[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