[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25743]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 18, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5092-7]

 

Nominations for Exemptions to the Production and Import Phaseout 
of Ozone Depleting Substances for Uses Satisfying the Montreal Protocol 
``Essential Use'' Criteria

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
is requesting applications for consideration at the Seventh Meeting of 
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to be held in late 1995 for 
exemptions to the production and import phase-out for ozone-depleting 
substances including halons in 1996 and subsequent years, and for all 
other Class I substances for production in 1997 and subsequent years 
(including CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, CFC-13, CFC-111, 
CFC-112, CFC-211, CFC-212, CFC-213, CFC-214, CFC-215, CFC-216, CFC-217, 
Carbon Tetrachloride, and Methyl Chloroform).
    Nominations for essential use exemptions for production in 1996 for 
Class I substances other than halon were solicited in a previous 
Federal Register Notice (58 FR 29410; May 20, 1993) and recommendations 
by the Montreal Protocol Technology and Economics Assessment Panel have 
been forwarded to the Parties for consideration at the Sixth Meeting of 
the Parties, to be held October 3-5, 1994. Therefore no additional 
applications for essential uses for these Class I substances in 1996 
will be considered in this data call. The results of the previous 
solicitations and subsequent actions taken by the Protocol Parties are 
described in this Notice.

DATES: Applications for essential use exemptions eligible for 
consideration at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties must be submitted 
to EPA no later than 45 days after date of publication of this notice 
in order for the U.S. government to complete its review and to submit 
its nominations to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and 
the Protocol Parties by January 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Karen Metchis, Program Manager; Essential Use Exemptions; 
Mail Stop 6205J; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, 
S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Metchis, Substitutes Analysis 
and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), Office of 
Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460; Phone (202) 233-9193; FAX (202) 233-9579. 
General information may be obtained from the Stratospheric Ozone 
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 or (202) 775-6677.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background--The Essential Use Nomination Process
II. Summary of Actions to Date
III. Request for Applications for Production of Halons in 1996, and 
of All Class I Substances in 1997 and Subsequent Years

I. Background--The Essential Use Nomination Process

    As described in previous Federal Register notices, the Parties to 
the Montreal Protocol on Substitutes that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the 
Parties) agreed during the Fourth Meeting in Copenhagen on November 23-
25, 1992, to accelerate the phase-out schedules for Class I ozone-
depleting substances. Specifically, the Parties agreed to phase out the 
production of halons by January 1, 1994 and the production of other 
Class I substances, except Methyl Bromide, by January 1, 1996. The 
Parties also took decisions and adopted resolutions on a variety of 
other matters, including the criteria to be used for allowing 
``essential use'' exemptions from the phase out of production and 
importation of controlled substances for uses considered essential. 
Language regarding essential uses was added to the Protocol provisions 
in Article 2 governing the control measures. Decision IV/25 of the 
Fourth Meeting of the Protocol details the specific criteria and review 
process for granting essential use exemptions. The Parties recognized 
the importance of including such an exemption because of the 
accelerated phaseout dates for these chemicals.
    At the Fifth Meeting of the Parties held on November 17-19, 1993 in 
Bangkok, the Parties modified the timetable for the nomination of 
essential uses for all controlled substances. Pursuant to Decision V/
18, Parties may nominate production of a controlled substance for uses 
meeting the essential use criteria by January 1 of each year. Decisions 
on such nominations will be taken by the Parties in that year in which 
the nomination is made for production in any subsequent year. In 
accordance with this new timetable, the UNEP Montreal Protocol 
Technology and Economics Assessment Panel (the Panel) and its relevant 
Technical Options Committees will review and develop recommendations on 
the nominations and submit their report to the Protocol Parties.
    Nominations can be for production in any year after the date on 
which the substance is phased out and can be for more than one calendar 
year. For example, a nomination could be submitted by January 1, 1995 
for a halon essential use Decision at the Meeting of the Parties in 
late 1995 to allow for production of halons beginning in 1996. If 
adequate supplies of halons were available for 1996, but thought to be 
unavailable beginning in 1997, an application in 1995 could request the 
production exemption for 1997. The Parties may choose to grant the 
production exemption for one or more of the nominated years, but each 
approved or pending application can be reconsidered and modified by the 
Parties at their annual meetings. In cases where companies believe they 
have a use meeting the essential use criteria but where an adequate 
supply of the controlled substance is currently available, an 
application generally need not be made at this time. Applications for 
these uses may be made at a later date for consideration at subsequent 
meetings of the Parties, and EPA intends to solicit applications 
annually. Thus, the process permits, but does not require, that 
applications for essential uses for future years may be made prior to 
those years to facilitate planning.
    In establishing these essential uses exemptions, the Parties set 
out criteria to apply to identify eligible essential uses and 
established a process for the Parties to decide which uses would 
qualify under this provision. Decision IV/25 states that ``a use of a 
controlled substance should qualify as essential only if: (i) It is 
necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of 
society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects); and (ii) 
there are no available technically and economically feasible 
alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of 
environment and health''. In addition, the Parties agreed ``that 
production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance, for 
essential uses should be permitted only if: (i) All economically 
feasible steps have been taken to minimize the essential use and any 
associated emission of the controlled substance; and (ii) the 
controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity and 
quality from the existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled 
substances.''
    Any essential use exemptions would also have to comply with the 
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 604 authorizes the 
granting of specific exemptions from the phaseout schedules contained 
in the Clean Air Act. Specific to halons, it allows exemptions for 
aviation safety [section 604(d)(3)], national security [section 
604(f)], and fire suppression and explosion prevention [section 
604(g)]. Other exemptions specified in section 604 include essential 
uses of methyl chloroform [section 604(d)(1)]; uses of Class I 
substances in medical devices [section 604(d)(2)]; and uses of CFC-114 
for national security [section 604(f)]. To the extent that an 
accelerated phaseout schedule has been adopted under the Montreal 
Protocol, EPA can legally provide exemptions for uses not specified in 
the CAA, so long as these exemptions do not exceed the time limits 
allowed in the production reduction schedule contained in section 
604(a). Since section 604(b) specifies the phaseout date for Class I 
substances as 2000 (2002 for methyl chloroform), that section 
effectively limits the authority of EPA to provide essential use 
exemptions for periods after the CAA's production termination dates, 
other than for the specific exemptions authorized by section 604.
    The first step in the process to qualify a use as essential under 
the Protocol is for the user to carefully consider whether the use of 
the controlled substance meets the Protocol criteria. If the user 
believes that it does, the user should notify EPA of the candidate use 
and provide sufficient information for EPA and the Protocol Parties to 
evaluate that use for consistency with the criteria adopted by the 
Parties in Copenhagen. The Panel has issued a handbook entitled 
``Handbook on Essential Use Nominations,'' available from EPA, to guide 
applicants. EPA will review the candidate for exemption and will work 
with other interested federal agencies to determine whether or not it 
should be submitted to the Ozone Secretariat for further consideration. 
Nominations submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the U.S. or other 
Parties will then be directed to the Panel and its Technical Options 
Committees which will review submissions and prepare recommendations to 
the Parties for exemptions. The Panel will review these nominations to 
determine whether the eligibility criteria have been satisfied and will 
examine the expected duration of the essential use, emission controls 
for the essential use application, sources of already produced 
controlled substances that are available to meet the essential use, and 
the steps necessary to ensure that alternatives and substitutes are 
available as soon as possible for the proposed essential use. The 
Parties also instructed the Panel to consider the environmental 
acceptability, health effects, economic feasibility, availability and 
regulatory status of alternatives and substitutes. The Panel's 
recommendations are then considered by the Parties who subsequently 
take final action on each proposed nomination. If the Parties decide 
that a specified use of a controlled substance is essential, EPA will 
propose regulatory changes to reflect decisions by the Parties 
consistent with the CAA.
    If a user of the controlled substance determines that other 
alternatives are not feasible and that sources of future supply do not 
exist, the user should prepare and submit to EPA an essential use 
application as described below.

II. Summary of Actions to Date

    The initial cycle of implementing the essential use Decision has 
been completed in the context of halons which were phased out of 
production at the end of 1993. EPA issued a Federal Register notice 
requesting nominations for essential uses of halons (February 2, 1993; 
58 FR 6786). In response, the Agency received over ten nominations, but 
was able to work with applicants to resolve their near-term 
requirements. As a result, the U.S. did not nominate any uses for 
continued halon production in 1994. About a dozen other nations 
submitted nominations which were reviewed by the Technical and 
Economics Assessment Panel. Because the Panel determined that in each 
case alternatives existed or that the existing supply of banked halons 
was adequate to meet near-term needs, it did not recommend approval of 
any of the nominations. In November of 1993, at the Fifth Meeting, the 
Parties unanimously adopted the recommendation of the Panel not to 
approve any essential uses for the production or consumption of halons 
in 1994.
    EPA issued a second notice for essential use nominations for halons 
on October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53722). These nominations covered possible 
production of halons in 1995 for essential uses. In response to this 
inquiry, EPA received no nominations.
    Only one nomination (from France) was received by the Panel for 
production and consumption of halons for an essential use in 1995. The 
Panel did not recommend approval of this nomination.
    EPA also issued a Federal Register notice requesting nominations 
for essential use applications which would need to continue beyond the 
1996 phaseout of consumption and production allowances for CFCs, methyl 
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and hydrobromofluorocarbons (May 20, 
1993, 58 FR 29410). EPA received 20 applications in response to this 
notice. For several of these applications, EPA determined that the 
criteria contained in Decision IV/25 had not been satisfied. For 
example, two applications sought CFCs for servicing existing air-
conditioning equipment. EPA rejected these applications on the basis 
that if all economically feasible steps were taken prior to the 1996 
phaseout, then a combination of retrofits and existing supplies of 
banked and recycled CFCs would be adequate to meet near term 
requirements. However, in rejecting these nominations, the United 
States noted that servicing existing air-conditioning and refrigeration 
remains a major challenge to the successful transition from the use of 
CFCs and that a future nomination in this area might be necessary if a 
combination of retrofits, replacements, recycling, recovery at 
disposal, and banking do not adequately address these needs.
    Of the responses to the Federal Register request for essential use 
applications, the United States submitted essential use nominations to 
the Protocol (letter from Pomerance to UNEP, September 27, 1993) for 
the following uses of CFCs:
     metered dose inhalers and other selected medical 
applications;
     a bonding agent for the Space Shuttle;
     aerosol wasp killers;
     limited use in a specified bonding agent and polymer 
application; and
     a generic application for laboratory uses under specified 
limitations.
    Nominations from the U.S. and other countries for over 200 specific 
uses were submitted to the Montreal Protocol Secretariat and provided 
to the Technical and Economics Assessment Panel for review. In March 
1994, the Panel issued the ``1994 Report of the Technology and Economic 
Assessment Panel.'' The Report includes the Panel's recommendations for 
essential-use production and consumption exemptions. The Panel 
recommended that essential use exemptions be granted for nominations 
of:
     methyl chloroform in solvent bonding of the Space Shuttle;
     CFCs used in metered dose inhalers; and
     specific controlled substances needed for laboratory and 
analytical applications.
    For each of the other nominations submitted, the Panel determined 
that one or more of the criteria for evaluating an essential use had 
not been satisfied. For example, in the case of several of the U.S. 
nominations, the Report states that alternatives are available and 
therefore the essential use exemption is not warranted.
    The next meeting of the Parties is scheduled for October 1994. At 
that session the Parties will review the following recommendations by 
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and make final decisions 
on this round of essential use nominations.

    Essential Uses Recommendation by the UNEP Technology and Economic   
                            Assessment Panel                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Company            Year          Chemical          (Metric tons)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Metered Dose Inhalers                         
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International               1996  CFC-11............  749.8             
 Pharmaceutical &                                                       
 Aerosol Consortium.                                                    
                                  CFC-12............  2353.2            
                                  CFC-114...........  314.1             
                            1997  CFC-11............  658.3             
                                  CFC-12............  2166.5            
                                  CFC-114...........  311.4             
Sterling Winthrop..         1996  CFC-12............  10.2              
                                  CFC-114...........  29.6              
                            1997  CFC-12............  10.5              
                                  CFC-114...........  31.7              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Space Shuttle Solvent                         
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA/Thiokol.......         1996  Methyl Chloroform.  56.8              
                            1997  Methyl Chloroform.  56.8              
                            1998  Methyl Chloroform.  56.8              
                            1999  Methyl Chloroform.  56.8              
                            2000  Methyl Chloroform.  56.8              
                            2001  Methyl Chloroform.  56.8              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Laboratory and Analytical Applications                 
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Exemption...         1996  CFCs, Methyl        No quantity       
                                   Chloroform,         specified.       
                                   Carbon                               
                                   Tetrachloride.                       
                            1997  CFCs, Methyl        No quantity       
                                   Chloroform,         specified.       
                                   Carbon                               
                                   Tetrachloride.                       
                            1998  CFCs, Methyl        No quantity       
                                   Chloroform,         specified.       
                                   Carbon                               
                                   Tetrachloride.                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The nomination for essential uses in 1996, 1997 and 1998 of CFCs, 
methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride in laboratory and analytical 
applications is being recommended by the Technology and Economic 
Assessment Panel for a global exemption which will not specify the 
quantity granted to each Party. The Panel describes the many analytical 
and laboratory procedures for which small quantities of controlled 
substances are now used and for which applications were received, such 
as: equipment calibration; extraction solvents, diluents, or carriers 
for specific chemical analyses; inducing chemical-specific health 
effects for biochemical research; and other critical purposes in 
research and development where substitutes are not readily available or 
where standards set by national and international agencies require 
specific use of a controlled substance. The Panel recommendation for a 
global exemption pertains only to 1996, 1997 and 1998 and refers to the 
manufacture of CFCs, methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride of very 
high purity to be packaged in small containers.
    EPA will be issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 
near future which will propose to use the applications that are agreed 
to by the Parties to make specific allocations of essential-use 
allowances. Although the Panel has received applications for essential-
use exemptions beyond 1997, as described in today's Notice, EPA's 
upcoming NPRM will only include those recommendations by the Panel for 
1996 and 1997. Future Rulemakings will address Decisions taken by the 
Parties for exemptions beyond 1997. Final essential-use allowances 
promulgated by EPA may not exceed the exemptions adopted by the 
Parties.

III. Request for Applications for Production of Halons in 1996, and of 
all Class I Substances in 1997 and Subsequent Years

    Through this Notice, EPA requests applications for essential use 
exemptions for halons for production in 1996 or after. Eligible 
applications will be nominated to the Secretariat for consideration at 
the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to be held in September, 1995 or 
later. Applications for essential use exemptions for halon should be 
submitted to EPA no later than 45 days after the date of publication of 
this notice to allow time for a review of the information before the 
deadline for submitting nominations to the Secretariat.
    Nominations for exemptions for production in 1996 of other Class I 
substances have previously been considered, and thus may not be 
submitted for consideration at this time (58 FR 29410; May 20, 1993). 
However, applications for other Class I substances for essential use 
production in 1997 or beyond may be submitted at this time for 
consideration in 1995.
    As described previously, the Parties established criteria to apply 
to identifying essential uses and a process to decide which uses would 
qualify under Decision IV/25. The Decision states that ``a use of a 
controlled substance should qualify as essential only if: (i) It is 
necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of 
society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects); and (ii) 
there are no available technically and economically feasible 
alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of 
environment and health.'' In addition, the Parties agreed ``that 
production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance, for 
essential uses should be permitted only if: all economically feasible 
steps have been taken to minimize the essential use and any associated 
emission of the controlled substance; and the controlled substance is 
not available in sufficient quantity and quality from the existing 
stocks of banked or recycled controlled substances.'' When submitting a 
nomination to the Secretariat, the U.S. must be able to demonstrate 
that the proposed applicants meet these criteria. The burden of proof 
is on the nominating country, and applications failing to prove that 
these criteria have been met will be rejected by the Parties. Thus, it 
is incumbent upon applicants to ensure that all applications are 
supported by complete and detailed documentation including the types of 
information outlined in the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations to 
allow EPA to determine whether to submit the applications as 
nominations, and to allow EPA to present a strong and credible case 
before the Parties and the recommending Panel.
    All requests for nominations submitted to EPA must present the 
following information in the manner prescribed in the Panel Handbook. 
EPA will not forward incomplete or inadequate nominations to the 
Montreal Protocol Secretariat for consideration, and therefore 
recommends that applicants make every effort to provide the requested 
information. Applicants should contact the Essential Use Program 
Manager to obtain a copy of the Handbook on Essential Use Nominations, 
prepared by the Panel, for guidance on preparing nominations. As noted 
in that book, nominations should, at a minimum:
    (1) Provide details of the type, quantity and quality of the 
controlled substance that is requested to satisfy the use that is the 
subject of the nomination. Indicate the period of time and the annual 
quantities of the controlled substance that is requested.
    (2) Provide a detailed description of the use.
    (3) Explain why this use is necessary for health and/or safety, or 
why it is critical for the functioning of society.
    (4) Explain what other alternatives and substitutes have been 
employed to reduce the dependency on the controlled substance for this 
application.
    (5) Explain what alternatives were investigated and why they were 
not considered adequate (technically, economically or legally).
    (6) Describe the measures that are proposed to eliminate all 
unnecessary emissions. At a minimum, this explanation should include 
design considerations and maintenance procedures.
    (7) Explain what efforts are being undertaken to employ other 
measures for this application in the future.
    (8) Explain whether the nomination is being made because national 
or international regulations require use of the controlled substance to 
achieve compliance. Provide full documentation including the name, 
address, phone and fax number of the regulatory authority requiring use 
of the controlled substance and provide a full copy or summary of the 
regulations. Explain what efforts are being made to change such 
regulations or to achieve acceptance on the basis of alternative 
measures that would satisfy the intent of the requirement.
    (9) Describe the efforts that have been made to acquire stockpiled 
or recycled controlled substance for this application both from within 
your nation and internationally. Explain what efforts have been made to 
establish banks for the controlled substance.
    (10) Briefly state any other barriers encountered in attempts to 
eliminate the use of the controlled substance for this application.
    (11) Demonstrate consistency with CAA provisions on essential uses.
    All nominations should be sent to: Karen Metchis, Program Manager, 
Essential Use Exemptions, Mail Stop 6205J, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC 20460, FAX: (202) 233-9579, Phone: (202) 233-
9193.
    EPA will work with submitters, other interested federal agencies, 
and outside experts to review this information and forward nominations 
to the Protocol's Secretariat for consideration as appropriate and 
consistent with any CAA limitations.

    Dated: October 4, 1994.
Robert D. Brenner,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 94-25743 Filed 10-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P