[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
