Jump to main content.

Nominations for Exemptions to the Production and Import Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances for Uses Satisfying the Montreal Protocol ``Essential Use'' Criteria

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: October 23, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 54349-54352]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]




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 ozonedepleting 
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
                                                      53722.
                                              1997    52544.
\1\ And subsequent years.
                           Total Essential Use Requests Submitted by the United States
                                                 [Metric tonnes]
                                      1996          1997          1998         1999         2000         2001

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.