Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjusting Allowances for Class
I Substances for Export to Article 5 Countries
[Federal Register: September 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 182)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55479-55489]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se05-45]
[[Page 55480]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-7971-6]
RIN 2060-AK45
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjusting Allowances for Class
I Substances for Export to Article 5 Countries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action proposes adjustments to allocations of Article
5 allowances that permit production of Class I ozone depleting
substances (ODSs) solely for export to developing countries to meet
those countries' basic domestic needs. Today's action proposes
adjustments to the baseline Article 5 allowances for companies for
specific Class I controlled substances and establishes a schedule for
reductions in the Article 5 allowances for these Class I controlled
substances in accordance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) and the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Today's proposal also would extend the allocation of Article 5
allowances for the manufacture of methyl bromide solely for export to
developing countries beyond January 1, 2005, in accordance with the
Montreal Protocol and the CAA.
DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or
before November 21, 2005. If a public hearing takes place, it will be
scheduled for October 6, 2005. Any party requesting a public hearing
must notify the contact person listed below by 5pm Eastern Standard
Time on September 28, 2005. After that time, interested parties may
call EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Information Hotline at 1-800-
296-1996 for information on whether a hearing will be held, as well as
the time and place of such a hearing.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDOCKET (RME) ID No. OAR-2005-0151, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov
.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's
preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
3. E-mail: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov.
4. Fax: 202-343-2338, Attn: Hodayah Finman.
5. Mail: ``OAR-2005-0151'', Air Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460.
6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Air
Docket, EPA West 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code
6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to OAR-2005-0151. EPA's policy
is that all comments received will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the
comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The
EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web site are ``anonymous
access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption, and should be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proposed rule, contact Hodayah Finman by telephone at (202) 343-9246,
or by e-mail at finman.hodayah@epa.gov,
or by mail at Hodayah Finman,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch (6205J), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier
deliveries should be sent to 1310 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
You may also visit the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA's Global
Programs Division at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html
for further information about EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations,
the science of ozone layer depletion, and other topics.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today's action proposes to establish a new
Article 5 allowance baseline for specified Class I substances,
establish a schedule for phased reductions in such allowances, and
extend the time allowed for Article 5 production for methyl bromide.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Regulated Entities
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
D. How Should I Submit Confidential Business Information (CBI)
to the Agency?
II. What Is the Legislative and Regulatory Background of the
Phaseout Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances?
III. How Did the Beijing Amendments to the Montreal Protocol Change
the Levels and Schedules of ODS Production To Meet the Basic
Domestic Needs of Developing Countries?
IV. How Do EPA's Regulations Permit Additional Production for Export
to Article 5 Countries?
V. What Is the New Calculation of Baselines of Article 5 Allowances?
A. CFCs Subject to Earliest Controls
B. Other Fully Halogenated CFCs
C. Methyl Bromide
VI. What Is EPA's Proposed Schedule To Reflect the Beijing Amendment
for Phased Reductions of Article 5 Allowances?
[[Page 55481]]
A. CFCs Subject to Earliest Controls
B. Other Fully Halogenated CFCs
C. Methyl Bromide
VII. What Is the New Timeline for Article 5 Production of Methyl Bromide?
VIII. Other Options
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I . The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. General Information
A. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those associated
with the production and export of Class I ODSs. Potentially regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Producers and Exporters of
Class I ODSs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility, company, business, organization is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the regulations promulgated
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under the Office of Air and Radiation Docket & Information
Center, Electronic Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0151. The official public
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information related to
this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket
does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for
public viewing at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108,
Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (202)-566-1742, Fax:
(202)-566-1741. The materials may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. until
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version
of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket
and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
http://www.regulations.gov/ to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then type in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked late. EPA is not
required to consider these late comments. If you plan to submit late
comments, please also notify Hodayah Finman, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (mail code 6205J),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 343-9246.
Information designated as CBI under 40 CFR part 2, subpart 2, must
be sent directly to the contact person for this notice. However, the
Agency requests that all respondents submit a non-confidential version
of their comments to the docket as well.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
[[Page 55482]]
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
The electronic public docket is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA dockets at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
2. By Mail. Send two copies of your comments to: Air and Radiation
Docket (6102), Docket No. OAR-2005-0151, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: 1310 L
Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2005-
0151. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation as identified under ADDRESSES.
4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention:
Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0151.
D. How Should I Submit Confidential Business Information (CBI) to the
Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the mail or
courier addresses listed above, as appropriate, to the attention of
Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0151. You may claim information that you submit
to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. If
you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM
the specific information that is CBI. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the
copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of
the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. 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 can be found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. The
regulatory program was originally published in the Federal Register on
August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing and
subsequent ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). The U.S. was one of the original
signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the U.S. ratified the
Protocol on April 21, 1988. Congress then enacted, and President Bush
signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA of 1990),
which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as
42 U.S.C. chapter 85, subchapter VI, to ensure that the United States
could satisfy its obligations under the Protocol. EPA issued new
regulations to implement this legislation and has made several
amendments to the regulations since.
The requirements contained in the final rules published in the
Federal Register on December 20, 1994 (59 FR 65478) and May 10, 1995
(60 FR 24970) 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 ODSs 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 ODSs 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 ODSs, the
quantities of allowances granted to companies for those chemicals were
gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Production allowances and
consumption allowances no longer exist for any Class I ODSs. All
production or consumption of Class I controlled substances is prohibited
under the Protocol and the CAA, except 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 except where the regulations include
explicit use restrictions. Use of such substances may be subject to
other regulatory limitations.
The specific names and chemical formulas for the Class I ODSs 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 ODSs are in
appendix B and appendix F in subpart A.
Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption
of Class I controlled substances, 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. 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 or critical 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 or
critical 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).
III. How Did the Beijing Amendments to the Montreal Protocol Change the
Levels and Schedules of ODS Production To Meet the Basic Domestic Needs
of Developing Countries?
Under the Montreal Protocol, industrialized countries and
developing countries have differentiated schedules for phasing out the
production and import of ODSs. Developing countries operating under
Article 5, paragraph 1
[[Page 55483]]
of the Protocol in most cases have substantial additional time in which
to phase out ODSs. The Parties to the Protocol recognized that it would
be inadvisable for developing countries to spend their scarce resources
to build new ODS manufacturing facilities to meet their basic domestic
needs as industrialized countries phase out. The Parties therefore
decided to permit a small amount of production in industrialized
countries, above and beyond the amounts permitted under those
countries' phaseout schedules, to meet the basic domestic needs of
developing countries.
The original Montreal Protocol schedule for industrialized country
production of ODSs to meet the basic domestic needs of developing
countries was based on a percentage of each producing country's
baseline. The initial level was set at 10 percent of the baseline and
this level changed to 15 percent upon phaseout of each specific ODS or
group of chemicals (see section IV). Current EPA regulations reflect
this approach.
The adjustments to the Montreal Protocol adopted by the Parties at
their 11th meeting in Beijing change the basis for calculating
production by industrialized countries to meet the basic domestic needs
of developing countries for specific ODSs or groups of ODSs. Instead of
being calculated as a percentage of total production of the ODS in a
given year, the new baselines for basic domestic need production are
calculated based on the average quantity of the ODS exported to Article
5 countries over a specified range of years. The new baseline
calculation agreed to in Beijing reflects the Parties' concern, which
EPA shares, that global oversupply of certain Class I ODSs is
interfering with the transition to alternatives. The oversupply of
these ODSs results in low prices that make it difficult for non-ozone
depleting alternatives to compete in the marketplace. Businesses and
individuals thus lack an economic incentive to transition to
alternatives. The new baseline calculation is designed to overcome this
problem with respect to Article 5 countries by reducing supply to those
countries. The price of these ODSs should rise to reflect the decrease
in supply.
The adjustments agreed to in Beijing also establish reduction
schedules for the manufacture of ODSs by industrialized countries to
meet the basic domestic needs of developing countries. Article 5
countries are subject to periodic step-downs in the amount of ODSs they
may consume. If industrialized countries' production for export to
Article 5 countries were not adjusted to take into account these step-
downs, the problem of oversupply likely would recur. Therefore, the
Parties agreed at Beijing to reduction schedules that would mirror each
step-down in Article 5 consumption. The schedules also reflect the
complete consumption phaseouts in Article 5 countries. Under these
schedules, industrialized countries must cease production for export to
developing countries of CFCs by January 1, 2010, and of methyl bromide
by January 1, 2015.
To ensure consistency with the Montreal Protocol, EPA is proposing
to adopt new baselines and reduction schedules at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart A. Under this proposed rule, the amount of ODSs that could be
produced to meet the basic domestic needs of developing countries would
be reduced by a certain percentage of the baseline in accordance with
the step-down schedule for Article 5 developing countries for those
chemicals until they are completely phased out.
The details of the new baselines and reduction schedules agreed to
in Beijing, as well as updated baselines proposed by EPA, are in the
sections below. EPA is also removing obsolete provisions from the
regulations at 682.4(h) to increase the clarity of the regulations.
IV. How Do EPA's Regulations Permit Additional Production for Export to
Article 5 Countries?
Section 604(e) of the Clean Air Act allows EPA to authorize,
through rulemaking, limited production of Class I ODSs for export to
developing countries, for the purpose of satisfying their basic
domestic needs. The limits on such production must be no less stringent
than the Protocol. With respect to the Class I ODSs specifically listed
in the Act, EPA may not authorize an amount of production greater than
15 percent of baseline, and the exception must terminate no later than
January 1, 2010, or, in the case of methyl chloroform, 2012. Production
of methyl bromide for export to developing countries is addressed
separately in section 604(e)(3). The CAA does not contain a specific
cap or termination year for production of methyl bromide for this
purpose. Consistent with section 604(e) of the CAA, EPA created a
category of allowances called ``Article 5 Allowances'' in Sec. 82.9 of
the regulations to permit limited production of Class I ODSs explicitly
for export to developing countries. Based on the original Protocol
agreement regarding production to meet the basic domestic needs of
Article 5 countries, each U.S. producer of an ODS is granted Article 5
allowances equal to an additional specified percentage of its baseline
production allowances as listed in Sec. 82.5. This quantity of additional
production is permitted solely for export to Article 5 countries.
Today's proposed action would ensure that EPA's regulations
concerning Article 5 allowances continue to be no less stringent than
the Protocol, as required by the CAA. Section 614 of the Clean Air Act
states that the Act shall ``be construed, interpreted, and applied as a
supplement to the terms and conditions of the Montreal Protocol, * * *
and shall not be construed, interpreted, or applied to abrogate the
responsibilities or obligations of the United States to implement fully
the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. In the case of conflict
between any provision of [Title VI of the Act] and any provision of the
Montreal Protocol, the more stringent provision shall govern.'' In
accordance with section 614, today's proposed action would ensure full
implementation of the Montreal Protocol's limitations on production for
export to Article 5 countries and, in the case of the baseline for
CFCs, would impose more stringent limitations based on more recent
information than that available to the Parties in Beijing. Today's
proposal would also ensure consistency with the termination date for
Article 5 allowances in section 604(e), by specifying that holders of
baseline Article 5 allowances for production of CFCs will receive zero
percent of their baseline beginning January 1, 2010. In addition, as
discussed below, today's proposed action would ensure that Article 5
allowances for production of CFCs prior to that date would not exceed
the maximum level of 15 percent of baseline specified in the Act.
V. What Is the New Calculation of Baselines of Article 5 Allowances?
Pursuant to the Beijing Amendments of the Montreal Protocol and
section 604(e) of the CAA, this rule proposes to adjust the calculation
of the baseline of Article 5 allowances for some of the Class I ODSs.
The Parties considered but decided not to change the basic domestic
needs baselines for carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform (Group
IV and Group V controlled substances, respectively) at the meeting in
Beijing; thus the current regulatory baselines for these substances
remain consistent with Protocol requirements. EPA believes that there
is no need, at this time, to propose a change to the baselines for
carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform, since these substances are
exported primarily for
[[Page 55484]]
use as a feedstock in the manufacture of other substances, and are thus
transformed. While the Parties did adopt new, more stringent baselines
for Group II substances (halons), Article 5 allowances for these
substances ceased to be available in the U.S. as of January 1, 2003.
Accordingly, this proposed rule does not address those substances.
Thus EPA is proposing to change the existing regulations only with
respect to CFCs (Groups I and III) and methyl bromide (Group VI). The
Protocol contains a formula for calculating the new Article 5 allowance
baselines for each of these Class I controlled substances. The Protocol
also contains a range of years to be used for the calculation of each
baseline as articulated in Articles 2A, 2C, and 2H. At the time of the
meeting in Beijing (1999), the years chosen for establishing new
baselines for production to meet Article 5 countries' basic domestic
needs were the years of most recent and complete historical available
data to the Parties for the particular group of ODSs.
For CFCs, EPA is proposing to amend the phaseout regulations to
make the new baselines for Article 5 allowances reflect more recent
historical data for exports to Article 5 countries. For methyl bromide,
EPA is proposing to amend the phaseout regulations to reflect the new
baselines for Article 5 allowances specified in Article 2H of the
Protocol. With respect to CFCs, EPA considered granting allowances to
companies exporting CFCs to Article 5 countries based on an average of
data from the range of years specified in Articles 2A and 2C of the
Protocol. The Agency is seeking comment on the use of these time
periods to calculate the baseline. However, EPA prefers a more
stringent approach. The presence of only minor price fluctuations for
CFCs in recent years suggests that there is no shortage of CFCs in
Article 5 countries (see p. 33 of Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel (TEAP) Task Force Report on Basic Domestic Needs--October 2004).
In addition, the October 2004 TEAP report says, ``* * * in 2002 no
deficit of CFCs were reported in any Article 5(1) country'' (p. 24,
para. (a)) and ``there has been no sign of any shortage [of CFCs] in
any Article 5(1) country (even during 2004)'' (p. 24, para. (d)). Thus
it appears that current supplies are adequate. In addition, the U.S.
has not historically been a major supplier of CFCs to developing
countries. EPA's tracking database shows that the U.S. supply of CFCs
has been significantly lower than the TEAP report indicates. To view
the aggregate data on CFC supply and production by the U.S., visit
EDOCKET OAR-2005-0151. Also, the ability to reuse and recycle CFCs
taken out of refrigeration products provides an additional source of
supply should demand for CFCs exceed expectations.
With respect to methyl bromide, the phaseout is in an earlier stage
and the adequacy of supply is less certain. The U.S. provides a large
percentage of the supply of methyl bromide to developing countries. As
a result, decreasing the U.S. baseline could have a substantial effect
on the amount of supply potentially available to those countries.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing a more stringent baseline for methyl
bromide.
Each substance or group of substances has its own formula for
calculating the new baseline as described below. The new baselines for
each company would be specified in Sec. 82.11.
A. CFCs Subject to Earliest Controls
As discussed above, under the current regulations Article 5
allowances are currently calculated as a percentage of the original
production baseline. Section 601(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 82.5 establish the year 1986 as the production
baseline for Class I, Group I substances. Under the current Sec. 82.9,
every person apportioned baseline production allowances for Group I
CFCs received Article 5 allowances equal to 10 percent of their 1986
baseline for each control period ending before January 1, 1996 (the
phaseout date), and 15 percent of their baseline for each control
period thereafter.
As a result of the Beijing Amendment to the Protocol, Article 2A,
paragraphs 4-7 state that an industrialized Party's allowable
production of CFCs 11, 12, 113, 114, and 115 to meet the basic domestic
needs of Article 5 Parties shall be measured against ``the annual
average of its production of [these substances] for basic domestic
needs for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive.'' However, EPA has more
recent historical data on CFC exports to developing countries over the
period 2000-2003 that show much lower levels being exported to Article
5 countries.
Using the recent data on exports of CFCs from the U.S. to
developing countries, specifically for the years 2000-2003, EPA is
proposing a new baseline of Article 5 allowances which would be less
than one percent (< 1%) of the 1986 production allowance baseline for
CFCs. The proposed new baseline for Article 5 allowances for Group I
CFCs therefore meets the requirement in section 604(e)(2)(B) of the CAA
to limit Article 5 allowances to no more than 15 percent of the 1986
production baseline. Since the purpose of adjusting the Article 5
allowance baselines is to avoid oversupply of CFCs in Article 5
countries, EPA is proposing to establish the new baselines for Article
5 allowances based on this more recent historical data. These new
baselines should be a more accurate starting point for the reduction
schedule specified in the Protocol.
B. Other Fully Halogenated CFCs
As discussed above, under the current regulations Article 5
allowances are calculated as a percentage of the original production
baseline. Section 601(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
at 40 CFR 82.5 establish the year 1989 as the production baseline for
Class I, Group III substances. Under the current Sec. 82.9, every
person apportioned baseline production allowances for Group III CFCs
received Article 5 allowances equal to 10 percent of their 1989
baseline for each control period ending before January 1, 1996 (the
phaseout date), and 15 percent of their baseline for each control
period thereafter.
As a result of the Beijing Amendment to the Protocol, Article 2C,
paragraphs 3-4 state that an industrialized Party's allowable
production of other fully halogenated CFCs to meet the basic domestic
needs of Article 5 Parties shall be measured against ``the annual
average of its production of [these substances] for basic domestic
needs for the period 1998-2000 inclusive.'' However, EPA has more
recent historical data on exports of CFCs to developing countries over
the period 2000-2003 that show much lower levels of CFC being exported
to Article 5 countries.
Since there was no export of Class I, Group III substances during
the 2000-2003 period being proposed as the basis for calculating new
allocations of Article 5 allowances, today's proposal would establish a
new baseline of zero. Since the purpose of adjusting the Article 5
allowance baselines is to reduce the amount of CFCs globally, and more
recent data should provide a more accurate starting point for the
reduction schedule, EPA is proposing to establish the new baselines for
Article 5 allowances based on this more recent historical data.
C. Methyl Bromide
As discussed above, under the current regulations Article 5
allowances are calculated as a percentage of the original production
baseline. Section 601(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
at 40 CFR 82.5 establish the year 1991 as the production baseline for
Class I, Group VI substances (methyl
[[Page 55485]]
bromide). Under the current Sec. 82.9, every person apportioned
baseline production allowances for Group VI substances received Article
5 allowances equal to 15 percent of their 1991 baseline for each
control period ending before January 1, 2005 (the phaseout date). There
is currently no regulatory framework in place to allow for the
production of methyl bromide for export to developing countries past
the phaseout date. Section VII of this proposed rulemaking proposes to
amend the current regulations to allow for exempted production of
methyl bromide for export to Article 5 countries past January 1, 2005
in accordance with section 604(e)(3) of the CAA.
As a result of the Beijing Amendment to the Protocol, paragraphs 5-
5 bis of Article 2H stipulate that an industrialized Party's allowable
production of methyl bromide to meet the basic domestic needs of
Article 5 Parties shall be measured against ``the annual average of its
production of [methyl bromide] for basic domestic needs for the period
1995 to 1998 inclusive.'' EPA is therefore proposing to establish the
average of each company's production exported to Article 5 countries
for the years 1995-1998 as the new Article 5 allowance baseline for
methyl bromide.
VI. What Is EPA's Proposed Schedule To Reflect the Beijing Amendment
for Phased Reductions of Article 5 Allowances?
Today's proposed action would establish a schedule for phased
reductions in the manufacture of certain Class I ODSs to meet the basic
domestic needs of Article 5 countries in accordance with the
adjustments to the Protocol agreed to in Beijing. For each control
period specified in the table in Sec. 82.11, EPA proposes to grant
each U.S. company the specified percentage of the baseline Article 5
allowances apportioned to it under Sec. 82.11.
The idea of reduction schedules for the manufacture of ODSs to meet
basic domestic needs of developing countries is new to the Protocol and
to U.S. regulations. While the CAA does not require a reduction
schedule, such a schedule is a reasonable means of assuring that
production of Class I substances for this purpose will terminate in
accordance with the deadlines provided in the Act and in the Protocol.
In addition, the CAA does not allow EPA to authorize Article 5
allowances in a manner inconsistent with the Protocol. Thus, today's
action proposes to freeze and gradually phase out the production of
ODSs in the United States to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5
parties in line with the Protocol's phase down schedules for
consumption in Article 5 countries. So, every time the developing
countries have a step down in the percentage of their consumption for a
Class I ODS, the allowable production in the United States to meet
those countries' basic domestic needs will mirror that step down. For
instance, in 2005, developing countries operating under Article 5(1)
must reduce their consumption of CFCs by 50 percent of their baseline;
therefore, the amount of Article 5 allowances for producing CFCs to
meet those countries' basic domestic needs is also reduced by 50 percent.
A. CFCs Subject to Earliest Controls
In the Montreal Protocol, Article 2A, paragraphs 5-8 set forth the
reduction schedule for the production of CFCs 11, 12, 113, 114, and 115
for basic domestic needs of Article 5 countries. EPA is proposing to
incorporate this reduction schedule into the phaseout regulations.
Hence, the Article 5 allowance reduction schedule for production of the
Class I, Group I controlled substances would be as follows: 50% of the
Article 5 allowance baseline for the 2006 control period; 15% of
baseline for each of the control periods from January 1, 2007, to
December 31, 2009; and 0% (complete phaseout) for the control periods
beginning January 1, 2010, and thereafter.
B. Other Fully Halogenated CFCs
Paragraphs 3-5 of Article 2C of the Montreal Protocol establish the
reduction schedule for the production of other fully halogenated CFCs
(the Class I, Group III controlled substances) to meet the basic
domestic needs of Article 5 countries. If EPA were to set a baseline
other than zero for these CFCs, the reduction schedule for their
production would be: 80% of baseline for the 2006 control period; 15%
of baseline for each of the control periods from January 1, 2007 to
December 31, 2009; and 0% (complete phaseout) for the control periods
beginning January 1, 2010 and thereafter. However, EPA's preferred
option is to set a zero baseline based on 2000-2003 data, which would
make a reduction schedule unnecessary.
C. Methyl Bromide
Article 2H, paragraphs 5 bis. and 5 ter. of the Montreal Protocol
set forth the reduction schedule for production of methyl bromide to
meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 countries. EPA is proposing
to incorporate this reduction schedule into the phaseout regulations.
The reduction schedule for the production of methyl bromide (Class I,
Group VI controlled substances) would be as follows: 80% of the Article
5 allowance baseline for each of the control periods from January 1,
2006 to December 31, 2014; 0% (complete phaseout) starting January 1,
2015 and thereafter.
VII. What Is the New Timeline for Article 5 Production of Methyl Bromide?
The current regulations have no provision that allows for exempted
production of methyl bromide for export to Article 5 countries past
January 1, 2005. This rule proposes to create a new basis for exempted
production of methyl bromide for export to Article 5 countries beyond
the 2005 phaseout in the U.S. The methyl bromide phaseout date for
Article 5 countries is 2015 and allowing continuing U.S. production to
meet such countries' basic domestic needs up to that phaseout date
obviates the need to install ODS production capacity in those
countries. The Protocol allows limited production for this purpose up
until January 1, 2015. The CAA, in Section 604(e)(3), does not specify
a termination date for this exemption but does require consistency with
the Protocol. In addition, section 614 requires the regulations to be
no less stringent than the Protocol. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
allow limited production of methyl bromide for export to Article 5
countries up until January 1, 2015.
VIII. Other Options
In this section EPA describes another option it considered
regarding the baseline for CFC production and why it is not the
Agency's preferred approach. EPA looked at granting allowances to
companies exporting CFCs to Article 5 countries based on an average of
data from the range of years specified in Article 2A (for Group I) and
2C (for Group III) of the Protocol (see section V). Although this is
not EPA's preferred approach, the Agency is seeking comment on the use
of these time periods to calculate the baseline.
EPA prefers a more stringent approach than that described in
Articles 2A and 2C. As described earlier, observed market indicators
suggest that there is no shortage of CFCs in the marketplace in Article
5 countries because the price of CFCs has remained stable over the past
several years. Also, as described earlier, reported data described in
the October 2004 TEAP Task Force Report on Basic Domestic Needs
indicates that CFC supplies are stable.
In addition, historically the U.S. has not been a major supplier of
CFCs to
[[Page 55486]]
developing countries. EPA's tracking database shows that the U.S.
supply of CFCs has been significantly lower than the TEAP report
indicates. (To view the aggregate data on CFC supply and production by
the U.S., visit EDOCKET OAR-2005-0151.) Also, the ability to reuse and
recycle CFCs taken out of refrigeration products provides an additional
source of supply should demand exceed expectations.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this proposed 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 proposed 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.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed 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) has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations, 40 CFR part 82,
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0170, EPA ICR number
1432. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR)
may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is identified by the North American Industry Classification System code
(NAICS) in the table below; (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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC small
business size
standard (in
Category NAICS code SIC code number of
employees or
millions of
dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chemical and Allied Products, NEC................... 422690 5169 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities, as it
regulates large corporations that produce, import, or export Class I
ODSs. There are no small entities in this regulated industry. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. 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.
[[Page 55487]]
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.
EPA has determined that this proposed 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. This proposed rule imposes stricter
baselines and reduction schedules for Article 5 allowances and extends
the availability of an exemption from a regulatory prohibition. It does
not impose mandates on State, local, or tribal governments and does not
result in substantial expenditures for the private sector. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA.
We determined that this proposed 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
proposed 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.
E. 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
proposed 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 proposed rule relates to an
exemption used by large corporations that produce, import, or export
Class I ODSs. It has no effect on State or local governments. Thus
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, 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.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule relates to an
exemption used by large multinational corporations that produce,
import, or export Class I ODSs. It has no effect on tribal governments.
Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
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.
While this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, we nonetheless have reason to believe that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone
results in greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation
to the earth's surface. The following studies describe the effects on
children of excessive exposure to UV radiation: (1) Westerdahl J,
Olsson H, Ingvar C. ``At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial
role for the development of malignant melanoma,'' Eur J Cancer 1994;
30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM, Jopson J. ``Melanoma and sun exposure: an
overview of published studies,'' Int J Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3)
Armstrong BK. ``Melanoma: childhood or lifelong sun exposure'' In:
Grobb JJ, Stern RS, Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, eds. ``Epidemiology,
causes and prevention of skin diseases,'' 1st ed. London, England:
Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6; (4) Whiteman D., Green A. ``Melanoma and
Sunburn,'' Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-72; (5) Kricker A,
Armstrong, BK, English, DR, Heenan, PJ. ``Does intermittent sun
exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case control study in Western
Australia,'' Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 489-94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill,
GB, Bajdik, CD, et. al. ``Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and
risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma,'' Arch
Dermatol 1995; 131: 157-63; (7) Armstrong, BK. ``How sun exposure
causes skin cancer: an epidemiological perspective,'' Prevention of
Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116.
The methyl bromide phaseout date for Article 5 countries is 2015
and allowing continuing U.S. production to meet such countries' basic
domestic needs avoids the need for those countries to install new ODS
manufacturing facilities. The effect of extending the availability of
Article 5 allowances for methyl bromide should be that methyl bromide
that would otherwise be produced at new facilities in developing
countries will instead be produced in the U.S. for export to those
countries. The amount of methyl bromide that will be released to the
atmosphere should remain the same regardless of the manufacturing
location. In addition, avoiding the installation of new capacity is one
means of ensuring that production levels continue to decline. Thus,
this rule is not expected to increase the impacts on children's
[[Page 55488]]
health from stratospheric ozone depletion.
The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies
and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assessed results of early
life sun exposure.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. 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.
Today's proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
Dated: September 14, 2005.
Stephen Johnson,
Administrator.
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, part 82, is amended to read
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.
2. Section 82.3 is amended by revising the entry for ``Article 5
allowance'' to read as follows:
Sec. 82.3 Definitions for class I and class controlled substances.
* * * * *
Article 5 allowances means the allowances apportioned under Sec.
82.9(a), Sec. 82.11(a)(2), and Sec. 82.18(a).
* * * * *
3. Section 82.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 82.4 Prohibitions for class I controlled substances.
* * * * *
(b)(1) 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, and effective August 18, 2003, for any Class I, Group VIII
substance, 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, or in excess of the amount of
unexpended critical use allowances, or in excess of the amount of
unexpended Article 5 allowances as allocated under Sec. 82.9 and Sec.
82.11, as may be modified under Sec. 82.12 (transfer of allowances)
for that substance held by that person under the authority of this
subpart at that time for that control period. Every kilogram of excess
production constitutes a separate violation of this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) No person may sell in the U.S. any Class I controlled substance
produced explicitly for export to an Article 5 country.
* * * * *
4. Section 82.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 82.9 Availability of production allowances in addition to
baseline production allowances for Class I controlled substances.
(a) * * *
(4) 15 percent of their baseline production allowances for Class I,
Group IV and Group V controlled substances listed under Sec. 82.5 of
this subpart for each control period beginning January 1, 1996 until
January 1, 2010;
* * * * *
5. Section 82.11 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and adding a new paragraph (a)(2) and (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.11 Exports of Class I controlled substances to Article 5 Parties.
(a) If apportioned Article 5 allowances under Sec. 82.9(a) or
Sec. 82.11(a)(2), a person may produce Class I controlled substances,
in accordance with the prohibitions in Sec. 82.4 and the reduction
schedule in Sec. 82.11(a)(3), to be exported (not including exports
resulting in transformation or destruction, or used controlled
substances) to foreign states listed in appendix E to this subpart
(Article 5 countries).
* * * * *
(2) Persons who reported exports of Class I, Group I controlled
substances to Article 5 countries in 2000-2003 are apportioned baseline
Article 5 allowances as set forth in Sec. 82.11(a)(2)(i). Persons who
reported exports of Class I, Group VI controlled substances to Article
5 countries in 1995-1998 are apportioned baseline Article 5 allowances
as set forth in Sec. 82.11(a)(2)(ii)).
(i) For Group I controlled substances:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled substance Person Allowances (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11.......................... Honeywell.......... 7,150
Sigma Aldrich...... 1
CFC-113......................... Fisher Scientific.. 5
Honeywell.......... 313,686
Sigma Aldrich...... 48
CFC-114......................... Honeywell.......... 24,798
Sigma Aldrich...... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For Group VI controlled substances:
[[Page 55489]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled substance Person Allowances (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methyl Bromide.................. Albemarle.......... 1,152,714
Ameribrom.......... 176,903
Great Lakes 3,825,846
Chemical
Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Phased Reduction Schedule for Article 5 Allowances allocated in
Sec. 82.11.
For each control period specified in the following table, each
person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline Article 5
allowances apportioned under Sec. 82.11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Class I
substances in substances in
Control period group I group VI
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.................................... 50 80
2007.................................... 15 80
2008.................................... 15 80
2009.................................... 15 80
2010.................................... 0 80
2011.................................... 0 80
2012.................................... 0 80
2013.................................... 0 80
2014.................................... 0 80
2015.................................... 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-18832 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P