[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9290-9295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4578]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-6304-7]
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Incorporation of Montreal
Protocol Adjustment for a 1999 Interim Reduction in Class I, Group VI
Controlled Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is proposing a revision to 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). Today's proposed amendment
reflects changes in U.S. obligations under the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) due to recent
adjustments by signatory countries to this international agreement.
Specifically, today's proposed amendment incorporates the Protocol's 25
percent interim reduction in the production and consumption of class I,
Group VI controlled substances (methyl bromide) for the 1999 control
period and subsequent control periods.
In taking today's action, EPA recognizes the expressed intent of
Congress in recent changes to the Clean Air Act that direct EPA to
conform the U.S. phasedown schedule to the Montreal Protocol's schedule
for developed nations, including required interim reductions and
specific exemptions. EPA intends to follow this proposed rule with
other actions to complete the process of conforming the U.S. methyl
bromide phaseout schedule and specific exemptions with obligations
under the Montreal Protocol and with the recent changes to the Clean
Air Act. Through subsequent actions to today's proposed amendment, EPA
plans to reflect, through notice and comment rulemaking, the additional
steps in the phaseout schedule for the production and consumption of
methyl bromide, as follows: beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent
reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2003, a 70 percent
reduction in baseline levels; beginning January 1, 2005, a complete
phaseout of the production and consumption with emergency and critical
use exemptions permitted under the Montreal Protocol. Even sooner, EPA
plans to publish a proposal that
[[Page 9291]]
will describe a process for exempting quarantine and preshipment
quantities of methyl bromide used in the U.S. from the reduction steps
in the phaseout schedule.
DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or
before March 29, 1999, unless a public hearing is requested. If a
public hearing takes place, it will be scheduled for March 12, 1999,
after which comments must be received on or before March 29, 1999. Any
party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact person listed
below by 5pm Eastern Standard Time on March 4, 1999. After that time,
interested parties may call EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to inquire with regard to whether
a hearing will be held, as well as the time and place of such a
hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this rulemaking should be submitted in duplicate
(two copies) to: Air Docket No. A-92-13, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Room M-1500, Washington, D.C., 20460.
Inquiries regarding a public hearing should be directed to the
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-269-1996.
Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No.
A-92-13. The Docket is located in room M-1500, First Floor, Waterside
Mall at the address above. The materials may be inspected from 8 a.m.
until 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by
EPA for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Land, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, 6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460,
202-564-9185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Proposed amendments to Sec. 82.7--Grant and Phased Reduction of
Baseline Production and Consumption Allowances for Class I
Controlled Substances
III. Next Steps to Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide Phaseout Schedule
and Exemptions to the Montreal Protocol and Amended Clean Air Act
IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis
I. Background
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 May 10, 1995 (60
FR 24970) and on December 20, 1994 (59 FR 65478). The regulatory
program was originally published in the Federal Register on August 12,
1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing of the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Protocol).1 The U.S. was one of the original signatories to
the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the U.S. ratified the Protocol on April
4, 1988. Congress then enacted, and President Bush signed into law, the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or the Act) that included Title
VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection. Today's action proposes
amendments to the existing EPA regulations published under Title VI of
the CAA governing the production and consumption of ozone-depleting
substances. Today's proposed amendments are designed to ensure the U.S.
meets its obligations under the Protocol and the CAA, including the
first interim reduction reflecting amendments to Title VI as created by
Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277). Section 764(a) of the
Omnibus Act requires EPA to promulgate rules to bring the schedule for
phaseout of methyl bromide into accordance with the Montreal Protocol
as in effect at the time of enactment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Several revisions to the original 1988 rule were issued on
the following dates: February 9, 1989 (54 FR 6376), April 3, 1989
(54 FR 13502), July 5, 1989 (54 FR 28062), July 12, 1989 (54 FR
29337), February 13, 1990 (55 FR 5005), June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24490)
and June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25812) July 30, 1992 (57 FR 33754), and
December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements contained in the final rules published in the
Federal Register on May 10, 1995 and December 20, 1994 establish an
Allowance Program (the Program). The Program and its history are
described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Federal Register on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56276). The control and
the phaseout of production and consumption of Class I ozone-depleting
substances as required under the Protocol and CAA are accomplished
through the Allowance Program. In this action, EPA is also recognizing
the expressed intent of Congress in recent changes to the Clean Air
Act, which direct EPA to conform the U.S. phasedown schedule to the
Montreal Protocol's schedule for developed nations, including required
interim reductions.
In developing the Allowance Program, EPA collected information on
the amounts of ozone-depleting substances produced, imported, exported,
transformed and destroyed within the United States for specific
baseline years. This information was used to establish the U.S.
production and consumption ceilings for these substances. The data were
also used to assign company-specific production and import rights to
companies that were in most cases producing or importing during the
specific year of data collection. These production or import rights are
called ``allowances.'' Due to the complete phaseout of many of the
ozone-depleting chemicals, the quantities of production allowances and
consumption allowances granted to companies for those chemicals were
gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Production allowances and
consumption allowances continue to exist for only one specific class I
controlled ozone-depleting substance--methyl bromide. All other
production or consumption of class I controlled substances is
prohibited under the Protocol and the CAA, but for a few narrow
exemptions.
In the context of the regulatory program, the use of the term
consumption may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the ``use'' of
a controlled substance, but rather is defined as production plus
imports minus exports of controlled substances (Article 1 of the
Protocol and Section 601 of the CAA). Unless they are subject to use
restrictions, Class I controlled substances can generally continue to
be ``used'' after their ``production and consumption'' phaseout dates.
The specific names and chemical formulas for the controlled ozone-
depleting substances in the Groups of class I controlled substances are
in Appendix A and Appendix F in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 82. The
specific names and chemical formulas for the class II controlled ozone-
depleting substances are in Appendix B and Appendix F in Subpart A.
Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption
of class I, Group II substances (halons) on January 1, 1994, and all
other class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) on January
1, 1996, a very limited number of exemptions exist, consistent with
U.S. obligations under the Protocol. The regulations allow for the
manufacture of phased-out class I controlled substances, provided the
substances are either transformed, or destroyed. (40 CFR 82.4(b)) They
also allow limited manufacture if the substances are (1) exported to
countries
[[Page 9292]]
listed under Article 5 of the Protocol, (2) produced for essential uses
as authorized by the Protocol and the regulations, or (3) produced with
destruction or transformation credits. (40 CFR 82.4(b))
The regulations allow import of phased-out class I controlled
substances provided the substances are either transformed or destroyed.
(40 CFR 82.4(d)) Limited exceptions to the ban on the import of phased-
out class I controlled substances also exist if the substances are: (1)
previously used, (2) imported for essential uses as authorized by the
Protocol and the regulations, (3) imported with destruction or
transformation credits or (4) a transhipment or a heel. (40 CFR
82.4(d), 82.13(g)(2)).
EPA intends to follow this proposed rule with other actions to
complete the process of conforming the U.S. phaseout schedule for
methyl bromide with obligations under the Montreal Protocol and with
the recent changes to the Clean Air Act. Through subsequent actions to
today's proposed amendment, EPA plans to reflect, through notice and
comment rulemaking, the additional steps in the phaseout schedule for
the production and consumption of methyl bromide, as follows: beginning
January 1, 2001, a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels; beginning
January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels; beginning
January 1, 2005, a complete phaseout of production and consumption with
processes for special exemptions permitted under the Montreal Protocol.
In the coming months, EPA plans to publish a proposal that will define
the process for exempting quarantine and preshipment quantities of
methyl bromide used in the U.S. from the phaseout schedule. These
subsequent actions are described in more detail in Part III of today's
proposed rulemaking.
II. Proposed Amendments to Sec. 82.7--Grant and Phased Reduction of
Baseline Production and Consumption Allowances for Class I
Controlled Substances
EPA is proposing a 25 percent reduction in the 1991 baseline levels
of production allowances and consumption allowances for methyl bromide
for the 1999 and 2000 control periods. At the 1997 meeting of the
Montreal Protocol, the Parties agreed to adjust the phaseout schedule
of methyl bromide for industrialized countries.
Today's action is proposed to ensure that the U.S. meets its
obligations under the Protocol as well as to ensure compliance with
Title VI of the CAA, including the first interim reduction reflecting
Section 764 of the recent 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act. EPA plans to take final action on this
proposal as early as possible in 1999. Producers and importers of
methyl bromide should plan accordingly to ensure that the United States
meets its obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
The Parties to the Protocol established a freeze in the level of
methyl bromide production and consumption for developed countries at
the 1992 Meeting in Copenhagen. Each developed country's 1991
production and consumption of methyl bromide was used as the baseline
for establishing the freeze. EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register on December 10, 1993 listing methyl bromide as a class I
controlled substance and freezing production and consumption at 1991
levels. (58 FR 65018, 65028-65044, 65074). In the rule published in the
Federal Register on December 30, 1993, EPA established baseline
production allowances and consumption allowances for methyl bromide for
specific companies. The companies receiving baseline production and
consumption allowances in accordance with their 1991 level of
production, imports and exports for class I, Group VI controlled
substances (methyl bromide) are listed at 40 CFR 82.5 and 82.6 (58 FR
69238). Section 82.7 of the rule published in the Federal Register on
May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24970) sets forth the percentage of baseline
allowances for methyl bromide (class I, Group VI controlled substances)
granted to companies in each control period (each calendar year).
Currently, the percentage of baseline methyl bromide allowances granted
for each control period until 2001 is 100 percent. In accordance with
the Protocol's adjustment to the methyl bromide phaseout schedule, EPA
is proposing to grant 75 percent of baseline production allowances and
75 percent of baseline consumption allowances to the companies listed
in Sections 82.5 and 82.6 for class I, Group VI substances beginning in
1999.
In preparing the December 30, 1993 final rule for the complete
phaseout of methyl bromide in 2001, EPA conducted a Cost Effectiveness
Analysis, dated September 30, 1993, under the title, ``Part 2, The Cost
and Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Phaseout of Methyl Bromide.''
EPA conducted an additional analysis for today's proposed interim
reduction in methyl bromide production and consumption. The results of
the additional analysis indicate that, if the U.S. had to reduce methyl
bromide production and consumption from 100 percent to 75 percent of
the baseline in 1999, the estimated cost increase would be less than 2
percent of the original cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout. The
original (1993) annualized cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout,
adjusted to 1998 dollars, is $159 million. The incremental annualized
costs for today's proposed reduction beginning in 1999 from 100 percent
of the baseline to 75 percent would be approximately $3 million.
However, from 1994 through 1997, the actual consumption of methyl
bromide in the U.S. has been approximately 10 to 15 percent below the
1991 baseline as reported to EPA's Allowance Tracking System. The
United States must therefore reduce methyl bromide consumption in 1999
by only 10 to 15 percent in relation to the 1991 baseline to achieve
the Protocol's first interim reduction from 100 percent to 75 percent.
According to the additional analysis, the estimated cost increase of
implementing a 10 to 15 percent reduction in methyl bromide production
and consumption in 1999 would be less than 1 percent of the original
cost estimate conducted in 1993, or an annualized incremental cost of
less than $2 million. Because this new analysis is an addendum to the
1993 analysis and uses the same algorithms it permits easy comparisons
with the earlier cost estimates. In undertaking the steps discussed
below, EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
intends to conduct further analysis.
III. Next Steps to Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide Phaseout
Schedule and Exemptions to those of the Montreal Protocol and the
Recently Amended Clean Air Act
Immediately following today's action, EPA will hold stakeholder
meetings to solicit feedback on subsequent rulemakings. EPA intends to
publish two proposals to conform the United States' methyl bromide
program to obligations under the Montreal Protocol and recent changes
to the Clean Air Act. First, EPA intends to propose a process that
would exempt quantities of methyl bromide used for quarantine and
preshipment in the U.S. from the phaseout schedule and make adjustments
to the existing baseline. Second, EPA intends to propose additional
phaseout steps for methyl bromide, and establish additional exemptions
in accordance with the Protocol, as follows:
--beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels;
--beginning January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels;
[[Page 9293]]
--beginning January 1, 2005, a complete phaseout of the production and
consumption;
--establish a process for emergency use exemptions; and
--establish a process for critical use exemptions as permitted under
the Montreal Protocol.
The discussion below outlines EPA's plans for subsequent rulemaking
and provides a vision of the Agency's future actions to conform the
U.S. methyl bromide regulatory program with the Montreal Protocol and
recent changes to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. The plans described
below provide general information. EPA will request formal comments on
more detailed proposals in the very near future.
EPA intends to quickly publish a proposal to exempt all quantities
of methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment in the United
States. EPA anticipates proposing a flexible process that is responsive
to market demands for methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment. In
preparing the notice of proposed rulemaking on quarantine and
preshipment, EPA will address the new Section 604(d)(5) of Title VI of
the CAA on Sanitation and Food Protection added by Section 764(b) of
the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act (Public Law 105-277). In this same regulatory action, EPA intends
to correct the existing methyl bromide baseline of production
allowances and consumption allowances because they contain a fixed
quantity associated with quarantine and preshipment. When EPA included
methyl bromide in the list of class I controlled ozone depleting
substances in the final rule published in the Federal Register on
December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018), and established the baseline for
production and consumption allowances, the quantities of quarantine and
preshipment were included in the baseline.
The second step EPA intends to take in conforming the U.S. methyl
bromide program to obligations under the Montreal Protocol and recent
changes to the Clean Air Act would be a proposal to set the remaining
reduction steps and final phaseout, to establish the process for
emergency use exemptions and to create the process for critical use
exemptions. Each of these parts of a proposal would be designed to
ensure the U.S. meets its obligations under the Montreal Protocol
consistent with statutory requirements in the Clean Air Act. The
remaining phaseout steps for the production and consumption of methyl
bromide are a 50 percent reduction in baseline levels beginning January
1, 2001; a 70 percent reduction in baseline levels beginning January 1,
2003; and a complete phaseout of production and consumption beginning
January 1, 2005, with emergency use exemptions and critical use
exemptions as permitted under the Montreal Protocol. EPA, in
consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, intends to
conduct further analysis to support the proposal of these further
reduction steps, final phaseout, and exemptions.
IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis
A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. If a written statement is required under section 202, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Section 203 of the UMRA requires the Agency to establish a plan for
obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Section 204 of the UMRA requires the Agency to develop a process to
allow elected state, local, and tribal government officials to provide
input in the development of any proposal containing a significant
Federal intergovernmental mandate.
The provisions in today's proposal fulfill the obligations of the
United States under the international treaty, The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as well as the recent
amendments to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. Analysis of today's
proposed rule estimates an incremental annualized cost of $1 to 3
million for the 25 percent reduction as compared to the 1993 original
analysis for establishing the 2001 phaseout. However, further analysis
shows that just the 25 percent reduction proposed in today's rule for
the two year period of 1999 and 2000 would have an estimated cost of
$71 million without other additional reduction steps and without a
complete phaseout of the production and consumption of methyl bromide.
Therefore, it is unlikely that today's rule will result in expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local and tribal
governments, or for the private sector in the aggregate. Thus, today's
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this proposed rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments; therefore, EPA is not required to
develop a plan with regard to small governments under section 203.
Finally, because this proposal 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
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
The Agency performed an initial screening analysis and determined
that this regulation does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. EPA characterized the regulated
community by identifying the SIC codes of the companies affected by
this rule. The Agency determined that the members of the regulated
community affected by today's rule are not small businesses under SBA
definitions. Small governments and small not-for-profit organizations
are not subject to the provisions of today's rule. The provisions in
today's action regulate large, multinational corporations that either
produce, import, or export class I, group VI ozone-depleting
substances. Thus, today's rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA concluded that this proposed rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, therefore, I hereby
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
[[Page 9294]]
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 a ``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.
Analysis of today's proposed rule estimates an incremental
annualized cost of $1 to 3 million for the 25 percent reduction as
compared to the 1993 original analysis for establishing the 2001
phaseout. However, further analysis shows that just the 25 percent
reduction proposed in today's rule for the two year period 1999 and
2000 would have an estimated cost of $71 million without additional
reduction steps and without a complete phaseout of the production and
consumption of methyl bromide.
D. Applicability of E.O. 13045--Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to E.O.
13045 because it implements a Congressional directive to phase out
production and consumption of methyl bromide in accordance with the
schedule under the Montreal Protocol.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not add any information collection requirements or
increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the final rule promulgated on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB control
number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.16).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies or matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments.
Accordingly, the
[[Page 9295]]
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), Pub L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Ozone layer.
Dated: February 18, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 82 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls
2. Section 82.7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 82.7 Grant and phase reduction of baseline production and
consumption allowances for class I controlled substances.
For each control period specified in the following table, each
person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline production
and consumption allowances apportioned to him under Secs. 82.5 and 82.6
of this subpart.
[In precent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Class I
substances Class I Class I Class I Class I substances
Control period in groups I substances substances substances substances in group
and III in group II in group IV in group V in group VI VIII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................. 25 0 50 50 100 100
1995.............................. 25 0 15 30 100 100
1996.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0
1997.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0
1998.............................. 0 0 0 0 100 0
1999.............................. 0 0 0 0 75 0
2000.............................. 0 0 0 0 75 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-4578 Filed 2-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
