[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21130-21134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10416]



[[Page 21129]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Availability of Allowances To 
Produce Methyl Bromide for Developing Countries; Final Rule and 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 82 / Monday, April 29, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 21130]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-7202-6]
RIN 2060-AJ74


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Availability of Allowances To 
Produce Methyl Bromide for Developing Countries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This direct final rule extends the availability of limited 
production rights to manufacture methyl bromide solely for export to 
developing countries. The rule published in the Federal Register on 
November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), allocated additional production 
allowances, called Article 5 allowances, for the manufacture of methyl 
bromide solely for export to developing countries only until January 1, 
2002. Today's action extends this time limit on the allocation of 
Article 5 allowances for methyl bromide until January 1, 2005, in 
accordance with the Clean Air Act. The rationale for this extension 
appears in the preamble to the direct final rule.

DATES: This rule will become effective on June 28, 2002 without further 
notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by May 29, 2002. 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 proposed rulemaking should be submitted in 
duplicate (two copies) to: Air Docket No. A-92-13, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail Code 6102, 
Washington, DC, 20460. If sending comments by courier, they should be 
delivered to Air Docket No. A-92-13, USEPA, 401 M Street, SW., Room M-
1500, Washington, DC, 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), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
materials may be inspected from 8am until 5:30pm, 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, or Tom Land, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Global Programs Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC, 20460, (202)-564-9185, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are revising the methyl bromide phaseout 
regulation as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we 
view this revision 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 allocation of limited production 
rights for the manufacture of methyl bromide solely for export to 
developing countries if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be 
effective on June 28, 2002 without further notice unless we receive 
adverse comment by May 29, 2002. 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 this revision to part 82, subpart A should 
do so at this time.

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. Will Production Allowances be Available for Export to Developing 
Countries (Sec. 82.9)?
    a. What does the Protocol say about production for export to 
developing countries?
    b. How did the U.S. provide for production for export to 
developing countries under the CAA?
    c. What production for export to Article 5 countries is allowed 
under the Protocol past 2001?
    d. How do EPA's regulations permit additional production for 
export to Article 5 countries?
    e. What level of production for export to Article 5 countries is 
EPA allocating past 2001?
V. What are the Supporting Analyses?
    a. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    b. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    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 13175: 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Several revisions to the original 1988 rule were issued on 
the following dates: February 9, 1989 (54 FR 6376), April 3, 1989 
(54 FR 13502), July 5, 1989 (54 FR 28062), July 12, 1989 (54 FR 
29337), February 13, 1990 (55 FR 5005), June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24490) 
and June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25812) July 30, 1992 (57 FR 33754), and 
December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements contained in the final rules published in the 
Federal Register on December 20, 1994 and May 10, 1995 establish an 
Allowance Program. The 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 
ozone-depleting chemicals, the quantities of allowances granted to 
companies for those chemicals were gradually reduced and eventually 
eliminated. Production allowances and consumption

[[Page 21131]]

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 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 (40 CFR part 82) 
allow for the manufacture of phased-out class I controlled substances, 
provided the substances are either transformed, or destroyed. They also 
allow limited manufacture if the substances are (1) exported to 
countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol or (2) produced for 
essential 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).

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 82.5 and 
Sec. 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 October 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 of methyl bromide for the 
1999 and 2000 control periods. EPA promulgated a direct final rule in 
the Federal Register on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795) establishing 
the remaining reduction steps of 50 percent of baseline production and 
consumption for 2001 and 2002, a 70 percent reduction from baseline 
during 2003 and 2004, and a complete phaseout of methyl bromide 
production and consumption in 2005 with the possibility of limited 
exemptions for critical and emergency uses. The Agency also promulgated 
an interim final rule in the Federal Register on July 19, 2001, (66 FR 
37752) instituting exemptions for the production and import of 
quantities of methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment 
applications.

IV. Will Production Allowances Be Available for Export to 
Developing Countries (Sec. 82.9)?

a. What Does the Protocol Say About Production for Export to Developing 
Countries?

    The Protocol provides a more relaxed methyl bromide phaseout 
schedule for Article 5 countries (developing countries operating under 
Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol), culminating in a complete 
phaseout in 2015. The Parties believed that until the phaseout date for 
developing countries, existing production facilities in industrialized 
countries should be able to supply developing countries, 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 and after the phasedown in the 
industrialized countries.

b. How Did the U.S. Provide for Production for Export to Developing 
Countries Under 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 
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

[[Page 21132]]

that are Parties to the Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal 
Protocol.''

c. What Production for Export to Article 5 Countries Is Allowed Under 
the Protocol Past 2001?

    As explained above, the CAA specifies that any grant of allowances 
for export to Article 5 countries be consistent 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.
    In regard to the remaining years of the phasedown for 
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.''
    The Protocol also addresses the period between the complete 
phaseout for industrialized countries (January 1, 2005) and the 
complete phaseout for Article 5 countries (January 1, 2015). The 
difference between the methyl bromide phaseout dates 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 production to export may be granted not only for 2002-
2004 but also past the U.S. domestic phaseout. Article 2H, paragraph 5 
bis, provides that: ``[e]ach 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 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.''
    Consistent with the 2015 phaseout for Article V countries, the 
Protocol goes on to specify in Article 2H, paragraph 5 ter that: 
``[e]ach Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing 
on 1 January 2015 and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its 
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.''

d. How Do EPA's Regulations Permit Additional Production for Export to 
Article 5 Countries?

    EPA created a category of allowances called, ``Article 5 
Allowances'' in Sec. 82.9 of the regulations to permit limited 
production of controlled ozone-depleting substances explicitly for 
export to developing countries. Each U.S. producer of an ozone-
depleting substance is granted ``Article 5 Allowances'' equal to an 
additional specified percentage of their baseline production allowances 
that are listed in Sec. 82.5. This quantity of additional production is 
permitted solely for export to Article 5 countries.

e. What Level of Production for Export to Article 5 Countries Is EPA 
Allocating Past 2001?

    With today's action, EPA is extending the availability of Article 5 
Allowances at a level of 15 percent of each company's baseline in 
Sec. 82.5 for the 2002, 2003, and 2004 control periods. While this 
level is consistent with the Protocol for 2002-2004, it may be that a 
higher level would also be consistent with the Protocol for these 
control periods.
    In the future, the Agency will adjust the level of Article 5 
allowances to be consistent with the maximum level permitted by the 
Protocol as discussed above. The Agency will be seeking additional 
information to confirm the accuracy of the amount of methyl bromide 
shipped from the United States to Article 5 Parties during the new 
baseline period (1995-1998) that was defined in the Protocol. EPA has 
been unable to confirm the accuracy of the amount of methyl bromide 
each U.S. producer shipped to Article 5 Parties during 1995 to 1998. 
The quantity exported from the U.S. to Article 5 Parties includes: (1) 
amounts produced through expending production allowances and 
consumption allowances for which the U.S. companies then requested a 
``refund'' of consumption allowances, and (2) amounts produced through 
expending Article 5 allowances for explicit shipment to Article 5 
Parties. One of the confounding factors in confirming data is that the 
U.S., as one of the major world exporters of methyl bromide, 
transhipped large quantities through Belgium to developing countries. 
Some portion of the quantities that went to Belgium were acknowledged 
to be explicitly for meeting the basic domestic needs of Article 5 
Parties while the rest went to non-Article 5 Parties. We have been 
unable to confirm data on shipments from the U.S. to developing 
countries with the European Commission and the Ozone Secretariat.
    EPA's preliminary analysis indicates that the average quantity of 
methyl bromide for Article 5 countries for the period 1995 through 1998 
is likely to be larger than the 15 percent being allocated with today's 
rule. However, the Agency will be seeking additional information to 
confirm data to adjust the grant of Article 5 allowances. We are 
permitting production of methyl bromide explicitly for developing 
countries at a level equal to 15 percent of the 1991 baseline in 
Sec. 82.5, which is likely to be more stringent than the level agreed 
to by the Parties to the Protocol.
    The average production of methyl bromide exported to Article 5 
countries during 1995 through 1998 was established as the post-2001 
baseline to meet basic domestic needs at the Eleventh Meeting of the 
Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Beijing. Once the U.S. historical 
data is confirmed, we plan to grant each U.S. company, for each 
remaining control period up to 2005, the average quantity exported to 
Article 5 countries from 1995 through 1998 as Article 5 Allowances. 
From 2005 to 2015, when the methyl bromide reduction schedule begins 
for developing countries (except for previously discussed exemptions), 
we plan to grant to U.S. companies Article 5 allowances in an amount 
not to exceed 80% of the baseline 1995--1998 average in accordance with 
the provisions of the Beijing adjustments to the Protocol.

V. 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 cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with

[[Page 21133]]

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least 
burden some alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty 
on any State, local, or tribal government or the private sector. 
Rather, it extends the availability of an exemption from a regulatory 
prohibition. 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 Analysis

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small 
entities, small entities are defined as: (1) A small business that is 
identified by the North American Industry Classification System code 
(NAICS) in the Table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Size standard
            Type of enterprise              NAICS code      (number of
                                                            employees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Chemical Wholesaling.............       422690              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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This 
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. We have 
therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve regulatory 
burden for all small entities.

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.
    It has been determined by OMB and EPA that this action is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review under the Executive 
Order.

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. This rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it implements an exemption established in 
the Montreal Protocol and adopted by Congress in section 604(e)(3) of 
the Clean Air Act.

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) renewed 
the

[[Page 21134]]

approval of the information collection requirements and assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.18).
    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 extends an exemption used 
by large, multinational corporations that either produce, import or 
export class I, group VI ozone-depleting substances. It has no effect 
on State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this rule.

g. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments,'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
This rule extends an exemption used by large, multinational 
corporations that either produce, import or export class I, group VI 
ozone-depleting substances. It has no effect on tribal governments. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

h. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 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 not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective June 28, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 22, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
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:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls

    2. Section 82.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 82.9  Availability of allowances in addition to baseline 
production allowances for class I ozone depleting substances--
International transfers of production allowances, Article 5 allowances, 
essential-use allowances, and essential-use CFCs

    (a) * * *
    (2) 15 percent of their baseline production allowances for class I, 
Group VI controlled substances listed under Sec. 82.5 of this subpart 
for each control period ending before January 1, 2005;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-10416 Filed 4-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P