[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29341-29344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11842]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0375, FRL-9672-8]
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide
Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2015
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 2015. Critical use exemptions
last only one year. All entities interested in obtaining a critical use
exemption for 2015 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 2015 critical use exemption must be
postmarked on or before August 15, 2012.
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 202-343-9055 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,
[[Page 29342]]
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 http://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 2015 control
period?
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 http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. The application may be submitted either 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 (for example, any number
of pre-plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions
can join together to submit a single application). You should contact
your local, state, regional or national commodity association to find
out whether it plans to submit an application on behalf of your
commodity group.
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 and/or economic
feasibility research).
B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption?
An application form for the methyl bromide critical use exemption
can be obtained either in electronic or hard-copy form. EPA encourages
use of the electronic form. Applications can be obtained in the
following ways:
1. PDF, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel formats at EPA's Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html;
2. PDF, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel formats at Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0375. The docket can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov. To obtain hard copies of docket materials, please
email the EPA Docket Center: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
3. Hard copies can be ordered through the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
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. This list can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html. Applications must address the
technical and economic feasibility of using these alternatives.
Specifically, applications must include the following information for
the U.S. to successfully defend its nominations for critical uses.
Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and Nuts
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 include: Sulfuryl
fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), phosphine, and/or controlled
atmosphere/temperature treatment system (CATTS). The applicant 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 following: The amount of fumigant gas used
(both methyl bromide and alternatives), price per pound of the fumigant
gas from the most recent use season, application rates, 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 cost information
on 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 the following: 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. The
application must also contain a description of your future research
plans which includes the pest(s), chemical(s), or management
practice(s) you will be testing in the future to support this CUE. Also
include information on what pest control practices organic producers
are using for their commodity.
Structures and Facilities (Flour Mills, Rice Mills, Pet Food)
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 include: Sulfuryl
fluoride, micro-sanitation, and/or heat. The applicant 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 labor
inputs (i.e., hours and wages) associated with alternatives, and value
of the commodity being treated/produced. List how many mills have
[[Page 29343]]
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 facility was
constructed.
Where applicable, also provide the following: 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. The application must also contain a
description of your future research plans which includes the pest(s),
chemical(s), or management practice(s) you will be testing in the
future to support this CUE. 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 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. The application must also contain a description of your
future research plans which includes the pest(s), chemical(s), or
management practice(s) you will be testing in the future to support
this CUE.
Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and Tomato
Applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and
timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-
dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 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/or 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.
The application must also contain a description of your future research
plans which includes the pest(s), chemical(s), or management
practice(s) you will be testing in the future to support this CUE.
Strawberry Fruit
Applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and
timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-
dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the Georgia three way mixture of
1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium),
and any fumigationless system (if data are available). Applications
must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and/or
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. The application must
also contain a description of your future research plans which includes
the pest(s), chemical(s), or management practice(s) you will be testing
in the future to support this CUE.
Nursery Stock, Orchard Replant, Ornamentals, and Strawberry Nursery
Applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and
timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3-
dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 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/or 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. The application must also contain a
description of your future research plans which includes the pest(s),
chemical(s), or management practice(s) you will be testing in the
future to support this CUE.
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 2015
must apply to EPA even if they have applied for critical uses in
previous 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.
If you are asserting a business confidentiality claim covering part
or all of the information in the application, please submit a non-
confidential version that EPA can place in the public docket for
reference by other interested parties. Do not include on the
``Worksheet 6: Application Summary'' page of the application any
information that you wish to claim as confidential
[[Page 29344]]
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 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 is not confined to critical uses under EPA's
phaseout regulations; however, other restrictions may apply.
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;
(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. * * *
EPA has defined ``critical use'' in its regulations at 40 CFR 82.3
in a manner similar to Decision IX/6 paragraph (a).
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 2015 critical use exemption is as follows:
May 17, 2012: Solicit applications for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption for 2015.
August 15, 2012: Deadline for submitting critical use exemption
applications to EPA.
Fall 2012: 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, 2013: Deadline for U.S. Government to submit U.S.
nomination package to the Protocol Parties.
Early 2013: Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) review the
nominations for critical use exemptions.
Mid 2013: Parties consider TEAP/MBTOC recommendations.
November 2013: Parties decide whether to authorize critical use
exemptions for methyl bromide for production and consumption in 2015.
Mid 2014: EPA publishes proposed rule for allocating critical use
exemptions in the U.S. for 2015.
Late 2014: EPA publishes final rule allocating critical use
exemptions in the U.S. for 2015.
January 1, 2015: Critical use exemption permits the limited
production and import of methyl bromide for specified uses for the 2015
control period.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Dated: May 8, 2012.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-11842 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P