ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

42 U.S.C. § 7671o — Transfers among Parties to Montreal Protocol

submitted 71 years ago by Pub. L. 101-549 to r/title-42-THE-PUBLIC-HEALTH-AND-WELFARE · 292 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

The United States can trade ozone-depleting-substance production allowances with other Montreal Protocol countries, as long as total production limits still shrink to match. The EPA sets the rules for how these transfers work.

(a) In general: (1) The United States may transfer (give away) production allowances to another Protocol country only if, at the same time, the EPA revises the United States' own production limits so that total U.S. production still equals whichever is smallest of: (A) the Protocol's maximum for that substance that year, minus the amount transferred; (B) U.S. law's maximum for that substance that year, minus the amount transferred; or (C) the average of the U.S.'s actual production over the prior 3 years, minus the amount transferred. (2) The United States may acquire (receive) production allowances from another country only if the EPA finds that country lowered its own domestic production limits the same way.

(b) Effect of transfers on production limits: The EPA may lower the production limits set under this chapter as needed for a transfer under (a)(1), or raise them to reflect allowances acquired under (a)(2).

(c) Regulations: The EPA had to write rules to carry out this section within 2 years of November 15, 1990.

(d) "Applicable domestic law" defined: For the United States, this term means this chapter.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a) In general

Consistent with the Montreal Protocol, the United States may engage in transfers with other Parties to the Protocol under the following conditions:

(1)

The United States may transfer production allowances to another Party if, at the time of such transfer, the Administrator establishes revised production limits for the United States such that the aggregate national United States production permitted under the revised production limits equals the lesser of (A) the maximum production level permitted for the substance or substances concerned in the transfer year under the Protocol minus the production allowances transferred, (B) the maximum production level permitted for the substance or substances concerned in the transfer year under applicable domestic law minus the production allowances transferred, or (C) the average of the actual national production level of the substance or substances concerned for the 3 years prior to the transfer minus the production allowances transferred.

(2)

The United States may acquire production allowances from another Party if, at the time of such transfer, the Administrator finds that the other Party has revised its domestic production limits in the same manner as provided with respect to transfers by the United States in this subsection.

(b) Effect of transfers on production limits

The Administrator is authorized to reduce the production limits established under this chapter as required as a prerequisite to transfers under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) or to increase production limits established under this chapter to reflect production allowances acquired under a transfer under paragraph (2) of subsection (a).

(c) Regulations

The Administrator shall promulgate, within 2 years after November 15, 1990, regulations to implement this section.

(d) “Applicable domestic law” defined

In the case of the United States, the term “applicable domestic law” means this chapter.

Source credit: (July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title VI, § 616, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title VI, § 602(a), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2669.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1955Enacted · Pub. L. 101-549 · 104 Stat. 2669

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 101-549 on 1955-07-14.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case