Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Incorporation of Montreal
Protocol Adjustment for a 1999 Interim Reduction in Class I, Group VI
Controlled Substances
Related Material
[Federal Register: June 1, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29240-29245]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jn99-11]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-6351-6]
RIN 2060-AI24
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Incorporation of Montreal
Protocol Adjustment for a 1999 Interim Reduction in Class I, Group VI
Controlled Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is revising the accelerated phaseout
regulations that govern the production, import, export, transformation
and destruction of substances that deplete the ozone layer under
authority of Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or
the Act). This amendment reflects changes in U.S. obligations under the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol)
due to recent adjustments by signatory countries to this international
agreement. Specifically, this amendment incorporates the Protocol's 25
percent interim reduction in the production and consumption of class I,
Group VI controlled substances (methyl bromide) for the 1999 control
period and subsequent control periods.
In taking this action, EPA recognizes the recent intent of Congress
in changes to the Clean Air Act that direct EPA to conform the U.S.
phasedown schedule of methyl bromide to the Montreal Protocol's
schedule for industrialized nations, including required interim
reductions and specific exemptions. EPA intends to follow this rule
with other actions to complete the process of conforming the U.S.
methyl bromide phaseout schedule and specific exemptions with
obligations under the Montreal Protocol and with the recent changes to
the Clean Air Act. Through subsequent actions to this amendment, EPA
plans to reflect, through notice and comment rulemaking, the additional
steps in the phaseout schedule for the production and consumption of
methyl bromide, as follows: beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent
reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2003, a 70 percent
reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2005, a complete
phaseout of the production and consumption with emergency and critical
use exemptions permitted under the Montreal Protocol. Even sooner, EPA
plans to publish a proposal that will describe a process for exempting
quantities of methyl bromide used in the U.S. for quarantine and
preshipment from the reduction steps in the phaseout schedule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on July 1, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Materials supporting this rulemaking and comments are
contained in Public Docket No. A-92-13, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket is located in
Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor). Dockets may be inspected
from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, and from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday. EPA may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline at 1-800-269-1996 between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time, or Tom Land, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 564-9185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Legislative and Regulatory Background of Phasing Out Production
and Consumption of Controlled Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer
II. Context for Today's Final Rule
III. Amendments to Sec. 82.7--Grant and Phased Reduction of Baseline
Production and Consumption Allowances for Class I Controlled
Substances
IV. Next Steps to Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide Phaseout Schedule
and Exemptions to the Montreal Protocol and the Recently Amended
Clean Air Act
V. Response to Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Published on February 25, 1999
VI. Summary of Supporting Analysis
I. Legislative and Regulatory Background of Phasing Out Production
and Consumption of Controlled Substances That Deplete the Ozone
Layer
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 of the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol).1 The
U.S. was one of the original signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol
and the U.S. ratified the Protocol on April 4, 1988. Congress then
enacted, and President Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of
[[Page 29241]]
1990 (CAA or the Act) that included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone
Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Program). The Program and its history are
described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Federal Register on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56276). The control and
the phaseout of production and consumption of class I ozone-depleting
substances as required under the Protocol and CAA are accomplished
through the Allowance Program. In this action, EPA is also recognizing
the expressed intent of Congress in recent changes to the Clean Air
Act, which direct EPA to conform the U.S. methyl bromide phasedown
schedule to the Montreal Protocol's schedule for industrialized
nations, including required interim reductions.
In developing the Allowance Program, EPA collected information on
the amounts of ozone-depleting substances produced, imported, exported,
transformed and destroyed within the United States for specific
baseline years. This information was used to establish the U.S.
production and consumption ceilings for these substances. 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 production allowances and
consumption allowances granted to companies for those chemicals were
gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Production allowances and
consumption allowances continue to exist for only one specific class I
controlled ozone-depleting substance--methyl bromide. 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 production plus
imports minus exports of controlled substances (Article 1 of the
Protocol and section 601 of the CAA). Unless they are subject to use
restrictions, class I controlled substances can generally continue to
be ``used'' after their ``production and consumption'' phaseout dates.
The specific names and chemical formulas for the controlled ozone-
depleting substances in the Groups of class I controlled substances are
in appendix A and appendix F in subpart A of 40 CFR part 82. The
specific names and chemical formulas for the class II controlled ozone-
depleting substances are in appendix B and appendix F in subpart A.
Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption
of class I, Group II substances (halons) on January 1, 1994, and all
other class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) on January
1, 1996, a very limited number of exemptions exist, consistent with
U.S. obligations under the Protocol. The regulations allow for the
manufacture of phased-out class I controlled substances, provided the
substances are either transformed, or destroyed. (40 CFR 82.4(b)) They
also allow limited manufacture if the substances are (1) exported to
countries listed under Article 5 of the Protocol, (2) produced for
essential uses as authorized by the Protocol and the regulations, or
(3) produced with destruction or transformation credits. (40 CFR
82.4(b)).
The regulations allow import of phased-out class I controlled
substances provided the substances are either transformed or destroyed.
(40 CFR 82.4(d)) 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 with destruction or
transformation credits or (4) a transhipment or a heel (a small amount
of controlled substance remaining in a container after discharge). (40
CFR 82.4(d), 82.13(g)(2)).
II. Context for Today's Final Rule
Today's action amends existing EPA regulations published under
authority of Title VI of the CAA that govern the production and
consumption of ozone-depleting substances. EPA is establishing a 25
percent reduction in the 1991 baseline levels of production allowances
and consumption allowances for methyl bromide (class I, Group VI
controlled substance) for the 1999 and 2000 control periods. Today's
amendment is designed to ensure the U.S. meets its obligations under
the Protocol and the CAA, specifically the first interim reduction
reflecting amendments to Title VI as created by section 764 of the 1999
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 105-277). Section 764(a) of the Omnibus Act requires EPA to
promulgate rules to bring the schedule for phaseout of methyl bromide
into accordance with the Montreal Protocol as in effect at the time of
enactment.
EPA intends to follow this rule with other actions to complete the
process of conforming the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide
with obligations under the Montreal Protocol and with the recent
changes to the Clean Air Act. Through subsequent actions to today's
amendment, EPA plans to reflect, through notice and comment rulemaking,
the additional steps in the phaseout schedule for the production and
consumption of methyl bromide, as follows: beginning January 1, 2001, a
50 percent reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2003, a
70 percent reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2005, a
complete phaseout of production and consumption with processes for
special exemptions permitted under the Montreal Protocol. In the coming
months, EPA plans to publish a proposal that will define the process
for exempting quantities of methyl bromide used in the U.S. for
quarantine and preshipment from the phaseout schedule. These subsequent
actions are described in more detail in part IV of today's rulemaking.
III. Amendments to Sec. 82.7--Grant and Phased Reduction of
Baseline Production and Consumption Allowances for Class I
Controlled Substances
EPA is establishing a 25 percent reduction in the baseline levels
of production allowances and consumption allowances for methyl bromide
(class I, Group VI controlled substance) for the 1999 and 2000 control
periods. At the 1997 meeting of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties
agreed to adjust the phaseout schedule of methyl bromide for
industrialized countries. The first Protocol adjustment to the methyl
bromide phaseout schedule for industrialized countries is a 25 percent
reduction of production and consumption from 1991 baseline levels
beginning in the 1999 calendar year.
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. Each industrialized country's 1991
production and consumption of methyl bromide was used as 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
controlled substance and freezing production and consumption at 1991
levels. (58 FR
[[Page 29242]]
65018, 65028-65044, 65074). In the rule published on December 30, 1993,
in the Federal Register, EPA established for specific companies
baseline production allowances and consumption allowances for methyl
bromide. The companies receiving baseline production and consumption
allowances in accordance with their 1991 level of production, imports
and exports for class I, Group VI controlled substances (methyl
bromide) are listed at 40 CFR 82.5 and 82.6 (58 FR 69238). Section 82.7
of the rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1995 (60 FR
24970) sets forth the percentage of baseline allowances for methyl
bromide (class I, Group VI controlled substances) granted to companies
in each control period (each calendar year). Currently, the percentage
of baseline methyl bromide allowances granted for each control period
until 2001 is 100 percent. In accordance with the Protocol's adjustment
to the methyl bromide phaseout schedule, EPA is granting 75 percent of
baseline production allowances and 75 percent of baseline consumption
allowances to the companies listed in Secs. 82.5 and 82.6 for class I,
Group VI substances for 1999 and 2000.
In preparing the final rule published in the Federal Register on
December 30, 1993, that established a phaseout date for methyl bromide
in 2001, EPA conducted a Cost Effectiveness Analysis, dated September
30, 1993, under the title, ``Part 2, The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of
the Proposed Phaseout of Methyl Bromide.'' For today's 25 percent
interim reduction in methyl bromide production and consumption, EPA
conducted an addendum to the 1993 analysis. The results of the
additional analysis indicate that, if the U.S. had to reduce methyl
bromide production and consumption from 100 percent to 75 percent of
the baseline in 1999, the estimated cost increase would be less than 2
percent of the original cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout. The
original (1993) annualized cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout,
adjusted to 1998 dollars, is $159 million. The incremental annualized
costs for today's reduction beginning in 1999 from 100 percent of the
baseline to 75 percent would be approximately $3 million. However, from
1994 through 1997, the actual consumption of methyl bromide in the U.S.
has been approximately 10 to 15 percent below the 1991 baseline as
reported to EPA's Allowance Tracking System. The United States must
therefore reduce methyl bromide consumption in 1999 by only 10 to 15
percent in relation to the 1991 baseline to achieve the Protocol's
first interim reduction from 100 percent to 75 percent. According to
the additional analysis, the estimated cost increase of implementing a
10 to 15 percent reduction in methyl bromide production and consumption
in 1999 would be less than 1 percent of the original cost estimate
conducted in 1993, or an annualized incremental cost of less than $2
million. Because this new analysis is an addendum to the 1993 analysis
and uses the same algorithms it permits easy comparisons with the
earlier cost estimates. In undertaking the steps discussed below, EPA,
in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, intends to conduct further analysis.
IV. Next Steps To Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide Phaseout Schedule
and Exemptions to Those of the Montreal Protocol and the Recently
Amended Clean Air Act
In addition to today's action, EPA intends to publish two proposals
to conform the United States' methyl bromide program to obligations
under the Montreal Protocol and recent changes to the Clean Air Act.
First, EPA intends to propose a process that would exempt quantities of
methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment in the U.S. from the
phaseout schedule and make adjustments to the existing baseline.
Second, EPA intends to propose additional phaseout steps for methyl
bromide, and establish additional exemptions in accordance with the
Protocol, as follows:
--Beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels;
--Beginning January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels;
--Beginning January 1, 2005, a complete phaseout of production and
consumption;
--Establish a process for emergency use exemptions; and
--Establish a process for critical use exemptions as permitted under
the Montreal Protocol.
The discussion below outlines EPA's plans for subsequent rulemaking
and provides a vision of the Agency's future actions to conform the
U.S. methyl bromide regulatory program with the Montreal Protocol and
recent changes to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. The plans described
below provide general information. EPA will request formal comments on
more detailed proposals in the very near future.
EPA intends to publish quickly a proposal to exempt all quantities
of methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment in the United
States. EPA anticipates proposing a flexible process that is responsive
to market demands for methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment. In
preparing the notice of proposed rulemaking on quarantine and
preshipment, EPA will address the new section 604(d)(5) of Title VI of
the CAA on Sanitation and Food Protection added by section 764(b) of
the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 105-277). In this same regulatory action, EPA intends
to correct the existing methyl bromide baseline of production
allowances and consumption allowances because it contains a fixed
quantity associated with quarantine and preshipment. When EPA included
methyl bromide in the list of class I controlled ozone depleting
substances in the final rule published in the Federal Register on
December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018), and established the baseline for
production and consumption allowances, the quantities of quarantine and
preshipment were included in the baseline.
The second step EPA intends to take in conforming the U.S. methyl
bromide program to obligations under the Montreal Protocol and recent
changes to the Clean Air Act would be a proposal to set the remaining
reduction steps and final phaseout, to establish the process for
emergency use exemptions and to create the process for critical use
exemptions. Each of these parts of a proposal would be designed to
ensure the U.S. meets its obligations under the Montreal Protocol
consistent with statutory requirements in the Clean Air Act. The
remaining phaseout steps for the production and consumption of methyl
bromide are a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels beginning January
1, 2001; a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels beginning January 1,
2003; and a complete phaseout of production and consumption beginning
January 1, 2005, with emergency use exemptions and critical use
exemptions as permitted under the Montreal Protocol. EPA, in
consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, intends to
conduct further analysis to support the proposal of these further
reduction steps, final phaseout, and exemptions.
V. Response to Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Published on February 25, 1999
EPA received four comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking
published in the Federal Register on February 25, 1999 (64 FR 9290).
None of the four comments were related to the proposal to establish a
25 percent
[[Page 29243]]
reduction in baseline production allowances and consumption allowances
for methyl bromide (class I, Group VI controlled substance) for the
1999 and 2000 control periods. In general, the comments pertain to the
discussion of future EPA actions to conform regulations with the
Montreal Protocol and the recent changes to the CAA in part IV above.
Although the comments are not directly related to today's action, EPA
wishes to respond to them.
Two comments state that in discussing a complete phaseout of methyl
bromide EPA should clarify all of the limited circumstances under which
exemptions exist. In fact, both today's rule and the February 25, 1999
proposed rule list the limited exemptions for manufacturing a class I
controlled substance beyond the phaseout (in Part I). Methyl bromide is
a class I controlled substance and these limited exemptions apply to
methyl bromide. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.1--82.13 allow for the
manufacture of a class I controlled substance beyond the phase out date
if the substance is either transformed or destroyed. In addition, the
regulations allow limited manufacture of a class I controlled
substance, if the substance is: (1) exported to countries classified
under Article 5 of the Protocol, (2) produced for essential uses as
authorized by the Protocol and the regulations, or (3) produced with
destruction or transformation credits.
Another comment requests EPA to consider the fumigation of a
specific commodity for a critical use exemption beyond the phaseout. As
explained in Part IV above, EPA will be proposing a process for
determining critical use exemptions beyond the phaseout for methyl
bromide in a future rulemaking. EPA encourages the participation of
interested stakeholders in the future development of the critical use
exemption process and the notice and comment rulemaking.
The final comment asks EPA to establish quickly an exemption for
quantities of methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment in the
United States. EPA is currently developing the proposed rule. EPA
expects to publish a proposed rule to establish exemptions for
quantities of methyl bromide used in the U.S. for quarantine and
preshipment later this year.
IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis
A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. If a written statement is required under section 202, 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, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Section 203 of the UMRA requires the Agency to establish a plan for
obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Section 204 of the UMRA requires the Agency to develop a process to
allow elected state, local, and tribal government officials to provide
input in the development of any proposal containing a significant
Federal intergovernmental mandate.
The provisions in today's rule fulfill the obligations of the
United States under the international treaty, The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as well as the recent
amendments to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. Analysis of today's rule
estimates an incremental annualized cost of $1 to 3 million for the 25
percent reduction as compared to the 1993 original analysis for
establishing the 2001 phaseout. However, further analysis shows that
just the 25 percent reduction in today's rule for 1999 and 2000 would
have an estimated annualized cost of $71 million without other
additional reduction steps and without a complete phaseout of the
production and consumption of methyl bromide. Therefore, it is unlikely
that today's rule will result in expenditures of $100 million or more
in any one year for State, local and tribal governments, or for the
private sector in the aggregate. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments; therefore,
EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments
under section 203. Finally, because this rule does not contain a
significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not required to
develop a process to obtain input from elected state, local, and tribal
officials under section 204.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
The Agency performed an initial screening analysis and determined
that this regulation does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. EPA characterized the regulated
community by identifying the SIC codes of the companies affected by
this rule. The Agency determined that the members of the regulated
community affected by today's rule are not small businesses under SBA
definitions. Small governments and small not-for-profit organizations
are not subject to the provisions of today's rule. The provisions in
today's action regulate large, multinational corporations that either
produce, import, or export class I, group VI ozone-depleting
substances.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant'' regulatory action
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Analysis of today's rule estimates an incremental annualized cost
of $1 to $3 million for the 25 percent reduction as compared to the
1993 original analysis for establishing the 2001 phaseout. However,
further analysis shows that just the 25 percent reduction in today's
[[Page 29244]]
rule for 1999 and 2000 would have an estimated annualized cost of $71
million without additional reduction steps and without a complete
phaseout of the production and consumption of methyl bromide.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
D. Applicability of E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13045
because it implements a Congressional directive to phase out production
and consumption of methyl bromide in accordance with the schedule under
the Montreal Protocol.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not add any information collection requirements or
increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the final rule promulgated on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB control
number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.16).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies or matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
H. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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. The
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering 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
[[Page 29245]]
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 July 1, 1999.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Ozone layer.
Dated: May 25, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Subpart 82--Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
1. The authority citation for subpart 82 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls
2. Section 82.7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 82.7 Grant and phase reduction of baseline production and
consumption allowances for class I controlled substances.
For each control period specified in the following table, each
person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline production
and consumption allowances apportioned to him under Secs. 82.5 and 82.6
of this subpart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Class I Class I Class I Class I Class I
substances in substances in substances in substances in substances in substances in
Control period groups I and group II group IV group V group VI group VII
III (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.................................................... 25 0 50 50 100 100
1995.................................................... 25 0 15 30 100 100
1996.................................................... 0 0 0 0 100 0
1997.................................................... 0 0 0 0 100 0
1998.................................................... 0 0 0 0 100 0
1999.................................................... 0 0 0 0 75 0
2000.................................................... 0 0 0 0 75 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-13803 Filed 5-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081027115809im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}