[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38887-38890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16064]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9913-55-OAR]
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide
Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2017
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is providing notice of the
process for submitting applications for critical use exemptions for
2017. Critical use exemptions are exceptions to the phaseout of
production and import of methyl bromide, a controlled class I ozone-
depleting substance. Critical use exemptions must be authorized by the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer and must be in accordance with the Clean Air Act. Applications
received in accordance with this notice will be considered as the basis
for submitting potential nominations for critical use exemptions to
future Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Critical use
exemptions allow production and import only in the year for which the
Parties authorize them. All entities interested in obtaining a critical
use exemption must provide EPA with technical and economic information
to support a ``critical use'' claim by the deadline specified in this
notice even if they have applied for an exemption in previous years.
DATES: Applications for critical use exemptions must be submitted to
EPA no later than September 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: 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 6205M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Confidentiality: Application materials that are confidential should
be submitted under separate cover and be clearly identified as
``confidential business information.'' Information covered by a claim
of business confidentiality will be treated in accordance with the
procedures for handling information claimed as confidential under 40
CFR part 2, subpart B, and will be disclosed only to the extent and by
means of the procedures set forth in that subpart. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public by EPA without
further notice to the company (40 CFR 2.203). EPA may place a copy of
Worksheet 6 in the public domain. Any information on Worksheet 6 shall
not be considered confidential and will not be treated as such by the
Agency.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General Information: U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone Information
Hotline, 1-800-296-1996; also 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: [email protected].
Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205M), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 202-343-9055. EPA
encourages users to submit their applications electronically to
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Critical Use Exemption
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is
the international agreement aimed at reducing and eliminating the
production and consumption of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances.
Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting
substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen Amendment.
The 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 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
[which includes the U.S.] must demonstrate that research programs are
in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes. . . .
In 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 Protocol 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 based on the criteria in
Decision IX/6.
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
[[Page 38888]]
or consumption allowances prior to 2005, while not confined to critical
uses under EPA's phaseout regulations, is subject to the labeling
restrictions under FIFRA as specified in the product labeling.
II. Critical Use Nomination Process
Entities requesting critical use exemptions should send a completed
application to EPA on the candidate use by September 30, 2014. Critical
use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not automatically
renew. All users desiring to obtain an exemption must apply to EPA
annually even if they have applied for critical uses in prior years.
Because of the potential for changes to registration status, costs, and
economic aspects of producing critical use crops and commodities,
applicants must fill out the application form completely.
Upon receipt of applications, EPA will review the information and
work with other interested Federal agencies as required in section 604
of the Clean Air Act to determine whether the candidate use satisfies
Clean Air Act requirements, and whether it meets the critical use
criteria adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and warrants
nomination by the United States for an exemption.
All Parties, including the United States, must transmit nominations
to the UNEP Ozone Secretariat by January 24, 2015, to be considered by
the Parties at their annual meeting at the end of 2015. The UNEP Ozone
Secretariat forwards nominations to the Montreal Protocol's Technical
and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee (MBTOC). The MBTOC and the TEAP review the
nominations to determine whether they meet the criteria for a critical
use established by Decision IX/6, and to make recommendations to the
Parties for critical use exemptions. The Parties then consider those
recommendations at their annual meeting before making a final decision.
If the Parties determine that a specified use of methyl bromide is
critical and authorize an exemption from the Protocol's production and
consumption phaseout for 2017, EPA may then take domestic action to
allow the production and consumption to the extent consistent with the
Clean Air Act.
III. Information Required for Critical Use Application
Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must
complete the application form available at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. Applications requesting critical use allowances should
include information that U.S. Government agencies and the Parties to
the Protocol can use to evaluate the candidate use according to the
criteria in Decision IX/6 described above. Applications that fail to
include sufficient information may not be nominated.
Specifically, applications should include the information requested
in the current version of the TEAP Handbook on Critical Use
Nominations. The handbook is available electronically at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/MBTOC/Handbook%20CUN-version5-27Nov06.pdf. EPA requests that applications contain the
following information, as described in the handbook, in order for the
U.S. to provide sufficient information to the Montreal Protocol's
technical review bodies within the nomination:
A clear statement on the specific circumstances of the
nomination which describe the critical need for methyl bromide and
quantity of methyl bromide requested;
Data on the availability and technical and economic
feasibility of alternatives to the proposed methyl bromide use;
A review of the comparative performance of methyl bromide
and alternatives including control of target pests in research and
commercial scale up studies; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Where an alternative is not registered for use in a
particular jurisdiction, growers in that jurisdiction need not
address the performance of that particular alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A description of all technically and economically feasible
steps taken by the applicant to minimize methyl bromide use and
emissions;
Data on the use and availability of stockpiled methyl
bromide;
A description of efforts made to test, register, and
commercially adopt alternatives;
Plans for phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide;
The methodology used to provide economic comparisons.
EPA's Web site (www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html) contains a list of
available and potential alternatives. To support the assertion that a
specific use of methyl bromide meets the requirements of the critical
use exemption, applicants must demonstrate that none of the listed
alternatives are technically and economically feasible for that use. 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.
Since there is no formal end date for the CUE program, anyone
interested in obtaining a critical use exemption may apply. However,
the language and spirit of controls on ozone depleting substances under
the Montreal Protocol envisions a phaseout and for the critical use
exemption to be a ``temporary derogation'' from that phaseout. Over the
last decade, the research, registration, and adoption of alternatives
has led many sectors to transition from methyl bromide. The number of
sectors nominated has declined from seventeen for 2006 to two for 2016.
Below is information on how the agency evaluated specific uses in
considering nominations for critical uses for 2016, as well as specific
information needed for the U.S. to successfully defend future
nominations for critical uses.
Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and Nuts
Data reviewed by EPA as part of the 2016 nomination process for
commodities such as dried fruit and nuts indicate that sulfuryl
fluoride is effective against key pests. The industry has mostly
converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no market disruption has occurred.
Rapid fumigation is not a critical condition for this sector and
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 (for 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. Applicants should also provide
information on changes in costs for any other practices or
[[Page 38889]]
equipment used (e.g., sanitation and IPM) that are not needed when
methyl bromide is used for fumigation, including 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.
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
concentration over time [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 important for this
sector to specify research plans into alternatives and alternative
practices that support the transition from methyl bromide, as well as
information on the technical and economic feasibility of using
recapture technologies. Given the low volume of usage requested by the
sector compared to the amount of remaining pre-phaseout inventory, it
will also be important for applicants to indicate efforts to secure and
use stockpiled methyl bromide.
Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and Tomato
In reviewing data for the 2016 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) or allyl isothiocyanate
(DominusTM) used in place of metam, 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 2016 nomination
process, EPA believes alternatives are available as advances have been
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 allyl isothiocyanate
(DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than
California, or 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.
Orchard Replant
EPA's review of data in the 2016 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 (for
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 2016, 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
[[Page 38890]]
University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus
chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate
(DominusTM) used in place of metam, 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 2016 nomination process, EPA
noted that a Special Local Need label allows Telone II to be used in
accordance with certification standards for propagative material.\2\ 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 allyl isothiocyanate
(DominusTM) used in place of metam in states other than
California, 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 (for 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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
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 quality when
converting to alternatives, including: Basamid, chloropicrin, 1,3-
dichloropene, 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, metam sodium, or
allyl isothiocyanate (DominusTM), and steam. Non-fumigant
alternatives currently in use (e.g., additional pesticides,
fertilizers, different cultural practices, and increased management)
should also be described. 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 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, years between fumigations); 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 could be included that would demonstrate that alternatives
lead to more frequent resurfacing and therefore, greater adverse
economic impacts. Applicants should also address their efforts to
secure and use stockpiled methyl bromide.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this notice under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0482.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Dated: July 1, 2014.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-16064 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P