Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of 1999 Essential- Use Allowances

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