[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1092-1096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-324]
[[Page 1091]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of 1999 Essential-Use
Allowances; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 1092]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-6217-1]
RIN 2060-AI26
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of 1999 Essential-
Use Allowances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is allocating essential-use allowances
for the 1999 control period. The United States nominated specific uses
of controlled ozone-depleting substances (ODS) as essential for 1999
under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Protocol). The Parties to the Protocol subsequently authorized
specific quantities of ODS for 1999 for the uses nominated by the
United States. Essential-use allowances permit a person to obtain
controlled ozone-depleting substances as an exemption to the January 1,
1996 regulatory phaseout of production and import. Essential-use
allowances are allocated to a person for exempted production or
importation of a specific quantity of a controlled substance solely for
the designated essential purpose.
DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 or Tom Land, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, 6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460, 202-564-
9185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Allocation of 1999 Essential-Use Allowances
III. Response to Comments
IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis
A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
I. Background
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Protocol) sets specific deadlines for the phaseout of production and
importation of ozone depleting substances (ODS). At their Fourth
Meeting in 1992, the signatories to the Protocol (the Parties) amended
the Protocol to allow exemptions to the phaseout for uses agreed by the
Parties to be essential. At the same Meeting, the Parties also adopted
Decision IV/25, which established both criteria for determining whether
a specific use should be approved as essential and a process for the
Parties to use in making such a determination.
The criteria for an essential use as set forth in Decision IV/25
are the following:
``(1) 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;
(2) 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 existing stocks of banked or recycled
controlled substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries'
need for controlled substances.''
Decision IV/25 also sets out the procedural steps for implementing
this process. It first calls for individual Parties to nominate
essential-uses. These nominations are then to be evaluated by the
Protocol's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP or the Panel)
which makes recommendations to representatives of all Protocol Parties.
The final decision on which nominations to approve is to be taken by a
meeting of the Parties.
The initial cycle of implementing this Decision has been completed
in the context of halons which were phased out of production at the end
of 1993. This initial timetable separated nominations for halons from
those for other ozone-depleting substances. EPA issued a Federal
Register document 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 put
forth nominations which were reviewed by the Technical and Economic
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 document 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 TEAP for
production and consumption of halons for an essential use in 1995. The
TEAP did not recommend approval of this nomination.
EPA also issued a Federal Register document 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
document. 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 adequate supplies of banked and recycled CFCs should be
available. However, in rejecting these nominations, the United States
noted that servicing existing air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment 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.
[[Page 1093]]
Of the responses to the Federal Register request for essential-use
applications, the United States submitted essential-use nominations to
the Protocol Secretariat for the following uses of CFCs: metered dose
inhalers and other selected medical applications; rocket motor assembly
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. (Letter from Pomerance to
UNEP, September 27, 1993).
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 Economic 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 for 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 TEAP 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.
In every year since 1994, the Parties have reviewed recommendations
by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and made final
decisions on essential-use authorizations. Today's action follows
decisions taken by the Parties after considering recommendations by the
TEAP in 1997 and 1998.
In 1993, the Parties to the Protocol modified the timetable for
submission of essential-use nominations to combine both halons and all
the other class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) and to
reduce the overall length of time between nomination and decision.
According to Decision V/18, essential-use nominations for halon
consumption and production for 1995 and beyond, and essential-use
nominations for all the other class I controlled substances (except
methyl bromide) for 1997 and beyond, must be submitted to the
Secretariat prior to January 1st of the year prior to the year for
which production and consumption is being sought. The Parties again
revised the timetable for essential-use nominations in Decision VIII/9
requiring submission by 31 January in the year in which decisions would
be taken for subsequent years. EPA revised the domestic schedule
accordingly so a Federal Register document calling for essential-use
applications for class I controlled substances for future years is
published prior to the Protocol deadline for submission to the Ozone
Secretariat.
Decision V/18 directed the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
to develop a ``handbook on essential-use nominations'' (Handbook). The
July 1994 Handbook contained forms and instructions for how to apply
for an essential-use exemption. Subsequent decisions by the Parties to
the Protocol created additional criteria for essential-use
authorizations now reflected in the August 1997 Handbook on Essential-
use Nominations. The Handbook may be obtained from the Stratospheric
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Ozone
Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol in Nairobi. The Handbook can also
be downloaded from the TEAP website at: http://www.teap.org/html/
teap__reports.html.
II. Allocation of 1999 Essential-Use Allowances
In today's action, EPA is allocating essential-use allowances for
the 1999 control period to entities listed in Table I for exempted
production or import of the specific quantity of class I controlled
substances solely for the specified essential-use.
Table I.--Essential Uses Agreed To by the Parties To the Protocol for 1999 and Essential-use Allowances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity
Company/entity Class I controlled substance (metric
tonnes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Metered Dose Inhalers for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC)-- CFC-11............................... 899.5
Armstrong Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim CFC-12............................... 2157.4
Pharmaceuticals, Glaxo Wellcome, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, CFC-114.............................. 183.6
Schering Corporation, 3M.
Medisol Laboratories, Inc................................ CFC-11............................... 67.3
CFC-12............................... 115.3
CFC-114.............................. 9.6
Aeropharm Technology, Inc................................ CFC-11............................... 80.1
CFC-12............................... 160.2
Sciarra Laboratories, Inc................................ CFC-11............................... 0.5
CFC-12............................... 1.5
CFC-114.............................. 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Cleaning, Bonding and Surface Activation Applications for the Space Shuttle Rockets and Titan Rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/ Methyl Chloroform.................... 56.7
Thiokol Rocket.
United States Air Force/Titan Rocket..................... Methyl Chloroform.................... 3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Laboratory and Analytical Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Exemption (Restrictions in Appendix G Apply)...... All Class I Controlled Substances \1\
(except Group VI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No quantity specified.
[[Page 1094]]
The International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC)
consolidated requests for an essential-use exemption to be nominated to
the Protocol as an agent of its member companies for administrative
convenience. By means of a confidential letter to each of the companies
listed above, EPA will allocate essential-use allowances separately to
each company in the amount requested by it for the nomination.
Applications submitted by the entities in Table I requested class I
controlled substances for uses claimed to be essential during the 1999
control period. The applications provided information in accordance
with the criteria set forth in Decision IV/25 of the Protocol and the
procedures outlined in the ``Handbook on Essential-Use Nominations.''
The applications request exemptions for the production and import of
specific quantities of specific class I controlled substances after the
phaseout as set forth in 40 CFR 82.4. The applications were reviewed by
the U.S. government and nominated to the Protocol Secretariat for
analysis by the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its
Technical Option Committees (TOCs). The Parties to the Montreal
Protocol approved the U.S. nominations for essential-use exemptions
during the Ninth Meeting in 1997 (Decision IX/18). Today's action
allocates essential-use allowances to United States entities based on
nominations decided upon by the Parties to the Protocol.
The 1999 global essential-use exemption for analytical and
laboratory applications published in today's rule does not alter the
strict requirements both in 40 CFR 82.13 and in appendix G to 40 CFR
part 82, subpart A. The restrictions for the global laboratory and
analytical essential-use exemption listed in appendix G include
requirements regarding purity of the class I controlled substances and
the size of the containers. In addition, there are detailed reporting
requirements in Sec. 82.13 for persons that take advantage of the
global laboratory and analytical essential-use exemption for class I
controlled substances. The strict requirements are established because
the Parties to the Protocol, and today's rule, do not specify a
quantity of essential-use allowances permitted for analytical and
laboratory applications, but establish a global essential-use
exemption, without a named recipient.
Any person obtaining class I controlled substances after the
phaseout under the essential-use exemptions in today's action is
subject to all the restrictions and requirements in other sections of
40 CFR part 82, subpart A. Holders of essential-use allowances or
persons obtaining class I controlled substances under the essential-use
exemptions must comply with the record keeping and reporting
requirements in Sec. 82.13 and the restrictions in Appendix G.
III. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment pointing out that, in accordance with the
direct final rule published on August 4, 1998 (63 FR 41625) and the
related subsequent notice on October 5, 1998 (63 FR 53290), the
regulatory citation in the propose rule published on November 20, 1998
(63 FR 64437) should be changed from Sec. 82.4(r)(2) to
Sec. 82.4(t)(2). With this action, EPA makes this appropriate change to
the paragraph citation to be consistent with changes made in prior
rules.
IV. Summary of Supporting Analysis
A. 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 by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA 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. Section 204 of the UMRA requires the
Agency to develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal
government officials to provide input in the development of any
proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate.
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.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. Because this rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal government it is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA
has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments;
therefore, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments under section 203. Finally, because this rule does not
contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not
required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state,
local, and tribal officials under section 204.
B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The final rule does not impose any enforceable duties on
these
[[Page 1095]]
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 12866
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 ``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 that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the final rule promulgated on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB control
number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.16).
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.
E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies or matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule does not
impose any enforceable duties on Indian tribal governments.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities since essential-use allocations
are granted to large pharmaceutical manufacturing corporations and not
small entities such as small businesses, not-for-profit enterprises or
small governmental jurisdictions.
EPA concluded that this final rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, therefore, I hereby
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks 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''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
and 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.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 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
final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
[[Page 1096]]
I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports,
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Ozone layer, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 31, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart A--Production and Consumption Controls
2. Section 82.4(t)(2) is amended by revising the table to read as
follows:
Sec. 82.4 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(t) * * *
(2) * * *
Table I.--Essential-Uses Agreed To by the Parties to the Protocol for 1999 and Essential-Use Allowances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity
Company/entity Class I controlled substance (metric
tonnes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Metered Dose Inhalers for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) 1-- CFC-11............................... 899.5
Armstrong Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim CFC-12............................... 2157.4
Pharmaceuticals, Glaxo Wellcome, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, CFC-114.............................. 183.6
Schering Corporation, 3M.
Medisol Laboratories, Inc................................ CFC-11............................... 67.3
CFC-12............................... 115.3
CFC-114.............................. 9.6
Aeropharm Technology, Inc................................ CFC-11............................... 80.1
CFC-12............................... 160.2
Sciarra Laboratories, Inc................................ CFC-11............................... 0.5
CFC-12............................... 1.5
CFC-114.............................. 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Cleaning, Bonding and Surface Activation Applications for the Space Shuttle Rockets and Titan Rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/ Methyl Chloroform.................... 56.7
Thiokol Rocket.
United States Air Force/Titan Rocket..................... Methyl Chloroform.................... 3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Laboratory and Analytical Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Exemption (Restrictions in Appendix G Apply)...... All Class I Controlled Substances (\2\)
(except Group VI).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) consolidated requests for an essential-use
exemption to be nominated to the Protocol as an agent of its member companies for administrative convenience.
By means of a confidential letter to each of the companies listed above, EPA will allocate essential-use
allowances separately to each company in the amount requested by it for the nomination.
\2\ No quantity specified.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-324 Filed 1-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
