Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2009, 2954-2959 [E9-945]
Download as PDF
2954
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
meet this commitment because the State
has proposed RACT rules for all 13
source categories and has recently
adopted a rule for one of these source
categories.
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the RACT analysis based on a
commitment submitted by New Jersey.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA
may conditionally approve a plan based
on a commitment from the State to
adopt specific enforceable measures by
a date certain, but not later than 1 year
from the date of approval. If EPA
conditionally approves the commitment
in a final rulemaking action, the State
must meet its commitment to adopt the
identified regulations. If the State fails
to do so, this action will become a
disapproval upon the State’s failure to
meet its commitment. EPA will notify
the State by letter that this action has
occurred. If the conditional approval
converts to a disapproval, the
commitment will no longer be a part of
the approved New Jersey SIP. Upon
notification of the State that the
conditional approval has converted to a
disapproval, EPA will publish a notice
in the Federal Register notifying the
public that the conditional approval
automatically converted to a
disapproval. If the State meets its
commitment, within the applicable time
frame, the conditionally approved
submission will remain a part of the SIP
until EPA takes final action approving
or disapproving the new SIP revision. If
EPA disapproves the RACT SIP
submittal, such action will start a
sanctions and FIP clock. If EPA
approves the submittal, the RACT
analysis will be fully approved in its
entirety and will replace the RACT
conditionally approved into the SIP.
EPA is not taking action at this time
on New Jersey’s attainment
demonstrations for the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NYNJ-CT and the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas, but will do so in
a future rulemaking.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:46 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: December 29, 2008.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E9–944 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0503; FRL–8763–2]
RIN–2060–AO77
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Allocation of Essential Use Allowances
for Calendar Year 2009
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to allocate
essential use allowances for import and
production of Class I ozone-depleting
substances (ODSs) for calendar year
2009. Essential use allowances enable a
person to obtain controlled Class I ODSs
as part of an exemption to the regulatory
ban on the production and import of
these chemicals, which became effective
as of January 1, 1996. EPA allocates
essential use allowances for exempted
production or import of a specific
quantity of Class I substances solely for
the designated essential purpose. The
proposed allocation in this action is
63.0 metric tons (MT) of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for use in
metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for 2009.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received by the
EPA Docket on or before February 17,
2009, unless a public hearing is
requested. Comments must then be
received on or before 30 days following
the public hearing. Any party requesting
a public hearing must notify the contact
listed below under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on January 21, 2009. If
a hearing is held, it will take place on
February 2, 2009 at EPA headquarters in
Washington DC. EPA will post a notice
on our Web site (https://www.epa.gov/
ozone) announcing further information
on the hearing if it is requested.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0503, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov
• Fax: 202–566–9744
• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T,
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: EPA Air Docket, EPA
West 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room 3334, Mail Code 2822T,
Washington, DC 20460. Such 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
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0503. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received by the docket will be included
in the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, 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 through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. If you would like the Agency
to consider comments that include CBI,
EPA recommends that you submit the
comments to the docket that exclude the
CBI portion but that you provide a
complete version of your comments,
including the CBI, to the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT below. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 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
www.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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:46 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. This Docket
Facility 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
the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Bohman, 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., Room 1013K, Washington,
DC 20005; by telephone: (202) 343–
9548; or by e-mail:
bohman.jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What should I consider when preparing
my comments?
II. Basis for Allocating Essential Use
Allowances
A. What are essential use allowances?
B. Under what authority does EPA allocate
essential use allowances?
C. What is the process for allocating
essential use allowances?
III. Essential Use Allowances for Medical
Devices
IV. Proposed Allocation of Essential Use
Allowances for Calendar Year 2009
V. 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
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. What should I consider when
preparing my comments?
1. Confidential Business Information.
Do not submit this information to EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2955
through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD–
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Basis for Allocating Essential Use
Allowances
A. What are essential use allowances?
Essential use allowances are
allowances to produce or import certain
ozone depleting substances (ODSs) in
the U.S. for purposes that have been
deemed ‘‘essential’’ by the U.S.
Government and by the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal
Protocol).
The Montreal Protocol is the
international agreement aimed at
reducing and eliminating the
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2956
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
production and consumption 1 of ODSs.
The elimination of production and
consumption of Class I ODSs is
accomplished through adherence to
phaseout schedules for specific Class I
ODSs,2 which include CFCs, halons,
carbon tetrachloride, and methyl
chloroform. As of January 1, 1996,
production and import of most Class I
ODSs were phased out in developed
countries, including the United States.
However, the Montreal Protocol and
the Clean Air Act (the Act) provide
exemptions that allow for the continued
import and/or production of Class I
ODSs for specific uses. Under the
Montreal Protocol, exemptions may be
granted for uses that are determined by
the Parties to be ‘‘essential.’’ Decision
IV/25, taken by the Parties to the
Protocol in 1992, established criteria for
determining whether a specific use
should be approved as essential, and set
forth the international process for
making determinations of essentiality.
The criteria for an essential use, as set
forth in paragraph 1 of Decision IV/25,
are the following:
‘‘(a) That a use of a controlled
substance should qualify as ‘essential’
only if:
(i) It is necessary for the health, safety
or is critical for the functioning of
society (encompassing cultural and
intellectual aspects); and
(ii) There are no available technically
and economically feasible alternatives
or substitutes that are acceptable from
the standpoint of environment and
health;
(b) That production and consumption,
if any, of a controlled substance for
essential uses should be permitted only
if:
(i) All economically feasible steps
have been taken to minimize the
essential use and any associated
emission of the controlled substance;
and
(ii) The controlled substance is not
available in sufficient quantity and
quality from existing stocks of banked or
recycled controlled substances, also
bearing in mind the developing
countries’ need for controlled
substances.’’
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
B. Under what authority does EPA
allocate essential use allowances?
Title VI of the Act implements the
Montreal Protocol for the United
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).
2 Class I ozone depleting substances are listed at
40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix A.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:46 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
States.3 Section 604(d) of the Act
authorizes EPA to allow the production
of limited quantities of Class I ODSs
after the phaseout date for the following
essential uses:
(1) Methyl Chloroform, ‘‘solely for use
in essential applications (such as
nondestructive testing for metal fatigue
and corrosion of existing airplane
engines and airplane parts susceptible
to metal fatigue) for which no safe and
effective substitute is available.’’ Under
section 604(d)(1) of the Act, this
exemption was available only until
January 1, 2005. Prior to that date, EPA
issued methyl chloroform allowances to
the U.S. Space Shuttle and Titan Rocket
programs.
(2) Medical devices (as defined in
section 601(8) of the Act), ‘‘if such
authorization is determined by the
Commissioner [of the Food and Drug
Administration], in consultation with
the Administrator [of EPA] to be
necessary for use in medical devices.’’
EPA issues allowances to manufacturers
of MDIs that use CFCs as propellant for
the treatment of asthma and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease.
(3) Aviation safety, for which limited
quantities of halon-1211, halon-1301,
and halon-2402 may be produced ‘‘if the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, in consultation with the
Administrator [of EPA] determines that
no safe and effective substitute has been
developed and that such authorization
is necessary for aviation safety
purposes.’’ Neither EPA nor the Parties
have ever granted a request for essential
use allowances for halon, because
alternatives are available or because
existing quantities of this substance are
large enough to provide for any needs
for which alternatives have not yet been
developed.
An additional essential use exemption
under the Montreal Protocol, as agreed
in Decision X/19, is the general
exemption for laboratory and analytical
uses. This exemption is reflected in
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart A. While the Act does not
specifically provide for this exemption,
EPA has determined that an exemption
for essential laboratory and analytical
uses is allowable under the Act as a de
minimis exemption. The de minimis
exemption is addressed in EPA’s final
rule of March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14760–
14770). The Parties to the Protocol
subsequently agreed (Decision XI/15)
that the general exemption does not
apply to the following uses: testing of
oil and grease, and total petroleum
3 See Section 614(b) of the Act. EPA’s regulations
implementing the essential use provisions of the
Act and the Protocol are located in 40 CFR part 82.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
hydrocarbons in water; testing of tar in
road-paving materials; and forensic
finger-printing. EPA incorporated this
exemption at Appendix G to Subpart A
of 40 CFR part 82 on February 11, 2002
(67 FR 6352). In a December 29, 2005
final rule, EPA extended the general
exemption for laboratory and analytical
uses through December 31, 2007 (70 FR
77048), in accordance with Decision
XV/8 of the Parties to the Protocol. At
the 19th Meeting of the Parties in
September 2007, the Parties agreed to
extend the global laboratory and
analytical use exemption through
December 31, 2011, in Decision XIX/18.
In a December 27, 2007 final rulemaking
EPA took action to (1) extend the
laboratory and analytical use exemption
from December 31, 2007 to December
31, 2011 for specific laboratory uses, (2)
apply the laboratory and analytical use
exemption to the production and import
of methyl bromide, and (3) eliminate the
testing of organic matter in coal from the
laboratory and analytical use exemption
(72 FR 73264).
C. What is the process for allocating
essential use allowances?
The procedure set out by Decision IV/
25 calls for individual Parties to
nominate essential uses and the total
amount of ODSs needed for those
essential uses on an annual basis. The
Protocol’s Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) evaluates the
nominated essential uses and makes
recommendations to the Parties. The
Parties make the final decisions on
whether to approve a Party’s essential
use nomination at their annual meeting.
This nomination process occurs
approximately two years before the year
in which the allowances would be in
effect. The allowances proposed for
allocation for 2009 were first nominated
by the United States in January 2007.
For MDIs, EPA requests information
from manufacturers about the number
and type of MDIs they plan to produce,
as well as the amount of CFCs necessary
for production. EPA then forwards the
information to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), which
determines the amount of CFCs
necessary for MDIs in the coming
calendar year. Based on FDA’s
determination, EPA proposes
allocations to each eligible entity. Under
the Act and the Montreal Protocol, EPA
may allocate essential use allowances in
quantities that together are below or
equal to the total amount approved by
the Parties. EPA will not allocate
essential use allowances in amounts
higher than the total approved by the
Parties. For 2009, the Parties authorized
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
the United States to allocate up to 282
MT of CFCs for essential uses.
III. Essential Use Allowances for
Medical Devices
The following is a step-by-step list of
actions EPA and FDA have taken thus
far to implement the exemption for
medical devices found at section
604(d)(2) of the Act for the 2009
calendar year.
1. On January 16, 2008, EPA sent
letters to MDI manufacturers requesting
the following information under section
114 of the Act (‘‘114 letters’’):
a. The MDI product where CFCs will
be used.
b. The number of units of each MDI
product produced from 1/1/07 to 12/31/
07.
c. The number of units anticipated to
be produced in 2008.
d. The number of units anticipated to
be produced in 2009.
e. The gross target fill weight per unit
(grams).
f. Total amount of CFCs to be
contained in the MDI product for 2009.
g. The additional amount of CFCs
necessary for production.
h. The total CFC request per MDI
product for 2009.
The 114 letters are available for
review in the Air Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0503. The companies
requested that their responses be treated
as confidential business information; for
this reason, EPA has placed the
responses in the confidential portion of
the docket.
2. At the end of January 2008, as
required by 40 CFR 82.13(u), EPA
received information from MDI
manufacturers that included such data
as the type and quantity of CFCs held
at the end of the year (i.e. stocks of pre1996 and post-1996 CFCs). The data
submitted from the MDI manufacturers
is available for review in the Air Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0503. The
companies requested that their
individual responses be treated as
confidential business information; for
this reason, EPA has placed the
individual responses in the confidential
portion of the docket.
3. On February 13, 2008, EPA sent
FDA the information MDI
manufacturers provided in response to
the 114 letters and information required
by 40 CFR 82.13(u) with a letter
requesting that FDA make a
determination regarding the amount of
CFCs necessary for MDIs for calendar
year 2009. This letter is available for
review in Air Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0503.
4. On April 28, 2008, FDA sent a letter
to EPA stating the amount of CFCs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:46 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
determined by the Commissioner to be
necessary for each MDI company in
2009. This letter is available for review
in the Air Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0503. FDA’s letter informed
EPA that it had determined that 88.0
MT of CFCs were necessary for use in
medical devices in the year 2009.
5. On August 12, 2008, FDA sent a
letter to EPA revising its April 28, 2008
essential use determination. FDA’s
revised letter informed EPA that it had
determined that 63.0 MT of CFCs were
necessary for use in medical devices for
the year 2009. In its letter FDA stated,
‘‘This letter revises our
recommendations for the amount of
CFCs necessary for use in medical
devices in the year 2009. The amount of
CFCs recommended in our April 28,
2008 letter was based on information
available then, that led to assumptions
that are now outdated.’’ This letter is
available for review in the Air Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0503.
With respect to the 2009
determination, FDA stated, ‘‘FDA’s
determination for the allocation of CFCs
is lower than the total amount requested
by sponsors. In reaching this
determination, we took into account the
sponsors’ production of MDIs that used
CFCs as a propellant in 2007, their
estimated production in 2008, their
estimated production in 2009, their
anticipated essential-use allocations in
2008, their current (as of December 31,
2007) stockpile levels, and any
intercompany transfers of CFCs. Finally,
FDA based its determination for 2009 on
an estimate of the quantity of CFCs that
would allow manufacturers to have a
12-month stockpile at the end of 2009,
in accordance with paragraph 3 of
Decision XVI/12 and paragraph 2 of
Decision XVII/5.’’
The letter stated that in making its
determination, FDA made the following
assumptions:
• All manufacturers will receive the
full essential-use allocation proposed by
EPA for calendar year 2008 (72 FR
32269, June 12, 2007);
• All manufacturers will procure the
full quantity of CFCs allocated to them
for 2008; and
• No bulk CFCs currently held by, or
allocated to, any manufacturer will be
exported from the United States.
EPA has confirmed with FDA that this
determination is consistent with
Decision XVII/5, including language on
stocks that states that Parties ‘‘shall take
into account pre- and post-1996 stocks
of controlled substances as described in
paragraph 1(b) of Decision IV/25, such
that no more than a one-year operational
supply is maintained by that
manufacturer.’’ Allowing manufacturers
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2957
to maintain up to a one-year operational
supply accounts for unexpected
variability in the demand for MDI
products or other unexpected
occurrences in the market and therefore
ensures that MDI manufacturers are able
to produce their essential use MDIs.
For calendar year 2009, FDA’s
determination aggregates the amounts of
CFC–11, –12, or –114 being allocated to
the MDI manufacturer. In its letter FDA
stated, ‘‘As has generally been our
practice, FDA is aggregating the
amounts for CFCs, and is providing
recommendations on the total amounts
of CFCs necessary to protect the public
health. FDA expects manufacturers to
maintain an appropriate balance of
CFCs necessary to produce their CFC
MDIs.’’
In accordance with the FDA
determination, today’s action proposes
to allocate essential use allowances for
a total of 63.0 MT of CFCs for use in
MDIs for calendar year 2009.
The amounts listed in this proposal
are subject to additional review and
revision by EPA and FDA if information
demonstrates that the proposed
allocations are either too high or too
low. We specifically request comment
on the extent to which the proposed
allocation of CFCs is sufficient to
protect public health and ensure the
manufacture and continuous availability
of CFCs necessary to meet the expected
demand. We also request comment on
whether the proposed allocation, when
considered along with current stocks,
will best protect consumers by
providing a smooth transition to nonCFC alternatives. Commenters
requesting increases or decreases of
essential use allowances should provide
detailed information supporting a claim
for additional or fewer CFCs. Any
company that needs less than the full
amount listed in this proposal should
notify EPA of the actual amount needed.
IV. Proposed Allocation of Essential
Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2009
TABLE I—ESSENTIAL USE ALLOWANCES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2009
Company
Chemical
2009
Quantity
(metric tons)
(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation)
for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Armstrong
CFC–11 or
CFC–12 or
CFC–114.
63.0
EPA proposes to allocate essential use
allowances for calendar year 2009 to the
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2958
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
entity listed in Table I. These
allowances are for the production or
import of the specified quantity of Class
I controlled substances solely for the
specified essential use.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ because it raises novel legal or
policy issues. Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits related to
this action. This analysis is contained in
the Agency’s Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the entire Title VI
phaseout program (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ‘‘Regulatory Impact
Analysis: Compliance with Section 604
of the Clean Air Act for the Phaseout of
Ozone Depleting Chemicals,’’ July
1992). A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action
and the analysis is briefly summarized
here. The RIA examined the projected
economic costs of a complete phaseout
of consumption of ozone-depleting
substances, as well as the projected
benefits of phased reductions in total
emissions of CFCs and other ozonedepleting substances, including
essential use CFCs used for MDIs.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. The
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements included in this action are
already included in an existing
information collection burden and this
action does not propose any changes
that would affect the burden. However,
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations at
40 CFR 82.8(a) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
control number 2060–0170. The OMB
control numbers for EPA’s regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:46 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business that is primarily engaged
in pharmaceutical preparations
manufacturing as defined by NAICS
code 325412 with 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 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 analyses is to
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule
on small entities.’’ 5 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 proposed action will provide an
otherwise unavailable benefit to those
companies that are receiving essential
use allowances by creating an
exemption to the regulatory phaseout of
chlorofluorocarbons. We have therefore
concluded that today’s proposed rule
will relieve regulatory burden for all
small entities. We continue to be
interested in the potential impact of the
proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
governments or the private sector. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any State, local or tribal governments or
the private sector. This action is
deregulatory and does not impose any
new requirements on any entities.
Therefore, this action is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA. This action is also not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because this rule merely
allocates essential use exemptions to
entities as an exemption to the ban on
production and import of Class I ODSs.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, titled
‘‘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. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This action does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying
to those regulatory actions that concern
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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
subject to EO 13045 because it
implements Section 604(d)(2) of the
Clean Air Act which states that the
Agency shall authorize essential use
exemptions should the Food and Drug
Administration determine that such
exemptions are necessary.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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, 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
proposed rule does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has concluded that it is not
practicable to determine whether there
would be disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority and/or low income
populations from this proposed rule.
EPA believes, however, that this action
affects the level of environmental
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:46 Jan 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
protection equally for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
Any ozone depletion that results from
this proposed rule will impact all
affected populations equally because
ozone depletion is a global
environmental problem with
environmental and human effects that
are, in general, equally distributed
across geographical regions.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Chlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Methyl
Chloroform, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
2959
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 080521698–8699–01]
RIN 0648–AW87
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast Multispecies
Fishery; Secretarial Interim Action
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comment.
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a temporary
Secretarial interim action under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Dated: January 12, 2009.
Conservation and Management Act
Stephen L. Johnson,
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) to implement
Administrator.
measures intended to immediately
40 CFR Part 82 is proposed to be
reduce overfishing in the Northeast (NE)
multispecies fishery, while addressing
amended as follows:
the need to help sustain fishing
PART 82–PROTECTION OF
communities, without compromising
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
rebuilding objectives. Measures
proposed for the commercial fishery
1. The authority citation for part 82
include the following: A differential
continues to read as follows:
days-at-sea (DAS) area north of 41°30′ N.
lat., whereby a vessel would be charged
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–
2 days for every day fished; a large
7671q.
Southern New England (SNE) Closure
Area; and modified groundfish trip
Subpart A—Production and
limits. This action does not change the
Consumption Controls
scheduled DAS reduction in the NE
2. Section 82.8 is amended by revising Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP), which would result in an
the table in paragraph (a) to read as
approximate 18–percent reduction in
follows:
DAS. For private recreational vessels
§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances
fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone
and critical use allowances.
(EEZ) and for federally permitted
charter/party vessels, this action would
(a) * * *
extend in time a seasonal prohibition on
the possession of Gulf of Maine (GOM)
TABLE I.—ESSENTIAL USE ALLOWcod, and prohibit the possession of SNE
ANCES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2009
winter flounder. For federally permitted
charter/party vessels, this action would
2009 Quantity
Company
Chemical
implement a trip limit for Georges Bank
(metric tons)
(GB) cod. In addition, this action
proposes to mitigate some of the
(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation)
negative short-term economic impacts of
for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
the FMP by making modifications to the
DAS Leasing Program, the Regular B
Armstrong
CFC–11 or
63.0 DAS Program, and the DAS Transfer
CFC–12 or
Program; continuing the Eastern U.S./
CFC–114.
Canada Haddock Special Access
Program (SAP); and implementing a
*
*
*
*
*
reduction in the haddock minimum size
[FR Doc. E9–945 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am]
to 18 inches (45 cm). Finally, this action
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
would specify management measures
for the U.S./Canada Management Area
for fishing year (FY) 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2954-2959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503; FRL-8763-2]
RIN-2060-AO77
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of Essential Use
Allowances for Calendar Year 2009
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to allocate essential use allowances for
import and production of Class I ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) for
calendar year 2009. Essential use allowances enable a person to obtain
controlled Class I ODSs as part of an exemption to the regulatory ban
on the production and import of these chemicals, which became effective
as of January 1, 1996. EPA allocates essential use allowances for
exempted production or import of a specific quantity of Class I
substances solely for the designated essential purpose. The proposed
allocation in this action is 63.0 metric tons (MT) of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for use in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for
2009.
DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by the
EPA Docket on or before February 17, 2009, unless a public hearing is
requested. Comments must then be received on or before 30 days
following the public hearing. Any party requesting a public hearing
must notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 21, 2009. If a
hearing is held, it will take place on February 2, 2009 at EPA
headquarters in Washington DC. EPA will post a notice on our Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/ozone) announcing further information on the
hearing if it is requested.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0503, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov
Fax: 202-566-9744
Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode 2822T,
[[Page 2955]]
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA
Air Docket, EPA West 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334, Mail
Code 2822T, Washington, DC 20460. Such 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 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0503. EPA's policy is that all comments received by the docket
will be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, 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
through www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected. If you would like the Agency to consider comments
that include CBI, EPA recommends that you submit the comments to the
docket that exclude the CBI portion but that you provide a complete
version of your comments, including the CBI, to the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, 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 www.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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility 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 the Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Bohman, 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., Room 1013K,
Washington, DC 20005; by telephone: (202) 343-9548; or by e-mail:
bohman.jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
II. Basis for Allocating Essential Use Allowances
A. What are essential use allowances?
B. Under what authority does EPA allocate essential use
allowances?
C. What is the process for allocating essential use allowances?
III. Essential Use Allowances for Medical Devices
IV. Proposed Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar
Year 2009
V. 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
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
1. Confidential Business Information. Do not submit this
information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Basis for Allocating Essential Use Allowances
A. What are essential use allowances?
Essential use allowances are allowances to produce or import
certain ozone depleting substances (ODSs) in the U.S. for purposes that
have been deemed ``essential'' by the U.S. Government and by the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer (Montreal Protocol).
The Montreal Protocol is the international agreement aimed at
reducing and eliminating the
[[Page 2956]]
production and consumption \1\ of ODSs. The elimination of production
and consumption of Class I ODSs is accomplished through adherence to
phaseout schedules for specific Class I ODSs,\2\ which include CFCs,
halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. As of January 1,
1996, production and import of most Class I ODSs were 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).
\2\ Class I ozone depleting substances are listed at 40 CFR part
82, subpart A, appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act (the Act)
provide exemptions that allow for the continued import and/or
production of Class I ODSs for specific uses. Under the Montreal
Protocol, exemptions may be granted for uses that are determined by the
Parties to be ``essential.'' Decision IV/25, taken by the Parties to
the Protocol in 1992, established criteria for determining whether a
specific use should be approved as essential, and set forth the
international process for making determinations of essentiality. The
criteria for an essential use, as set forth in paragraph 1 of Decision
IV/25, are the following:
``(a) That a use of a controlled substance should qualify as
`essential' only if:
(i) It is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the
functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual
aspects); and
(ii) There are no available technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of
environment and health;
(b) That production and consumption, if any, of a controlled
substance for essential uses should be permitted only if:
(i) All economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the
essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance;
and
(ii) The controlled substance is not available in sufficient
quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled
controlled substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries'
need for controlled substances.''
B. Under what authority does EPA allocate essential use allowances?
Title VI of the Act implements the Montreal Protocol for the United
States.\3\ Section 604(d) of the Act authorizes EPA to allow the
production of limited quantities of Class I ODSs after the phaseout
date for the following essential uses:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Section 614(b) of the Act. EPA's regulations
implementing the essential use provisions of the Act and the
Protocol are located in 40 CFR part 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Methyl Chloroform, ``solely for use in essential applications
(such as nondestructive testing for metal fatigue and corrosion of
existing airplane engines and airplane parts susceptible to metal
fatigue) for which no safe and effective substitute is available.''
Under section 604(d)(1) of the Act, this exemption was available only
until January 1, 2005. Prior to that date, EPA issued methyl chloroform
allowances to the U.S. Space Shuttle and Titan Rocket programs.
(2) Medical devices (as defined in section 601(8) of the Act), ``if
such authorization is determined by the Commissioner [of the Food and
Drug Administration], in consultation with the Administrator [of EPA]
to be necessary for use in medical devices.'' EPA issues allowances to
manufacturers of MDIs that use CFCs as propellant for the treatment of
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
(3) Aviation safety, for which limited quantities of halon-1211,
halon-1301, and halon-2402 may be produced ``if the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the
Administrator [of EPA] determines that no safe and effective substitute
has been developed and that such authorization is necessary for
aviation safety purposes.'' Neither EPA nor the Parties have ever
granted a request for essential use allowances for halon, because
alternatives are available or because existing quantities of this
substance are large enough to provide for any needs for which
alternatives have not yet been developed.
An additional essential use exemption under the Montreal Protocol,
as agreed in Decision X/19, is the general exemption for laboratory and
analytical uses. This exemption is reflected in EPA's regulations at 40
CFR part 82, subpart A. While the Act does not specifically provide for
this exemption, EPA has determined that an exemption for essential
laboratory and analytical uses is allowable under the Act as a de
minimis exemption. The de minimis exemption is addressed in EPA's final
rule of March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14760-14770). The Parties to the Protocol
subsequently agreed (Decision XI/15) that the general exemption does
not apply 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
exemption at Appendix G to Subpart A of 40 CFR part 82 on February 11,
2002 (67 FR 6352). In a December 29, 2005 final rule, EPA extended the
general exemption for laboratory and analytical uses through December
31, 2007 (70 FR 77048), in accordance with Decision XV/8 of the Parties
to the Protocol. At the 19th Meeting of the Parties in September 2007,
the Parties agreed to extend the global laboratory and analytical use
exemption through December 31, 2011, in Decision XIX/18. In a December
27, 2007 final rulemaking EPA took action to (1) extend the laboratory
and analytical use exemption from December 31, 2007 to December 31,
2011 for specific laboratory uses, (2) apply the laboratory and
analytical use exemption to the production and import of methyl
bromide, and (3) eliminate the testing of organic matter in coal from
the laboratory and analytical use exemption (72 FR 73264).
C. What is the process for allocating essential use allowances?
The procedure set out by Decision IV/25 calls for individual
Parties to nominate essential uses and the total amount of ODSs needed
for those essential uses on an annual basis. The Protocol's Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) evaluates the nominated essential
uses and makes recommendations to the Parties. The Parties make the
final decisions on whether to approve a Party's essential use
nomination at their annual meeting. This nomination process occurs
approximately two years before the year in which the allowances would
be in effect. The allowances proposed for allocation for 2009 were
first nominated by the United States in January 2007.
For MDIs, EPA requests information from manufacturers about the
number and type of MDIs they plan to produce, as well as the amount of
CFCs necessary for production. EPA then forwards the information to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which determines the amount of CFCs
necessary for MDIs in the coming calendar year. Based on FDA's
determination, EPA proposes allocations to each eligible entity. Under
the Act and the Montreal Protocol, EPA may allocate essential use
allowances in quantities that together are below or equal to the total
amount approved by the Parties. EPA will not allocate essential use
allowances in amounts higher than the total approved by the Parties.
For 2009, the Parties authorized
[[Page 2957]]
the United States to allocate up to 282 MT of CFCs for essential uses.
III. Essential Use Allowances for Medical Devices
The following is a step-by-step list of actions EPA and FDA have
taken thus far to implement the exemption for medical devices found at
section 604(d)(2) of the Act for the 2009 calendar year.
1. On January 16, 2008, EPA sent letters to MDI manufacturers
requesting the following information under section 114 of the Act
(``114 letters''):
a. The MDI product where CFCs will be used.
b. The number of units of each MDI product produced from 1/1/07 to
12/31/07.
c. The number of units anticipated to be produced in 2008.
d. The number of units anticipated to be produced in 2009.
e. The gross target fill weight per unit (grams).
f. Total amount of CFCs to be contained in the MDI product for
2009.
g. The additional amount of CFCs necessary for production.
h. The total CFC request per MDI product for 2009.
The 114 letters are available for review in the Air Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503. The companies requested that their responses be
treated as confidential business information; for this reason, EPA has
placed the responses in the confidential portion of the docket.
2. At the end of January 2008, as required by 40 CFR 82.13(u), EPA
received information from MDI manufacturers that included such data as
the type and quantity of CFCs held at the end of the year (i.e. stocks
of pre-1996 and post-1996 CFCs). The data submitted from the MDI
manufacturers is available for review in the Air Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0503. The companies requested that their individual responses
be treated as confidential business information; for this reason, EPA
has placed the individual responses in the confidential portion of the
docket.
3. On February 13, 2008, EPA sent FDA the information MDI
manufacturers provided in response to the 114 letters and information
required by 40 CFR 82.13(u) with a letter requesting that FDA make a
determination regarding the amount of CFCs necessary for MDIs for
calendar year 2009. This letter is available for review in Air Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.
4. On April 28, 2008, FDA sent a letter to EPA stating the amount
of CFCs determined by the Commissioner to be necessary for each MDI
company in 2009. This letter is available for review in the Air Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503. FDA's letter informed EPA that it had
determined that 88.0 MT of CFCs were necessary for use in medical
devices in the year 2009.
5. On August 12, 2008, FDA sent a letter to EPA revising its April
28, 2008 essential use determination. FDA's revised letter informed EPA
that it had determined that 63.0 MT of CFCs were necessary for use in
medical devices for the year 2009. In its letter FDA stated, ``This
letter revises our recommendations for the amount of CFCs necessary for
use in medical devices in the year 2009. The amount of CFCs recommended
in our April 28, 2008 letter was based on information available then,
that led to assumptions that are now outdated.'' This letter is
available for review in the Air Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0503.
With respect to the 2009 determination, FDA stated, ``FDA's
determination for the allocation of CFCs is lower than the total amount
requested by sponsors. In reaching this determination, we took into
account the sponsors' production of MDIs that used CFCs as a propellant
in 2007, their estimated production in 2008, their estimated production
in 2009, their anticipated essential-use allocations in 2008, their
current (as of December 31, 2007) stockpile levels, and any
intercompany transfers of CFCs. Finally, FDA based its determination
for 2009 on an estimate of the quantity of CFCs that would allow
manufacturers to have a 12-month stockpile at the end of 2009, in
accordance with paragraph 3 of Decision XVI/12 and paragraph 2 of
Decision XVII/5.''
The letter stated that in making its determination, FDA made the
following assumptions:
All manufacturers will receive the full essential-use
allocation proposed by EPA for calendar year 2008 (72 FR 32269, June
12, 2007);
All manufacturers will procure the full quantity of CFCs
allocated to them for 2008; and
No bulk CFCs currently held by, or allocated to, any
manufacturer will be exported from the United States.
EPA has confirmed with FDA that this determination is consistent
with Decision XVII/5, including language on stocks that states that
Parties ``shall take into account pre- and post-1996 stocks of
controlled substances as described in paragraph 1(b) of Decision IV/25,
such that no more than a one-year operational supply is maintained by
that manufacturer.'' Allowing manufacturers to maintain up to a one-
year operational supply accounts for unexpected variability in the
demand for MDI products or other unexpected occurrences in the market
and therefore ensures that MDI manufacturers are able to produce their
essential use MDIs.
For calendar year 2009, FDA's determination aggregates the amounts
of CFC-11, -12, or -114 being allocated to the MDI manufacturer. In its
letter FDA stated, ``As has generally been our practice, FDA is
aggregating the amounts for CFCs, and is providing recommendations on
the total amounts of CFCs necessary to protect the public health. FDA
expects manufacturers to maintain an appropriate balance of CFCs
necessary to produce their CFC MDIs.''
In accordance with the FDA determination, today's action proposes
to allocate essential use allowances for a total of 63.0 MT of CFCs for
use in MDIs for calendar year 2009.
The amounts listed in this proposal are subject to additional
review and revision by EPA and FDA if information demonstrates that the
proposed allocations are either too high or too low. We specifically
request comment on the extent to which the proposed allocation of CFCs
is sufficient to protect public health and ensure the manufacture and
continuous availability of CFCs necessary to meet the expected demand.
We also request comment on whether the proposed allocation, when
considered along with current stocks, will best protect consumers by
providing a smooth transition to non-CFC alternatives. Commenters
requesting increases or decreases of essential use allowances should
provide detailed information supporting a claim for additional or fewer
CFCs. Any company that needs less than the full amount listed in this
proposal should notify EPA of the actual amount needed.
IV. Proposed Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year
2009
Table I--Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 Quantity
Company Chemical (metric tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong................. CFC-11 or CFC-12 or CFC-114 63.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to allocate essential use allowances for calendar year
2009 to the
[[Page 2958]]
entity listed in Table I. These allowances are for the production or
import of the specified quantity of Class I controlled substances
solely for the specified essential use.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
related to this action. This analysis is contained in the Agency's
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the entire Title VI phaseout
program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis: Compliance with Section 604 of the Clean Air Act for the
Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Chemicals,'' July 1992). A copy of the
analysis is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is
briefly summarized here. The RIA examined the projected economic costs
of a complete phaseout of consumption of ozone-depleting substances, as
well as the projected benefits of phased reductions in total emissions
of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, including essential use
CFCs used for MDIs.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements included in this action
are already included in an existing information collection burden and
this action does not propose any changes that would affect the burden.
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations at 40 CFR 82.8(a) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0170. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is primarily engaged in pharmaceutical preparations manufacturing as
defined by NAICS code 325412 with 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 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 analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 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 proposed action will provide an otherwise unavailable benefit
to those companies that are receiving essential use allowances by
creating an exemption to the regulatory phaseout of
chlorofluorocarbons. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed
rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. We continue
to be interested in the potential impact of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. This action is deregulatory
and does not impose any new requirements on any entities. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this
rule merely allocates essential use exemptions to entities as an
exemption to the ban on production and import of Class I ODSs.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, titled ``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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action
from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions
that concern 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
[[Page 2959]]
subject to EO 13045 because it implements Section 604(d)(2) of the
Clean Air Act which states that the Agency shall authorize essential
use exemptions should the Food and Drug Administration determine that
such exemptions are necessary.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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, 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 proposed
rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine whether
there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from
this proposed rule. EPA believes, however, that this action affects the
level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. Any ozone depletion that results from this proposed
rule will impact all affected populations equally because ozone
depletion is a global environmental problem with environmental and
human effects that are, in general, equally distributed across
geographical regions.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Methyl
Chloroform, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 12, 2009.
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 the table in paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
Sec. 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances and critical use
allowances.
(a) * * *
Table I.--Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 Quantity
Company Chemical (metric tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong................. CFC-11 or CFC-12 or CFC-114 63.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-945 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P