96-25001. Request for Applications for Essential Use Exemptions to the Production and Import Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Under the Montreal Protocol

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 190 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51110-51112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25001]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5618-3]


Request for Applications for Essential Use Exemptions to the 
Production and Import Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Under the 
Montreal Protocol

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
is requesting applications for consideration at the Ninth Meeting of 
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to be held in September 1997 for 
exemptions to the production and import phaseout in 1998 and subsequent 
years for ozone-depleting substances (including halons 1211 and

[[Page 51111]]

1301, 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).

DATES: Applications for essential use exemptions must be submitted to 
EPA no later than October 30, 1996 in order for the U.S. government to 
complete its review and to submit nominations to the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Protocol Parties in a timely 
manner.

ADDRESSES: Send eight copies of application materials to: Nina 
Bonnelycke, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460. Send one copy of application materials to: Air Docket A-93-39, 
401 M Street, S.W. (6102), Room M1500, Washington, D.C. 20460.

CONFIDENTIALITY: Applications should not contain confidential or 
proprietary information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Bonnelycke at the above address 
or at [phone] ph, [phone] fax, or 
[e-mail]. General information may be obtained 
from the Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background--The Essential Use Nomination Process
II. Information Required for Essential Use Applications for 
Production or Importation of Class I Substances in 1998 and 
Subsequent Years

I. Background--The Essential Use Nomination Process

    As described in previous Federal Register notices (58 FR 29410, May 
20, 1993; 59 FR 52544, October 18, 1994; and 60 FR 54349, October 23, 
1995), the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete 
the Ozone Layer (the Parties) agreed during the Fourth Meeting in 
Copenhagen on November 23-25, 1992, to accelerate the phaseout 
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 reached decisions and 
adopted resolutions on a variety of other matters, including the 
criteria to be used for allowing ``essential use'' exemptions from the 
phaseout of production and importation of controlled substances. 
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.
    At the Fifth Meeting of the Parties in 1993, the Parties modified 
the timetable for nomination of essential uses. Pursuant to Decision V/
18, Parties may nominate a controlled substance for an exemption from 
the production phaseout by January 1 of each year. The UNEP committees 
then review the nominations at their spring meetings and forward their 
recommendations for decision at the Meeting of the Parties later that 
year. 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. 
Since the Parties in 1997 will be considering nominations for the year 
1998 and beyond, today's notice solicits requests for those years. 
Further detail on the essential uses process is provided later in this 
section.
    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 also have to comply with the 
provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Sec. 604 authorizes 
the granting of specific exemptions from the phaseout schedules 
contained in the CAAA. With respect to halons, the CAAA allows 
exemptions from the phaseout for aviation safety [Sec. 604(d)(3)], 
national security [Sec. 604(f)], and fire suppression and explosion 
prevention [Sec. 604(g)]. Other exemptions specified in Sec. 604 
include essential uses of methyl chloroform [Sec. 604(d)(1)]; uses of 
Class I substances in medical devices [Sec. 604(d)(2)]; and uses of 
CFC-114 for national security [Sec. 604(f)]. To the extent that an 
accelerated phaseout schedule has been adopted under the Montreal 
Protocol, EPA can legally provide exemptions for uses authorized by the 
Protocol but not otherwise specified in the CAAA as long as any 
additional production does not exceed the production reduction schedule 
contained in Sec. 604(a).
    The first step in the process to qualify a use as essential under 
the Protocol is for the user to ascertain whether the use of the 
controlled substance meets the Decision IV/25 criteria. The user should 
then notify EPA of the candidate use and provide information for U.S. 
government agencies and the Protocol Parties to evaluate that use 
according to the criteria under Decision IV/25. The United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP) Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 
has issued a handbook entitled ``Handbook on Essential Use 
Nominations,'' available from EPA, to guide applicants. Applicants 
should follow the guidelines in the handbook when preparing their 
exemption requests.
    Upon receipt of the exemption request, EPA reviews the application 
and works with other interested federal agencies to determine whether 
it meets the essential use criteria and as a result warrants being 
nominated for an exemption. Applicants should be aware that, to date, 
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have only granted the U.S. 
essential use exemptions for CFCs for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for 
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and for methyl 
chloroform for the Space Shuttle.
    In the case of multiple exemption requests for a single use, such 
as CFCs for metered dose inhalers (MDIs), EPA aggregates exemption 
requests received from individual entities into a single U.S. request. 
An important part of the EPA review is to determine that the aggregate 
request for a particular out-year adequately reflects the market 
penetration potential and expected availability of non-CFC substitutes 
by that point in time. If the sum of individual requests does not 
incorporate such assumptions, the U.S. government may adjust the 
aggregate request to better reflect true market needs.
    Nominations submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the U.S. and 
other Parties are then forwarded to the UNEP Technical and Economic 
Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its Technical Options Committees (TOCs), 
which review the submissions and make recommendations to the Parties 
for exemptions. Those recommendations are then considered by the 
Parties at

[[Page 51112]]

their annual meeting for final decision. If the Parties declare a 
specified use of a controlled substance as essential and issue the 
necessary exemptions from the production phaseout, EPA may propose 
regulatory changes to reflect the decisions by the Parties consistent 
with the CAAA.
    The timing of the reviews is such that in any given year the 
Parties review nominations for exemption from the production phaseout 
intended for the following year and any subsequent years. This means 
that, if nominated, applications submitted in response to today's 
notice for CFC production in 1998 and beyond will be considered by the 
Parties in 1997 for final action at the Meeting of the Parties in 
September of that year.

II. Information Required for Essential Use Applications for Production 
or Importation of Class I Substances in 1998 and Subsequent Years

    Through this notice, EPA requests applications for essential use 
exemptions for all class I substances for 1998 and subsequent years. 
All requests for exemptions submitted to EPA must present the 
information relevant to the application as prescribed in the TEAP 
Handbook mentioned in the previous section, since the U.S. government 
does not forward incomplete or inadequate nominations to the Ozone 
Secretariat. In brief, the TEAP Handbook states that applicants must 
present information on:
     Role of use in society.
     Alternatives to use, including education programs on 
alternatives.
     Steps to minimize use, including development of CFC-free 
alternatives.
     Steps to minimize emissions.
     Amount of substance available through recycling and 
stockpiling.
     Quantity of controlled substances requested by year.
    EPA anticipates that the 1997 review by the Parties of MDI 
essential use requests will focus extensively on research efforts 
underway to develop alternatives to CFC MDIs, on education programs to 
inform patients and providers of the phaseout and the transition to 
alternatives, and on steps taken to minimize CFC use and emissions 
including efforts to recapture or reprocess the controlled substance. 
Accordingly, applicants are strongly advised to present detailed 
information on these points including the scope and cost of such 
efforts and the medical and patient organizations involved in the work. 
Applicants can strengthen their exemption requests by submitting a 
complete set of education materials and including copies of printed, 
electronic or audio-visual tools. Applicants are given notice that 
exemption requests without adequate information on research and 
education will not be considered complete.
    Applicants should submit their exemption requests to EPA as noted 
in the Addresses section at the beginning of today's notice.

    Dated: September 23, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-25001 Filed 9-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P