol and adopted by Congress in section 604(e)(3) of
the Clean Air Act.
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) renewed
the
[[Page 21134]]
approval of the information collection requirements and assigned OMB
control number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.18).
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 extends an exemption used
by large, multinational corporations that either produce, import or
export class I, group VI ozone-depleting substances. It has no effect
on State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
g. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This rule extends an exemption used by large, multinational
corporations that either produce, import or export class I, group VI
ozone-depleting substances. It has no effect on tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 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 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 not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective June 28, 2002.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 22, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
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:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls
2. Section 82.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 82.9 Availability of allowances in addition to baseline
production allowances for class I ozone depleting substances--
International transfers of production allowances, Article 5 allowances,
essential-use allowances, and essential-use CFCs
(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, 2005;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-10416 Filed 4-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P