Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2016, 32646-32650 [2013-12968]

Download as PDF 32646 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this teleconference may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), GLAB, by telephone at (312) 886–6815 or email at cestaric.rita@epa.gov. General information on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and the GLAB can be found on the GLRI Web site at https://www.glri.us. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The GLAB is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92–463. EPA established the GLAB in 2013 to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator in his or her capacity as Chair of the federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The GLAB conducts business in accordance with FACA and related regulations. The GLAB consists of 18 members appointed by EPA’s Administrator. Members serve as representatives of state, local and tribal government, environmental groups, agriculture, business, transportation, foundations, educational institutions and as technical experts. The GLAB held a teleconference and meeting on May 21–22, 2013 (as noticed in 78 FR 26636–26637) to discuss the development of a draft FY 2015–2019 GLRI Action Plan. The teleconference will provide opportunity for members of the public to submit oral comments in response to the charge questions for consideration by the GLAB. The charge questions are available at https://www.glri.us. Also, periodic opportunities for the public to provide input for the GLAB to consider will be provided after the June 12 teleconference. Availability of Teleconference Materials: The agenda and other materials in support of the teleconference will be available on the GLRI Web site at https://www.glri.us in advance of the teleconference. Procedures for Providing Public Input: Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to federal agencies. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for consideration by the GLAB. Input from the public to the GLAB will have the most impact if it provides specific information for the GLAB to consider. Members of the public wishing to provide comments should contact the DFO directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public teleconference will be limited to three tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 May 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 minutes per speaker, subject to the number of people wanting to comment. Interested parties should contact Rita Cestaric, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by June 10, 2013 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference. Written Statements: Written statements must be received by June 10, 2013 so that the information may be made available to the GLAB for consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via email. Commenters are requested to provide two versions of each document submitted: one each with and without signatures because only documents without signatures may be published on the GLRI Web page. Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Rita Cestaric at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least 10 days prior to the teleconference, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: May 23, 2013. Cameron Davis, Senior Advisor to the Administrator. [FR Doc. 2013–12962 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0369, FRL–9816–9] Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2016 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of Applications and Information on Alternatives. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting applications for the critical use exemption from the phaseout of methyl bromide for 2016. Critical use exemptions last only one year. All entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption for 2016 must provide EPA with technical and economic information to support a ‘‘critical use’’ claim and must do so by the deadline specified in this notice even if they have applied for an exemption in previous years. Today’s notice also invites interested parties to provide EPA with new data on the technical and economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Applications for the 2016 critical use exemption must be submitted on or before August 29, 2013. ADDRESSES: EPA encourages users to submit their applications electronically to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection Division, at arling.jeremy@epa.gov. If the application is submitted electronically, applicants must fax a signed copy of Worksheet 1 to 202–343–2338 by the application deadline. Applications for the methyl bromide critical use exemption can also be submitted by U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by courier delivery to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Review Team, 1310 L St. NW., Room 1047E, Washington DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information: U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline, 1–800–296–1996; also https:// www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr. Technical Information: Bill Chism, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 703–308–8136. Email: chism.bill@epa.gov. Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 202– 343–9055. Email: arling.jeremy@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Table of Contents I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications? A. Who can respond to this request for information? B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical use exemption? C. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use exemption? D. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous year? E. What portions of the applications will be considered confidential business information? II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption? A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical use exemption? B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use exemption? C. What is the timing for applications for the 2016 control period? E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications? A. Who can respond to this request for information? Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must complete the application form available at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ cueinfo.html. The application may be submitted by a consortium representing multiple users who have similar circumstances or by individual users. EPA encourages groups of users with similar circumstances to submit a single application. While anyone interested in obtaining a critical use exemption may apply, EPA notes that in January, 2013, the United States government submitted its nomination for critical use exemption during 2015, and that nomination included only three uses (strawberries, fresh dates and dry cured ham). Since information about alternatives, economic impacts, and other factors relevant to the critical use criteria change from year to year, applicants must provide all of the necessary technical and economic information, whether or not a use has been nominated for a critical use exemption in the past. In addition to requesting information from applicants for the critical use exemption, this solicitation for information provides an opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on methyl bromide alternatives (e.g., technical or economic feasibility research). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical use exemption? Application forms for the methyl bromide critical use exemption can be obtained in PDF, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel formats at EPA’s Web site https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ cueinfo.html or at Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0369 at https:// www.regulations.gov. C. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use exemption? To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide meets the requirements of the critical use exemption, applicants must demonstrate that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives available for that use. EPA’s Web site contains a list of available and potential alternatives at https:// www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html. Applicants must show that they are taking steps to minimize their critical use of methyl bromide and any VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 May 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 associated emissions. In addition, applicants must describe research plans which includes the pest(s), chemical(s), or management practice(s) they will be testing to support their transition from methyl bromide. Below, EPA is providing information on how it evaluated specific uses in considering nominations for critical uses for 2015, as well as specific information needed for the U.S. to successfully defend its nominations for critical uses. Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and Nuts Data reviewed by EPA as part of the 2015 nomination process indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is effective against key pests. The industry has mostly converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no market disruption has occurred. For this sector, rapid fumigation is not a critical condition. Therefore, products can be treated with sulfuryl fluoride or phosphine and be held for relatively long periods of time without a significant economic impact. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives. Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), phosphine, and controlled atmosphere/temperature treatment system. Applicants should include the costs to retrofit equipment or design and construct new fumigation chambers for these alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide: The amount of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives, which may include heat), price per pound of the fumigant gas from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) associated with alternatives, the amount of commodity treated with each fumigant/treatment and the value of the commodity being treated/produced. Also provide information on changes in costs for any other practices or equipment used (e.g. sanitation and IPM) that are not needed when methyl bromide is used for fumigation. Include information on the size of fumigation chambers where methyl bromide is used, the percent of commodity fumigated under tarps, the length of the harvest season, peak of the harvest season and duration, and volume of commodity treated daily at the harvest peak. Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer requests PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32647 regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by explanation of why the methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemption is not applicable for this purpose. Also include information on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their commodity. Structures and Facilities (flour mills, rice mills, pet food) Published data reviewed by EPA during the 2015 nomination process did not show a statistically significant difference in control effectiveness between methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride or heat treatments. The cost of alternatives is also generally less than cost of methyl bromide except for heat alone. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives. Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl fluoride, micro-sanitation, and heat. Applicants should include the costs to retrofit equipment for these pest control methods. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) associated with alternatives, and value of the commodity being treated/ produced. List how many mills have been fumigated with methyl bromide over the last three years; the rate, volume, and target CT of methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and date the facility was constructed. Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by explanation of why the QPS exemption is not applicable for this purpose. Also include information on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their facilities. Dried Cured Pork Applicants must list how many facilities have been fumigated with methyl bromide over the last three E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 32648 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices years; the rate, volume, and target CT of methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and the materials from which the facility was constructed. It is also important for this sector to specify research plans into alternatives and alternative practices to support the transition from methyl bromide. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and Tomato In reviewing data for the 2015 CUE nomination, EPA found that although no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, a review of multiple year data indicates that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Several research studies show that the three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium can effectively suppress pathogens (P. capsici, F. oxysporum) and nematodes. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any fumigationless system (if data are available). Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Strawberry Fruit Based on EPA’s review of information as part of the 2015 nomination process, EPA believes there will continue to be a reduced critical need for methyl bromide in the near future as advances are made (1) In safely applying 100% chloropicrin, (2) in strategies to improve efficacy in applying 1,3dichloropropene, and (3) in transitioning from experimental to commercial use of non-chemical tools, such as steam, anaerobic soil disinfestations, and substrate VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 May 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 production. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in states other than California, and any fumigationless system (if data are available). Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Orchard Replant EPA’s review of data in the 2015 nomination process indicated that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, numerous field trials indicate alternatives to methyl bromide are effective. Therefore, EPA concluded that transitioning to the alternatives was feasible without substantial losses. Registered alternatives are available for individual-hole treatments and soil preparation procedures are available to enable effective treatment with alternatives even in soils with high moisture content. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Ornamentals In considering nominations for 2015, EPA found that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, a review of multiple year data indicates that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Research demonstrates that 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, the three way mixture of 1,3dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium, and dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin all show excellent results. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Nurseries In considering this sector in the 2015 nomination process, EPA noted that a Special Local Need label allows Telone II to be used in accordance with certification standards for propagative material.1 To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture 1 EPA also noted that growers can use a combination of methyl bromide for quarantine situations and 1,3-D plus chloropicrin for nonquarantine situations to meet certification requirements. E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Golf Courses To date, EPA has not found that a significant market disruption would occur in the golf industry in the absence of methyl bromide. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: Basamid, chloropicrin, 1,3dichloropene, 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, metam sodium, and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; economic impact for the golf course from a transition to alternatives (e.g. downtime when resurfacing); differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Supporting evidence might be included that would demonstrate that alternatives lead to more frequent resurfacing and therefore, greater adverse economic impacts. D. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous year? Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not automatically renew. All users desiring to obtain an exemption for 2016 must apply to EPA even if they have applied for critical uses in prior years. Because of the latest changes in registrations, costs, and economic aspects for producing critical use crops and commodities, applicants VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 May 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 must fill out the application form completely. E. What portions of the applications will be considered confidential business information? You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information by placing on (or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as ‘‘trade secret,’’ ‘‘proprietary,’’ or ‘‘company confidential.’’ You should clearly identify the allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents, and you may submit them separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If you desire confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, your notice should state that. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under 40 CFR part 2 subpart B; 41 FR 36752, 43 FR 40000, 50 FR 51661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when EPA receives it, EPA may make it available to the public without further notice. Do not include on the ‘‘Worksheet 6: Application Summary’’ page of the application any information that you wish to claim as confidential business information. Any information on Worksheet 6 shall not be considered confidential and will not be treated as such by the Agency. EPA will place a copy of Worksheet 6 in the public domain. Please note, claiming business confidentiality may delay EPA’s ability to review your application. II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption? A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical use exemption? In October 1998, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer for industrialized countries and to allow EPA to provide a critical use exemption. These amendments were codified in Section 604 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. Under EPA implementing regulations, the production and consumption of methyl bromide was phased out as of January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998, allows EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from the PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32649 phaseout for critical uses, to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol. EPA has defined ‘‘critical use’’ at 40 CFR 82.3. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 prohibit the production and import of methyl bromide in excess of the amount of unexpended critical use allowances held by the producer or importer, unless authorized under a separate exemption. Methyl bromide produced or imported by expending critical use allowances may be used only for the appropriate category of approved critical uses as listed in Appendix L to the regulations (40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl bromide that was produced or imported through the expenditure of production or consumption allowances prior to 2005, while not confined to critical uses under EPA’s phaseout regulations, are subject to the labeling restrictions under FIFRA. B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use exemption? The Montreal Protocol provides that the Parties may exempt ‘‘the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses’’ (Art. 2H para 5). The Parties to the Protocol included this language in the treaty’s methyl bromide phaseout provisions in recognition that alternatives might not be available by 2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the Parties to be ‘‘critical uses.’’ In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a ‘‘critical use’’ determination and an exemption from the production and consumption phaseout: (a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ‘‘critical’’ only if the nominating Party determines that: (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination. (b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for a critical use should be permitted only if: (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide; (ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries’ need for methyl bromide; E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 32650 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize, and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination . . . Non-Article 5 Parties [e.g., developed countries, including the U.S.] must demonstrate that research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes. . . . The term ‘‘significant market disruption’’ is left to the discretion of each Party to the Protocol to interpret. EPA’s interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking at potential effects on both demand and supply for a commodity, evaluating potential losses at both an individual level and at an aggregate level, and evaluating potential losses in both relative and absolute terms. EPA refers readers to the preamble for the 2006 CUE rule (71 FR 5989) as well as to the memo in the docket titled ‘‘Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America’’ for further elaboration. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES C. What is the timing for applications for the 2015 control period? There is both a domestic and international component to the critical use exemption process. The projected timeline for the process for the 2016 critical use exemption is below. A more detailed schedule is on EPA’s Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ cueinfo.html. May 31, 2013: Solicit applications for the methyl bromide critical use exemption for 2016. August 29, 2013: Deadline for submitting critical use exemption applications to EPA. Fall 2013: U.S. Government (EPA, Department of State, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other interested Federal agencies) prepares U.S. Critical Use Nomination package. January 24, 2014: Deadline for U.S. Government to submit U.S. nomination package to the Protocol Parties. Early 2014: Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) review the nominations for critical use exemptions. Mid 2014: Parties consider TEAP/ MBTOC recommendations. November 2014: Parties decide whether to authorize critical use exemptions for methyl bromide for production and consumption in 2016. Mid 2015: EPA publishes proposed rule for allocating critical use exemptions in the U.S. for 2016. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 May 30, 2013 Jkt 229001 Late 2015: EPA publishes final rule allocating critical use exemptions in the U.S. for 2016. January 1, 2016: Critical use exemption permits the limited production and import of methyl bromide for specified uses for the 2016 control period. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 7671q. Dated: May 16, 2013. Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. [FR Doc. 2013–12968 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION please visit our Video Help page at: https://www.fdic.gov/video.html. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call 703–562–2404 (Voice) or 703–649–4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements. Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202– 898–7043. Dated: May 28, 2013. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2013–13009 Filed 5–29–13; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6714–01–P Sunshine Act Meeting Pursuant to the provisions of the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, to consider the following matters: SUMMARY AGENDA: No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda. Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors’ Meetings. Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed Revisions to the Authority of the Case Review Committee. Memorandum and resolution re: Delegation of Authority from the FDIC Board of Directors Regarding Order of Succession During Emergency Situations. Summary reports, status reports, reports of the Office of Inspector General, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors. DISCUSSION AGENDA: Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule—Definition of ‘‘Predominantly Engaged in Activities that are Financial in Nature or Incidental Thereto’’ § 201(b). The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC. This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit https://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/ boardmeetings.asp to view the event. If you need any technical assistance, PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license as a NonVessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a licensee. Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523–5843 or by email at OTI@fmc.gov. A&A Contract Customs Brokers, USA, Inc., A&A International Freight Forwarding (NVO & OFF), #2 12th Street, Blaine, WA 98230, Officers: Michelle R. Russell, Vice President (QI), Graham S. Robins, President, Application Type: QI Change Abaco Logistics Corporation (OFF), 8051 NW 67th Street, Miami, FL 33166, Officers: Manuel T. Soto, Vice President (QI), Jhon J. Silva Villa, President, Application Type: New OFF License All International Solutions Inc. (NVO), 281 E. Redondo Beach Blvd., Gardena, CA 90248, Officer: Alexis F. Robin, President (QI), Application Type: New NVO License Atlas Latin Cargo LLC (NVO & OFF), 5065 NW. 74th Avenue, Suite 7, Miami, FL 33166, Officers: Guillermo S. Carbi H, Manager (QI), Gil De Freites, Manager Member, E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32646-32650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12968]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369, FRL-9816-9]


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide 
Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2016

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of Applications and Information on 
Alternatives.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting applications for the critical use exemption 
from the phaseout of methyl bromide for 2016. Critical use exemptions 
last only one year. All entities interested in obtaining a critical use 
exemption for 2016 must provide EPA with technical and economic 
information to support a ``critical use'' claim and must do so by the 
deadline specified in this notice even if they have applied for an 
exemption in previous years. Today's notice also invites interested 
parties to provide EPA with new data on the technical and economic 
feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives.

DATES: Applications for the 2016 critical use exemption must be 
submitted on or before August 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA encourages users to submit their applications 
electronically to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection Division, at 
arling.jeremy@epa.gov. If the application is submitted electronically, 
applicants must fax a signed copy of Worksheet 1 to 202-343-2338 by the 
application deadline. Applications for the methyl bromide critical use 
exemption can also be submitted by U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric 
Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail Code 6205J, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by courier delivery 
to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 
Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Review 
Team, 1310 L St. NW., Room 1047E, Washington DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information: U.S. EPA 
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline, 1-800-296-1996; also https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.
    Technical Information: Bill Chism, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, 703-308-8136. Email: chism.bill@epa.gov.
    Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 202-343-9055. Email: 
arling.jeremy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for 
applications?
    A. Who can respond to this request for information?
    B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide 
critical use exemption?
    C. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use 
exemption?
    D. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous 
year?
    E. What portions of the applications will be considered 
confidential business information?
II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?
    A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical 
use exemption?
    B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use 
exemption?
    C. What is the timing for applications for the 2016 control 
period?

[[Page 32647]]

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications?

A. Who can respond to this request for information?

    Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must 
complete the application form available at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. The application may be submitted by a consortium 
representing multiple users who have similar circumstances or by 
individual users. EPA encourages groups of users with similar 
circumstances to submit a single application.
    While anyone interested in obtaining a critical use exemption may 
apply, EPA notes that in January, 2013, the United States government 
submitted its nomination for critical use exemption during 2015, and 
that nomination included only three uses (strawberries, fresh dates and 
dry cured ham). Since information about alternatives, economic impacts, 
and other factors relevant to the critical use criteria change from 
year to year, applicants must provide all of the necessary technical 
and economic information, whether or not a use has been nominated for a 
critical use exemption in the past.
    In addition to requesting information from applicants for the 
critical use exemption, this solicitation for information provides an 
opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on 
methyl bromide alternatives (e.g., technical or economic feasibility 
research).

B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical 
use exemption?

    Application forms for the methyl bromide critical use exemption can 
be obtained in PDF, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel formats at 
EPA's Web site https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html or at Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369 at https://www.regulations.gov.

C. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use 
exemption?

    To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide 
meets the requirements of the critical use exemption, applicants must 
demonstrate that there are no technically and economically feasible 
alternatives available for that use. EPA's Web site contains a list of 
available and potential alternatives at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html. Applicants must show that they are taking steps to minimize 
their critical use of methyl bromide and any associated emissions. In 
addition, applicants must describe research plans which includes the 
pest(s), chemical(s), or management practice(s) they will be testing to 
support their transition from methyl bromide.
    Below, EPA is providing information on how it evaluated specific 
uses in considering nominations for critical uses for 2015, as well as 
specific information needed for the U.S. to successfully defend its 
nominations for critical uses.
Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and Nuts
    Data reviewed by EPA as part of the 2015 nomination process 
indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is effective against key pests. The 
industry has mostly converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no market 
disruption has occurred. For this sector, rapid fumigation is not a 
critical condition. Therefore, products can be treated with sulfuryl 
fluoride or phosphine and be held for relatively long periods of time 
without a significant economic impact. To support a nomination, 
applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest 
pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other 
economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives. 
Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl 
fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), phosphine, and controlled atmosphere/
temperature treatment system. Applicants should include the costs to 
retrofit equipment or design and construct new fumigation chambers for 
these alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must 
provide: The amount of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and 
alternatives, which may include heat), price per pound of the fumigant 
gas from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in 
time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours 
and wages) associated with alternatives, the amount of commodity 
treated with each fumigant/treatment and the value of the commodity 
being treated/produced. Also provide information on changes in costs 
for any other practices or equipment used (e.g. sanitation and IPM) 
that are not needed when methyl bromide is used for fumigation. Include 
information on the size of fumigation chambers where methyl bromide is 
used, the percent of commodity fumigated under tarps, the length of the 
harvest season, peak of the harvest season and duration, and volume of 
commodity treated daily at the harvest peak.
    Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer 
requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary 
requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other 
countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by 
explanation of why the methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment (QPS) 
exemption is not applicable for this purpose. Also include information 
on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their 
commodity.
Structures and Facilities (flour mills, rice mills, pet food)
    Published data reviewed by EPA during the 2015 nomination process 
did not show a statistically significant difference in control 
effectiveness between methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride or heat 
treatments. The cost of alternatives is also generally less than cost 
of methyl bromide except for heat alone. To support a nomination, 
applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest 
pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other 
economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives. 
Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl 
fluoride, micro-sanitation, and heat. Applicants should include the 
costs to retrofit equipment for these pest control methods. For the 
economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price per 
pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from 
the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time 
required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and 
wages) associated with alternatives, and value of the commodity being 
treated/produced. List how many mills have been fumigated with methyl 
bromide over the last three years; the rate, volume, and target CT of 
methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of 
fumigations per year; and date the facility was constructed.
    Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer 
requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary 
requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other 
countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by 
explanation of why the QPS exemption is not applicable for this 
purpose. Also include information on what pest control practices 
organic producers are using for their facilities.
Dried Cured Pork
    Applicants must list how many facilities have been fumigated with 
methyl bromide over the last three

[[Page 32648]]

years; the rate, volume, and target CT of methyl bromide at each 
location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and 
the materials from which the facility was constructed. It is also 
important for this sector to specify research plans into alternatives 
and alternative practices to support the transition from methyl 
bromide.
Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and Tomato
    In reviewing data for the 2015 CUE nomination, EPA found that 
although no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, a 
review of multiple year data indicates that the alternatives in various 
combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus 
chloropicrin. Several research studies show that the three way mixture 
of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium can effectively 
suppress pathogens (P. capsici, F. oxysporum) and nematodes. To support 
a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, 
quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The 
mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of 
Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 
metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any 
fumigationless system (if data are available). Applications must 
address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your 
region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including 
the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers 
for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For 
the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price 
per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) 
from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop 
being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); 
and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate 
equipment associated with alternatives.
Strawberry Fruit
    Based on EPA's review of information as part of the 2015 nomination 
process, EPA believes there will continue to be a reduced critical need 
for methyl bromide in the near future as advances are made (1) In 
safely applying 100% chloropicrin, (2) in strategies to improve 
efficacy in applying 1,3-dichloropropene, and (3) in transitioning from 
experimental to commercial use of non-chemical tools, such as steam, 
anaerobic soil disinfestations, and substrate production. To support a 
nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, 
quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the 
mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of 
Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 
metam (sodium or potassium), or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in states 
other than California, and any fumigationless system (if data are 
available). Applications must address regulatory and economic 
implications for growers and your region's production of these crops 
using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and 
the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin 
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants 
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both 
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; 
application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in 
labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment 
costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives.
Orchard Replant
    EPA's review of data in the 2015 nomination process indicated that 
while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, 
numerous field trials indicate alternatives to methyl bromide are 
effective. Therefore, EPA concluded that transitioning to the 
alternatives was feasible without substantial losses. Registered 
alternatives are available for individual-hole treatments and soil 
preparation procedures are available to enable effective treatment with 
alternatives even in soils with high moisture content. To support a 
nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, 
quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the 
mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of 
Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 
metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. 
Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for 
growers and your region's production of these crops using these 
alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the 
differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin 
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants 
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both 
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; 
application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in 
labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment 
costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives.
Ornamentals
    In considering nominations for 2015, EPA found that while no single 
alternative is effective for all pest problems, a review of multiple 
year data indicates that the alternatives in various combinations 
provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. 
Research demonstrates that 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, the 
three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam 
sodium, and dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin all show excellent 
results. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential 
changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, 
including: the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 
University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 
chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide 
(DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic 
implications for growers and your region's production of these crops 
using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and 
the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin 
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants 
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both 
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; 
application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in 
labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment 
costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives.
Nurseries
    In considering this sector in the 2015 nomination process, EPA 
noted that a Special Local Need label allows Telone II to be used in 
accordance with certification standards for propagative material.\1\ To 
support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to 
yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: 
the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of 
Georgia three way mixture

[[Page 32649]]

of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 
potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must 
address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your 
region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including 
the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers 
for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For 
the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price 
per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) 
from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop 
being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); 
and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate 
equipment associated with alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA also noted that growers can use a combination of methyl 
bromide for quarantine situations and 1,3-D plus chloropicrin for 
non-quarantine situations to meet certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Golf Courses
    To date, EPA has not found that a significant market disruption 
would occur in the golf industry in the absence of methyl bromide. To 
support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to 
yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: 
Basamid, chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropene, 1,3-dichloropene plus 
chloropicrin, metam sodium, and steam. Applications must address 
regulatory and economic implications for growers using these 
alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the 
differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin 
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants 
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both 
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; 
application rates; economic impact for the golf course from a 
transition to alternatives (e.g. downtime when resurfacing); 
differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any 
differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment 
associated with alternatives. Supporting evidence might be included 
that would demonstrate that alternatives lead to more frequent 
resurfacing and therefore, greater adverse economic impacts.

D. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous year?

    Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not 
automatically renew. All users desiring to obtain an exemption for 2016 
must apply to EPA even if they have applied for critical uses in prior 
years. Because of the latest changes in registrations, costs, and 
economic aspects for producing critical use crops and commodities, 
applicants must fill out the application form completely.

E. What portions of the applications will be considered confidential 
business information?

    You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or 
all of the information by placing on (or attaching to) the information, 
at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed 
legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as 
``trade secret,'' ``proprietary,'' or ``company confidential.'' You 
should clearly identify the allegedly confidential portions of 
otherwise non-confidential documents, and you may submit them 
separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If you 
desire confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the 
occurrence of a certain event, your notice should state that. 
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by 
EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under 
40 CFR part 2 subpart B; 41 FR 36752, 43 FR 40000, 50 FR 51661. If no 
claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when EPA receives 
it, EPA may make it available to the public without further notice.
    Do not include on the ``Worksheet 6: Application Summary'' page of 
the application any information that you wish to claim as confidential 
business information. Any information on Worksheet 6 shall not be 
considered confidential and will not be treated as such by the Agency. 
EPA will place a copy of Worksheet 6 in the public domain. Please note, 
claiming business confidentiality may delay EPA's ability to review 
your application.

II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical use 
exemption?

    In October 1998, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA 
to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the 
provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 
Ozone Layer for industrialized countries and to allow EPA to provide a 
critical use exemption. These amendments were codified in Section 604 
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. Under EPA implementing 
regulations, the production and consumption of methyl bromide was 
phased out as of January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998, 
allows EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from 
the phaseout for critical uses, to the extent consistent with the 
Montreal Protocol. EPA has defined ``critical use'' at 40 CFR 82.3.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 prohibit the production and import 
of methyl bromide in excess of the amount of unexpended critical use 
allowances held by the producer or importer, unless authorized under a 
separate exemption. Methyl bromide produced or imported by expending 
critical use allowances may be used only for the appropriate category 
of approved critical uses as listed in Appendix L to the regulations 
(40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl bromide that was produced or 
imported through the expenditure of production or consumption 
allowances prior to 2005, while not confined to critical uses under 
EPA's phaseout regulations, are subject to the labeling restrictions 
under FIFRA.

B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use 
exemption?

    The Montreal Protocol provides that the Parties may exempt ``the 
level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses 
agreed by them to be critical uses'' (Art. 2H para 5). The Parties to 
the Protocol included this language in the treaty's methyl bromide 
phaseout provisions in recognition that alternatives might not be 
available by 2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the 
Parties to be ``critical uses.''
    In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed 
to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a ``critical 
use'' determination and an exemption from the production and 
consumption phaseout:

    (a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ``critical'' 
only if the nominating Party determines that:
    (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of 
availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a 
significant market disruption; and
    (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible 
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are 
acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are 
suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.
    (b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide 
for a critical use should be permitted only if:
    (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been 
taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of 
methyl bromide;
    (ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and 
quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, 
also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl 
bromide;

[[Page 32650]]

    (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being 
made to evaluate, commercialize, and secure national regulatory 
approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration 
the circumstances of the particular nomination . . . Non-Article 5 
Parties [e.g., developed countries, including the U.S.] must 
demonstrate that research programs are in place to develop and 
deploy alternatives and substitutes. . . .
    The term ``significant market disruption'' is left to the 
discretion of each Party to the Protocol to interpret. EPA's 
interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking 
at potential effects on both demand and supply for a commodity, 
evaluating potential losses at both an individual level and at an 
aggregate level, and evaluating potential losses in both relative and 
absolute terms. EPA refers readers to the preamble for the 2006 CUE 
rule (71 FR 5989) as well as to the memo in the docket titled 
``Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for 
Methyl Bromide for the United States of America'' for further 
elaboration.

C. What is the timing for applications for the 2015 control period?

    There is both a domestic and international component to the 
critical use exemption process. The projected timeline for the process 
for the 2016 critical use exemption is below. A more detailed schedule 
is on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html.
    May 31, 2013: Solicit applications for the methyl bromide critical 
use exemption for 2016.
    August 29, 2013: Deadline for submitting critical use exemption 
applications to EPA.
    Fall 2013: U.S. Government (EPA, Department of State, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and other interested Federal agencies) 
prepares U.S. Critical Use Nomination package.
    January 24, 2014: Deadline for U.S. Government to submit U.S. 
nomination package to the Protocol Parties.
    Early 2014: Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and 
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) review the 
nominations for critical use exemptions.
    Mid 2014: Parties consider TEAP/MBTOC recommendations.
    November 2014: Parties decide whether to authorize critical use 
exemptions for methyl bromide for production and consumption in 2016.
    Mid 2015: EPA publishes proposed rule for allocating critical use 
exemptions in the U.S. for 2016.
    Late 2015: EPA publishes final rule allocating critical use 
exemptions in the U.S. for 2016.
    January 1, 2016: Critical use exemption permits the limited 
production and import of methyl bromide for specified uses for the 2016 
control period.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-12968 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.