P.1 

OAR Box 1153 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

13) FED REG VOL.54, NO. 132 7/12/89 

Docket Number: 

A-87-20 

Printed 5/9/2008 11:25:59 AM Sheet 13 of 60 
P.2 

29336 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 12, 1989 / Rules an d Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Fuller, Assistant to the 

Secretary for Commission Affairs, 

Panama Canal Commission, telephone 

(202) 634-6441. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35 requires Federal agencies to 

obtain approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget before 

collecting information from ten or more 

members of the public. As evidence of 

such approval, agencies are required to 

display an OMB control number on 

collection of information requirements. 

The Panama Canal Commission has 

received OMB approval, valid through 

August 31,1991, for the collection of 

information requirements contained in 

Subchapter C of Chapter I, 35 CFR. The 

OMB control number for all collection of 

information requirements in Subchapter 

C is 3207-0001. The OMB Control 

Number was included in § § 101.10, 

113.4,113.22,113.28,113.29,113.42, 

113.47,113.50 and 123.4 by publication in 

the Federal Register, on May 10,1985 (50 

FR 19676). The OMB Control Number 

was included in § § 101.9,103.6,103.8, 

103.32,103.42 and 121.45 by publication 

in the Federal Register on July 1,1985 (50 

FR 26990). We are now incorporating the 

OMB Control Number iii §§ 103.1,117.4, 

135.1,135.2,135.443 and 135.484 in 

Subchapter C of Chapter I of 35 CFR. 

The Commission has determined that 

this is not a major rule as defined under 

section 1(b) of Executive Order 12291, 

dated February 17,1981. Furthermore, 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act is 

inapplicable since this regulation does 

not have an impact on small entities (5 

U.S.C. 601-612). 

List of Subjects in 35 CFR Parts 103,117 

and 135 

Panama Canal, Vessels, Order of 

transit, Advance reservation, Booking 

system, Tolls, Displacement tonnage, 

Measurement authorities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, 35 CFR Parts 103,117 

and 135 Subchapter C of Chapter I of 

Title 35, Code of Federal Regulations, 

are amended as set forth below. 

PART 103—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

GOVERNING VESSELS 

1. The authority citation for Part 103 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 3811; E.O. 12215, 45 FR 

36043 and 44 U.S.C. 3501. 

2. Section 103.1 is amended by adding 

the OMB clearance language to read as 

follows: 

§ 103.1 Regulations to be kept aboard. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 3207-0001) 

PART 117—MARINE ACCIDENTS: 

INVESTIGATIONS; CONTROLS; 

RESPONSIBILITY ^ /' 

3. The authority citation for Part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 3791; E.O. 12215, 45 

36043. 

4. Section 117.4 is amended by adding 

the OMB clearance language to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.4 Reports of accidents by officer In 

command to Board. 

**** * 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 3207-0001) 

PART 135—RULES FOR 

MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS 

5. The authority citation for Part 135 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Issued under authority of the 

President by 22 U.S.C. 3791; E.O. 12215; 45 FR 

36043 

6. Section 135.1 is amended by adding 

the OMB clearance language to read as 

follows: 

§ 135.1 Vessels generally to present 

tonnage certificate or be measured. 

**** * 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 3207-0001) 

7. Section 135.2 is amended by adding 

the OMB clearance language to read as 

follows: 

§ 135.2 Warships to present documents 

stating displacement tonnage. 

**** * 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 3207-0001) 

8. Section 135.443 is amended by 

adding the OMB clearance language to 

read as follows: 

§ 135.443 Substance and form of tonnage 

certificates; blank certificates. 

**** * 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 3207-0001) 

9. Section 135.484 is amended by 

adding the OMB clearance language to 

read as follows: 

§135.484 Commander of warship to 

exhibit vessel's displacement scale and 

curves. 

**** * 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 3207-0001) 

Date: June 27,1989. 

O. P. McAuliffe 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 89-18343 Filed 7-11-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3640-O4-M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82. ... 

[FRL-3613-5] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). ,,,.. 

ACTION: Suspension of rule..•••&,•;>• i -.n-„> ..•,-

SUMMARY: Effective June 30,1989,, 

today's action suspends § 82.11 of EPA's 

August 12,1988 final rule (53 FR 30566) 

implementing the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer (Montreal Protocol). A revised 

§ 82.11 is proposed elsewhere in today's 

Federal Register Notice to conform with 

recent agreements made by The Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol. 

DATE: This suspension is effective June 

30,1989. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and other 

information relevant to this rulemaking 

are maintained in Docket A-87-20 at the 

Air Docket Room, Room M1500, First 

Floor, Waterside Mall, 401M Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20460. This docket 

may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 

12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on 

weekdays. As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, 

a reasonable fee may be charged for 

photocopying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Lee, Analyst, Regulatory and 

Analysis Branch, Global Change 

Division, Office of Atmospheric and 

Indoor Air Programs, Office of Air and 

Radiation, ANR-445, 401 M Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. (202) 475-7497. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Last 

August the Agency promulgated a final 

rule implementing the United States 

obligation under the Montreal Protocol, 

an international treaty that requires 

ratifying countries to limit their 

production and consumption of 

substances that are known to deplete 

stratospheric ozone. At the time of 

promulgation, several sections of the 

final rule reflected how the United 

States then interpreted the terms of the 

Montreal Protocol. Parties to the 

Protocol were to meet at a later date to 

resolve issues of interpretation. 

The Parties to the Protocol met May 

2-5,1989 in Helsinki, Finland. During 

this meeting, the Parties, including the 
P.4 

Federal! Register / Vol. 54, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 12, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 29337 

United States, agreed to several 

interpretations of terms in the Montreal 

Protocol that differed from the United 

States interpretation as reflected in its 

final rule. Elsewhere in today's Federal 

Register Notice are proposed 

amendments that reflect these recent 

agreements. 

The proposed amendment to § 82.11 

alters the conditions under which 

persons may obtain authorizations to 

convert potential production allowances 

to production allowances. In its current 

form, § 82.11 allows persons to obtain 

authorization to convert potential 

production allowances upon proof of 

export of controlled substances to any 

Party. However, under the interpretation 

of the relevant Protocol provision agreed 

to by Parties in Helsinki, authorizations 

to convert may only be granted upon 

proof of export to Parties operating 

under Article 5 of the Protocol (''Article 

5 Parties") or upon proof of a transfer of 

production rights from another Party. 

Because the current version of § 82.11 

authorizes conversions on grounds the 

Protocol does not, EPA is immediately 

staying that section of the rule to . 

prevent the United States from violating 

the Protocol. 

Because both EPA's rule and the 

Montreal Protocol go into effect July 1, 

the Agency must ensure that the rule is 

implemented in accordance with the 

internationally adopted interpretation of 

the Montreal Protocol, an Interpretation 

by which the United States now 

subscribes. Delays inherent in notice 

and comment rulemaking on this action 

to suspend the existing rule would entail 

the risk that transactions could occur 

that would lead to violations of the 

ProtocoL For that reason, EPA finds that 

notice and public procedure on this 

suspension are impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest. 

Accordingly, § 82.11 is suspended. 

Date: June 30,1989. 

William K. Reilly. 

Administrator. 

(FR Doc. 89-16207 Filed 7-11-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE 

COMMISSION 

49 CFR Part 1011 

[Ex Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 76)) 

Delegation of Authority—Declaratory 

Order Proceedings 

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rules. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is codifying 

its delegation of authority to the 

Director of the Office of Proceedings to 

issue decisions determining whether, 

upon petition, a declaratory order 

proceeding should be instituted. This 

action will aid in the management of the 

Commission's workload. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1989. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard B. Felder, (202) 275-7291 (TDD 

for hearing impaired: (202) 275-1721). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional information is contained in 

the Commission's decision. To purchase 

a copy of the full decision, write to, call 

or pick up in person from: Dynamic 

Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, Interstate 

Commerce Commission Building. 

Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 

289-4357/4359. (Assistance for the 

hearing impaired is available through 

TDD services (202) 275-1721). 

Regulatory Flexibility 

This action will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Energy and Environment 

This action will not significantly affect 

either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

Since this is a final action undertaken 

to revise an internal, organizational 

matter, formal comments are 

unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1011 

Administrative practice and 

procedure; Authority delegations 

(Government agencies). 

Dated: June 30,1989. 

By the Commission, Chairman Gradison, 

Vice Chairman Simmons, Commissioners 

Andre, Lamboley. and Phillips. Vice 

Chairman Simmons and Commissioner 

Lamboley dissented with separate 

expressions. 

Noreta R. McGee, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Title 49, Chapter X, Part 1011 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 1011—COMMISSION 

ORGANIZATION; DELEGATIONS OF 

AUTHORITY 

1. The authority citation for 49 CFR 

Part 1011 continues to read as follows: ' 

Autiiority: 49 U.S.C. 10301.10302,10304, 

10305,10321; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 5 U.S.C. 553. 

2. Section 1011.2(a)(8) is amended by 

removing the word "and" before 

§ 1011.2(a)(8)(iv), removing the period at 

the end of § 1011.2(a)(8)(iv) and adding 

in its place "; and", and adding a new 

§ 1011.2(a)(8)(v) to read as follows: 

§1011.2 The Commission. 

(a) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(v) Whether to institute requested 

declaratory order proceedings under 5 

U.S.C. 554(e). 

**** * 

3. Section 1011.8(c) is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1011.8 Delegations of authority by the 

Interstate Commerce Commission to 

specific bureaus and offices of the 

Commission. 

(c) * ' * 

(6) Whether to institute requested 

declaratory order proceedings under 5 

U.S.C. 554(e). 

[FR Doc. 89-16331 Filed 7-11-A9; 8:45 am) 

BILLING CODE 7035-01-M 
P.6 

.4-87-20 

Federal Register / VoL 54„ No. 132 / Wednesday^ Jul$ 12,: 198a / Proposed Rules 29353 

dioxide (SO*),, particulate matter (PM), 

and" nitrogen oxides (NOJ from new, 

modified,, or reconstructed small" 

bidustrial-commercial-instifutional 

steam generating units with-heat input 

capacities of 2SMW (ItXt million Btu/' 

hour) or less,: hut greater than or equal 

to 2.9'MW (10 million Btu/hour) were 

proposed, hr the: Federal1 Register on June 

9,1969 (54'FR 24792); The-public hearing, 

was scheduled for July 17,1989. and1 

comments were-to-be-received on orbefore August 17,1989! A request has 

been made to-postpone the public 

hearing to allow more1 time for 

preparation.of comments. Therefore, the 

public hearing has been-rescheduled for 

August 8,1989; and' all comments must 

be received on or before September 8, 

1989. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before September 8; 198& 

Public Hearing, A public hearing will 

be held on August 8,1989. beginning at 

10:00 a.m. Assistance will be available 

for persons with hearing: impairments. 

Request toSpeakat'Hearing. Persons 

wishing to-present oral testimony must 

request to speak at the public hearing by 

August 1,1989., 

ADDRESSES::Public;Hearing:. The public: 

hearing will be held at the EPA's Office, 

of Administrative Auditorium, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons 

interested in attending-the hearing.or 

wishing to present oral: testimony should 

notify Ms. Ann Eleanor, Standards 

Development Branch (MD-13), U.S, 

Environmental- Protection Agency,. 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578. 

FCR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:: 

Mr. Rick Copland [(SIS) 541-5265] or Mr. 

Fred Porter [(919)541-52513. Standards 

Development Branch,. Emission 

Standards Division. (MD-13), U;S. 

Environmental. Protection Agency,. 

Research Triangle-Park,,North-Carolina, 

27711. 

Date: July 7,1989. 

Don-R. Clay, 

Acting-Assistcnt Administrator for Air cr,d 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc: 83-16347 Filed 7-11-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8SC0-50-M 

40; CFR: Par* 82 "^ 

[FHL-3575-3] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTIOM: Proposed revisions to rule. 

survsssARv: Today's notice proposes 

several amendments to EPA's August 12, 

198S rule: (53- FR 30566). implementing, the 

Montreal Protocol on. Substances, that 

Deplete, the. Ozone. Layer- These, 

amendments, are. needed to conform 

EPA's. rule with recent agreements, 

reached by the Parties to the Montreal. 

Protocol concerning the implementation, 

of the Protocol. The- first proposed 

amendment, implements, the. Parties:' 

interpretation of "industrial, 

rationalization",, a term, in the control 

article of the Protocol. According to the 

Parties' interpretation,, a Party can only 

increase its production; of contaoJled 

substances by specified amounts, if tiiere 

is a documented,, corresponding 

decrease: in production, by another Party, 

or if the increase in production is 

exported to Parties operating under 

Article 5 of the Protocol (In today's 

notice; the Agency proposes Appendix 

E, "Article 5; Parties'*,, developing; 

countries that: are Party to- the Protocol 

and have, a per capita consumption of 

less than .3'kg.). EPA's current rule, 

however, allows an increase up to tha 

production limits for exports to any 

Party. The second proposed amendment, 

also based on an agreement reached, by 

tiie Parties;, expands the definition of 

exports to include used, and recycled 

controlled substances. The: Agency also: 

proposes to grant, additional allowances 

or credits to; any person who, uses 

controlled substances, as: a: feedstock fcr 

other subsfences.The proposed! 

amendments, detail the necessary 

reportingand recordkeeping 

requirements^ The current rule, only 

grants, such allowances; to the. person, 

who. produces: and then consumes; the. 

controlled- substance; aa a feedstock. 

Finally,, the: Agency proposes a mewrecord keeping requirement for 

producers of controlled; substances. The 

proposal: requires producers, to maintain 

records of the' date; and estimated, 

quantity of. any spills or-releases, of 

controlled substances. 

DATES: A public hearing-on the proposed 

rule published today will' be held on- July 

27,1969, if any interested party notifies 

EPA before that date that it wishes to 

present oral testimony: To request a 

public hearing-or to learn- whetherand 

where a-public hearing will occur; call 

the contact person listed below. Written 

comments on this proposed-rule must be 

submitted to the location listed below 

by August 11,1-989: If a- public hearing is 

held, informaiion necessary to rebut cr 

supplement oral testimony may be 

submitted until August 28, 1989: 

ADDRESS: Written comments should be 

sent to Docket.Nb. A-67-20 

(Amendments), Air Docket,. Room M1500 Waterside Mall, 401 M'Street,. SW.. 

Washington. DC'20460. The docket may 

be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 

12:00 p.m. and between 1:30 p,KL. and 

3:30 p.m..on weekdays..A&provided in 

CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be 

charged for photocopying*. To expedite, 

review, ilia aleo requested, that, a . 

duplicate, copy of written comments be 

sent to David Lee a t tiie address listed, 

below. 

Three of these amendments increaserecordkeeping and reporting.for. affected 

persons. Persons whoi desire to trade 

rights to produce controlled substances; 

with a Party to the Protocol for the 

purposes; of industrial ratianalkatiba 

must submit a report.documenting; the: 

agreement with; the Party. Any/person -

who; desires to receive: production: and 

consumption; allowances; fair the; use of 

purchased controlled substances as: . 

feedstock must also submit a report 

documenting, the consumption; of 

controlled substances; as well as: 

maintain, records:. Finally;, producers; 

must maintain; records; of any spill's; of 

controlled substances; that would', count 

toward productions 

FOR FURTHER r«FORft1A.Tiaf*CCnTACT: 

David tee. Analyst,. Office o( 

Atmospheric: and: Indoor-Air Programs, 

Division of Global Change; Office of Air 

and Radiation (ANR-445), EPA, 401 M 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Telephone (202)'475-7407. • 

SUPPLEMENTARY IKFORf?ATTON: Last 

August, EPA promulgated a final rule, to 

limit ths production and consumption of 

certain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs);and 

brominated1. compound's (halons). to 

reduce the risks of stratospheric ozone 

depletion. The rule requires a near-term 

freeze at 1988 levels of production and' 

consumption (d'efinedas production plus 

imports minus exports) of CFC-11, -T2, 

-1*13, -114, and -115. based on their 

relative ozone depletion weights, 

followed'by a phased reduction, to 80 

percent and 50 percent of 1980 levels 

beginning in mid-1993 and mid-1998,. 

respectively. If. also limit's production 

and consumption of Halon 1211,1301, 

and 2402 to X986 level's.beginning,aa 

early as 1992. Under specified. 

circumstances, limited.increases iii 

production (but not consumption) above 

these; levels would be permitted. 

This rule was promulgated under 

section 157(b) of the. Clean Air Act and 

constituted the United States' 

implementation of die Montreal. 

Protocol, which the United States 

ratified cn April 21,1988. The.fiaal rule's 

coni; ol measures, took effect when.the 

Protocol entered into force, on. January 1, 

1903. 

The rule implements, tha;Protocol's 

requirements to control production and 

consumption of the CFCs-and halons 
P.7 

29354 Federal Register / Vol. §4 No. W2 / Wednesday, July 12, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

,• 4 M ^ M - I M ,-•-;:'- -

specified above by allocating production 

and consumption allowances to firms 

that produced and imported these 

chemicals in 1986, based on their 1986 

levels of these activities. 

Today the Agency proposes to amend 

several sections for this final rule. 

Several of these amendments are based 

on recent agreements concerning 

implementation of the Montreal Protocol 

reached by nations that are Parties to 

the Protocol at their first meeting in 

Helsinki, Finland, during the week of 

Mayl. 

The first amendment concerns the 

Parties' interpretation of Article 2 of the 

Montreal Protocol. Article 2 allows 

increases in production of both groups 

of controlled substances by as much as 

10 percent, and 15 percent for CFCs after 

July 1,1998, if that production is used to 

satisfy "the basic domestic needs" of 

developing countries or "for the 

purposes of industrial rationalization". 

Industrial rationalization is defined by 

the Protocol as "the transfer of all or a 

portion of the calculated level of 

production of one party to another, for 

the purposes of achieving economic 

efficiencies or responding to anticipated 

shortfalls in supply as a result of plant 

closures." 

In its final rule, EPA interpreted the 

term "industrial rationalization" to 

mean trade in controlled substances 

between Parties. The Agency believed 

that the trading provisions of the 

Protocol created a "bubble" of 

controlled substance production. If one 

Party increased its production by 10 or 

15 percent, it would have to export that 

production to other Parties or decrease 

its imports from Parties in order to 

comply with its consumption limits. The 

Party that imported the increased 

production would, in turn, have to 

decrease its own production, or export it 

to another Party. Since, under the 

Montreal Protocol, Parties' consumption 

limits are held constant while their 

production may rise somewhat, any 

increase in production by one Party 

would have to be offset by a decrease in 

production by another Party or Parties. 

Therefore, the Agency believed that 

exporting to Protocol Parties was 

tantamount to a transfer of production, 

end that the conditions of industrial 

rationalization had been met. 

Consequently, EPA promulgated a final 

rule that allowed companies to increase 

production up to the 10 and 15 percent 

limits specified in the Protocol if the 

exports were made to Parties. 

The first meeting of the Parties was 

held May 2-5,1989 in Helsinki, Finland. 

The Parties met in part to resolve 

outstanding issues related to 

implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol. At the meeting, the Parties 

determine! that the term "industrial 

rationalization" means a documented 

transfer osproduction rights, requiring a' 

Party desiBng to increase its production 

"for lie pipjposesdf iflejustriahf' 

rationalizftion" to obtain the agreement 

of anotheg Party to decrease its 

production by tiie same amount To 

comf ly w|fe the Pactis? interpretation 

of mdustriia-1 rationalization, and to 

e«sure internationally consistent 

implementation of the terms of the 

Montreal protocol EPA proposes to 

amend itsffinal rule to require any 

person seeking to increase its 

proeVuctiOs for the purposes of industrial 

rationaUzition to obtam and document 

the agreement of another Party to offset 

that increj.se. 

Specifyaity, EPA prfposes to modify 

two 8ectii|ns of the final regulation. The 

Agency proposes to amend § 82.9(c) 

ufider which a person may obtain 

authorization to convert potential 

production allowances'to actual 

production allowances) or reduce his 

available production allowances to the 

extent hejprovides a documented 

transfer of production. To document a 

transfer ftom a Party, a person must 

obtain a written statement from the 

Party's ISB. embassy tiat the Party 

agrees to seduce its production 

allowances by the calculated level of 

the production to be transferred. To 

document a transfer te a Party, a person 

must obtain a written statement from 

the Party% U.S. embassy acknowledging 

that the Ilsrty has agreed to the transfer. 

For transfsrs to a Pasty for the purposes 

of industiSal ratioaaii^ition, the Agency 

will reviejv the trajssf^r request and 

approve ibe transfer if the company has 

sufficient allowances lo trade. In today's 

notice tht Agency requests comments 

on wheti»r there is a need to consider 

other factors such as the transfer's 

potentialimpact on the domestic 

economy, U.S. trade and the 

environmental implications. All transfer 

requests nust include the requisite 

document from the embassy, the name 

and addness of the pecson submitting the 

request and his contaet, the name and 

address ®f the Party i&volved in the 

transfer and its contacts, the amount of 

allowable authorization to convert 

requested or production transferred, and 

the contsol periods to which the transfer 

applies. 

In addition, the Agency will also 

amend ^82.11 to state that 

authorizations to convert potential 

production allowance will also be 

granted epon proof of exports to Parties 

operating under Article 5 of the Protocol 

and listed in proposed Appendix E to 

EPA's regulations. 

The Agency also proposes Appendix 

E, "Article 5 Parties". The countries that 

are listed in Appendix E are (1) Parties 

fo the Protocol, (2) developing countries ' 

agreed to by the Parties, and (3) are 

believed by the United Nations 

Environmental Programme (UNEP) to 

have an annual per capita consumption 

of controlled substances of less than ,3 

kilograms. UNEP.has not received 

consumption figures from all Parties that 

are developing countries.-The Agency 

believes that it is necessary to publish 

this proposed list, based on the most 

recent information from UNEP, for 

comment so that affected persons may 

take advantage of the provisions of the 

final rule that allow increased 

production for exports to Article 5 

Parties as soon as possible, The Agency 

believes that this proposed list is not 

likely to change after UNEP has 

received all consumption figures from all 

Parties. 

EPA also proposes today to expand 

the definition of exports to include 

controlled substances that are either 

used or recycled (§ 82.3 (h)). In the final 

rule published last August, EPA 

excluded recycled and used control 

substances from the definition of 

exports, excluded exports of such 

substances from the reporting 

requirements and precluded exporting 

companies from claiming additional 

consumption allowances under § 82.10 

and authorization to convert under 

§ 82.11 for exports of such substances. 

The Agency was concerned at that time 

that defining exports to include recycled 

and used controlled substances along 

with virgin controlled substances would 

risk U.S. noncompliance with the 

Protocol. Since the Agency's rule defines 

production to exclude recycled 

controlled substances, firms could 

recycle those substances without 

expending production and consumption 

allowances. However, if export is 

defined to include recycled substances, 

on exporting the recycled substances 

firms would receive authorization to 

convert potential production allowances 

in the amount of the recycled substances 

exported. Thus, as a result of exporting 

recycled substances for which no 

production and consumption allowances 

were expended, firms would realize a 

net increase in production allowances 

(up to the 10 or 15 percent limit on 

potential production allowances) and 

consumption allowances. They could 

then use these additional allowances to 

produce or import and sell domestically 

controlled substances in excess of the 

amount of the initial allocations 

authorized. 
P.8 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 132./..Wednesday, July 12, 1989 / Proposed Rules 29355 

At their Helsinki meeting the Parties 

to the Protocol agreed that exports 

should be defined to include virgin and 

recycled or used controlled substances 

to facilitate recycling efforts by 

countries that do hot have recycling 

facilities. The Parties' definition allows 

such countries to export their used 

controlled substances and then reimport the reprocessed or recycled 

controlled substance without expending 

consumption allowances or credits. The 

Parties stated that recycling is an 

important control option to limit the 

production of additional controlled 

substances and should be encouraged 

wherever possible. 

The Agency proposes to amend the 

definition of exports to include recycled 

or used controlled substances in 

accordance with the agreement reached 

by tile Parties in Helsinki. The Agency, 

believes that the U.S. domestic program 

should be consistent with the 

internationally accepted definitions 

reached by agreement by the Parties. In 

this case, the expanded definition of 

exports benefits domestic recycling 

companies that intend to trade in used 

and recycled controlled substances. 

The Agency further believes that 

defining exports under the U.S. rule to 

include recycled or used controlled 

substances will have no adverse effect 

on stratospheric ozone levels. 

Controlled substances produced 

recycled and exported all in the same 

control period will not yield a net 

increase in consumption allowances 

since consumption allowances were 

expended and recouped in the same 

control period. Controlled substances 

produced, recycled and exported in 

different control periods will also not 

affect the ozone layer. A controlled 

substance eventually recycled could 

have been released or emitted during 

the control period when it was produced 

and when consumption allowances were 

expended for it. Instead, recycling 

results in the consumption or use (in the 

sense of emission) of a substance being 

transferred from the period it was 

produced to the period it was exported. 

Thus, the net effect on the environment 

would be zero since all that occurred 

was an inter-temporal transfer of 

consumption (or emissions) from one 

control period to another. Since the 

proposed change will have no adverse 

environmental effect, and since the 

Parties to the Protocol have agreed to 

this definition of exports, the Agency 

proposes to expand the definition of 

exports in its rule to include used or 

recycled controlled substances. 

The Agency also proposes to amend 

the final rule to allow persons who 

consume or transform purchased 

controlled substances as feedstock for 

other substances to claim an allowance 

credit equal to the allowances expended 

for the production or importation of the 

transformed controlled substance 

(§ 82.9(e) and 82.10(c)); Currently only 

persons who produce and then consume 

the controlled substance in the 

production of other substances can 

deduct the amount of controlled 

substances from the allowance limits set 

by the final rule. 

The Agency stated last August that 

tracking controlled substances produced 

and transformed by different persons 

would be administratively burdensome, 

and present verification problems for 

compliance or enforcement proceedings. 

Furthermore, the Agency could not 

resolve at the time whetiier the person 

who produced the controlled substance 

or the person who transformed the 

controlled substance should receive the 

credit. This issue was even more 

difficult to resolve where 

transformations involve controlled 

substances produced in another country. 

Last year, technical advisors to the 

Protocol meeting in Nairobi could not 

agree on which country should be 

granted credits in the case of 

transformation of feedstocks traded 

between countries. 

At their meeting in Helsinki, the 

Parties resolved this issue and agreed 

that each Party could exclude from its 

production totals any manufactured 

controlled substance that is entirely 

used as feedstock. Based on this 

agreement, the Agency proposes to 

allow companies that use controlled 

substances as feedstock to claim 

allowance credits equal to the 

allowances that were expended to either 

import or produce these substances, 

regardless of who originally produced or 

imported the controlled substance. 

The Agency proposes that any person 

that consumes as feedstocks for any 

substance, controlled substances it did 

not produce may request production 

and/or consumption allowances equal 

to the calculated level of the controlled 

substance used and consumed as 

feedstocks. To receive these allowances, 

a person must report the type and 

quantity of controlled substance 

transformed, the resulting product of the 

transformation, the quantity of the 

product transformed, and indicate that 

the product is used commercially. The 

person must also submit a copy of the 

invoice or receipt documenting the sale 

of the controlled substances that were 

transformed and such other information 

as may be necessary to trace the origin 

of the controlled substance. The Agency 

requires such information to verify and 

determine whether production and 

consumption allowances were expended 

for the domestic use of the controlled 

substance (For example, no allowances 

would have been expended for 

controlled substances produced before 

July 1,1989.) and to verify that the 

controlled substance was transformed 

into another substance rather than 

destroyed. (Parties to the Protocol have 

not yet approvedjdestruction 

technologies used to destroy controlled 

substances for the purposes of receiving 

production credit.) Such persons who do 

request additional consumption and 

production allowances must maintain 

dated records of the type and quantity 

of the controlled substance transformed, 

the quantity of the resulting product and 

any shipping records that verify the sale 

of the resulting product (§ 82.13(h)). 

After reviewing this information, the 

Agency will issue a notice granting 

additional consumption allowances for 

transformed controlled substances that 

were imported, or additional production 

and consumption allowances for 

transformation of controlled substances 

that were produced domestically. 

Granted allowances will equal the 

calculated level of the transformed 

controlled substance, and will only be 

valid for the control period in which the 

transformation occurred. Such 

allowances will entitle the holder to 

either produce or import additional 

controlled substances and may be 

traded to other persons. 

The August 12 final rule already 

provides that producers of controlled 

substances may subtract from their 

. production and consumption the 

calculated level of controlled substances 

produced by that company that are 

consumed as feedstocks. In accordance 

with the proposal that purchasers of 

controlled substances receive 

allowances for controlled substances 

that are consumed, the Agency is also 

proposing to allow producers of 

controlled substances who consume 

controlled substances produced by a 

different person to subtract that level of 

controlled substance from its calculated 

levels of production and consumption. 

The current wording of the record 

keeping and reporting requirements at 

§ 82.13 (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(3)(i) is already 

broad enough to apply to all producers, 

whether or not the controlled substance 

used as feedstock was manufactured by 

that person. Therefore, in order to 

qualify for credit for the consumption of 

feedstocks, producers need to keep the 

records and make the reports required 

by §§ 82.13(f)(2)(ii) and 82.13(f)(3)(i) as 

well as proposed § 82.13(h). 
P.9 

29356 Federal Register / Vol. j4 , No . |3 2 / Wednesday, July 12, 1989 / Proposed JRules 

——^^^"?—yg!-^^^**^ 1^**"—**^^!^^^"* W M ^ ^ M^°—*^^^^^^^ i ! ^^^^'^^^"— ^ 

Finally, the Agency proposes to add 

an additional recordkeeping 

requirement for producers of controlled 

substances (§ 82.13(f)(2)(vii)). In the final 

rule of last August, the Agency did not 

anticipate spills as releases or emission 

of controlled substances that may be 

excluded from the volume of produced 

controlled substance measured under 

typical accounting procedures by 

producers and reported to EPA. Indeed, 

spills could be a very sizeable emission 

of controlled substances to the 

atmosphere which may not be recorded 

under the current recordkeeping 

requirements. Although the Agency 

believes that there are financial 

incentives to minimize spills, EPA 

proposes that all producers maintain 

records of any spills or releases that 

occur up until shipment of the con-trolled 

substance, and that such spills be 

included in the measurement of 

production. The Agency requests 

comments on whether there is a need to 

specify within this recordkeeping 

requirement a "de minimis" volume of a 

spill below which the producers do not 

need to record. 

Additional Information 

1. Executive Order 12291 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12291 requires 

the preparation of a regulatory impact 

analysis for major rules, defined by the 

order as those likely to result in: 

(1) An annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more; 

(2) A major increase in costs or prices 

for consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State or local government 

agencies, or geographic industries; or 

(3) Significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation or on the ability 

of the United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign based enterprises 

in domestic or export markets. 

EPA determined that its August 12. 

1988, final rule to protect stratospheric 

ozone met with the definition of a major 

rule, and therefore prepared a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA). Since these 

amendments do not impose any 

significant burdens as defined by E.O. 

12291, the RIA prepared for the final rule 

fulfills the executive order's requirement 

for these proposals. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Changes to the information 

requirements as proposed in today's 

notice have been submitted for approval 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 

information Collection Request 

document has been prepared by EPA 

(ICR No. *432.03) and as copy may be 

obtained | y writing Ca*la Levesque, 

InformatitB Policy Iraych; EPA' 401 M 

Street SVf. {PM-223); Washington, DC 

20460 or ty calling (20g) 382-2468. 

Public ^porting burden for^tiiis 

eolleotiorjof tafonaatifn is estimated to 

increase __« average 0®5 hours per 

response, Including tiffle for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering arid! maintaining the 

data neefed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Send e&mments regarding the burden 

estimate ©r any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to 

Chief, Ifipfmation Posey Branch, PM223, U.S.fevironraen1_al Protection 

Agency, M M SufeetJSW., Washington, 

DC 2046|. and to feeWffice of 

Information and Regufatory Affairs, 

Paperwefk RedueSora^ject (2080-

0170), Qpe e of Management and 

Budget, Washington, pC 20503, marked 

"Attention: Desk Offiler for EPA:" The 

final rule will responl to any OMB or 

public comments on $ie information 

collecti(8i requirements contained in this 

proposal. 

3. Regutatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 6M-012, requires that Federal 

agencies examine the impacts of their 

regulations on small entities. Under 5 

U.S.C. 6®4(a), whenever an agency is 

required to publish atgeneral notice of 

proposed rulemaking, it must prepare 

and make available lor public comment 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(RFA). §uch an analysis is not required 

if the head of the agency certifies that a 

rule wil not have a Significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). EPA 

prepared an initial E|FA in support of its 

final rule, and no additional RFA need 

be prepared for these amendments. 

Date: June 30,1989. 

William K. Reilly, 

Administrator. 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC ©ZONE 

For feasons set forth in the preamble, 

the Agency propos&s to amend 40 CFR 

Part 82 as follows: 

1. Ti e authority citation for Part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7157(b). 

2. Section 82.3 is amended by revising 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 82.3 Definitions. 

(h) "Export" means the transport of 

virgin, used or recycled controlled 

substances from inside the United States 

or its territories to persons outside the 

United States or its territories, excluding 

United States military bases and ships 

for on-board use. 

**** * 

3. Section 82.9 is amended by revising 

paragraph (c) and adding paragraph te) 

to read as follows: 

§ 02.9 Availabillty-of production 

allowances in addition to baseline 

production allowances. 

**** * 

(c) A person may convert potential 

production allowances, either granted to 

him under paragraphs (a) and(b) of this 

section or obtained by him under § 82.12 

(transfer of allowances), to production 

allowances only to the extent authorized 

by the Administrator under § 82.11 

(Exports to Article 5 Parties) or under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. A.person 

may obtain authorization to convert 

potential production allowances to 

production allowances by requesting 

issuance of a notice under § 82.11, by 

completing a transfer of authorization 

under § 82.12, or in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(1) A nation listed in Appendix B to 

this part (Parties to the Montreal , 

Protocol) must agree to either transfer to 

the person at a specified time some, 

amount of the calculated level of 

production that the nation is permitted 

under the Montreal Protocol or receive 

from the person at a specified time some 

amount of the calculated level of 

production that the person is permitted 

under this part. The person must obtain 

from the principal diplomatic 

representative in that nation's embassy 

in the United States a document clearly 

either stating that the nation agrees to 

reduce its allowable calculated level of 

production by the amount being 

transferred to the recipient for the 

control period(s) to which the transfer 

applies, or acknowledging that the 

nation has agreed to the transfer of the 

calculated level of production from the 

person. The person must submit to the 

Administrator a transfer request that 

includes a true copy of this paragraph 

and that sets forth the following: 

(i) The identity and address of the 

person; 

(ii) The identity of the Party; 

(iii) The names and telephone 

numbers of contact persons for the 

person and for the Party; 

(iv) The amount of allowable 

calculated level of production being 

transferred; and 

(v) The control period(s) to which the 

transfer applies. 
P.10 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 12, 1989 / Proposed Rules 29357 

(2) After receiving a transfer request 

that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the 

Administrator will complete the 

following steps: 

(i) Review any proposed transfer of 

production allowances to a Party and 

approve the transfer if the person holds 

a sufficient number of allowances to 

trade. 

(ii) Issue the person a notice granting 

authorization to convert or deducting 

production allowances equivalent to the 

calculated level of production 

transferred, and specifying the control 

periods to which the transfer applies. 

The change in production allowances 

will be effective on the date that the 

notice is issued. 

* * * * * 

(e) A person who does not produce 

controlled substances may obtain 

production allowances equal to the 

calculated level of controlled substances 

produced by somebody else in the 

United States and that the person used 

and entirely consumed in the 

manufacture of other chemicals in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

paragraph. A request for production 

allowances under this section will be 

considered a request for consumption 

allowances under § 82.10(c). 

(1) A person must submit a request for 

production allowances that includes the 

following: 

(i) The identity and address of the 

person; 

(ii) The name, quantity and calculated 

level of controlled substance used and 

entirely consumed in the manufacture of 

another chemical; 

(iii) A copy of the invoice or receipt 

documenting the sale from the producer 

of the controlled substance to the 

person; 

(iv) The name, quantity and 

verification of the commercial use of the 

resulting chemical. 

(2) The Administrator will review the 

information and documentation 

submitted under paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, and will assess the quantity of 

controlled substance that the 

documentation and information verifies 

were used and entirely consumed in the 

manufacture of other chemicals. The 

Administrator will issue the person 

production allowances equivalent to the 

calculated level of controlled substances 

that the Administrator determined were 

consumed. The grant cf allowances will 

be effective on the data that the notice is 

issued. 

4. Section 82.10 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 82.10 Availability of consumption 

allowances In addition to baseline 

consumption allowances. 

* * - * * * 

(c) A person who does not produce 

controlled substances may obtain 

consumption allowances equal to the 

calculated level of a controlled 

substance either produced in or 

imported into the United States by 

someone else that the person used and 

entirely consumed in the manufacture of 

other chemicals in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph. 

(1) A person must submit a request for 

consumption allowances that includes 

the following: 

(i) The identity and address of the 

person; 

(ii) The quantity and calculated level 

of controlled substance used and 

entirely consumed in the manufacture of 

another chemical; 

(iii) A copy of the invoice or receipt 

documenting the sale from the person or 

importer of the controlled substance to 

the person; 

(iv) The name, quantity and 

verification of the commercial use of the 

resulting chemical. 

(2) The Administrator will reveiw the 

information and documentation 

submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, and will assess the quantity of 

controlled substance that the 

documentation and information verifies 

were used and entirely consumed in the 

manufacture of other chemicals. The 

Administrator will issue the person 

consumption allowances equivalent to 

the calculated level of controlled 

substances that the Administrator 

determined were consumed. The grant 

of allowances will be effective on the 

date that the notice is issued. 

5. Section 82.11 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 82.11 Exports to parties. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

this section, any person may obtain 

authorization to convert potential 

production allowances to production 

allowances by exporting controlled 

substances to nations listed in Appendix 

E (Article 5 Parties). Authorization 

obtained under this section will be valid 

only during the control period in which 

the controlled substance departed the 

United States or its territories. A request 

for authorization under this section will 

be considered a request for consumption 

allowances under § S2.10 as well. 

i * * * * 

6. Section 82,13 is amended by adding 

paragraphs (f)(2)(vii) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

**** * 

({]** * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) Records of the date and 

estimated quantity of any spills or 

releases of controlled substances. 

**** * 

(h) Every person who has requested 

additional production allowances under 

§ 82.9(e) or-consumption allowances 

under § 82.10(c), or producers who 

purchase controlled substances used or 

consumed as feedstock for other 

substances must maintain the following: 

(i) Dated records of the quantity and 

calculated level of controlled substance 

used and entirely consumed in the 

manufacture of another chemical; 

(ii) Copies of the invoices or receipts 

documenting the sale from the producer 

or importer of the controlled substance 

to the person; 

(iii) Dated records of the names, 

commercial use and quantities of the 

resulting chemical(s); and 

(iv) Dated records of shipments to 

purchasers of the resulting chemical(s). 

7. Appendix E is added to read as 

follows: 

Appendix E—Article 5 Parties 

Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Maldives, Mexico, 

Nigeria, Panama, Uganda, Jordan and 

Venezuela. 

[FR Doc. 89-16208 Filed 7-11-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Parts 5450 and 5460 

RIN 1004-AB40 

[AA-230-08-6310-02] 

Award of Contract; General Sales 

Administration; General 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rulemaking 

would amend provisions of the existing 

regulations in 43 CFR Part 5450—Award 

of Contract; General, and 43 CFR Part 

5460—Sales Administration. The 

Department of the Interior has 

determined that it is necessary to amend 

existing regulations concerning timber 

sale contract performance bonds and 

payments to encourage responsible 

bidding at such a rate that the bidder, if 

awarded the contract, would be more 

able to perform the obligations under 

the contract.