[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 92 (Friday, May 13, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25726-25730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9589]



[[Page 25725]]

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

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 82



Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Extension of Global Laboratory and 
Analytical Use Exemption for Essential Class I Ozone Depleting 
Substances; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 25726]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-7912-1]
RIN 2060-AM56


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Extension of Global Laboratory 
and Analytical Use Exemption for Essential Class I Ozone Depleting 
Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to extend the global laboratory and 
analytical use exemption for production and import of class I ozone 
depleting substances from December 31, 2005, to December 31, 2007, 
consistent with recent actions by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The exemption allows 
persons in the United States to produce and import controlled 
substances for laboratory and analytical uses that have not been 
already identified by EPA as nonessential. EPA also is proposing to 
clarify the applicability of the laboratory and analytical use 
exemption to production and import of methyl bromide after the January 
1, 2005, phaseout date.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by the 
EPA Docket on or before July 12, 2005.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0064, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0064.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 
No. OAR-2004-0064. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's 
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Air Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0064. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, 
regulations.gov, or e-mail.
    The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov Web sites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, namely CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0064 is (202) 566-1742.
    Materials related to previous EPA actions on the essential use 
program are contained in EPA Air Docket No. A-93-39. Docket A-93-39 may 
be reviewed at the Public Reading Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Monroe, Essential Use Program 
Manager, by regular mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460; by courier service or overnight express: 
1301 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, by telephone: 202-343-9712; 
or by e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Extension of the Global Laboratory and Analytical Use Exemption
II. Applicability of the Global Laboratory and Analytical Use 
Exemption to Methyl Bromide
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Extension of the Global Laboratory and Analytical Use Exemption

    The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 
(Protocol) is the international agreement to reduce and eventually 
eliminate the production and consumption \1\ of all stratospheric ozone 
depleting substances (ODSs). The elimination of production and 
consumption of ODSs is accomplished through adherence to phase-out 
schedules for specific class I ODSs \2\, including: chlorofluorocarbons 
(CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. The Clean 
Air Act, as amended in 1990 and 1998, requires EPA to promulgate 
regulations implementing the Protocol's phaseout schedules in the 
United States. Those regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 82. As of 
January 1, 1996, production and import of most class I ODSs were

[[Page 25727]]

phased out in developed countries, including the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Consumption'' is defined as the amount of a substance 
produced in the United States, plus the amount imported into the 
United States, minus the amount exported to Parties to the Montreal 
Protocol (see section 601(6) of the Clean Air Act). Stockpiles of 
class I ODSs produced or imported prior to the 1996 phase out may be 
used for purposes not expressly banned at 40 CFR part 82.
    \2\ Class I ozone depleting substances are listed at 40 CFR part 
82, subpart A, appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Protocol provides exemptions that allow for the 
continued import and/or production of ODSs for specific uses. Under the 
Protocol, for most class I ODS, the Parties may collectively grant 
exemptions to the ban on production and import of ODSs for uses that 
they determine to be ``essential.'' For example, with respect to CFCs, 
Article 2A(4) provides that the phaseout will apply ``save to the 
extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or 
consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be 
essential.'' Similar language appears in the control provisions for 
halons (Art. 2B), carbon tetrachloride (Art. 2D), methyl chloroform 
(Art. 2E), hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons (Art. 2G), and 
bromochloromethane (Art. 2I). As defined by Decision IV/25 of the 
Parties, use of a controlled substance is essential only if (1) it is 
necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of 
society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects), and (2) there 
are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or 
substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and 
health.
    Decision X/19 under the Protocol (taken in 1998) allowed a general 
exemption for essential laboratory and analytical uses through December 
31, 2005. EPA included this exemption in our regulations at 40 CFR part 
82, subpart A. While the Clean Air Act does not specifically provide 
for this exemption, EPA determined that an exemption for essential 
laboratory and analytical uses was allowable under the Act as a de 
minimis exemption. EPA addressed the de minimis exemption in the final 
rule of March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14760-14770).
    Decision X/19 also asked the Protocol's Technology and Economic 
Assessment Panel (TEAP), a group of technical experts from member 
countries, to report annually on procedures that could be performed 
without the use of controlled substances and stated that at future 
meetings the Parties would decide whether such procedures should no 
longer be eligible for exemptions. Based on the TEAP's recommendation, 
the Parties to the Protocol decided in 1999 (Decision XI/15) that the 
general exemption no longer applied to the following uses: Testing of 
oil and grease, and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water; testing of 
tar in road-paving materials; and forensic finger-printing. EPA 
incorporated this exclusion at appendix G to subpart A of 40 CFR part 
82 on February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6352).
    Subsequently, in its May 2003 progress report the TEAP noted, ``No 
new non-ODS methods have been forthcoming which would enable the TEAP 
to recommend the elimination of further uses of controlled substances 
for analytical and laboratory uses'' (p. 106, see Air Docket OAR-2004-
0064). Based on this statement, and in consideration of the pending 
cessation of the laboratory use exemption in 2005, the European 
Community proposed an extension of the exemption that would allow 
further time for development of non-ODS methods. At their fifteenth 
Meeting in November 2003, the Parties adopted the proposal in Decision 
XV/8, which extended the global exemption for laboratory and analytical 
uses to December 31, 2007.
    EPA's regulations regarding this exemption at 40 CFR 82.8(b) 
currently state, ``A global exemption for class I controlled substances 
for essential laboratory and analytical uses shall be in effect through 
December 31, 2005, subject to the restrictions in appendix G of this 
subpart, and subject to the record keeping and reporting requirements 
at Sec.  82.13(u) through (x). There is no amount specified for this 
exemption.'' Because certain laboratory procedures continue to require 
the use of class I substances in the United States, and because non-ODS 
replacements for the class I substances have not been identified for 
all uses, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 82.8(b) to reflect the 
extension of the exemption to 2007 consistent with Decision XV/8. For a 
more detailed discussion of the reasons for the exemption, refer to the 
March 13, 2001, Federal Register notice. As discussed in the March 2001 
notice, the controls in place for laboratory and analytical uses 
provide adequate assurance that very little, if any, environmental 
damage will result from the handling and disposal of the small amounts 
of class I ODS used in such applications. In addition, the amount of 
phased-out class I substances being supplied to laboratories under this 
exemption decreased each year since 1997 to reach the level of eight 
metric tons in 2001 (approximately one-quarter the amount supplied in 
1997), according to EPA's tracking system for ODSs.

II. Applicability of the Global Laboratory and Analytical Use Exemption 
to Methyl Bromide

    As of January 1, 2005, production and import of methyl bromide no 
longer will be allowed in the United States, except for limited 
exemptions (40 CFR 82.4(d)). Methyl bromide is a class I controlled 
substance used chiefly as a fumigant for soil treatment and pest 
control. EPA created a system of allowances to permit continued 
production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses after January 
1, 2005 (see 69 FR 76981, December 23, 2004). This exemption does not 
include allowances for continued production of methyl bromide to supply 
laboratories. However, the phaseout of methyl bromide production and 
import does not restrict inventories of methyl bromide produced prior 
to January 1, 2005, from being used for laboratory applications.
    Methyl bromide (also known as bromomethane) does have laboratory 
uses, for example, as a chemical intermediate and methylating agent. 
EPA regulations allow for methyl bromide to be produced after the 
January 1, 2005, phaseout date if production is covered by ``essential 
use allowances or exemptions.'' (40 CFR 82.4(b)(1)) The regulations 
list the laboratory and analytical use exemption as a ``global 
exemption for class I controlled substances,'' subject to the 
restrictions in appendix G (40 CFR 82.4(n)(1)(iii), 82.8(b)). However, 
EPA has not specifically addressed the issue of whether the exemption 
should apply to methyl bromide. In addition, it is not clear what the 
Parties to the Protocol intended. Previous Decisions by the Parties 
concerning essential uses have referred generally to ``ozone-depleting 
substances,'' not to specific, individual ozone-depleting substances 
(see, for example, Decisions VI/9, VII/11, and X/19, available in Air 
Docket OAR-2004-0064). As noted above, the Protocol's control measures 
for most of the class I ODS contain language stating that the phaseout 
shall not apply ``to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the 
level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses 
agreed by them to be essential.'' However, Article 2H of the Montreal 
Protocol, which states the control measures for methyl bromide, does 
not contain such language.
    It is possible that the Parties will clarify the applicability of 
the laboratory and analytical use exemption to methyl bromide at a 
future Meeting of the Parties. In anticipation of such clarification, 
EPA is proposing that production and import of methyl bromide for 
essential laboratory and analytical uses, as defined in 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart A, appendix G, be allowed under the general laboratory use 
exemption (40 CFR 82.4(n)(1)(iii)) through December 31, 2007. EPA 
requests comment on the types of laboratory and analytical uses of 
methyl

[[Page 25728]]

bromide, and whether such uses may be considered essential under the 
terms identified in Decision IV/25(1)(a) by the Parties (see Docket 
OAR-2004-0064). We also request comment on the amount of newly produced 
or imported methyl bromide that would be needed by laboratories in the 
United States annually in order to satisfy essential uses. Last, we 
request comment on the level of purity that should be specified for 
laboratory and analytical use of methyl bromide (see Annex II to the 
report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties, available in Air Docket 
OAR-2004-0064).
    Because EPA cannot be certain when the Parties will clarify the 
matter described above, the Agency may decide to finalize, after 
consideration of comments received on this proposal, only the portion 
of this rule that extends the date of the essential laboratory and 
analytical use exemption for substances other than methyl bromide to 
December 31, 2007. EPA may finalize the proposal with a separate notice 
to apply this extension to methyl bromide or to remove methyl bromide 
from the exemption, if warranted based on action by the Parties.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``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 that this action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. 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. 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. 1432.21).
    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 instruction; 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 1.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute 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 organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small 
entities, the term small entities is defined as: (1) Pharmaceutical 
preparations manufacturing businesses (NAICS code 325412) that have 
less than 750 employees; (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 proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify 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 analysis is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 4 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus, an agency may certify 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 rule provides an 
otherwise unavailable benefit to those companies that obtain ozone-
depleting substances under the essential laboratory and analytical use 
exemption. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will 
relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.
    Although this proposed rule will not have significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we continue to be 
interested in the potential impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments related to these issues.

D. 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 applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to

[[Page 25729]]

adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, 
or least burdensome alternative, if the Administrator publishes with 
the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed a small government agency plan 
under section 203 of the UMRA. 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 Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector, since it merely extends the 
availability of an already available exemption to the ban on production 
and import of class I ODSs. For the same reason, EPA has determined 
that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. 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 proposed 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. Today's rule affects only the 
companies that produce or import class I ozone-depleting substances for 
laboratory or analytical uses. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this rule.

F. 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 9, 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.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Today's rule affects only the companies that produce or import class I 
ozone-depleting substances for laboratory or analytical uses. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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 and 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.
    While this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order 
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive 
Order 12866, we nonetheless have reason to believe that the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone 
results in greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation 
to the earth's surface. The following studies describe the effects on 
children of excessive exposure to UV radiation: (1) Westerdahl J, 
Olsson H, Ingvar C. ``At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial 
role for the development of malignant melanoma,'' Eur J Cancer 1994; 
30A: 1647-54; (2) Elwood JM, Jopson J. ``Melanoma and sun exposure: an 
overview of published studies,'' Int J Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3) 
Armstrong BK. ``Melanoma: childhood or lifelong sun exposure'' In: 
Grobb JJ, Stern RS, Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, eds. ``Epidemiology, 
causes and prevention of skin diseases,'' 1st ed. London, England: 
Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6; (4) Whiteman D., Green A. ``Melanoma and 
Sunburn,'' Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-72; (5) Kricker A, 
Armstrong, BK, English, DR, Heenan, PJ. ``Does intermittent sun 
exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case control study in Western 
Australia,'' Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 489-94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, 
GB, Bajdik, CD, et. al. ``Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and 
risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma,'' Arch 
Dermatol 1995; 131: 157-63; (7) Armstrong, BK. ``How sun exposure 
causes skin cancer: an epidemiological perspective,'' Prevention of 
Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116. The public is invited to submit or identify 
peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that 
assessed results of early life sun exposure.
    However, as discussed in the March 13, 2001, Federal Register 
notice, the laboratory and analytical applications addressed in today's 
proposed rule involve extremely controlled use and disposal of all 
chemicals, including any ODS. As a result, emissions of ODS into the 
atmosphere are negligible. In light of the conditions already applied 
to the global exemption by appendix G to subpart A of 40 CFR part 82, 
EPA believes that any additional controls on laboratory uses would 
provide little, if any, benefit.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. 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

[[Page 25730]]

voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule 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, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: May 6, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
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 82.8 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  82.8  Grant of essential use allowances and critical use 
allowances.

* * * * *
    (b) A global exemption for class I controlled substances for 
essential laboratory and analytical uses shall be in effect through 
December 31, 2007, subject to the restrictions in appendix G of this 
subpart, and subject to the record keeping and reporting requirements 
at Sec.  82.13(u) through (x). There is no amount specified for this 
exemption.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-9589 Filed 5-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P