Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51655

the requirement that these same owners

or operators of a demolition or

renovation activity, notify in writing the

designated state agency in advance of

commencing with the demo/reno

activity. EPA views this as a duplication

of effort. EPA also believes that the

costs, in terms of time and resources, of

providing duel notification to both the

state and federal government represent

an unnecessary burden for the regulated

community. Therefore, effective October

1, 1997, and with the exception

referenced below, EPA will no longer

require the regulated community in

Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,

or Connecticut, to provide written

Notification of Demolition and

Renovation to EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR

61.145(b), as long as such notices are

delivered to the designated state agency.

EPA will view notification to the state

agency as having satisfied the Federal

notification requirement and

conversely, will consider non-notifiers

to the state agency as being in violation

of the Federal notification requirement

as well.

This notice is not subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., since no additional

reporting, recordkeeping, or notification

requirements are being imposed as a

result of this action.

Exception

Exceptions to this transfer of

notification receipt procedures will

apply to regulated facilities, as defined

by the asbestos NESHAP at 40 CFR

61.141, where a demolition is to occur

but where asbestos is believed to be

present below State regulatory threshold

amounts, including those demolitions

believed to involve zero asbestos. In

addition, this notification procedures

change applies only to applicable demo/

reno activities being conducted the

states of Maine, New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, and Connecticut. EPA

will continue to require full compliance

with the notification requirements

outlined in 40 CFR 61.145(b) for any

demo/reno operation, subject to the

asbestos NESHAP, being conducted in

the states of Vermont and Rhode Island.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne R. Toland; U.S. EPA Region I;

Office of Environmental Stewardship;

Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Enforcement

Office (SEA); J.F.K. Federal Building;

Boston, MA, 02203. Telephone: (617)

565–3260.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator EPA, Region I.

[FR Doc. 97–26175 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5902–1]

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is requesting applications for

consideration at the Tenth Meeting of

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone

Layer (the Protocol) to be held in

September 1998, for exemptions to the

production and import phaseout in 1999

and subsequent years for ozonedepleting substances (including halons

1211 and 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 November 17, 1997 in

order for the United States (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 five copies of

application materials to: Chris

O’Donnell, Stratospheric Protection

Division (6205J), 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:

Chris O’Donnell at the above address or

at (202) 233–9079 telephone, (202) 233–

9665 fax, or

odonnell.chris@epamail.epa.gov.

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 1999

and Subsequent Years

I. Background—The Essential Use

Nomination Process

As described in previous Federal

Register (FR) notices (58 FR 29410, May

20, 1993; 59 FR 52544, October 18,

1994; 60 FR 54349, October 23, 1995;

and 61 FR 51110, September 30, 1996),

the Parties to the Protocol agreed during

the Fourth Meeting in Copenhagen on

November 23–25, 1992, to accelerate the

phaseout 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

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 Parties details the

specific criteria and review process for

granting essential use exemptions.

At the Eighth Meeting of the Parties

in 1996, the Parties modified the

timetable for nomination of essential

uses. Pursuant to Decision VIII/9,

Parties may nominate a controlled

substance for an exemption from the

production phaseout by January 31 of

each year. The United Nations

Environment Programme (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 1998 will be considering

nominations for the year 1999 and

beyond, today’s notice solicits requests

for those years. Further detail on the

essential use 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
51656 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices

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 * * *.’’

Section 614 (b) of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (the Act) provides:

‘‘In the case of conflict between any

provision of this title [Title VI of the

Act] and any provision of the Protocol,

the more stringent provision shall

govern.’’ Thus, to the extent that an

accelerated phaseout schedule has been

adopted under the Protocol, EPA can

legally provide exemptions for uses

authorized by the Protocol but not

otherwise specified in the Act as long as

any additional production does not

exceed the production reduction

schedule contained in section 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

UNEP Technology and Economic

Assessment Panel (TEAP) 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. Past applicants

should note that the current TEAP

handbook has been substantially revised

to reflect Decision VIII/10 of the Parties.

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 recent essential use exemptions

granted to the U.S. for 1997 were

limited to chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCs)

for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to treat

asthma and chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease.

In the case of multiple exemption

requests for a single use, 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 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 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 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 Act.

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

1999 and beyond will be considered by

the Parties in 1998 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

1999 and Subsequent Years

Through this notice, EPA requests

applications for essential use

exemptions for all Class I substances for

1999 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. As noted earlier, the TEAP

handbook has been substantially revised

to incorporate Decision VIII/10 adopted

by the Parties at their Eighth Meeting, in

November 1996. Decision VIII/10 will

require applicants to expand on

information provided in previous

nominations as well as provide new

information. Since the U.S. government

does not forward incomplete or

inadequate nominations to the Ozone

Secretariat, it is important for applicants

to provide all information requested in

the Handbook, including the

information specified in the

supplemental research and development

form (page 43) and the accounting

framework matrix (page 41). Parties

have been asked to request this

information from companies, and these

forms will assist the EPA in preparing

a complete and comprehensive

nomination. 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 1998 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 25, 1997.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air

and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–26183 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5902–6]

Availability of FY 96 Grant

Performance Report for Georgia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of grantee

performance evaluation report.

SUMMARY: EPA’s grant regulations (40

CFR 35.150) require the Agency to

evaluate the performance of agencies

which receive grants. EPA’s regulations

for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7)

require that the Agency notify the

public of the availability of the reports