[Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 51846-51848]
[DOCID:fr11se07-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0030]

Request for Comments on Ergonomics for the Prevention of
Musculoskeletal Disorders: Guidelines for Shipyards

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor is inviting comments on its draft
document entitled ``Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal

Disorders: Guidelines for Shipyards.'' The draft guidelines are
available on OSHA's web page and through its publications office.
Interested persons may submit written or electronic comments on the
draft guidelines. The Agency may also hold a stakeholder meeting where
the public is invited to express its views on the draft guidelines.

DATES: Written Comments: You must submit your comments by the following
dates:
    Regular mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, messenger or courier
service: You must submit your comments (postmarked or sent) by November
13, 2007.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: You must submit your
comments by November 13, 2007. OSHA is providing the public with 60
days to submit comments on the ergonomics guidelines for shipyards, as
was the case with OSHA's ergonomics guidelines for nursing homes,
retail grocery stores, and poultry processing.
    Stakeholder meeting: Should stakeholders express sufficient
interest, OSHA will hold a one-day stakeholder meeting to discuss the
draft guidelines. OSHA requests that interested parties submit their
requests for a stakeholder meeting through express delivery, hand
delivery, messenger service, fax or electronic means by October 11,
2007.

ADDRESSES:

I. Submitting Comments and Requests for a Stakeholder Meeting

    You may submit comments and requests for a stakeholder meeting in
response to this document as a hardcopy, fax transmission (facsimile),
or electronically. The additional materials must clearly identify your
submissions by name, date, and docket number, Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0030, so OSHA can attach them to your submissions.
    (1) Regular mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, messenger, or
courier service: You must submit three copies of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0030, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627). The OSHA Docket Office and the Department of Labor
hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET. To request a
stakeholder meeting, you must submit one copy of your request by
express mail, hand delivery, messenger and courier service to the above
address.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of submissions. Please contact
the OSHA Docket Office at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for
information about security procedures concerning the delivery of
materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service.
    (2) Facsimile: If your comments, including any attachments, do not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. You must include the docket number of this document, Docket
No. OSHA-2007-0030, in your comments. You may also fax your request for
a stakeholder meeting.
    (3) Electronically: You may submit your comments or request for a
stakeholder meeting electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov,

which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Information on using the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments, requests for

stakeholder meeting and attachments, and to access the docket, is
available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link. You may supplement
electronic submissions by uploading document attachments and files
electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must submit three
copies to the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

II. Obtaining Copies of the Draft Guidelines

    You can download the draft guidelines for the shipyard industry
from OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov. A printed copy of the

draft guidelines is available from the OSHA Office of Publications,
Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, or by telephone at (800) 321-OSHA (6742). You may
fax your request for a copy of the draft guidelines to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Seymour, OSHA Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-
1950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Internet Access to Comments

    All comments and submissions will be available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and
submissions will be posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers, dates
of birth, etc. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through http://www.regulations.gov.
 Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>

(TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about materials not available
through the OSHA Web site and for assistance in using the Web site to
locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov This document, news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at http://.

http://www.osha.gov.

II. Background

    On April 5, 2002, the Department of Labor announced a four-pronged
comprehensive approach for addressing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs),
which calls for OSHA to develop industry-or task-specific guidelines.
OSHA's fourth industry-specific guidelines address ergonomic concerns
in shipyards.
    The draft guidelines contain an introduction and two main sections.
The introduction provides an overview of MSDs in shipyards and explains
the role of ergonomics in reducing the incidence of these injuries. A
section entitled ``Process for Protecting Employees'' describes a
process for developing and implementing a strategy for identifying
ergonomic concerns, implementing ergonomic solutions, training,
addressing reports of injuries, and evaluating progress.
    The heart of the guidelines, the ``Implementing Solutions''
section, describes examples of ergonomic solutions (engineering
solutions, work practices, and personal protective equipment) that may
be used in shipyards to control exposure to ergonomics-related risk
factors encountered in the industry. The recommendations cover site-
wide ergonomics issues, material/equipment handling, power tools, metal
work, shipside work, and personal protective equipment. The draft
guidelines conclude with a list of references and sources of additional
information that shipyards can use to help them with their ergonomic
efforts.
    OSHA encourages interested parties to comment on all aspects of the
draft guidelines. The Agency is particularly interested in:

     Information about successful ergonomic efforts that
shipyards have used to address ergonomic concerns,
     innovative solutions that shipyards have used to
effectively solve ergonomic problems, and
     checklists or flowcharts that shipyards use to identify
workplace problems, identify risk factors, or evaluate aspects of their
ergonomics process.

III. Stakeholder Meeting

    Should stakeholders express sufficient interest, OSHA will hold a
stakeholder meeting following the close of the comment period. The
Agency will announce the exact location and date of the stakeholder
meeting prior to the close of the comment period.
    This notice was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. It is
issued under sections 4 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 657).

    Issued at Washington, DC, this 4th day of September, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-17770 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


MEMORANDUM
TO:		Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FROM:  	Eastern Research Group, Inc.
DATE:  	November 20, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:  	Reconsideration Proposal Compliance Cost Analyses for CISWI Units

Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), is required to regulate emissions of nine pollutants from Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units: hydrogen chloride (HCl), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), particulate matter (PM), dioxins/furans (PCDD/PCDF), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

On December 1, 2000, the EPA adopted new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG) for CISWI units under Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act.  In 2001 the EPA granted a petition for reconsideration regarding the definitions of "commercial and industrial waste" and "commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit."  In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the EPA's voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the 2000 rule.  In 2005, the EPA proposed and finalized the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration definition rule which, among other things, revised the definitions of "commercial and industrial waste" and "commercial and industrial waste incineration unit."  In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded the 2005 commercial and industrial solid waste incineration definition rule.

On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated revised NSPS and EG as its response to the voluntary remand that was granted in 2001 and the vacatur and remand of the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration definition rule in 2007.  In addition, the standards re-development included the 5-year technology review of the new source performance standards and emission guidelines required under Section 129.  Following that action, the Administrator received petition[s] for reconsideration and identified some issues that warranted further opportunity for public comment.  In addition, data were received that enabled the EPA to revise the CISWI inventory of waste-burning kilns and energy recovery units to more accurately reflect the definition of non-hazardous secondary materials.  The development of the MACT floors used to determine these options is discussed in more detail in a separate memorandum.1  The purpose of this memorandum is to present for existing sources the nationwide costs and nationwide cost effectiveness associated with compliance with the proposed standards and alternatives to compliance.

This memo is organized as follows:

I. 		Choosing Controls Needed for Each Unit to Meet MACT Floors
II.		MACT Compliance Costs
      	A. Emission Control Costs
      	B. Stack Testing, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping Costs
	1. Stack Testing
	2. Monitoring Requirements
	3. Recordkeeping and Reporting
	C. Alternative Disposal Costs
III.		Cost Effectiveness
IV.		New Units
V.		References

I. 	Choosing Controls Needed for Each Unit to Meet MACT Floors
A significant portion of the total cost for industry compliance comes from the cost of installing new or improving existing pollution control devices for units not currently meeting the proposed limits.  In order to determine the control costs, it was necessary to evaluate, for each CISWI unit, how much improvement for each pollutant would be needed to meet the proposed emissions limits.

In order to determine how much improvement would be needed for each unit, the maximum test average (i.e., the highest emission concentration) for each pollutant was determined for units having test data.  This is assumed to be the basis that sources would base their control strategy on to ensure compliance with the standards.  This is different from the overall pollutant average used to calculate baseline annual emissions2 so that baseline emissions are not overestimated and more truly reflect the average performance of the unit.  Similar to the gap-filling methodology for the baseline emissions calculations, data gaps were filled first by using the same measured data from similar units operated by the corporate entity.  If these data were not available, then subcategory default values were assigned for the unit.  These default values were the mean of all known units' maximum emissions test averages within each subcategory.  Once every unit was assigned with a value, these values were compared with the MACT floor emissions limits, and percentages were calculated to quantify the amount of improvement needed for the unit to meet the MACT floors.  Tables 1A  -  1E contain the baseline pollutant concentration values used for each unit in each subcategory and the percentage improvement required to meet the emissions limits for each unit for each pollutant.  The existing CISWI units are subcategorized into five main groups: energy recovery units (ERUs) designed to burn liquid or gas, ERUs designed to burn solids materials, incinerators, waste-burning kilns, and small, remote units.  The pollutant- and subcategory-specific limits are shown in each header row of these tables. Note that in the solids-burning ERU subcategory, separate limits for coal-burning units and biomass-burning units were determined for carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, filterable particulate matter, dioxin/furans, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides.  In the waste-burning kilns category, separate limits for long kilns and preheater/preheater-precalciner kilns were determined for carbon monoxide.

As discussed at proposal in 2010, control methods and cost algorithms utilized in a recent rulemaking for another waste combustion source category, Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) were updated and utilized generally for the CISWI source category, since most of these algorithms are applicable to waste combustion units found in the CISWI source category.  Since the 2010 proposal, there were two additional control technologies considered for use on CISWI units, duct sorbent injection followed by fabric filter (DIFF) and regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO).  Based on these required improvements, pollutant-specific control methods were chosen as follows for units unable to meet the MACT floors:

Metals (cadmium and lead) and PM: Adding fabric filters or improving existing fabric filters.

Mercury and dioxins/furans (PCDD/PCDF): Adding activated carbon injection (ACI) and adjusting the carbon addition rate to meet the amount of reduction required. Where ACI is required, a fabric filter would also need to be installed if the unit does not already have a fabric filter in place.

Hydrogen chloride (HCl): Adding wet scrubbers, or improving already installed wet scrubbers. For energy recovery units with average stack gas flow rates greater than 75,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), a duct sorbent injection/fabric filter (DIFF) combination was prescribed instead of a wet scrubber as commenters argued that larger units would likely use this technology rather than a wet scrubber.

Carbon monoxide (CO): For incinerators and small remote units, an afterburner retrofit was the prescribed technology for CO control.  For waste-burning kilns, the assumed control technology for CO control was addition of a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO).  For energy recovery units, the control prescribed depended on the maximum CO test average of the unit.  For liquid/gas-burning units, a tune-up was assigned for units under 36 ppmvd, advanced combustion controls (linkageless boiler management system) for units in the 36 to 96 ppmvd range, and a CO oxidation catalyst for units over 96 ppmvd. For biomass-burning units, a tune-up was assigned for units under 735 ppmvd, advanced combustion controls (linkageless boiler management system) for units in the 735 to 1,960 ppmvd range, and a CO oxidation catalyst for units over 1,960 ppmvd.  For coal-burning units, a tune-up was assigned for units under 69 ppmvd, advanced combustion controls (linkageless boiler management system) for units in the 69 to 184 ppmvd range, and a CO oxidation catalyst for units over 184 ppmvd.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): Adding selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Adding wet scrubbers, or improving already installed wet scrubbers. For energy recovery units with average stack gas flow rates greater than 75,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), a duct sorbent injection/fabric filter (DIFF) combination was prescribed.  For energy recovery units adding DIFF and requiring greater than 70 percent improvement, a wet scrubber in addition to DIFF was prescribed, unless the unit already has a wet scrubber, in which case the addition of caustic to the existing scrubber was prescribed.  If an energy recovery unit already having DIFF or SDA/FF installed cannot meet the limit, adding a wet scrubber as a polishing scrubber was assumed to be sufficient to meet the limit.

Further descriptions of these controls and their associated costs are listed below in Section II.

II. 	MACT Compliance Costs
This section presents the nationwide costs estimated for existing CISWI for (A) the emission controls used to comply with the MACT floor; (B) the monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting activities used to demonstrate compliance; and (C) the alternatives to compliance.  Total capital cost for all existing CISWI units to meet the MACT floor emission limits is estimated at approximately $921 million.  Total annual cost for compliance for all units in all subcategories is about $285 million, but is about $270 million for the lowest cost alternative.  As presented above, the existing CISWI units are subcategorized into five main groups: liquid/gas-burning ERUs, solids-burning ERUs, incinerators, waste-burning kilns, and small, remote units.  Tables 2A-2E present costs for emission controls, stack testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping for each unit within each subcategory, as well as costs for alternatives to compliance where applicable.  Table 3 summarizes total compliance costs, as well as the lowest cost alternative (where alternative disposal methods are possible) for all units.

A. Emission Control Costs
Emission control technologies and other control measures that can be used to comply with the MACT floor options for existing CISWI units include wet scrubbers, fabric filters, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), activated carbon injection (ACI), duct sorbent injection followed by fabric filter (DIFF), regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO), oxidation catalysts and various other control measures designed to obtain incremental emission reductions.  This section presents the costs that were estimated for each of these control measures.

The retrofit factors for the capital costs were assumed to be 40 percent for wet scrubbers, fabric filters, and 20 percent for SNCR and ACI.3[,] 4  Downtime costs for the retrofits were assumed to be negligible.  Most CISWI are expected to be outdoors with adequate space to install an emission control system without shutting down the incinerator for an extended period.  Commenters have suggested that additional footprint required for controls for small remote incineration units in certain parts of Alaska may be costly to construct and permit.  However, no data were provided that would assist in developing any cost adjustment factors to estimate additional footprint costs.  It was also expected that connecting the ductwork could be performed during a scheduled downtime for maintenance, thereby minimizing expected downtime.5

The capital and annual costs for the emission controls were estimated in units of dollars ($) and
$/flow.  The $/flow costs were calculated by dividing the capital/annual control cost estimate for each unit by the average gas flow rate assigned to that unit.  Table 4A is a summary of the parameters used for each unit (e.g., incinerator charge rate, stack gas flow rate, incinerator operating hours, and concentrations). Additional information on the calculation of flue gas flow rates specifically for energy recovery units and waste-burning kilns can be found in Tables 4B and 4C.

Total capital cost for controls for all subcategories is estimated at approximately $921 million, and total annual cost for controls for all subcategories is about $285 million.  Costs are on a 2008 basis, and annualized costs assumed an interest rate of 7 percent.  Tables 5A-5J present a summary of the parameters and equations used in the cost algorithms for each emission control device.

   1. Adding a fabric filter.
   Fabric filters can be installed either alone or with other add-on controls.  The cost algorithm for installing a fabric filter for waste-burning kilns, incinerators, and small remote incinerators is presented in Table 5A and is based on algorithms in the Model Plant Description and Control Cost Report for HMIWI.[5]  For energy recovery units, calculations were based on an algorithm originally utilized for HMIWI, but incorporating slight modifications to make them consistent with those being utilized by the boilers NEHSAP development to accommodate typically higher flue gas flow rates.  Calculations specific to fabric filter installations for energy recovery units are presented in Table 5B.  The fabric filter capital costs range from approximately $767,000 to $28.2 million, and annual costs range from approximately $136,000/yr to $6.1 million/yr.  Sources for specific cost data are noted below Table 5A.

   2. Adding a wet scrubber.
   Wet scrubbers can be installed alone or after a dry scrubber/fabric filter. The cost algorithm for installing a packed-bed wet scrubber is presented in Table 5B and is based on algorithms in the Model Plant Description and Control Cost Report for HMIWI.  The packed-bed wet scrubber capital costs range from approximately $282,000 to $9.6 million, and annual costs range from approximately $77,000/yr to $6.7 million/yr.  Sources for specific cost data are noted below Table 5C.

   3. Adding a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system.
   In an SNCR system, a nitrogen-based reducing agent, or reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the post-combustion flue gas through nozzles mounted on the wall of the combustion unit.  The cost algorithm for installing an SNCR system is presented in Table 5D and is based on algorithms in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual.3  The SNCR capital costs range from approximately $48,000 to $3.4 million, and annual costs range from approximately $5,300/yr to $379,000/yr.  Sources for specific cost data are noted below Table 5D.

   4. Adding an activated carbon injection (ACI) system.
   Injecting activated carbon before the fabric filter has been demonstrated to improve the removal efficiency of both Hg and PCDD/PCDF from CISWI.  The cost algorithm for installing an ACI system to incinerators, small-remote incinerators, and waste-burning kilns is presented in Table 5E and is based on algorithms in the Model Plant Description and Control Cost Report for HMIWI[5]. The cost algorithm for installing an ACI system to energy recovery units is presented in Table 5F and is based on algorithms in the IPM Model - Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies, Mercury Control Cost Development Methodology[10].  Adjustments to the carbon injection rate were made to account for how much reduction was required to meet the emission limit, and whether a packed-bed scrubber was either being added or would be improved, since scrubbers may also assist in reducing Hg emissions.  The packed-bed scrubber adjustment is a ten percent Hg reduction, and is based on input from the boiler NESHAP development.  The ACI factor compares the carbon grain loading originally assumed to achieve 90 percent control of mercury or 98 percent control of PCDD/PCDF to the amount of reduction the unit will need to meet the final emission limits.  For the incinerator, small-remote incinerator, and waste-buring kiln subcategories, the highest factor (Hg or PCDD/PCDF) is then used to adjust the carbon injection rate calculation of the algorithm.  For the energy recovery unit subcategories, the fuel-based fly ash waste rates are also included in the carbon injection rate calculation of the algorithm.  However, the carbon injection rate is not a variable in this algorithm, so therefore was not adjusted based on the amount of reduction in Hg or PCDD/PCDF required to meet the emission limit.  ACI capital costs range from approximately $4,700 to $160,000, and annual costs range from approximately $3,400/yr to $3.7 million/yr.  Sources for specific cost data are noted below Table 5E and 5F.

   5. Adding an afterburner/secondary chamber retrofit.
   Afterburner, or secondary chamber, retrofits include retrofitting an incinerator with a larger secondary chamber (with a longer gas residence time, e.g., 2 seconds) and operating it at a higher temperature (e.g., 1800°F).  The cost algorithm for installing an afterburner retrofit with an incinerator or small, remote unit is presented in Table 5G and is based on algorithms in the Model Plant Description and Control Cost Report for HMIWI.[5]  Afterburner capital costs range from approximately $77,000 to $451,000, and annual costs range from approximately $15,000/yr to $281,000/yr.  Sources for specific cost data are noted below Table 5G.

   6. Adding duct sorbent injection/fabric filter (DIFF).
   Duct sorbent injection is a control technique for SO2 control where a sorbent such as limestone is injected into the duct upstream from the particulate matter control device.  The flue gas stream may be humidified and cooled to get the gas stream to the desired reaction temperature.  In this instance, we have assumed a fabric filter is the particulate matter control device.  Calculations were based on an algorithm originally utilized for HMIWI, but incorporating slight modifications to make them consistent with those being utilized by the boilers NESHAP development.  Commenters have argued that energy recovery units with flue gas flow rates over 75,000 acfm would use DIFF control rather than wet scrubbers for acid gas control.  Therefore, this control has been assumed for SO2 control in these size energy recovery units.  If the percent reductions exceed those expected from DIFF (70%), then a wet scrubber as a polishing step was also added to the control requirements for the unit, if no wet scrubber already existed for that unit.  Calculations specific to DIFF installations for energy recovery units are presented in Table 5H.  DIFF capital costs range from approximately $6.7 million to $33.4 million, and annual costs range from approximately $1.9 million/yr to $8.8 million/yr.  Sources for specific cost data are noted below Table 5H.

   7. Adding a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO).
   Carbon monoxide control for waste-burning kilns may be accomplished using a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). In this device, flue gas is pre-heated over ceramic media prior to the combustion chamber where the carbon monoxide is oxidized to carbon dioxide.  The flue gas then exits the combustion chamber and transfers heat to the ceramic media to help preheat the incoming flue gas.  This heat transfer helps reduce the amount of fuel needed to maintain combustion chamber temperatures required for oxidization.  The cost algorithm for installing an RTO with a waste-burning kiln is presented in Table 5I and is based on cost analyses conducted for the final amendments of the Portland Cement NESHAP.  RTO capital costs range from approximately $6.0 million to $19.5 million, and annual costs range from approximately $1.5 million/yr to $6.3 million/yr.

   8. Incremental Controls.
   In some instances, it may not be necessary to install a new control system to achieve the emissions reductions necessary to comply with the control options.  An incremental reduction in emissions may be achievable by improving existing controls, such as increasing the amount of caustic used in the wet scrubber, increasing the flow of lime prior to the fabric filter, increasing wet scrubber horsepower, improving fabric filter performance, or increasing the amount of NOx reagent injected into the post-combustion flue gas.  Table 5J presents the algorithms used to determine the annual cost of these incremental controls.  There are no capital costs for incremental controls. Sources for specific cost data are noted below Table 5J.

         a.          Improving the performance of an existing fabric filter.
      One strategy to reduce PM and metals emissions further is to improve the performance of the fabric filter by replacing the filter bags used to capture emitted particulate. Costs to improve fabric filter performance were estimated using the same equations for bag and cage replacement employed in costing fabric filters and range from $8,600/yr to $257,000/yr.

         b.          Increasing caustic.
      One strategy to reduce acid gas emissions further is to increase the amount of caustic used in the wet scrubber to react with and neutralize the acid gases in the gas stream. The addition of caustic is assumed to sufficiently reduce emissions without requiring any changes to the wet scrubber. Costs to increase the amount of caustic were estimated using the same caustic equation employed in costing packed-bed wet scrubbers and range from approximately $350/yr to $430/yr.

   9. Additional Control Options.
      a. Adding advanced combustion controls.
      The costs to add a linkageless boiler management system (LBMS) are based on a 2008 quote provided to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The installed cost for a LBMS on a 20 mmBtu/hr unit was $19,127.  The DOE noted that costs are relatively fixed, regardless of the size of the unit. Therefore, this cost was used as a fixed capital cost estimate for CISWI units required to add advanced combustion controls.

      b. Adding a CO catalyst.
      Cost estimates for adding a CO oxidation catalyst were based on the Air Pollution Control Cost Manual.[8]   Capital cost per unit ranges from $452,000 to $2.5 million, and annual costs range from $195,000/yr to $1.4 million/yr.

      c. Tune-up.
      Cost for performing a tune-up were based on a cost estimate provided in a report by Dr. H.M. Eckerlin and E.W. Soderberg[9].  This report indicated that the initial set-up for boiler tune-up was $3,000 to $7,000 per boiler, thereafter; annual tuning costs $1,000 per boiler.  An average $5,000 per boiler initial set-up costs was annualized over 5 years at a 7 percent rate, and added to the subsequent year tune-up costs.  Subsequently, an estimated flat cost of $1,580 annually was applied for units requiring tune-ups.

B. Stack Testing, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping Costs
      1.       Monitoring Costs
   Initial and continuous compliance provisions for CISWI units were selected to be as consistent as possible with comparable regulations.  For energy recovery units, requirements were developed to be consistent with stack testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements for major source boilers units adapted to reflect the CAA section 129 pollutants and provisions of section 129.  For waste-burning cement kilns, monitoring requirements were based on the Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS requirements for cement kilns and adapted to reflect the CAA section 129 pollutants.  For the other three subcategories, requirements were as consistent as possible with current CISWI and HMIWI provisions.  This section presents the costs that were estimated for each of these requirements.
   The total capital cost for stack testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting for all subcategories is estimated at approximately $8.8 million, and the total annual cost is about $6.6 million per year. Cost estimates were based on algorithms recently utilized in the HMIWI regulatory development. Costs were updated to a 2008 basis, and annualized costs assumed an interest rate of 7 percent.  Tables 6A-6E present a summary of the parameters and equations used in the cost algorithms for each monitoring component, where applicable.

   a.          Inspections.
      Consistent with HMIWI regulations, it was assumed that annual control device inspections will be required for any units having control devices in place or requiring further controls to meet the MACT floors.  In this context, control devices include fabric filters, afterburners, wet scrubbers, ACI systems, SNCR systems, DIFF, RTO, or oxidation catalysts.  The cost was estimated at a flat rate of $1000 per year. See Table 6A for further details and sources.

   b.          Parameter monitors.
      Monitoring of operating parameters can be used to indicate whether air pollution control equipment and practices are functioning properly to minimize air pollution.  Based on the existing CISWI regulations and HMIWI regulations, it was assumed that parameter monitoring will be mandatory for all units required to add fabric filters, wet scrubbers, SNCR systems, or ACI systems.  Costs for each monitoring system were estimated as follows:
      *            For a fabric filter bag leak detection system, capital cost was estimated at $25,500 and annual cost at $9,700/yr.
      *            For a wet scrubber monitoring system, capital cost was estimated at $24,300 and annual cost at $5,600/yr.
      *            For an SNCR monitoring system, capital cost was estimated at $10,300 and annual cost at $3,200/yr.
      *            The cost for ACI monitoring depends on a unit's annual operational hours.  There are no capital costs for ACI monitoring.  Annual costs ranged from $600 to $10,100.
      *            While not reflected in the cost analysis, energy recovery units over 100 MMBtu/hr heat input will be required to operate a continuous oxygen monitoring system if they do not have one already.  The capital cost for this system is estimated at $8,523 and annual costs of $1,436.
      For default parameters and equations used for monitoring costs, see Table 6B. Sources for specific cost data are noted below the table.

   c.          Continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).
      The most direct means of monitoring compliance is the use of CEMS to measure the emissions of a pollutant on a continuous basis.  The following text describes the CEMS for each subcategory of existing CISWI units that is included in the final regulation. The costs for Hg and PM CEMS are presented in Table 6B.
      *            For waste-burning kilns, it was assumed all units will require Hg CEMS, but that they would likely have installed these already to comply with the requirements of the Portland cement NESHAP. Capital cost was estimated at $231,000 and annual cost at $112,600/yr, but these were not applied to cement kilns.
      *            PM CEMS is required for energy recovery units having design capacities greater than 250 MMBtu. The capital cost for adding PM CEMS was estimated at $158,000 and annual cost at $56,100/yr.
      *            Continuous opacity monitoring is required for energy recovery units that don't have wet scrubbers, fabric filters with bag leak detectors, and have design capacities less than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hr.  Cost was based on a quote from the Midwest Research Institute[6] and adjusted to 2008 dollars.  Capital cost was estimated at $43,146 and annual cost at $14,660/yr.

      1.       Testing Costs
            a.          Initial Stack Testing.
      It was conservatively assumed that initial stack testing will be required for each pollutant for energy recovery units, incinerators, and small, remote units. Because PM, Hg, and HCl CEMS are required for cement kilns, it is assumed initial stack testing will be required for all pollutants except these. Additionally, initial opacity testing will not be required for kilns because of the PM CEMS requirement. Costs for each required stack test were summed and multiplied by 2/3 to adjust for economies of scale when multiple pollutant tests were being performed on a unit.  The annualized costs were calculated assuming a capital recovery factor of 0.10979 (15 years at 7 percent).  The basis of these cost estimates for each stack test is summarized in Table 6C.

            b.          Annual Stack Testing.
      It was assumed that all units, to some extent, will be required to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the emissions limits for certain pollutants.  Provisions in the final CISWI regulations indicate that testing for all pollutants must be conducted once, and if the resulting concentration for any of the pollutants is less than a certain threshold percentage of the emission limit, the source qualifies for reduced annual testing provisions for this pollutant.  For the purposes of this cost analysis, the maximum annual testing requirement for each unit was assumed. Stack testing costs are presented in Table 6C.

            c.          Visible emissions testing.
      All CISWI units except for cement kilns will likely have ash handling operations.  Therefore, these units would be required to demonstrate compliance to a 5 percent visible emissions limit for fugitive emissions generated during ash handling (similar to HMIWI).   We are requiring that energy recovery units, incinerators, and small, remote incineration units will be required to conduct annual performance tests for fugitive emissions from ash handling using EPA Method 22.  Costs for this annual test include a capital cost of $250 and an annual cost of $200, based on the Revised Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs for Existing HMIWI memo.[7]  Further details regarding this cost estimate are included in Table 6D.

      2.       Recordkeeping and Reporting Costs
   For all units, a flat rate of $2,989 per year was estimated as the annual cost for recordkeeping and reporting.  Further details regarding this cost estimate, including hourly labor assumptions, labor rates, and associated sources, are included in Table 6E.

C. Alternative Disposal Costs
Certain CISWI units may have waste disposal alternatives other than combustion available to them.  These alternatives may prove to be less costly than the controls and monitoring required for compliance with the CISWI standards.  For example, some facilities may be able to simply divert their waste to a landfill or municipal waste combustor (MWC).  To attempt to quantify the alternate waste disposal costs, for incinerators and small, remote units, the cost of alternative waste disposal methods such as landfilling or hauling waste to a MWC were also estimated.

For incinerators, unit capacity, annual operating hours, and a default tipping fee and hauling cost, were used to calculate annual costs for landfilling the waste that would otherwise be incinerated.  Annual landfilling costs varied widely, reaching a maximum of about $2.5 million/yr.  Table 7A summarizes the parameters and equations used to calculate these cost estimates.

An additional option for incinerators would be to haul the waste to an MWC.  Unit capacity, annual operating hours, and a nationally averaged tipping fee were used to calculate annual costs, which ranged up to $3.6 million. Table 7B presents the basis for these cost estimates.  In most cases, hauling waste to an MWC was found to be cheaper than complying with the limits, but still more expensive than landfilling.

Commenters contended that the landfill cost algorithm used for the incinerator subcategory was not considered appropriate for small, remote units, due to the increased difficulty in transporting waste to landfills in these locations (e.g. weather, much longer distances, or the need for air or marine transport rather than hauling by truck).  To account for this, the cost per ton of waste diverted was estimated at a flat $15,000 per ton of waste diverted. This value is based on a half of the maximum estimate provided by public commenters,  since some units may be able to use conventional methods of transport whereas others may have the maximum cost to transport wastes.  Annual landfilling costs for small, remote units ranged from $433,000/yr to $24.6 million/yr.  Table 7C summarizes the parameters and equations used to calculate these cost estimates.

An additional option considered for small, remote units was waste segregation and add-on controls.  It is generally less expensive for these facilities to segregate their waste and divert the nonferrous metal and chlorinated plastic to a landfill than to landfill all of their waste.  This practice could allow them to meet the emission limits for mercury, HCl and PCDD/PCDF without having the need for add-on controls for these pollutants.  Many facilities already practice some form of waste segregation, but would have to further expand their existing system to accomodate the broader range of materials to be segregated, primarily all metals and PVC from the waste stream.  Annual costs for this option ranged from about $4,000/yr to $224,000/yr, and were calculated based on the waste disposal rate for the facility, the waste disposal costs indicated above and cost estimates facilities provided for implementing their existing waste segregation systems.  The calculations for these costs are presented in Table 7C.

To calculate the overall annual cost for each alternative disposal option, the costs associated with operating the incinerator and the annualized capital cost of the unit must also be accounted for.  To address this, annual incinerator operational costs were subtracted from the annual alternative cost plus the annualized incinerator cost.  The algorithms used for calculating the operational cost and annualized capital cost of the incinerator are shown in Table 7D.  Intermittent operation was assumed for incinerators burning at least 1 ton per year of waste, and batch operation was assumed for incinerators burning less than 1 ton per year of waste.  Unit-specific incinerator operational costs, annualized incinerator cost, and alternative disposal costs are listed in Tables 2C and 2D.

III. 	Cost Effectiveness
The cost effectiveness of the final emission limits was calculated for each subcategory by dividing the total compliance cost (emission control, monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting) by the total emission reduction (HCl, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, PCDD/PCDF, NOX, and SO2) needed to meet the emission limits.  Note that the emission reductions were derived in a separate memorandum.[2]  Tables 8A and 8B present the estimated cost effectiveness values for each subcategory, over all pollutants.

Table 8A shows the estimated costs and cost effectiveness for all units to meet the final emission limits.  The nationwide average cost effectiveness for all units to meet the emission limits was estimated to be $2,700/ton for liquid/gas-burning ERUs, $17,200/ton for solids-burning ERUs, $58,400/ton for incinerators, $388,800/ton for small, remote units, and $4,800/ton for waste-burning kilns.  Over all subcategories, the average cost effectiveness was estimated to be $8,300/ton.

Table 8B shows the estimated costs and cost effectiveness for units to choose the most inexpensive option.  The nationwide average cost effectiveness for all units to choose the lowest cost option between complying using add-on controls and using an alternative disposal method was estimated as follows: $2,700/ton for liquid/gas-burning ERUs, $17,200/ton for solids-burning ERUs, $7,600/ton for incinerators, $234,800/ton for small, remote units, and $4,800/ton for waste-burning kilns.  Over all subcategories, the average cost effectiveness was estimated to be $7,800/ton.

IV. 	New Units

Based on the results of our analysis for existing units and our experiences with other CAA Section 129 regulations, we do not anticipate that any new energy recovery units or waste-burning kilns will be constructed.  Our experience with regulations for municipal waste combustors, HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI has shown that negative growth in the source category historically occurs upon implementation of CAA Section 129 standards.  Since CISWI rules were promulgated in 2000 and have been in effect for existing sources since 2005, many existing units have closed.  The EPA is not aware of any construction of new units since 2000, and therefore does not believe there are any units that are currently subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS.  Industrial or commercial operations considering waste disposal options for their facilities will likely choose not to construct new CISWI units and to use alternative waste disposal methods or alternative fuels that will not subject them to the CISWI rule.  For example, new sources could engineer their process to minimize waste generation in the first place, or to separate wastes so that the materials sent to a combustion unit would not meet the definition of solid waste to begin with.

For incinerators and small remote units, on the other hand, it is more conceivable that some new units will be installed in the future, particularly in cases where alternative disposal methods are not a viable option and perhaps an older unit must be replaced. The total capital cost for new unit compliance over the next five years was estimated at approximately $7.6 million, and annual costs at approximately $2.3 million/yr.  Tables 9A-9E summarize the assumptions and calculations made to estimate these costs.

In order to determine the costs for these potential new units to comply with the NSPS limits, it was necessary to determine what controls would likely be needed for the units. To do this, the average uncontrolled emissions resulting for each pollutant were calculated, using default control efficiencies in conjunction with the average baseline concentrations for each unit and its corresponding controls. These calculations are presented in Table 9A.  This adjustment to represent uncontrolled units was unnecessary for small, remote units because none of these units currently have controls.  A comparison of the average uncontrolled emissions with NSPS limits and the subsequent controls chosen are presented in Tables 9B and 9C.

To cost out control and monitoring costs, defaults were determined based on subcategory averages for all cost inputs.  These default values are shown in Table 9D.  The same algorithms used to calculate controls and monitoring costs for existing units were used for new units.  It was assumed that 1 new incinerator would come into operation over the next five years, while 1 small, remote unit would come online each year for the next five years.  Table 9E shows the cost breakdown for each subcategory.  The capital cost for each new incinerator to comply was estimated at approximately $3.3 million, and the annual cost was estimated at approximately $788,000/yr.  For small remote units, capital cost was estimated at approximately $852,000 for each new unit to comply, with an associated annual cost of approximately $310,000/yr.

V. References

   1.    "CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for Reconsideration Proposal" Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  November 3, 2011.
   2.    "Reconsideration Proposal Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions Estimates for Existing CISWI Units" Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  November 20, 2011.
   3.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2000. OAQPS Control Cost Manual. Section 4.2: NOX Post Combustion. Chapter 1: Selective Noncatalytic Reduction. Publication Number EPA/452/B-02-001.
   4.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 2002. OAQPS Control Cost Manual. Section 6: Particulate Matter Controls. Chapter 2: Wet Scrubbers for Particulate Matter. Publication Number EPA/452/B-02-001.
   5.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1994. Medical Waste Incinerators--Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines: Model Plant Description and Cost Report for New and Existing Facilities. Publication Number EPA-453/R-94-045a. (Docket item no. II-A-112)
   6.    Memorandum from Thomas Holloway, Midwest Research Institute,  to Rick Copland, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 17, 1997. Revised Testing and Monitoring Options and Costs for Medical Waste Incinerators (MWI's) - Methodology and Assumptions.
   7.    Memorandum from Thomas Holloway, RTI, to Ketan Patel, EPA. July 6, 2009. Revised Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs for Existing HMIWI.
   8.    EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition EPA 452/B-02-001.
   9.    Dr. H.M. Eckerlin and E.W. Soderberg. Industrial Extension Service. USI Boiler Efficiency Program. A Report summarizing the finding and recommendations of an evaluation of Boilers in State-Owned Facilities. February 25, 2004. Accessed online at: http://www.energync.net/programs/docs/usi/om/boilers/ssr.pdf
   10.    IPM Model - Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies, Mercury Control Cost Development Methodology, March 2011, Project 12301-009, Sargent & Lundy LLC.
   11.    Appendix A. Tables for MACT Floor Cost Analyses
The tables referenced throughout the body of this memo are presented in this section. They are organized as follows:

1. 	Percent Improvement Required to Meet MACT Floor
    1A: 	Energy Recovery Units  -  Liquid/Gas
    1B: 	Energy Recovery Units  -  Solids
    1C:	Incinerators
    1D:	Small, Remote Units
    1E:	Waste-burning Kilns

2.	Costs to Meet MACT Floor
    2A: 	Energy Recovery Units  -  Liquid/Gas
    2B: 	Energy Recovery Units  -  Solids
    2C:	Incinerators
    2D:	Small, Remote Units
    2E:	Waste-burning Kilns

3.	Summary of MACT Compliance and Alternative Disposal Costs

4.	Input Parameters for Control Cost Algorithms

5.	Control Cost Algorithms
    5A:	Fabric Filter
    5B:   Detailed Fabric Filter Costs for Energy Recovery Units
    5C:	Packed-Bed Scrubber
    5D:	Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)
    5E:	Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) for Incinerators and Waste-Burning Kilns
    5F:	Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) for Energy Recovery Units
    5G:	Afterburner Retrofit for Incinerators
    5H:	Dry Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter (DIFF)
    5I:	Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO)
    5J:	Incremental Controls

6.	Stack Testing, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping Costs
    6A: 	Maintenance and Inspection
    6B:	Monitoring
    6C:	Stack Testing Costs
    6D:	Visible Emissions Testing
    6E:	Recordkeeping and Reporting

7.	Alternative Waste Disposal Algorithms
    7A:	Cost to Haul Waste to Landfill
    7B:	Cost to Haul Waste to Municipal Waste Combustor
    7C:	Cost to Segregate Wastes and Landfill for Small, Remote Units
    7D. 	Cost to Continue Incinerator Operation

8.	Cost Effectiveness of MACT Floors: Overall and by Subcategory

9. 	New Units: Cost to Meet MACT Floor

    9A:	Average Uncontrolled Incinerator Emissions
    9B:	Incinerator Emission Averages and Required Controls
    9C: 	Small Remote Unit Emission Averages and Required Controls
    9D:	Default Cost Algorithm Inputs
    9E:	Control and Monitoring Costs for New Units


[Federal Register: December 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 249)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 77042-77048]
[DOCID:fr29de05-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-8017-2]
RIN 2060-AK45

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjusting Allowances for Class
I Substances for Export to Article 5 Countries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes adjustments to allocations of Article 5
allowances that permit production of Class I ozone-depleting substances
(ODSs) solely for export to developing countries to meet those
countries' basic domestic needs. This action adjusts the baseline
Article 5 allowances for companies for specific Class I controlled
substances and establishes a schedule for reductions in the Article 5
allowances for these Class I controlled substances in accordance with
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol) and the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action also
extends the allocation of Article 5 allowances for the manufacture of
methyl bromide solely for export to developing countries beyond January
1, 2005, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol and the CAA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on December 29, 2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OAR-2004-0506. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room B102, 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 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 the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hodayah Finman, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric
Protection Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC, 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (202) 343-
2338<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also visit the EPA's Ozone
Depletion Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone for further information about

EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone
layer depletion, and other related topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action establishes a new Article 5
allowance baseline for specified Class I

substances, establishes a schedule for phased reductions in such
production, and extends the time allowed for Article 5 production for
methyl bromide. Article 5 allowances are solely for production to meet
the basic domestic needs of developing countries referred to in the
Protocol as ``Article V'' parties.
    Section 533(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.,
Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier
than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. This
final rule is issued under section 307(d) of the CAA, which states:
``The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of Title 5 shall not,
except as expressly provided in this subsection, apply to actions to
which this subsection applies.'' CAA section 307(d)(1). Thus, section
553(d) of the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA nevertheless is
acting consistently with the policies underlying APA section 553(d) in
making this rule effective on December 29, 2005. APA section 553(d)
provides an exception for any action that grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction. This final rule extends the grant
of an exemption from the phaseout of methyl bromide to producers of
this Class I ozone depleting substance (ODS) for the manufacture of
methyl bromide to meet the basic domestic needs of developing
countries. In addition, EPA finds that there is good cause to make the
new Article 5 allowances baselines and phased reduction schedules
effective without 30 days' prior notice. These new baselines and phased
reduction schedules will make EPA regulations consistent with the
adjustments to the Montreal Protocol agreed to at the Meeting of the
Parties in Beijing in 1999. Those adjustments are already in effect. In
addition, the new baselines and allowance allocations conform to
current industry levels of production for export. Therefore, producers
do not require advance notice to comply with today's regulatory
amendment.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Legislative and Regulatory Background of the Phaseout
Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances?
II. How Did the Beijing Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol Change
the Levels and Schedules of ODS Production To Meet the Basic
Domestic Needs of Developing Countries?
III. Today's Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order No. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order No. 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order No. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. What Is the Legislative and Regulatory Background of the Phaseout
Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances?

    The current regulatory requirements of the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program that limit production and consumption of ozone-
depleting substances can be found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. The
regulatory program was originally published in the Federal Register on
August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing and
subsequent ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). The U.S. was one of the original
signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the U.S. ratified the
Protocol on April 21, 1988. Congress then enacted, and President Bush
signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 1990),
which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as
42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United States
could satisfy its obligations under the Protocol. EPA issued
regulations to implement this legislation and has made several
amendments to the regulations since.
    The requirements contained in the final rules published in the
Federal Register on December 20, 1994 (59 FR 65478) and May 10, 1995
(60 FR 24970) establish an Allowance Program. The Allowance Program and
its history are described in the notice of proposed rulemaking
published in the Federal Register on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56276).
The control and the phaseout of the production and consumption of Class
I ODSs as required under the Protocol and the CAA are accomplished
through the Allowance Program.
    In developing the Allowance Program, we collected information on
the amounts of ODSs produced, imported, exported, transformed and
destroyed within the U.S. for specific baseline years for specific
chemicals. This information was used to establish the U.S. production
and consumption ceilings for these chemicals. The data were also used
to assign company-specific production and import rights to companies
that were in most cases producing or importing during the specific year
of data collection. These production or import rights are called
``allowances.'' During the complete phaseout of many ODSs, the
quantities of allowances granted to companies for those chemicals were
gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Production allowances and
consumption allowances no longer exist for any Class I ODSs. All
production and consumption of Class I controlled substances is
prohibited under the Protocol and the CAA, except for a few narrow
exemptions.
    In the context of the regulatory program, the use of the term
``consumption'' may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the
``use'' of a controlled substance, but rather is defined as the
formula: production + imports - exports, of controlled substances
(Article 1 of the Protocol and Section 601 of the CAA). Class I
controlled substances that were produced or imported through the
expenditure of allowances prior to their phaseout date may continue to
be used by industry and the public after that specific chemical's
phaseout except where the regulations include explicit use
restrictions. Use of such substances may be subject to other regulatory
limitations.
    The specific names and chemical formulas for the Class I ODSs are
in Appendix A and Appendix F in Subpart A of 40 CFR part 82. The
specific names and chemical formulas for the Class II ODSs are in
Appendix B and Appendix F in Subpart A.
    Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption
of Class I controlled substances, a very limited number of exemptions
exist, consistent with U.S. obligations under the Protocol. The
regulations allow for the production of phased-out Class I controlled
substances provided the substances are either transformed or destroyed.
They also allow limited production if the substances are (1) exported
to countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol or (2) produced
for essential or critical uses as authorized by the Protocol and the
regulations. Limited exceptions to the ban on the import of phased-out
Class I controlled substances exist if the substances are: (1)
Previously used, (2) imported for essential or critical uses as
authorized by the Protocol and the regulations, (3) imported for
destruction or transformation only, or (4) a transhipment or a heel (a
small amount of controlled substance remaining in a container after
discharge) (40 CFR 82.4).

II. How Did the Beijing Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol Change the
Levels and Schedules of ODS Production To Meet the Basic Domestic Needs
of Developing Countries?

    Under the Montreal Protocol, industrialized countries and
developing countries have different schedules for phasing out the
production and import of ODSs. Developing countries operating under
Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Protocol in most cases have additional
time in which to phase out ODSs. The Parties to the Protocol recognized
that it would be inadvisable for developing countries to spend their
scarce resources to build new ODS manufacturing facilities to meet
their basic domestic needs as industrialized countries phase out. The
Parties therefore decided to permit a small amount of production in
industrialized countries, above and beyond the amounts permitted under
those countries' phaseout schedules, to meet the basic domestic needs
of developing countries.
    The original Montreal Protocol schedule for industrialized country
production of ODSs to meet the basic domestic needs of developing
countries was based on a percentage of each producing country's
baseline. The initial level was set at 10 percent of the baseline and
this level changed to 15 percent upon phaseout of each specific ODS or
group of chemicals. EPA regulations prior to today's action reflect
this approach.
    The adjustments to the Montreal Protocol adopted by the Parties at
their 11th meeting in Beijing change the basis for calculating
production by industrialized countries to meet the basic domestic needs
of developing countries for specific ODSs or groups of ODSs. Instead of
being calculated as a percentage of total production of the ODS in a
given year, the new baselines for basic domestic need production are
calculated based on the average quantity of the ODS exported to Article
5 countries over a specified range of years. The new baseline
calculation agreed to in Beijing reflects the Parties' concern, which
EPA shares, that global oversupply of certain Class I ODSs is
interfering with the transition to alternatives. The oversupply of
these ODSs results in low prices that make it difficult for non-ozone-
depleting alternatives to compete in the marketplace. Businesses and
individuals thus lack an economic incentive to transition to
alternatives. The new baseline calculation is designed to overcome this
problem with respect to Article 5 countries by reducing supply to those
countries. The price of these ODSs should rise to reflect the decrease
in supply.
    The adjustments agreed to in Beijing also establish reduction
schedules for the manufacture of ODSs by industrialized countries to
meet the basic domestic needs of developing countries. Article 5
countries are subject to periodic step-downs in the amount of ODSs they
may consume. If industrialized countries' production for export to
Article 5 countries were not adjusted to take into account these step-
downs, the problem of oversupply likely would recur. Therefore, the
Parties agreed at Beijing to reduction schedules that would mirror each
step-down in Article 5 consumption. The schedules also reflect the
complete consumption phaseouts in Article 5 countries. Under these
schedules, industrialized countries must cease production for export to
developing countries of CFCs by January 1, 2010, and of methyl bromide
by January 1, 2015.
    To ensure consistency with the Montreal Protocol, EPA proposed to
adopt new baselines and reduction schedules at 40 CFR part 82, subpart
A (70 FR 55480). Under that proposed rule, the amount of ODSs that
could be produced to meet the basic domestic needs of developing
countries would be reduced by a certain percentage of the baseline in
accordance with the step-down schedule for Article 5 developing
countries for those chemicals until they are completely phased out. In
today's action, EPA is finalizing the proposed provisions described in
this paragraph.

III. Today's Action

    EPA published a proposed rule on September 21, 2005 in the Federal
Register (70 FR 55480) to amend regulations found at 40 CFR part 82 by
establishing new baselines for companies that manufacture Class I ODS
to meet the basic domestic needs of so-called ``Article 5'' developing
countries, issuing Article 5 allowances in accordance with the revised
baselines, and creating a phasedown schedule for these allowances to
reflect the phasedown schedules of developing countries as specified in
the Montreal Protocol and the Adjustment adopted at the 11th Meeting of
the Parties in Beijing.
    Specifically, EPA proposed new baselines for the CFCs subject to
the earliest controls on production and import, other halogenated CFCs,
and methyl bromide to reflect changes to the Montreal Protocol. As a
result of the Beijing Adjustments to the Protocol, Article 2A,
paragraphs 4-7 state that an industrialized Party's allowable
production of CFCs 11, 12, 113, 114, and 115, referred to under the
Clean Air Act as Class I, Group I substances, to meet the basic
domestic needs of Article 5 Parties shall be measured against ``the
annual average of its production of [these substances] for basic
domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1997 inclusive.''
    In regard to other halogenated CFCs, referred to in the Clean Air
Act as Class I, Group III ODS, the Beijing Adjustments state that the
new baseline for Article 5 production should be ``the annual average of
its production of [these substances] for basic domestic needs for the
period 1998-2000 inclusive.''
    EPA proposed using more recent export data from the years 2000-2003
to establish the baselines for these two groups of chemicals. The
Agency believes that the use of more recent export data represents a
truer picture of the actual basic domestic needs for these chemicals in
developing countries and addresses the concerns regarding oversupply of
CFCs as discussed in section I of this preamble.
    EPA would like to note that for Class I, Group III substances the
new baseline years provide the U.S. with a baseline that is nearly
zero. Since the baseline for Class I, Group III substances is
negligible, EPA proposed a baseline of zero for these substances.
    In addition to proposing new baselines, EPA also proposed phasedown
schedules for Article 5 allowances consistent with the schedule set
forth in the Beijing adjustments to the Montreal Protocol. While the
baseline proposed by EPA was different, and more stringent, than the
baselines agreed to in the Beijing adjustment for CFCs, the phasedown
schedule proposed by the Agency followed the Beijing adjustment
exactly. Hence, the proposed Article 5 allowance reduction schedule for
production of the Class I, Group I controlled substances was as
follows: 50% of the Article 5 allowance baseline for the 2006 control
period; 15% of baseline for each of the control periods from January 1,
2007, to December 31, 2009; and 0% (complete phaseout) for the control
periods beginning January 1, 2010, and thereafter.
    The proposed Article 5 allowance reduction schedule for production
of the Class I, Group III controlled substances was 80% of baseline for
the 2006 control period; 15% of baseline for each of the control
periods from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009; and 0% (complete
phaseout) for the control periods beginning January 1, 2010 and
thereafter. However, under EPA's preferred option of a zero baseline
based

on 2000-2003 data, this reduction schedule would be unnecessary.
    In regard to methyl bromide production for the basic domestic needs
of developing countries, EPA proposed establishing the same baseline
and the same phasedown schedule as that agreed to under the Beijing
adjustments. The Beijing adjustments state that a country's baseline
for Article 5 production of methyl bromide is ``the annual average of
its production of [methyl bromide] for basic domestic needs for the
period 1995 to 1998 inclusive.'' The reduction schedule for the
production of methyl bromide (Class I, Group VI controlled substances)
proposed by EPA is 80% of the Article 5 allowance baseline for each of
the control periods from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014; 0%
(complete phaseout) starting January 1, 2015 and thereafter.
    As noted in the proposal, Article 5 production for Class I Group IV
and Group V chemicals was not altered under the Beijing Amendments and
EPA did not propose to take any action to change the baselines or
reduction schedules for these substances.
    EPA did not receive any comments on the proposed revisions to the
baselines or reduction schedules for Article 5 allowances. Nor did EPA
receive any comments on extending the availability of Article V
allowances for methyl bromide. Therefore, with today's action, EPA is
finalizing the amendments to the Agency's regulations as proposed. The
revised baseline and the percentage of baseline allocated in each
control period beginning with 2006 are located in section 82.11 of the
regulations.

IV. 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 OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant'' regulatory action
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined
by OMB and EPA that this final action is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not
subject to OMB review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final action does not add any information collection
requirements or increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The OMB has previously approved
the information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations, 40 CFR part 82, under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0170, EPA ICR number 1432. A copy of the OMB-approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby,
Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is identified by the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code in the Table
below; (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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SIC small
                                                                                business size
                        Category                             NAICS Code          SIC Code        standard  (in
                                                                                number of
                                                                                employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chemical and Allied Products, NEC...................             424690               5169                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities, as
it regulates large corporations that produce Class I ODSs. There are no
small entities in this regulated industry.

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 EPA may promulgate a 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 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 under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Further, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
does not impose any requirements on any State, local, or tribal
government.

E. Executive Order No. 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 final 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 is expected to
primarily affect producers and exporters of CFCs and methyl bromide.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order No. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order No. 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 final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order No. 13175. Today's
final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. The final rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order No. 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health 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''
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety
risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect
on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency
must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
    While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 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 methyl bromide phaseout date for Article 5 countries is 2015
and allowing continuing U.S. production to meet such countries' basic
domestic needs avoids the need for those countries to install new ODS
manufacturing facilities. The effect of extending the availability of
Article 5 allowances for methyl bromide should be that methyl bromide
that would otherwise be produced at new facilities in developing
countries will instead be produced in the U.S. for export to those
countries. The amount of methyl bromide that will be released to the
atmosphere should remain the same regardless of the manufacturing
location. In addition, avoiding the installation of new capacity is one
means of ensuring that production levels continue to decline. Thus,
this rule is not expected to increase the impacts on children's health
from stratospheric ozone depletion.

H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order No. 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 Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on December 29, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Ozone, Production,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: December 22, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
40 CFR Part 82 is amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 82.3 is amended by revising the entry for ``Article 5
allowance'' to read as follows:

Sec.  82.3  Definitions for class I and class controlled substances.

* * * * *
    Article 5 allowances means the allowances apportioned under Sec.
82.9(a), Sec.  82.11(a)(2), and Sec.  82.18(a).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 82.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (h) to
read as follows:

Sec.  82.4  Prohibitions for class I controlled substances.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) Effective January 1, 1996, for any Class I, Group I, Group
II, Group III, Group IV, Group V or Group VII controlled substances,
and effective January 1, 2005 for any Class I, Group VI controlled
substances, and effective August 18, 2003, for any Class I, Group VIII
controlled substance, no person may produce, at any time in any control
period (except that are transformed or destroyed domestically or by a
person of another Party) in excess of the amount of conferred
unexpended essential use allowances or exemptions, or in excess of the
amount of unexpended critical use allowances, or in excess of the
amount of unexpended Article 5 allowances as allocated under Sec.  82.9
and Sec.  82.11, as may be modified under Sec.  82.12 (transfer of
allowances) for that substance held by that person under the authority
of this subpart at that time for that control period. Every kilogram of
excess production constitutes a separate violation of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (h) No person may sell in the U.S. any Class I controlled substance
produced explicitly for export to an Article 5 country.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 82.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  82.9  Availability of production allowances in addition to
baseline production allowances for Class I controlled substances.

    (a) * * *
    (4) 15 percent of their baseline production allowances for Class I,
Group IV and Group V controlled substances listed under Sec.  82.5 of
this subpart for each control period beginning January 1, 1996 until
January 1, 2010;
* * * * *

0
5. Section 82.11 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and adding a new paragraph (a)(2) and (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  82.11  Exports of Class I controlled substances to Article 5
Parties.

    (a) If apportioned Article 5 allowances under Sec.  82.9(a) or
Sec.  82.11(a)(2), a person may produce Class I controlled substances,
in accordance with the prohibitions in Sec.  82.4 and the reduction
schedule in Sec.  82.11(a)(3), to be exported (not including exports
resulting in transformation or destruction, or exports of used
controlled substances) to foreign states listed in appendix E to this
subpart (Article 5 countries).
* * * * *
    (2) Persons who reported exports of Class I, Group I controlled
substances to Article 5 countries in 2000-2003 are apportioned baseline
Article 5 allowances as set forth in Sec.  82.11(a)(2)(i). Persons who
reported exports of Class I, Group VI controlled substances to Article
5 countries in 1995-1998 are apportioned baseline Article 5 allowances
as set forth in Sec.  82.11(a)(2)(ii)).
(i) For Group I Controlled Substances

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Allowances
        Controlled Substance                 Person              (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11.............................  Honeywell.............        7,150
                                     Sigma Aldrich.........            1
CFC-113............................  Fisher Scientific.....            5
                                     Honeywell.............      313,686
                                     Sigma Aldrich.........           48
CFC-114............................  Honeywell.............       24,798
                                     Sigma Aldrich.........            1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) For Group VI Controlled Substances

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Allowances
        Controlled Substance                 Person              (kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methyl Bromide.....................  Albemarle.............    1,152,714
                                     Ameribrom.............      176,903
                                     Great Lakes Chemical      3,825,846
                                      Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Phased Reduction Schedule for Article 5 Allowances allocated in
Sec.  82.11. For each control period specified in the following table,
each person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline Article
5 allowances apportioned under Sec.  82.11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Class I      Class I
                                                 substances   substances
                Control Period                   in group I  in group VI
                                                    (In           (In
                                                  percent)     percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006..........................................           50           80
2007..........................................           15           80
2008..........................................           15           80
2009..........................................           15           80

2010..........................................            0           80
2011..........................................            0           80
2012..........................................            0           80
2013..........................................            0           80
2014..........................................            0           80
2015..........................................            0            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05-24606 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P