[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54349-54352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26203]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5318-2]
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 Eighth Meeting of
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to be held in late 1996 for
exemptions to the production and import phase-out for ozone-depleting
substances in 1997 and subsequent years (including halons, 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 or
importation in 1996 and beyond for Class I substances were solicited in
previous Federal Register Notices (58 FR 29410, May 20, 1993; 59 FR
52544, October 18, 1994) and recommendations by the Montreal Protocol
Technology and Economics Assessment Panel have been forwarded to the
Parties for consideration at the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, to be
held December 5-7, 1995. 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 Eighth Meeting of the Parties must be submitted to
EPA no later than 30 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, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Karen Metchis, Program Manager; Essential Use Exemptions;
Mail Stop 6205J; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street
SW.; 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
SW., Washington, D.C. 20460; Phone (202) 233-9193; FAX (202) 233-9577.
General information may be obtained from the Stratospheric Ozone
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 or (202) 775-6677.
[[Page 54350]]
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 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 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 subsequent years. 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 may be for production or importation in any year after
the date on which the substance is phased out and may be for more than
one calendar year. For example, a nomination could be submitted by
January 1, 1996 for a halon essential use Decision at the Meeting of
the Parties in late 1996 to allow for production of halons beginning in
1997. If adequate supplies of halons were available for 1997, but
thought to be unavailable beginning in 1998, an application in 1996
could request the essential use exemption for production or importation
in 1998. The Parties may choose to grant the exemption for one or more
of the nominated years, but each approved or pending application may be
reconsidered and modified by the Parties at their annual meetings. In
cases where companies believe they have a use that meets 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, applications for essential uses for future years to facilitate
planning.
In establishing these essential uses exemptions, the Parties set
out criteria 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 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 United Nations 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
[[Page 54351]]
reflect decisions by the Parties consistent with the CAA.
If a user of the controlled substance determines that it has a use
that meets the essential use criteria discussed above, the user should
prepare and submit to EPA an essential use application as described
below.
II. Summary of Actions to Date
EPA issued the following Federal Register notices requesting
nominations for essential uses of halons and other Class I substances:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of
Substance production FR notice Meeting
-------------------------------------------\1\------------------------------------------------------------------
Halons.............................. 1994 February 2, 1993, 58 FR 6786 1993--Fifth.
All other class I substances........ 1996 May 20, 1993, 58 FR 29410... 1993--Fifth.
Halons.............................. 1995 October 18, 1993, 58 FR 1994--Sixth.
53722.
Halons other class I substances..... 1995 October 18, 1994, 59 FR 1995--Seventh.
1997 52544.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And subsequent years.
Two cycles implementing the essential use Decision have been
completed, and the third will soon be completed when the Parties meet
in December, 1995. To date, the Parties to the Protocol have granted
essential use exemptions only for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 for use in
metered dose inhalers (MDIs); methyl chloroform for use as a solvent on
the Space Shuttle; and a global exemption for CFCs, methyl chloroform
and carbon tetrachloride in laboratory uses under specified
limitations. No exemptions have been granted for halons. A more
detailed description of actions taken at the Fifth and Sixth meetings
can be found in a prior Federal Register notice (59 FR 52544, October
18, 1994). EPA subsequently allocated the essential uses allowances
approved by the Parties for the United States (60 FR 24970, May 10,
1995).
In response to the October 18, 1994 Federal Register notice (59 FR
52544) requesting nominations for production of CFCs and halons in 1996
and beyond, EPA received 24 applications. EPA worked with candidates to
ensure applications met the criteria set forth by the Parties.
Subsequently, the United States submitted the five nominations to the
Ozone Secretariat for consideration at the Seventh Meeting. The
nominations were for:
An adjustment to a previously granted exemption for CFC-11
and CFC-12 for use in metered dose inhalers (MDI), 1996 and 1997;
CFC-12 and CFC-114 for MDI treatment of rhinitis, 1996 and
1997;
CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 for generic MDIs, 1996 and
1997;
Methyl chloroform for use as a solvent on the NASA Space
Shuttle, 1996-2001; and
Methyl chloroform for use as a solvent on the Air Force
Titan Upgraded Solid Rocket Motor, 1996-2001.
Total Essential Use Requests Submitted by the United States
[Metric tonnes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11.......................... 328 331 ........... ........... ........... ...........
CFC-12.......................... 432 437.2 ........... ........... ........... ...........
CFC-114......................... 19 43.7 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Methyl Chloroform............... 0.29 0.37 57 56.99 56.87 56.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominations from the U.S. and other countries were submitted to the
Montreal Protocol Secretariat and provided to the Technical and
Economics Assessment Panel for review. In March 1995, the Panel issued
the ``Supplement to the 1994 Assessments'' containing the ``Report of
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.'' The Report includes the
Panel's recommendations for essential-use production and consumption
exemptions. The Panel made the following recommendations for
consideration by the Parties:
Methyl chloroform in specific cleaning, bonding and
surface activation applications in rocket motor manufacturing for the
U.S. Space Shuttle and Titan;
Halon 2402 to be used in the Russian Federation for
special hazards fire protection;
For Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs) for Asthma and Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (but not for general nasal use)
nominations, the Panel endorses the overall recommendation to grant
necessary quantities while avoiding the possibility of over-supply;
Specific controlled substances needed for laboratory and
analytical applications.
The Panel was unable to recommend the nomination of Poland for CFCs
for servicing of refrigeration equipment.
The Seventh Meeting of the Parties is scheduled for December 5-7,
1995. At that session the Parties will review the recommendations by
the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and make final decisions
on this round of essential use nominations.
Once the Parties have taken a decision on this year's nominations,
EPA will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to propose to
grant the exemptions under the Clean Air Act and to make specific
allocations of the essential-use allowances. Despite the predisposition
of the Parties to consider nominations only for two year windows, the
EPA is still requesting that applications include projections of
potential future needs in order to help us plan for future nominations.
Final essential-use allowances promulgated by EPA may not exceed the
exemptions adopted by the Parties.
III. Request for Applications for Production of All Class I Substances
in 1997 and Subsequent Years
Through this Notice, EPA requests applications for essential use
exemptions for all class I substances for 1997 or subsequent years.
Eligible applications will be nominated to the
[[Page 54352]]
Secretariat for consideration at the Eight Meeting of the Parties to be
held in September, 1996 or later. Applications for essential use
exemptions should be submitted to EPA no later than 30 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.
As described previously, the Parties established criteria to
identify 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 uses 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 assist EPA in presenting a strong and credible case
before the Parties and the recommending Panel for those nominations.
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 are 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) 233-9577, 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 6, 1995.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-26203 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P