Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70795

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued

State citation Title/Subject State adoption date EPA citation date Explanation

*******

Section 101.6 ................. Upset reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

06/29/2000 11/28/00 65 FR 70794 .....

Section 101.7 ................. Maintenance, startup and shutdown

reporting, recordkeeping and

operational requirements.

06/29/2000 11/28/00 65 FR 70794 .....

*******

Section 101.11 ............... Demonstrations ............................... 06/29/2000 11/28/00 65 FR 70794 .....

*******

[FR Doc. 00–30107 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 210–0266; FRL–6908–3]

California State Implementation Plan

Revision, San Diego County Air

Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Removal of a direct final rule

paragraph.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,

EPA is removing a paragraph included

in a direct final rule approving revisions

to the California State Implementation

Plan. EPA published the direct final rule

on September 18, 2000 (65 FR 56251),

approving a rule revision from the San

Diego County Air Pollution Control

District (SDCAPCD). As stated in that

Federal Register document, if adverse

or critical comments were received by

October 18, 2000, the rule would not

take effect and timely notice would be

published in the Federal Register.

However, EPA did not publsh the

withdrawal before the effective date of

the rule and is, therefore, removing a

paragraph added by that rule. EPA has

received adverse comments on that

direct final rule and may address these

comments in a final action within the

near future. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this future

final action.

DATES: 40 CFR 52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1)

published at 65 FR 56251 is removed as

of November 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule located in the final rules section of

the September 18, 2000 Federal Register

(65 FR 56251), and in the proposed rule

located in the proposed rule section of

the September 18, 2000 Federal Register

(65 FR 56278).

EPA received an adverse comment

concerning SDCAPCD Rule 67.11—

Wood Products Coating Operations and

the addition of 40 CFR

52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1). Prior to the close

of the comment period, SDCAPCD

requested that we withdraw our direct

final approval action on the rule.

Consequently, we are removing only the

portion of the direct final rule published

at 65 FR 56251 concerning SDCAPCD

Rule 67.11. Today’s action does not

affect our other direct final rulemaking

action approving Bay Area Air Quality

Management District Rule 8–11—Metal

container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil

Coating.

To conclude, 40 CFR

52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1) published at 65

FR 56251 is removed as of November

28, 2000.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: November 1, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

Subpart F—California

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph

(c)(255)(i)(F).

[FR Doc. 00–30115 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–6906–4]

RIN 2060–AI41

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

Incorporation of Clean Air Act

Amendments for Reductions in Class I,

Group VI Controlled Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is

taking direct final action on the

accelerated phaseout regulations that

govern the production, import, export,

transformation and destruction of

substances that deplete the ozone layer

under the authority of Title VI of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAA or the Act). We are undertaking

these revisions to implement recent

changes (Oct. 21, 1998) to the CAA,

which direct EPA to conform the U.S.

methyl bromide phasedown schedule to

the schedule for industrialized nations

under the Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone

Layer (Protocol). Specifically, today’s

amendments reflect the Protocol’s

reductions in the production and

consumption of class I, Group VI

controlled substances (methyl bromide)

for the 2001 calendar year and

subsequent calendar years, as follows:

beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent

reduction in baseline levels; beginning

January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction

in baseline levels; and, beginning

January 1, 2005, the complete phaseout

of class I, Group VI controlled

substances.

70796 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1Several 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).

DATES: This rule will become effective

on January 29, 2001 without further

notice unless the Agency receives

adverse comment by December 28,

2000. If we receive such comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

rulemaking should be submitted in

duplicate (two copies) to: Air Docket

No. A–2000–24, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 2000 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW, Room M–1500, Washington,

D.C. 20460.

Materials relevant to this rulemaking

are contained in Public Docket No. A–

2000–24. The docket is located in room

M–1500, Waterside Mall (Ground

Floor), at the above address. The

materials may be inspected from 8 am

until 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday.

We may charge a reasonable fee for

copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Stratospheric Ozone Information

Hotline at 1–800–296–1996 between the

hours of 10 am and 4 pm Eastern

Standard Time, or Amber Moreen, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Stratospheric Protection Division

(6205J), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C., 20460, (202) 564–9295.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are

revising the methyl bromide phaseout

regulation as a direct final rule without

prior proposal because we view these

revisions, directly mandated by the

statutory language established by

Congress, as noncontroversial and

anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’

section of today’s Federal Register

publication, we are publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to update the methyl bromide

phaseout schedule if adverse comments

are filed. This rule will be effective on

January 29, 2001 without further notice

unless we receive adverse comment by

December 28, 2000. If EPA receives

adverse comment, we will publish a

timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that the

rule will not take effect. We will address

all public comments in a subsequent

final rule based on the proposed rule.

We will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on these

revisions to part 82 subpart A should do

so at this time. EPA reiterates that the

phasedown and phaseout levels and

dates are statutorily required, and that it

therefore has no discretion to alter the

schedule.

Recognizing the expressed intent of

Congress in recent changes to the CAA

to include certain types of exemptions,

the preamble to today’s direct final rule

also notifies the public of our intent to

propose future rulemakings concerning

quarantine and preshipment

exemptions, as well as the postphaseout critical and emergency use

exemptions.

Table of Contents

I. What is the Legislative and Regulatory

Background of the Phaseout Regulations

for Ozone-Depleting Substances?

II. What is Methyl Bromide?

III. What is the Regulatory Background

Relating Specifically to Methyl Bromide?

IV. How is EPA Phasing Out Methyl

Bromide?

a. What does the Protocol say about the

phaseout of methyl bromide?

b. What is the legal authority for phasing

out methyl bromide?

c. What are today’s phasedown changes?

V. What Are the Additional Changes

Necessary to Facilitate the New Phaseout

Schedule?

VI. Are the Existing Regulations being

Amended to Reflect the Critical and

Emergency Use Provisions (§ 82.3

(Definitions) and § 82.7)?

a. What Exemptions Does the Montreal

Protocol Provide Beginning in 2005?

b. What is the Montreal Protocol authority

for granting a critical use exemption after

the phaseout?

c. What is the CAA legal authority for

implementing the critical use

exemption?

d. How will the U.S. incorporate the

critical use exemption?

e. What is the Protocol authority for

granting an emergency use exemption?

f. What is the CAA legal authority for

implementing the emergency use

exemption?

g. How will the Decision IX/7 affect

emergency agricultural uses in the U.S.?

VII. Will Production Allowances be Available

for Export to Developing Countries

(§ 82.9)?

a. What does the Protocol say about 2001

production allowances for export to

developing countries?

b. How did the U.S. provide for Article 5

allowances in the CAA?

c. What production for export to Article 5

countries will be allowed past 2001?

VIII. How do Today’s Changes Affect the

Economic Impact of the Phaseout?

IX. What are the Supporting Analyses?

a. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

b. Regulatory Flexibility

c. Executive Order 12866

d. Applicability of Executive Order

13045—Children’s Health Protection

e. Paperwork Reduction Act

f. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

g. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

h. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

i. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

I. What Is the Legislative and

Regulatory Background of the Phaseout

Regulations for Ozone-Depleting

Substances?

The current regulatory requirements

of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Program that limit production and

consumption of ozone-depleting

substances were promulgated by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA

or the Agency) in the Federal Register

on December 20, 1994 (59 FR 65478),

May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24970), August 4,

1998 (63 FR 41625), and October 5, 1998

(63 FR 53290). The regulatory program

was originally published in the Federal

Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR

30566), in response to the 1987 signing,

by the U.S. and other countries, of the

Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol).1

The requirements contained in the

final rules published in the Federal

Register on December 20, 1994 and May

10, 1995 establish an Allowance

Program. The Allowance Program and

its history are described in the notice of

proposed rulemaking published in the

Federal Register on November 10, 1994

(59 FR 56276). The control and the

phaseout of the production and

consumption of class I ozone-depleting

substances as required under the

Protocol and the CAA are accomplished

through the Allowance Program.

In developing the Allowance Program,

we collected information on the

amounts of ozone-depleting substances

produced, imported, exported,

transformed and destroyed within the

U.S. for specific baseline years for

specific chemicals. This information

was used to establish the U.S.

production and consumption ceilings

for these chemicals. The data were also

used to assign company-specific

production and import rights to

companies that were in most cases

producing or importing during the

specific year of data collection. These

production or import rights are called

‘‘allowances.’’ Due to the complete

phaseout of many of the ozonedepleting chemicals, the quantities of

allowances granted to companies for

those chemicals were gradually reduced

and eventually eliminated. Production

allowances and consumption

allowances continue to exist for only

one specific class I controlled ozonedepleting substance—methyl bromide.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70797

2The formula for ‘‘consumption’’ is production +

import—export. Because ‘‘consumption’’

encompasses ‘‘production and import’’,

consumption is included by reference.

All other production or consumption of

class I controlled substances is

prohibited under the Protocol and the

CAA, but for a few narrow exemptions.

In the context of the regulatory

program, the use of the term

consumption may be misleading.

Consumption does not mean the ‘‘use’’

of a controlled substance, but rather is

defined as the formula: production +

imports—exports, of controlled

substances (Article 1 of the Protocol and

Section 601 of the CAA). Class I

controlled substances that were

produced or imported through the

expenditure of allowances prior to their

phaseout date can continue to be used

by industry and the public after that

specific chemical’s phaseout under

these regulations, unless otherwise

precluded under separate regulations.

The specific names and chemical

formulas for the class I controlled

ozone-depleting substances are in

Appendix A and Appendix F in Subpart

A of 40 CFR Part 82. The specific names

and chemical formulas for the class II

controlled ozone-depleting substances

are in Appendix B and Appendix F in

Subpart A.

Although the regulations phased out

the production and consumption of

class I, Group II substances (halons) on

January 1, 1994, and all other class I

controlled substances (except methyl

bromide) on January 1, 1996, a very

limited number of exemptions exist,

consistent with U.S. obligations under

the Protocol. The regulations allow for

the manufacture of phased-out class I

controlled substances, provided the

substances are either transformed, or

destroyed (40 CFR 82.4(b)). They also

allow limited manufacture if the

substances are (1) exported to countries

operating under Article 5 of the Protocol

or (2) produced for essential uses as

authorized by the Protocol and the

regulations. Limited exceptions to the

ban on the import of phased-out class I

controlled substances also exist if the

substances are: (1) previously used, (2)

imported for essential uses as

authorized by the Protocol and the

regulations, (3) imported for destruction

or transformation only, or (4) a

transhipment or a heel (a small amount

of controlled substance remaining in a

container after discharge) (40 CFR

82.4(d), 82.13(g)(2)).

II. What Is Methyl Bromide?

Methyl bromide is an odorless and

colorless gas used in the U.S. and

throughout the world as a fumigant.

Methyl bromide, which is toxic to living

things, is used in many different

situations to control a variety of pests,

such as: insects, weeds, pathogens, and

nematodes. Additional characteristics

and details about the uses of methyl

bromide, as well as information on the

basis for listing methyl bromide as a

class I substance, can be found in the

proposed rule published in the Federal

Register on March 18, 1993 (58 FR

15014) and the final rule published in

the Federal Register on December 10,

1993 (58 FR 65018). Updated

information on methyl bromide can be

found at the following sites of the World

Wide Web: www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/

and www.teap.org or by contacting the

Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline

at 1–800–296–1996.

III. What Is the Regulatory Background

Relating Specifically to Methyl

Bromide?

The Parties to the Protocol established

a freeze in the level of methyl bromide

production and consumption for

industrialized countries at the 1992

Meeting in Copenhagen. The Parties

agreed that each industrialized

country’s level of methyl bromide

production and consumption in 1991

should be the baseline for establishing

the freeze. EPA published a final rule in

the Federal Register on December 10,

1993, listing methyl bromide as a class

I, Group VI controlled substance,

freezing U.S. production and

consumption at this 1991 level, and, in

§ 82.7 of the rule, setting forth the

percentage of baseline allowances for

methyl bromide granted to companies in

each control period (each calendar year)

until the year 2001 (58 FR 65018).

Consistent with the CAA requirements

for newly listed class I ozone-depleting

substances, this rule established a 2001

phaseout for methyl bromide. In the rule

published in the Federal Register on

December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69235), we

established baseline methyl bromide

production and consumption

allowances for specific companies in

§ 82.5 and § 82.6.

At their 1997 meeting, the Parties

agreed to establish the phaseout

schedule for methyl bromide in

industrialized countries. The U.S.

Congress followed by amending the

CAA (in Oct. 1998) to direct EPA to

promulgate regulations reflecting the

Protocol phaseout date of 2005, with

interim phasedown steps in 1999, 2001,

and 2003. EPA promulgated a regulation

that was published in the Federal

Register on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29240),

instituting the initial interim reduction

of 25 percent in the production and

import 2 of methyl bromide for the 1999

and 2000 control periods. Currently, we

grant 75 percent of the 1991 baseline

methyl bromide allowances for each

control period until 2001.

We expect to publish a proposed rule

adding exemptions for production and

import of quantities of methyl bromide

that are used for quarantine and

preshipment in late 2000. That proposal

may also include a proposed ban on

trade of methyl bromide with nonParties to the Protocol, as decided by the

Parties in 1997.

IV. How Is EPA Phasing Out Methyl

Bromide?

a. What Does the Protocol Say About the

Phaseout of Methyl Bromide?

As stated in Section I of this

preamble, the U.S. was one of the

original signatories to the Protocol. The

U.S. ratified the Protocol on April 21,

1988. Today’s amendment is designed

to complete implementation of article

2H of the Protocol. Paragraphs 3 through

5 establish the remaining phaseout

schedule for methyl bromide:

3. Each Party shall ensure that for the

twelve-month period commencing on 1

January 2001, and in the twelve-month

period thereafter, its calculated level of

consumption of the controlled substance in

Annex E does not exceed, annually, fifty

percent of its calculated level of consumption

in 1991. Each Party producing the substance

shall, for the same periods, ensure that its

calculated level of production of the

substance does not exceed, annually, fifty

percent of its calculated level of production

in 1991 * * *

4. Each Party shall ensure that for the

twelve-month period commencing on 1

January 2003, and in the twelve-month

period thereafter, its calculated level of

consumption of the controlled substance in

Annex E does not exceed, annually, thirty

percent of its calculated level of consumption

in 1991. Each Party producing the substance

shall, for the same periods, ensure that its

calculated level of production of the

substance does not exceed, annually, thirty

percent of its calculated level of production

in 1991 * * *

5. Each Party shall ensure that for the

twelve-month period commencing on 1

January 2005, and in each twelve-month

period thereafter, its calculated level of

consumption of the controlled substance in

Annex E does not exceed zero. Each Party

producing the substance shall, for the same

periods, ensure that its calculated level of

production of the substance does not exceed

zero * * *

Thus, Article 2H establishes obligations

for the U.S. to reduce and eventually

phase out its production and import of

70798 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

3The formula for ‘‘consumption’’ is production +

import ¥ export. Because ‘‘consumption’’

encompasses ‘‘production and import’’, phasing out

‘‘production and import’’, in effect, also phases out

consumption.

methyl bromide 3, apart from

exemptions discussed later in this

preamble and quantities of methyl

bromide used for quarantine and

preshipment uses.

b. What Is the Legal Authority for

Phasing Out Methyl Bromide?

In response to ratification of the

Protocol, Congress enacted, and

President Bush signed into law, the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAA or the Act) that included Title VI

on Stratospheric Ozone Protection. As

mentioned in section III of this

preamble, Congress amended Title VI of

the CAA with Section 764 of the 1999

Omnibus Consolidated Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act

(Public Law No. 105–277; October 21,

1998), directing EPA to reflect in its

regulations the Protocol’s most recent

phasedown schedule for methyl

bromide, and providing authority to

create certain types of exemptions.

Today’s amendments are designed to

ensure that the U.S. meets its

obligations under the Protocol and the

CAA. Section 764(a) of the 1999

Omnibus Consolidated Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act

(Public Law No. 105–277; October 21,

1998) requires EPA to bring the

schedule for the phaseout of methyl

bromide into accordance with the

Protocol. Specifically, the amendments

direct EPA to:

* * * not terminate production of methyl

bromide prior to January 1, 2005. The

Administrator shall promulgate rules for

reductions in, and terminate the production,

importation, and consumption of, methyl

bromide under a schedule that is in

accordance with, but not more stringent than,

the phaseout schedule of the Montreal

Protocol Treaty as in effect on the date of the

enactment of this subsection.

This language, which amends Section

604 of the CAA, adding a new paragraph

(h), requires us to extend the timeline

for the phasedown in § 82.7 so that it is

in accordance with the current

phasedown schedule under the

Protocol. Thus, we are changing the

phaseout date from January 1, 2001 to

January 1, 2005.

EPA derives its authority for today’s

action from Section 604(h) of the Act.

c. What Are Today’s Phasedown

Changes?

In accordance with the Protocol’s

methyl bromide phaseout schedule, we

are changing the percentage of baseline

allowances for class I, Group VI

substances granted in § 82.7. We are

granting the following allowances to the

companies listed in § 82.5 and § 82.6 for

methyl bromide: 50 percent of baseline

production and consumption

allowances for 2001 and 2002; 30

percent of baseline production and

consumption allowances for 2003 and

2004; and 0 percent of baseline

production and consumption

allowances beginning January 1, 2005.

V. What Are the Additional Changes

Necessary To Facilitate the New

Phaseout Schedule?

Many sections of Part 82 of the

current regulations contain the original

methyl bromide phaseout date, January

1, 2001. To update the regulations, we

are changing many instances of

‘‘January 1, 2001,’’ when referencing

methyl bromide, to ‘‘January 1, 2005.’’

In addition, in adding Group VI

controlled substances to 82.4(b), we are

providing for the production of methyl

bromide past the phaseout date using

Article 5 allowances.

VI. Are the Existing Regulations Being

Amended To Reflect the Critical and

Emergency Use Provisions (§ 82.3

(Definitions) and § 82.7)?

a. What Exemptions Does the Montreal

Protocol Provide Beginning in 2005?

Because the CAA, by requiring

consistency with the Montreal Protocol,

does not allow these exemptions to be

available until the complete phaseout in

2005, they cannot be utilized during the

required interim phasedown period

between now and December 31, 2004.

Today, we are creating two reserved

sections in the regulations, at § 82.4 (v)

for critical use exemptions and at § 82.4

(w) for emergency use exemptions.

Beyond reserving these sections, EPA is

not amending Part 82 by adding the

processes for these exemptions at this

time. Because we are not adding the

processes at this time, we are not

requesting comment on these

exemptions at this time. EPA intends to

publish a proposal for a submittal

process, timing, and the procedures by

which the U.S. government would make

determinations for both exemptions in a

future notice and comment rulemaking.

Any unsolicited comments addressing

the critical and emergency use

exemptions will be addressed in

relation to that future proposal.

b. What Is the Montreal Protocol

Authority for Granting a Critical Use

Exemption After the Phaseout?

In recognition that substitutes may

not be available by 2005 for certain

important methyl bromide uses, the

Protocol provides an exemption in

Article 2H, paragraph 5 for critical uses.

Each Party shall ensure that for the twelvemonth period commencing on 1 January

2005, and in each twelve-month period

thereafter, its calculated level of

consumption of the controlled substance in

Annex E does not exceed zero * * * This

paragraph will apply save to the extent that

the Parties decide to permit the level of

production or consumption that is necessary

to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical

uses.

While not specifying which uses

might be ‘‘critical,’’ the Parties

established criteria and some procedural

steps for determining whether a specific

use should be approved as critical at

their Ninth Meeting (1997) in Decision

IX/6. Apart from quantities used for

quarantine or preshipment, and limited

production for export to Article 5

countries, production and import of

methyl bromide are only permitted past

January 1, 2005 for those uses approved

under Decisions IX/6 or IX/7.

In Decision IX/6, the Parties agreed as

follows:

(a) That a use of methyl bromide should

qualify as ‘critical’ only if the nominating

Party determines that:

(i) The specific use is critical because the

lack of availability of methyl bromide for that

use would result in a significant market

disruption; and

(ii) There are no technically and

economically feasible alternatives or

substitutes available to the user that are

acceptable from the standpoint of

environment and health and are suitable to

the crops and circumstances of the

nomination * * *

Under paragraph 1(a), a Party

nominating a specific use as being

critical in its submission to the Protocol

Parties must determine both that the

unavailability of methyl bromide for

this use would result in a significant

market disruption and that there is a

lack of acceptable and suitable

alternatives. The Decision goes on to

specify:

(b) That production and consumption, if

any, of methyl bromide for a critical use

should be permitted only if:

(i) All technically and economically

feasible steps have been taken to minimize

the critical use and any associated emission

of methyl bromide;

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in

sufficient quantity and quality from existing

stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide,

also bearing in mind the developing

countries’ need for methyl bromide;

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate

effort is being made to evaluate,

commercialize and secure national regulatory

approval of alternatives and substitutes

* * * Non-Article 5 Parties must

demonstrate that research programmes are in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70799

place to develop and deploy alternatives and

substitutes * * *

The above paragraph of Decision IX/6

requires that a nomination further

demonstrate to the Parties that the use

of methyl bromide is minimized, that

methyl bromide is not available through

means other than production, and that

alternatives are actively being pursued.

Paragraph (2) of Decision IX/6

requests the Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel (TEAP) to evaluate

the nominations according to the

criteria in paragraphs 1(a)(ii) and 1(b).

In essence, 1(a)(ii) and 1(b) direct TEAP

to evaluate a proposed exemption

according to:

(1) The availability of, as well as

efforts to find, receive approval of, and

market, alternatives for that particular

use;

(2) Efforts to minimize use and

emissions; and,

(3) The potential for meeting that

need through banked or recycled methyl

bromide.

c. What Is the CAA Legal Authority for

Implementing the Critical Use

Exemption?

Any critical use exemption must

comply with the provisions of the CAA.

Section 604(d)(6), added by Section 764

of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and

Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (Public Law No.

105–277; October 21, 1998), states that:

To the extent consistent with the Montreal

Protocol, the Administrator, after notice and

the opportunity for public comment, and

after consultation with other departments or

institutions of the Federal Government

having regulatory authority related to methyl

bromide, including the Secretary of

Agriculture, may exempt the production,

importation, and consumption of methyl

bromide for critical uses.

With this most recent amendment to the

CAA, Congress authorizes EPA to

provide critical use exemptions.

Furthermore, by requiring consistency

with the Protocol, Congress obligates

EPA to provide these exemptions only

according to the timeframe specified in

the Protocol (after January 1, 2005) and

only (as specified in Article 2H,

Paragraph 5) ‘‘to the extent that the

Parties decide to permit the level of

production or consumption that is

necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them

to be critical uses.’’

d. How Will the U.S. Incorporate the

Critical Use Exemption?

Consistent with the Montreal Protocol

and Congress’s recent addition to the

CAA, the critical use exemption cannot

apply until the complete phaseout, in

2005. The Protocol, as explained in ‘‘a’’

and ‘‘b’’ of this section, specifies in

Paragraph 5 of Article 2H that,

‘‘commencing on 1 January 2005 * * *

[the phaseout] will apply save to the

extent that the Parties decide to permit

the level of production or consumption

that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed

by them to be critical uses.’’ The CAA,

as described in ‘‘b’’ above, requires this

schedule by providing the critical use

exemption ‘‘to the extent consistent

with the Montreal Protocol.’’ Thus, we

are not delineating specifics related to

this exemption in today’s action.

However, we intend to permit limited

continued production for critical uses

agreed to by the Parties to the Protocol

for the period after January 2005.

We are reserving a section of the

regulation for a future rulemaking to

incorporate the critical use provisions

from the Protocol and the CAA into our

domestic allowance program. We plan

to propose in a future rulemaking the

creation of a new class of exemptions

that may be referred to as ‘‘critical use

allowances.’’ In that future rulemaking,

we plan to propose details related to

critical use exemption procedures and

criteria, as well as request nominations

for critical uses needed beyond 2005.

The details of the critical use exemption

have yet to be defined. We plan to hold

stakeholder meetings in the near future

to solicit ideas in developing a proposal

for the implementation of a streamlined

critical use exemption process in

accordance with U.S. obligations under

the Protocol and consistent with CAA

requirements.

The economic and geographical issues

that are unique to methyl bromide and

its applications will be considered as we

develop the details of the exemption

program, including the submittal

process, timing, and the procedures we

will use in making determinations for

this exemption. The process for

obtaining a critical use exemption could

resemble the process used for essential

use exemptions for other Class I ozonedepleting substances like CFCs

(Decision IV/25; 58 FR 6786, 29410,

53722). However, because of the

economic and geographical issues

unique to methyl bromide and its

applications, it is possible that the

critical use exemption process could

also vary significantly from the essential

use process.

e. What Is the Protocol Authority for

Granting an Emergency Use Exemption?

As discussed above, the Parties also

established the emergency use

exemption for methyl bromide at their

Ninth Meeting (Decision IX/7). Decision

IX/7 allows the Parties to consume,

* * * in response to an emergency event

* * * , quantities not exceeding 20 tonnes of

methyl bromide. The Secretariat and the

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

will evaluate the use according to the ‘critical

methyl bromide use’ criteria and present this

information to the next meeting of the Parties

for review and appropriate guidance on

future such emergencies, including whether

or not the figure of 20 tonnes is appropriate.

As can be seen from the language of

Decision IX/7, the emergency use exemption

is essentially an abbreviated critical use

process allowing limited consumption of

methyl bromide in response to an emergency.

Because Article 2H does not contemplate

consumption for critical uses prior to the

complete phaseout in 2005, neither the

critical use exemption nor its abbreviated

form—the emergency use exemption—will be

available until that date. Each emergency use

will be evaluated by the Parties after its

occurrence. EPA plans to provide details of

an emergency use process in the same future

proposal addressing the complete critical use

process.

f. What Is the CAA Legal Authority for

Implementing the Emergency Use

Exemption?

While this exemption is not explicitly

included as a separate item in the most

recent Congressional changes to the

CAA [Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus

Consolidated Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (Public Law No.

105–277)], we believe that Congress’

grant of authority in 604(d)(6) to exempt

critical uses is sufficiently broad to

cover not only the full critical use

process but also the abbreviated form of

this process, that is, the emergency use

exemption.

g. How Will Decision IX/7 Affect

Emergency Agricultural Uses in the

U.S.?

Because the emergency use exemption

will not be available until the complete

phaseout (2005), we are not delineating

specifics related to this exemption in

today’s action. However, we intend to

permit limited production for

emergency uses beginning in 2005. To

incorporate the Protocol’s emergency

use Decision into our domestic

allowance program, we may create,

through a future rulemaking, a new

class of exemptions to be referred to as

‘‘emergency use allowances.’’ In a future

rulemaking, we plan to propose criteria

and processes for exempting and using

methyl bromide for an emergency event

after January 1, 2005.

70800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

VII. Will Production Allowances be

Available for Export to Developing

Countries (§ 82.9)?

a. What Does the Protocol Say About

2001 Production Allowances for Export

to Developing Countries?

The Parties believed that during the

phasedown period, existing production

facilities in industrialized countries

should be able to supply developing

countries (Parties operating under

Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol),

thereby decreasing incentives for

construction of new plants in those

countries. Thus, the Protocol allows

industrialized countries to produce

limited, additional methyl bromide

explicitly for export to developing

countries during the phasedown in the

industrialized countries. Article 2H,

paragraph 5, of the Protocol states that,

* * * in order to satisfy the basic domestic

needs of the Parties operating under

Paragraph 1 of Article 5, [each Party’s]

calculated level of production may, until 1

January 2002 exceed [the relevant] limit by

up to fifteen percent of its calculated level of

production in 1991; * * *

The Beijing adjustments that added the

above text entered into force on July 28,

2000.

b. How Did the U.S. Provide for Article

5 Allowances in the CAA?

Domestically, the Protocol provisions

that allow limited production for export

to Article 5 countries are reflected in

section 604 of the CAA. The current

phaseout requirements for methyl

bromide appear in section 604(h) of the

CAA, as added by Section 764 of the

1999 Omnibus Consolidated and

Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (Public Law No.

105–277). In adding section 604(h),

Congress also added a provision to

604(e) that specifically addresses

production of methyl bromide for export

to developing countries. This provision,

section 604(e)(3), states that:

* * * the Administrator may, consistent

with the Protocol, authorize the production

of limited quantities of methyl bromide,

solely for use in developing countries that are

Parties to the Copenhagen Amendments to

the Montreal Protocol.

Thus, the CAA directs EPA to be

consistent with the Protocol in creating

Article 5 allowances. As stated in ‘‘a’’ of

this section, Article 2H, paragraph 5 of

the Protocol allows, prior to January 1,

2002, production for export to Article 5

countries of up to 15 percent of the 1991

baseline. Therefore, today’s

amendments to the phaseout regulations

reflect this Article 5 allowance for 2001.

c. What Production for Export to Article

5 Countries Will Be Allowed Past 2001?

As explained above, the CAA

specifies that we provide the allowances

for export to Article 5 countries in

accordance with the Protocol. The

Protocol allows industrialized countries

to produce limited, additional methyl

bromide explicitly for export to

developing countries during and after

the phasedown in the industrialized

countries.

Article 2H, paragraph 5 of the

Protocol states that from January 1, 2002

until January 1, 2005,

* * *[the calculated level of production]

may exceed [the relevant] limit by a quantity

equal to the annual average of its production

of the controlled substance in Annex E for

basic domestic needs for the period 1994 to

1998 inclusive.

Furthermore, the Protocol provides a

more relaxed methyl bromide phaseout

schedule for developing countries.

Article 5 countries are obligated to

phase out methyl bromide completely

by January 1, 2015. The difference

between the methyl bromide

phasedown schedule in developing and

industrialized countries creates the

possibility for developing countries to

import methyl bromide beyond the

phaseout in industrialized countries

(i.e., past January 1, 2005). Thus, an

allowance for export is needed past the

U.S. domestic phaseout. Article 2H,

paragraph 5 bis., provides that:

* * * commencing on 1 January 2005 and

in each twelve-month period thereafter, [each

Party’s] calculated level of production of

[methyl bromide] for the basic domestic

needs of the Parties operating under

paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not exceed

eighty per cent of the annual average of its

production of the substance for basic

domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1998

inclusive.

The Protocol goes on to specify in

Article 2H, paragraph 5 ter. that:

* * * commencing on 1 January 2015 and

in each twelve-month period thereafter, [each

Party’s] calculated level of production of

[methyl bromide] for the basic domestic

needs of the Parties operating under

paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not exceed zero.

The 1995 to 1998 average production for

export to Article 5 countries was

specified as the post-2001 baseline for

production for export to Article 5

countries at the Eleventh Meeting of the

Parties to the Montreal Protocol in

Beijing. Because the Adjustments made

in Beijing replace the 1991 production

baseline with this new baseline, we will

be granting allowances to produce

methyl bromide for export to Article 5

countries beyond 2001 in a rulemaking

to be completed before 2002. We need

time to ensure the technical accuracy of

the Article 5 allowance amounts for

2002 and beyond. We plan to, as soon

as possible, promulgate another rule

laying out the allowances for export to

Article 5 countries past 2001 according

to the CAA and the Protocol. From 2002

to 2005, we plan to grant the average of

the 1995 through 1998 production for

export to Article 5 countries. From 2005

to 2015, when the developing countries

phase out methyl bromide (except for

previously discussed exemptions), we

plan to grant the current industrialized

countries’ production allowance for

export to Article 5 countries of 80% of

the 1995 through 1998 average of

production for export to Article 5

countries.

Because we are not adding the Article

5 Allowances past 2001 at this time, we

are not requesting comment on these

allowances at this time. EPA intends to

publish a proposal for these allowances

in a future notice and comment

rulemaking in 2001. Any unsolicited

comments addressing Article 5

Allowances past 2001 will be addressed

in relation to that future proposal.

VIII. How Do Today’s Changes Affect

the Economic Impact of the Phaseout?

In preparing the final rule that

established the original 2001 phaseout

date for methyl bromide (58 FR 69235),

we conducted a Cost Effectiveness

Analysis, dated September 30, 1993,

under the title, ‘‘Part 2, The Cost and

Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed

Phaseout of Methyl Bromide’’ (Docket

A–92–13, Document Number IV–A–23).

In preparing for the initial interim 25%

reduction, we conducted an addendum

to the 1993 analysis (Docket A–92–13,

Document Number II–A–41). For today’s

interim and final reductions in methyl

bromide production and import, we

conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis

as an update to the 1993 analysis, and

in addition to the 1999 addendum. This

RIA was not used as a basis for deciding

on phasedown and phaseout

percentages and dates. Rather, the dates

are dictated by the Montreal Protocol

and the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1998. The original (1993) annualized

cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout,

adjusted to 1998 dollars, is $159

million. The results of the updated

analysis, which will be available in

conjunction with our forthcoming

proposed rule addressing quarantine

and preshipment, are expected to

indicate that extending the phaseout

deadline will result in cost savings,

when compared to the cost estimate for

the 2001 phaseout.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70801

IX. What Are the Supporting Analyses?

a. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

Today’s rule contains federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of the Title II of the UMRA)

for the private sector. However, the rule

implements mandates specifically and

explicitly set forth by the Congress in

section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by

Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus

Consolidated Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (Public Law No.

105–277), without the exercise of any

policy discretion by EPA. In particular,

this rule implements the directive in

section 604(h) of the CAA to promulgate

a methyl bromide phaseout schedule

that is in accordance with the schedule

under the Montreal Protocol. EPA has

determined that this rule does not

contain a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any one year. Because

this rule extends the current phaseout,

the rule reduces costs. Thus, today’s

rule is not subject to the requirements

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

We determined that this rule contains

no regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments; therefore, we are not

required to develop a plan with regard

to small governments under section 203.

Finally, because this rule does not

contain a significant intergovernmental

mandate, the Agency is not required to

develop a process to obtain input from

elected state, local, and tribal officials

under section 204.

b. Regulatory Flexibility

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. EPA has also determined

that this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as:

(1) A small business that is identified

by the Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) Code in the Table below. The size

standards described in this section

apply to all Small Business

Administration (SBA) programs unless

otherwise specified. The size standards

themselves are expressed either in

number of employees or annual receipts

in millions of dollars, unless otherwise

specified. The number of employees or

annual receipts indicates the maximum

allowed for a concern and its affiliates

to be considered small.

Type of

enterprise

SIC code/

division

Size

standard

Industrial Organic Chemicals.2813 .................. 1,000

Wholesale Trade Division F .......... 100

(2) A small governmental jurisdiction

that is a government of a city, county,

town, school district or special district

with a population of less than 50,000;

and

(3) A small organization that is any

not-for-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.

Today’s direct final rule will not

impose any requirements on small

entities, as it regulates large,

multinational corporations that either

produce, import or export class I, group

VI ozone-depleting substances.

c. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether this regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines a ‘‘significant’’

regulatory action as one that is likely to

result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA

that it considers this an ‘‘economically

significant regulatory action’’ within the

meaning of the Executive Order. EPA

has submitted this action to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to

OMB suggestions or recommendations

will be documented in the public

record.

d. Applicability of Executive Order

13045—Children’s Health Protection

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045

as applying only to those regulatory

actions that are based on health or safety

risks, such that the analysis required

under section 5–501 of the Order has

the potential to influence the regulation.

70802 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it implements a

Congressional directive to phase out

production and import of methyl

bromide in accordance with the

schedule under the Protocol.

e. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not add any

information collection requirements or

increase burden under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) previously approved

the information collection requirements

contained in the final rule promulgated

on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB

control number 2060–0170 (EPA ICR

No. 1432.17).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

f. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

This rule does not have federalism

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This rule

regulates large, multinational

corporations that either produce, import

or export class I, group VI ozonedepleting substances. It implements

mandates specifically and explicitly set

forth by the Congress in section 604(h)

of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of

the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated

Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (Public Law No.

105–277), without the exercise of any

policy discretion by EPA. Thus,

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule.

g. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies or matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule implements

requirements specifically set forth by

Congress in section 604(h) of the CAA,

as added by Section 764 of the 1999

Omnibus Consolidated Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act

(Public Law No. 105–277), without the

exercise of any discretion by EPA.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

h. The National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.

104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards. This

rulemaking does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

i. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by

5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be

effective January 29, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Chemicals,

Exports, Imports, Methyl bromide,

Ozone layer.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

title 40 chapter I of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 82—PROTECTION OF

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for part 82

continues to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70803

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–

7671q.

Subpart A—Production and

Consumption Controls

2. Section 82.4 is amended by:

a. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (a),

b. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (b),

c. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (c),

d. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (d),

e. Removing the second sentence of

paragraph (h) and adding two sentences

in its place,

f. Revising the first 2 sentences of

paragraph (k),

g. Adding and reserving paragraphs

(v) and (w).

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 82.4 Prohibitions.

(a) Prior to January 1, 1996, for all

Groups of class I controlled substances,

and prior to January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI controlled substances, no

person may produce, at any time in any

control period, (except that are

transformed or destroyed domestically

or by a person of another Party) in

excess of the amount of unexpended

production allowances or unexpended

Article 5 allowances for that substance

held by that person under the authority

of this subpart at that time for that

control period. * * *

(b) Effective January 1, 1996, for any

class I, Group I, Group II, Group III,

Group IV, Group V, or Group VII

controlled substances, and effective

January 1, 2005, for any class I, Group

VI controlled substances, no person may

produce, at any time in any control

period, (except that are transformed or

destroyed domestically or by a person of

another Party) in excess of the amount

of conferred unexpended essential-use

allowances or exemptions under this

section, the amount of unexpended

Article 5 allowances as allocated under

§ 82.9, or the amount of conferred

unexpended destruction and

transformation credits as obtained under

§ 82.9 for that substance held by that

person under the authority of this

subpart at that time for that control

period. * * *

(c) Prior to January 1, 1996, for all

Groups of class I controlled substances

and prior to January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI controlled substances, no

person may produce or (except for

transhipments, heels or used controlled

substances) import, at any time in any

control period, (except for controlled

substances that are transformed or

destroyed) in excess of the amount of

unexpended consumption allowances

held by that person under the authority

of this subpart at that time for that

control period. * * *

(d) Effective January 1, 1996, for any

class I, Group I, Group II, Group III,

Group IV, Group V, or Group VII

controlled substances, and effective

January 1, 2005, for any class I, Group

VI controlled substances, no person may

import (except for transhipments or

heels), at any time in any control period,

(except for controlled substances that

are transformed or destroyed) in excess

of the amount of unexpended essentialuse allowances or exemptions as

allocated under this section or the

amount of unexpended destruction and

transformation credits obtained under

§ 82.9, held by that person under the

authority of this subpart at that time for

that control period. * * *

* * * * *

(h) * * * In addition to total

production permitted under paragraph

(f) of this section, effective January 1,

2001, for class I, Group VI controlled

substances, a person may, at any time,

until January 1, 2002, produce 15

percent of baseline production as

apportioned under § 82.5 for export to

Article 5 countries. No person may, at

any time, in any control period until

January 1, 2000, produce class I, Group

I, Group II, Group III, Group IV, and

Group V controlled substances, and no

person may, at any time until January 1,

2002, produce class I Group VI

controlled substances for export to

Article 5 countries in excess of the

Article 5 allowances allocated under

§ 82.9(a). * * *

* * * * *

(k) Prior to January 1, 1996, for all

Groups of class I controlled substances,

and prior to January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI controlled substances, a

person may not use production

allowances to produce a quantity of a

class I controlled substance unless that

person holds under the authority of this

subpart at the same time consumption

allowances sufficient to cover that

quantity of class I controlled substances

nor may a person use consumption

allowances to produce a quantity of

class I controlled substances unless the

person holds under authority of this

subpart at the same time production

allowances sufficient to cover that

quantity of class I controlled substances.

However, prior to January 1, 1996, for

all class I controlled substances, and

prior to January 1, 2005, for class I,

Group VI controlled substances, only

consumption allowances are required to

import, with the exception of

transhipments, heels and used

controlled substances. * * *

* * * * *

(v) Critical use exemption. [Reserved]

(w) Emergency use exemption.

[Reserved]

3. Section 82.7 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 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

§ 82.5 and 82.6 of this subpart.

Control period

Class I substances in

groups I

and III,

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group II,

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group IV

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group V

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group VI

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group VII

(In percent)

1994 ................................................................................. 25 0 50 50 100 100

1995 ................................................................................. 25 0 15 30 100 100

1996 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 100 0

1997 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 100 0

1998 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 100 0

1999 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 75 0

2000 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 75 0

2001 ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 50 ....................

2002 ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 50 ....................

2003 ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 30 ....................

2004 ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 30 ....................

70804 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Control period

Class I substances in

groups I

and III,

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group II,

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group IV

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group V

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group VI

(In percent)

Class I substances in

group VII

(In percent)

2005 ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... 0 ....................

4. Section 82.9 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(2),

b. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (e) introductory text,

c. Revising paragraph (e)(1)

introductory text,

d. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (e)(2),

e. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (e)(3).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 82.9 Availability of allowances in

addition to baseline production allowances.

(a) * * *

(2) 15 percent of their baseline

production allowances for class I, Group

VI controlled substances listed under

§ 82.5 of this subpart for each control

period ending before January 1, 2002;

* * * * *

(e) Until January 1, 1996 for all class

I controlled substances, except Group

VI, and until January 1, 2005 for class

I, Group VI, a person may obtain

production allowances for that

controlled substance equal to the

amount of that controlled substance

produced in the United States that was

transformed or destroyed within the

United States, or transformed or

destroyed by a person of another Party,

in the cases where production

allowances were expended to produce

such substance in the U.S. in

accordance with the provisions of this

paragraph. * * *

(1) Until January 1, 1996, for all class

I controlled substances, except Group

VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI, a person must submit a

request for production allowances that

includes the following:

* * * * *

(2) Until January 1, 1996 for all class

I controlled substances, except Group

VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI, the Administrator will

review the information and

documentation submitted under

paragraph (e)(1) of this section and will

assess the quantity of class I controlled

substance that the documentation and

information verifies was transformed or

destroyed. * * *

(3) Until January 1, 1996 for all class

I controlled substances, except Group

VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI, if the Administrator

determines that the request for

production allowances does not

satisfactorily substantiate that the

person transformed or destroyed

controlled substances as claimed, or that

modified allowances were not

expended, the Administrator will issue

a notice disallowing the request for

additional production allowances.

***

* * * * *

5. Section 82.10 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) introductory

text, (a)(1) introductory text, the first

sentence of (b), and the first sentence of

paragraph (c) introductory text as

follows:

§ 82.10 Availability of consumption

allowances in addition to baseline

consumption allowances.

(a) Until January 1, 1996 for all class

I controlled substances, except Group

VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI, any person may obtain, in

accordance with the provisions of this

subsection, consumption allowances

equivalent to the level of class I

controlled substances (other than used

controlled substances or transhipments)

that the person has exported from the

United States and its territories to a

Party (as listed in appendix C to this

subpart).

(1) Until January 1, 1996 for all class

I controlled substances, except Group

VI, and until January 1, 2005, for class

I, Group VI, to receive consumption

allowances in addition to baseline

consumption allowances, the exporter

of the class I controlled substances must

submit to the Administrator a request

for consumption allowances setting

forth the following:

* * * * *

(b) Until January 1, 1996, a person

may obtain consumption allowances for

a class I controlled substance (and until

January 1, 2005 for class I, Group VI)

equal to the amount of a controlled

substance either produced in, or

imported into, the United States that

was transformed or destroyed in the

case where consumption allowances

were expended to produce or import

such substance in accordance with the

provisions of this paragraph. * * *

(c) A company may also increase its

consumption allowances by receiving

production from another Party to the

Protocol for class I, Group I through

Group V and Group VII controlled

substances until January 1, 1996 and for

class I, Group VI controlled substances

until January 1, 2005. * * *

* * * * *

6. Section 82.12 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory

text and (b)(1) as follows:

§ 82.12 Transfers.

(a) * * *

(1) Until January 1, 1996, for all class

I controlled substances, except for

Group VI, and until January 1, 2005, for

Group VI, and person (‘‘transferor’’) may

transfer to any other person

(‘‘transferee’’) any amount of the

transferor’s consumption allowances or

production allowances, and effective

January 1, 1995, for all class I controlled

substances any person (‘‘transferor’’)

may transfer to any other person

(‘‘transferee’’) any amount of the

transferor’s Article 5 allowances, as

follows:

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Until January 1, 1996, for all class

I controlled substances, except Group

VI, and until January 1, 2005 for Group

VI, any person (‘‘convertor’’) may

convert consumption allowances or

production allowances for one class I

controlled substance to the same type of

allowance for another class I controlled

substance within the same Group as the

first as listed in appendix A of this

subpart, following the procedures

described in paragraph (b)(4) of this

section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–30109 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6907–3]

Georgia: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.