**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 82**

**\[EPA- HQ-OAR-2006-1016; FRL-\]**

**RIN: 2060-A030**

**Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2008 Critical Use Exemption
From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide**

**AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION:** Proposed Rule.

**SUMMARY:** EPA is proposing an exemption to the phaseout of methyl
bromide to meet the needs of 2008 critical uses. Specifically, EPA is
proposing uses that qualify for the 2008 critical use exemption and the
amount of methyl bromide that may be produced, imported, or supplied
from existing stocks for those uses in 2008. EPA is taking action under
the authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect recent consensus decisions
taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer (Protocol) at the 18^th^ Meeting of the Parties (MOP).
EPA is seeking comment on the list of critical uses and on EPA's
determination of the amounts of methyl bromide needed to satisfy those
uses.

**DATES:** Comments must be submitted by **\[Insert date 30 days after
date of publication\]**. Any party requesting a public hearing must
notify the contact person listed below by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
on **\[Insert date 5 days after date of publication\]**. If a hearing is
requested it will be held on **\[Insert date 15 days after date of
publication\]** and comments will be due to the Agency **\[Insert date
45 days after publication\]**. EPA will post information regarding a
hearing, if one is requested, on the Ozone Protection website
[www.epa.gov/ozone](http://www.epa.gov/ozone). Persons interested in
attending a public hearing should consult with the contact person below
regarding the location and time of the hearing.

**ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
**EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-1016**, by one of the following methods:

-   [www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/): Follow the
    on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    • Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

    • Fax: 202-566-1741

-   Mail: Docket #, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 6102T, 1200
    Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460.

-   Hand Delivery: Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-1016, Air and Radiation
    Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Room B108, Mail
    Code 6102T, Washington, D.C. 20460. Such deliveries are only
    accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
    arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

*Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
**EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-1016**. EPA\'s policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at [www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/),
including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
[www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/) website is an
"anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at
<http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm>.

**For Further Information Contact:** For further information about this
proposed rule, contact Aaron Levy by telephone at (202) 343-9215, or by
e-mail at <levy.aaron@epa.gov> or by mail at Aaron Levy, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division,
Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20460. You may also visit the Ozone
Depletion web site of EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division at
[www.epa.gov/ozone](http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html) for further
information about EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the
science of ozone layer depletion, and other related topics.

**Supplementary Information:**

This proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) restrictions on the
consumption, production, and use of methyl bromide (a class I, Group VI
controlled substance) for critical uses during calendar year 2008. Under
the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide consumption (consumption is defined
under the CAA as production plus imports minus exports) and production
was phased out on January 1, 2005 apart from allowable exemptions,
namely the critical use exemption and the quarantine and pre-shipment
exemption. With this action, EPA is proposing and seeking comment on the
uses that will qualify for the 2008 critical use exemption as well as
specific amounts of methyl bromide that may be produced, imported, or
sold from stocks for proposed critical uses in 2008.

**Table of Contents-**

I. General Information

A.  Regulated Entities

B. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?

II\. What is Methyl Bromide?

III\. What is the Background to the Phaseout Regulations for Ozone
Depleting Substances?

IV\. What is the Legal Authority for Exempting the Production and Import
of Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses Authorized by the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol?

V. What is the Critical Use Exemption Process?

A. A. Background of the Process

B. How Does This Proposed Rulemaking Relate to Previous Critical Use
Exemption Rulemakings?

C. Proposed Critical Uses

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts

1\. Background of Proposed Critical Use Amounts

2\. Calculation of Available Stocks

3\. Proposed Approach for Determining Critical Use Amounts

4\. Treatment of Carry-Over Material

5\. Amounts for Research Purposes

6\. Methyl Bromide Alternatives

E. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4

F. Emissions Minimization

G. Critical Use Allowance Allocations

H. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations and Total Volumes of Critical
Use Methyl Bromide

I. Stocks of Methyl Bromide

VI\. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

**I.** **General Information**

**A. Regulated Entities**

Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action are those
associated with the production, import, export, sale, application, and
use of methyl bromide covered by an approved critical use exemption.
Potentially regulated categories and entities include:

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
  Category    Examples of Regulated Entities

  Industry    Producers, Importers and Exporters of methyl bromide;
              Applicators, Distributors of methyl bromide; Users of
              methyl bromide, e.g., farmers of vegetable crops, fruits
              and seedlings; and owners of stored food commodities and
              structures such as grain mills and processors, agricultural
              researchers.
  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------

The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is
aware could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. To
determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization is
regulated by this proposed action, you should carefully examine the
regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart A. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section.

**B.** **What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?**

1\. *Confidential Business Information*. Do not submit this information
to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in
a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed
as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information
so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

2\. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments,
remember to:

-   Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
    information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page
    number).

-   Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respond to specific
    questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
    Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

-   Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
    substitute language for your requested changes.

-   Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
    and/or data that you used.

-   If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
    at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
    reproduced.

-   Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
    alternatives.

-   Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
    profanity or personal threats.

-   Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
    identified.

    **II. What is Methyl Bromide?**

    Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas which is used as
    a broad-spectrum pesticide and is controlled under the CAA as a
    class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS). Methyl bromide is used in
    the U.S. and throughout the world as a fumigant to control a variety
    of pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, pathogens, and nematodes.
    Additional characteristics and details about the uses of methyl
    bromide can be found in the proposed rule on the phaseout schedule
    for methyl bromide published in the **Federal Register** on March
    18, 1993 (58 FR 15014) and the final rule published in the **Federal
    Register** on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018). Information on methyl
    bromide can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr and
    http://www.unep.org/ozone or by contacting the Stratospheric Ozone
    Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.

    Because it is a pesticide, methyl bromide is also regulated by EPA
    under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
    (FIFRA) and other statutes and regulatory authority, as well as by
    States under their own statutes and regulatory authority. Under
    FIFRA, methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide. Restricted use
    pesticides are subject to certain Federal and State requirements
    governing their sale, distribution, and use. Nothing in this
    proposed rule implementing the Clean Air Act is intended to derogate
    from provisions in any other Federal, State, or Local laws or
    regulations governing actions including, but not limited to, the
    sale, distribution, transfer, and use of methyl bromide. All
    entities that would be affected by provisions of this proposal must
    continue to comply with FIFRA and other pertinent statutory and
    regulatory requirements for pesticides (including, but not limited
    to, requirements pertaining to restricted use pesticides) when
    importing, exporting, acquiring, selling, distributing,
    transferring, or using methyl bromide for critical uses. The
    regulations in this proposed action are intended only to implement
    the CAA restrictions on the production, consumption, and use of
    methyl bromide for critical uses exempted from the phaseout of
    methyl bromide.

    **II. What is the Background to the Phaseout Regulations for
    Ozone-Depleting Substances?**

    The current regulatory requirements of the Stratospheric Ozone
    Protection Program that limit production and consumption of
    ozone-depleting substances can be found at 40 CFR part 82,
    subpart A. The regulatory program was originally published in the
    **Federal Register** on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response
    to the 1987 signing and subsequent ratification of the Montreal
    Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). The
    Protocol is the international agreement aimed at reducing and
    eliminating the production and consumption of stratospheric ozone
    depleting substances. The U.S. was one of the original signatories
    to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the U.S. ratified the Protocol on
    April 12, 1988. Congress then enacted, and President George H.W.
    Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA
    of 1990) which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection,
    codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, to ensure that the
    United States could satisfy its obligations under the Protocol. EPA
    issued new regulations to implement this legislation and has made
    several amendments to the regulations since that time.

    Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting
    substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen amendment to the Protocol.
    The Parties agreed that each industrialized country's level of
    methyl bromide production and consumption in 1991 should be the
    baseline for establishing a freeze in the level of methyl bromide
    production and consumption for industrialized countries. EPA
    published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on December 10,
    1993 (58 FR 65018), listing methyl bromide as a class I, Group VI
    controlled substance, freezing U.S. production and consumption at
    this 1991 level of 25,528,270 kilograms, and, in 40 CFR 82.7 of the
    rule, setting forth the percentage of baseline allowances for methyl
    bromide granted to companies in each control period (each calendar
    year) until 2001, when the complete phaseout would occur. This
    phaseout date was established in response to a petition filed in
    1991 under sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of the CAAA of 1990,
    requesting that EPA list methyl bromide as a class I substance and
    phase out its production and consumption. This date was consistent
    with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990, which for newly listed
    class I ozone-depleting substances provides that "no extension \[of
    the phaseout schedule in section 604\] under this subsection may
    extend the date for termination of production of any class I
    substance to a date more than 7 years after January 1 of the year
    after the year in which the substance is added to the list of class
    I substances." EPA based its action on scientific assessments and
    actions by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to freeze the level
    of methyl bromide production and consumption for industrialized
    countries at the 1992 Meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen.

    At their 1995 meeting, the Parties made adjustments to the methyl
    bromide control measures and agreed to reduction steps and a 2010
    phaseout date for industrialized countries with exemptions permitted
    for critical uses. At that time, the U.S. continued to have a 2001
    phaseout date in accordance with the CAAA of 1990 language. At their
    1997 meeting, the Parties agreed to further adjustments to the
    phaseout schedule for methyl bromide in industrialized countries,
    with reduction steps leading to a 2005 phaseout for industrialized
    countries.

    **IV. What is the Legal Authority for Exempting the Production and
    Import of Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses Authorized by the Parties
    to the Montreal Protocol?**

    In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the CAA to prohibit the
    termination of production of methyl bromide prior to January 1,
    2005, to require EPA to bring the U.S. phaseout of methyl bromide in
    line with the schedule specified under the Protocol, and to
    authorize EPA to provide exemptions for critical uses. These
    amendments were contained in Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus
    Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L.
    105-277, October 21, 1998) and were codified in Section 604 of the
    CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that specifically addresses the
    critical use exemption appears at Section 604(d)(6), 42 U.S.C.
    7671c(d)(6). EPA revised the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide
    production and consumption in a direct final rulemaking on November
    28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), which allowed for the phased reduction in
    methyl bromide consumption and extended the phaseout to 2005. EPA
    again amended the revised phaseout to allow for an exemption for
    quarantine and preshipment purposes on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37751)
    with an interim final rule and with a final rule on January 2, 2003
    (68 FR 238).

    On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), EPA published a final rule
    titled "Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting
    Critical Uses From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide" (the "Framework
    Rule") in the **Federal Register** that established the framework
    for the critical use exemption; set forth a list of approved
    critical uses for 2005; and specified the amount of methyl bromide
    that could be supplied in 2005 from stocks and new production or
    import to meet the needs of approved critical uses. EPA then
    promulgated a second rule that added additional uses to the
    exemption program for 2005 and allocated additional stock allowances
    (70 FR 73604). EPA published a final rule on February 6, 2006, to
    exempt production and import of methyl bromide for 2006 critical
    uses and indicated which uses met the criteria for the exemption
    program for that year (71 FR 5985). EPA published another final rule
    on December 14, 2006, to exempt production and import of methyl
    bromide for critical uses in 2007 and indicated which uses met the
    criteria for critical uses for that year (71 FR 75386). Under
    authority of section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, EPA is proposing in this
    action the uses that will qualify as approved critical uses in 2008
    and the amount of methyl bromide required to satisfy those uses.

    This proposed action reflects Decision XVIII/13, taken at the
    Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties in October 2006. In accordance
    with Article 2H(5), the Parties have issued several Decisions
    pertaining to the critical use exemption. These include Decisions
    IX/6 and Ex. I/4, which set forth criteria for review of proposed
    critical uses. The status of Decisions is addressed in [NRDC v.
    EPA]{.underline}, (464 F.3d 1, D.C. Cir. 2006) and in EPA's
    "Supplemental Brief for the Respondent," filed in [NRDC v.
    EPA]{.underline} and available in the docket for this action. In
    this proposed rule, EPA is honoring commitments made by the United
    States in the Montreal Protocol context.

    **V. What is the Critical Use Exemption Process?**

    **A. Background of the Process**

    Starting in 2002, EPA began notifying applicants of the process for
    obtaining a critical use exemption to the methyl bromide phaseout.
    On May 8, 2003, the Agency published its first notice in the
    **Federal Register** (68 FR 24737) announcing the availability of
    the application for a critical use exemption and the deadline for
    submission of the requisite data. Applicants were informed that they
    may apply as individuals or as part of a group of users (a
    "consortium") who face the same limiting critical conditions (i.e.
    specific conditions that establish a critical need for methyl
    bromide). EPA has repeated this process annually since then. The
    critical use exemption is designed to permit production and import
    of methyl bromide for uses that do not have technically and
    economically feasible alternatives.

    The criteria for the exemption initially appeared in Decision IX/6
    of the Parties to the Protocol. In that Decision, the Parties agreed
    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 public health and are suitable to the
    crops and circumstances of the nomination." These criteria are
    reflected in EPA's definition of "critical use" at 40 CFR 82.3.

    In response to the yearly requests for critical use exemption
    applications published in the **Federal Register**, applicants have
    provided data on the technical and economic feasibility of using
    alternatives to methyl bromide. Applicants further submit data on
    their use of methyl bromide, on research programs into the use of
    alternatives to methyl bromide, and on efforts to minimize use and
    emissions of methyl bromide.

    EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs reviews the data submitted by
    applicants, as well as data from governmental and academic sources,
    to establish whether there are technically and economically feasible
    alternatives available for a particular use of methyl bromide and
    whether there would be significant market disruption if no exemption
    were available. In addition, EPA reviews other parameters of the
    exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization
    techniques and applicants' research or transition plans. This
    assessment process culminates with the development of a document
    referred to as the "Critical Use Nomination" or CUN. The U.S.
    Department of State submits the CUN annually to the United Nations
    Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone Secretariat. The CUNs of various
    countries are subsequently reviewed by the Methyl Bromide Technical
    Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technical and Economic Assessment
    Panel (TEAP), which are independent advisory bodies to Parties to
    the Montreal Protocol. These bodies make recommendations to the
    Parties on the nominations. The Parties then take a Decision to
    authorize a critical use exemption for a particular country. The
    Decision also identifies how much methyl bromide may be supplied for
    the exempted critical uses. As required in Section 604(d)(6) of the
    Clean Air Act, for each exemption period, EPA consults with the
    United States Department of Agriculture and other departments and
    institutions of the Federal government that have regulatory
    authority related to methyl bromide, and provides an opportunity
    such as this for public comment on the amounts of methyl bromide
    that the Agency has determined to be necessary for critical uses and
    the uses that the Agency has determined meet the criteria of the
    critical use exemption.

    For more information on the domestic review process and methodology
    employed by the Office of Pesticide Programs, please refer to a
    detailed memo titled "*Development of 2003* *Nomination for a
    Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of
    America*" available on the docket for this rulemaking. While the
    particulars of the data continue to evolve and clerical matters are
    further streamlined, the technical review itself has remained the
    same since the inception of the exemption program.

    On January 24, 2006, the U.S. Government (USG) submitted the fourth
    *Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide* *for
    the United States of America* to the Ozone Secretariat of the United
    Nations Environment Programme. This fourth nomination contained the
    request for 2008 critical uses. In March 2006, MBTOC sent questions
    to the USG concerning technical and economic issues in the
    nomination. In April 2006 the USG transmitted responses to MBTOC's
    requests for clarification. The USG received MBTOC's second-round of
    questions in June 2006, and sent responses to MBTOC in August 2006.
    These documents, together with reports by the advisory bodies noted
    above, can be accessed in the public docket for this rulemaking. The
    determination in this proposed rule reflects the analysis contained
    in those documents.

    **B. How Does This Proposed Rulemaking Relate to Previous Critical
    Use Exemption Rulemakings?**

    The December 23, 2004 Framework Rule (69 FR 76982) established the
    operational framework for the critical use exemption program in the
    U.S., including trading provisions and recordkeeping and reporting
    obligations. The Framework Rule defined the terms "critical use
    allowances" (CUAs) and "critical stock allowances" (CSAs) at 40 CFR
    82.3. Today's action proposes the uses that will qualify as critical
    uses for 2008 and the amounts of CUAs and CSAs to be allocated for
    those uses. The uses that EPA is proposing to qualify as 2008
    critical uses are the uses which USG included in the fourth CUN, and
    which were approved by the Parties in Decision XVIII/13. In this
    action, EPA is also proposing to refine its approach for determining
    the amount of CSAs to allocate in 2008 and each year thereafter. EPA
    discusses this proposal in detail in Section V.D. of this preamble.

    **C. Proposed Critical Uses**

    In Decision XVIII/13, taken in October 2006, the Parties to the
    Protocol agreed as follows: "for the agreed critical-use categories
    for 2008, set forth in table C of the annex to the present decision
    for each Party to permit, subject to the conditions set forth in the
    present decision and decision Ex.I/4, to the extent that those
    conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption
    for 2008 set forth in table D of the annex to the present decision
    which are necessary to satisfy critical uses ..."

    The following uses are those set forth in table C of the annex to
    Decision XVIII/13: Commodities, Cocoa beans (NPMA[^1] subset), NPMA
    food processing structures (cocoa beans removed), Mills and
    processors, Smokehouse ham, Cucurbits -- field, Eggplant -- field,
    Forest nursery, Nursery stock -- fruit, nut, flower, Orchard
    replant, Ornamentals, Peppers -- field, Strawberry -- field,
    Strawberry runners, Tomatoes -- field, Sweet potato slips. The
    agreed critical-use levels for 2008 total 5,355,946 kilograms (kg),
    which is equivalent to 21.0% of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide
    consumption baseline of 25,528,270 kg. However, the maximum amount
    of allowable new production and import as set forth in table D of
    Decision XVIII/13 is 4,595,040 kg (18.0% of baseline). For the
    reasons described in Section V.D of this preamble, EPA is proposing
    to allow limited amounts of new production or import of methyl
    bromide for critical uses for 2008 up to the amount of 3,101,076 kg
    (12.2% of baseline), with 1,715,438 kg (6.7% of baseline) coming
    from stocks. To clarify, while the Parties require only 760,906 kg
    of stockpile consumption if the entire US allotment is utilized, EPA
    is proposing consumption of 1,715,438 kg of stockpiles for critical
    uses.

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to modify Columns B and C of
    Appendix L to 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart A to reflect the agreed
    critical-use categories identified in Decision XVIII/13 for the 2008
    control period (calendar year). The Agency is proposing to amend the
    table of critical uses based, in part, on the technical analysis
    contained in the 2008 U.S. nomination that assesses data submitted
    by applicants to the critical use exemption program as well as
    public and proprietary data on the use of methyl bromide and its
    alternatives. EPA is seeking comment on the technical analysis
    (which is provided in the docket) and seeks information regarding
    changes to the registration or use of alternatives that may have
    transpired after the 2008 U.S. nomination was written. Such
    information has the potential to alter the technical or economic
    feasibility of an alternative and could thus cause EPA to modify the
    analysis that underpins EPA's determination as to which uses and
    what amounts of methyl bromide qualify for the critical use
    exemption. EPA notes that while we may, in response to comments,
    reduce the proposed quantities of critical use methyl bromide, or
    decide not to approve uses authorized by the Parties, we do not
    intend to increase the quantities or add new uses in the final rule
    beyond those authorized by the Parties. Therefore, if there has been
    a change in registration of an alternative that results in that
    alternative no longer being available to a particular use, EPA does
    not intend to add uses or amounts of methyl bromide to the critical
    use exemption program beyond those identified here. Under such
    circumstances, the user should apply to EPA, requesting that the
    U.S. nominate its use for a critical use exemption in the future.
    Based on the information described above, EPA is proposing that the
    uses in Table I: Approved Critical Uses, with the limiting critical
    conditions specified, qualify to obtain and use critical use methyl
    bromide in 2008.

    **Table I: Approved Critical Uses**

+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Column A   | Column B            | Column C                          |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Approved | **Approved Critical | **Limiting Critical Conditions**  |
| Critical   | User and Location   |                                   |
| Uses**     | of Use**            | that either exist, or that the    |
|            |                     | approved critical user reasonably |
|            |                     | expects could arise without       |
|            |                     | methyl bromide fumigation:        |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| PRE-PLANT  |                     |                                   |
| USES       |                     |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Cucurbits  | \(a\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Southeastern  | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | U.S. limited to     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | growing locations   |                                   |
|            | in Alabama,         | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | Arkansas, Kentucky, | disease infestation               |
|            | Louisiana,          |                                   |
|            | Mississippi, North  | Moderate to severe root knot      |
|            | Carolina, South     | nematode infestation              |
|            | Carolina,           |                                   |
|            | Tennessee, and      | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            | Virginia            | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Georgia       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe root knot      |
|            |                     | nematode infestation              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Eggplant   | \(a\) Florida       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Georgia       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe pythium        |
|            |                     | collar, crown and root rot        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe southern       |
|            |                     | blight infestation                |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Forest     | \(a\) Growers in    | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
| Nursery    | Alabama, Arkansas,  | purple nutsedge infestation       |
| Seedlings  | Georgia, Louisiana, |                                   |
|            | Mississippi, North  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | Carolina, Oklahoma, | disease infestation               |
|            | South Carolina,     |                                   |
|            | Tennessee, Texas,   | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | and Virginia        | infestation                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) International | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Paper and its       | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | subsidiaries        | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | limited to growing  | disease infestation               |
|            | locations in        |                                   |
|            | Alabama, Arkansas,  |                                   |
|            | Georgia, South      |                                   |
|            | Carolina, and Texas |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Public        | Moderate to severe weed           |
|            | (government-owned)  | infestation including purple and  |
|            | seedling nurseries  | yellow nutsedge infestation       |
|            | in Illinois,        |                                   |
|            | Indiana, Kentucky,  | Moderate to severe Canada thistle |
|            | Maryland, Missouri, | infestation                       |
|            | New Jersey, Ohio,   |                                   |
|            | Pennsylvania, West  | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | Virginia, and       | infestation                       |
|            | Wisconsin           |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Weyerhaeuser  | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Company and its     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | subsidiaries        |                                   |
|            | limited to growing  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | locations in        | disease infestation               |
|            | Alabama, Arkansas,  |                                   |
|            | North Carolina, and | Moderate to severe nematode or    |
|            | South Carolina      | worm infestation                  |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) Weyerhaeuser  | Moderate to severe yellow         |
|            | Company and its     | nutsedge infestation              |
|            | subsidiaries        |                                   |
|            | limited to growing  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | locations in Oregon | disease infestation               |
|            | and Washington      |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(f\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe Canada thistle |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nutsedge       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(g\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | herbaceous          | infestation                       |
|            | perennials growers  |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow         |
|            |                     | nutsedge and other weed           |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Orchard    | \(a\) Members of    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
| Nursery    | the Western         | infestation                       |
| Seedlings  | Raspberry Nursery   |                                   |
|            | Consortium limited  | Presence of medium to heavy clay  |
|            | to growing          | soils                             |
|            | locations in        |                                   |
|            | California and      | Prohibition on use of             |
|            | Washington          | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Members of    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | the California      | infestation                       |
|            | Association of      |                                   |
|            | Nursery and Garden  | Presence of medium to heavy clay  |
|            | Centers             | soils                             |
|            | representing        |                                   |
|            | Deciduous Tree      | Prohibition on use of             |
|            | Fruit Growers       | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | rose nurseries      | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Strawberry | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
| Nurseries  | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            |                     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) North         | Moderate to severe black root rot |
|            | Carolina and        |                                   |
|            | Tennessee growers   | Moderate to severe root-knot      |
|            |                     | nematode infestation              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow and     |
|            |                     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Orchard    | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
| Replant    | stone fruit growers | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of medium to heavy soils |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | table and raisin    | infestation                       |
|            | grape growers       |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | wine grape growers  | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | walnut growers      | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | almond growers      | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| O          | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
| rnamentals | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Florida       | Moderate to severe weed           |
|            | growers             | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Peppers    | \(b\) Alabama,      | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Arkansas, Kentucky, | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | Louisiana,          | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | Mississippi, North  | infestation                       |
|            | Carolina, South     |                                   |
|            | Carolina,           | Moderate to severe pythium root,  |
|            | Tennessee, and      | collar, crown and root rots       |
|            | Virginia growers    |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Florida       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Georgia       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation, or moderate to       |
|            |                     | severe pythium root and collar    |
|            |                     | rots                              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe southern       |
|            |                     | blight infestation, crown or root |
|            |                     | rot                               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Strawberry | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe black root rot |
| Fruit      | growers             | or crown rot                      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            |                     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Florida       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Carolina geranium or cut-leaf     |
|            |                     | evening primrose infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | a need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Alabama,      | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Arkansas, Georgia,  | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | Illinois, Kentucky, |                                   |
|            | Louisiana,          | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | Maryland,           | infestation                       |
|            | Mississippi,        |                                   |
|            | Missouri, New       | Moderate to severe black root and |
|            | Jersey, North       | crown rot                         |
|            | Carolina, Ohio,     |                                   |
|            | South Carolina,     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            | Tennessee, and      | research purposes                 |
|            | Virginia growers    |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Sweet      | \(a\) California    | Prohibition on use of             |
| Potato     | growers             | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
| Slips      |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Tomatoes   | \(a\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe fungal         |
|            |                     | pathogen infestation              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Alabama,      | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Arkansas, Florida,  | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | Georgia, Kentucky,  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | Louisiana,          | disease infestation               |
|            | Mississippi, North  |                                   |
|            | Carolina, South     | Moderate to severe nematodes      |
|            | Carolina,           |                                   |
|            | Tennessee, and      | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            | Virginia growers    | to karst topographical features,  |
|            |                     | and in Florida, soils not         |
|            |                     | supporting seepage irrigation     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| PO         |                     |                                   |
| ST-HARVEST |                     |                                   |
| USES       |                     |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Food       | \(a\) Rice millers  | Moderate to severe infestation of |
| Processing | in all locations in | beetles, weevils or moths         |
|            | the U.S. who are    |                                   |
|            | members of the USA  | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | Rice Millers        | properly sealed to use an         |
|            | Association.        | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            |                     | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Pet food      | Moderate to severe infestation or |
|            | manufacturing       | beetles, moths, or cockroaches    |
|            | facilities in the   |                                   |
|            | U.S. who are active | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | members of the Pet  | properly sealed to use an         |
|            | Food Institute (For | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            | this proposed rule, |                                   |
|            | "pet food" refers   | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            | to domestic dog and | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            | cat food).          |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternatives                      |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Bakeries in   | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | the U.S.            | properly sealed to use an         |
|            |                     | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            |                     | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Members of    | Moderate to severe beetle         |
|            | the North American  | infestation                       |
|            | Millers'            |                                   |
|            | Association in the  | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | U.S.                | properly sealed to use an         |
|            |                     | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            |                     | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) Members of    | Moderate to severe beetle or moth |
|            | the National Pest   | infestation                       |
|            | Management          |                                   |
|            | Association         | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | associated with dry | properly sealed to use an         |
|            | commodity structure | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            | fumigation (cocoa)  |                                   |
|            | and dry commodity   | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            | fumigation          | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            | (processed food,    |                                   |
|            | herbs and spices,   | Time to transition to an          |
|            | dried milk and      | alternatives                      |
|            | cheese processing   |                                   |
|            | facilities)         |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| C          | \(a\) California    | Rapid fumigation is required to   |
| ommodities | entities storing    | meet a critical market window,    |
|            | walnuts, beans,     | such as during the holiday        |
|            | dried plums, figs,  | season, rapid fumigation is       |
|            | raisins, dates (in  | required when a buyer provides    |
|            | Riverside county    | short (2 working days or less)    |
|            | only), and          | notification for a purchase or    |
|            | pistachios in       | there is a short period after     |
|            | California          | harvest in which to fumigate and  |
|            |                     | there is limited silo             |
|            |                     | availability for using            |
|            |                     | alternatives                      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dry Cured  | \(a\) Members of    | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
| Pork       | the National        |                                   |
| Products   | Country Ham         | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            | Association         |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Members of    | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
|            | the American        |                                   |
|            | Association of Meat | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            | Processors          |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Nahunta Pork  | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
|            | Center (North       |                                   |
|            | Carolina)           | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Gwaltney and  | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
|            | Smithfield Inc.     |                                   |
|            |                     | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+

EPA is proposing to amend the table in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A,
Appendix L, as reflected above. Specifically, EPA is adding six
references and deleting four references in column B. The changes are as
follows: adding Mississippi to the approved locations for cucurbit
growers because that location was included in the approved Southeast
Cucurbit Consortium application for 2008; removing Florida from the
approved forest seedling locations because a 2008 application for that
location was not submitted to EPA; removing Maryland from the approved
strawberry nursery locations because a 2008 application for that
location was not submitted to EPA; removing California from the approved
locations for pepper growers because the United States Government did
not reflect this location in its 2008 Critical Use Nomination; adding
Mississippi to the approved locations for pepper growers because that
location was included in the approved Southeast Pepper Consortium
application for 2008; adding Mississippi and Missouri to the approved
locations for strawberry fruit growers because those locations were
included in the approved Southeastern Strawberry Consortium application
for 2008; adding California sweet potato slip growers to reflect the
authorization of that use in Decision XVIII/13; adding Mississippi to
the approved locations for tomato growers because that location was
included in the approved Southeastern Tomato Consortium application for
2008; removing turfgrass because that use was not agreed to by the
Parties in Decision XVIII/13; adding Gwaltney and Smithfield Inc. to the
approved entities for dry cured pork products because their application
was approved for 2008.

The categories listed in Table I above have been designated critical
uses for 2008 in Decision XVIII/13 of the Parties. The amount of methyl
bromide approved for research purposes is included in the amount of
methyl bromide approved by the Parties for the commodities for which
"research purposes" is indicated as a limiting critical condition in the
table above. As explained in Section V.D.5., EPA is allowing sale of
15,491 kg of methyl bromide from existing stocks for research purposes.

In accordance with the recommendations in Table 9 of the TEAP's
September 2006 Final Report titled "Evaluations of 2006 Critical Use
Nominations for Methyl Bromide and Related Matters," available on the
docket for this rulemaking, EPA is proposing that the following sectors
be allowed to use critical use methyl bromide for research purposes:
commodities, cucurbits (field), eggplant (field), nursery stock (fruit,
nut, flower), ornamentals, peppers (field), strawberry (field),
strawberry runners, and tomatoes (field). In their applications to EPA,
these sectors identified research programs that require the use of
methyl bromide.

**D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts**

Section V.C. of this preamble explains that Table C of the annex to
Decision XVIII/13 lists critical uses and amounts agreed to by the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol. When added together, the authorized
critical use amounts for 2008 total 5,355,946 kilograms (kg), which is
equivalent to 21.0% of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline
of 25,528,270 kg as defined at 40 CFR 82.3. However, the maximum amount
of authorized new production or import as set forth in Table D of the
annex to Decision XVIII/13 is 4,595,040 kg (18.0% of baseline).

EPA is proposing to exempt limited amounts of new production and import
of methyl bromide for critical uses for 2008 up to the amount of
3,101,076 kg (12.2% of baseline) as shown in Table II. EPA is also
proposing to allow sale of 1,715,438 kg (6.7% of baseline) of existing
inventories for critical uses in 2008. EPA is seeking comment on the
proposed total levels of exempted new production and import for critical
uses and the amount of material that may be sold from stocks for
critical uses. The sub-sections below explain EPA's reasons and refined
approach for proposing the above critical use amounts for 2008.

*1. Background of Proposed Critical Use Amounts*

The Framework Rule and subsequent CUE rules each took note of language
regarding stocks of methyl bromide in relevant decisions of the Parties.
In developing this proposed action, the Agency notes that paragraph six
of Decision XVIII/13 contains the following language: "that each Party
which has an agreed critical use renews its commitment to ensure that
the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 are applied when licensing,
permitting or authorizing critical use of methyl bromide and that such
procedures take into account available stocks of banked or recycled
methyl bromide, in particular, the criterion laid down in paragraph
1(b)(ii) of decision IX/6." Language calling on Parties to address
stocks also appears in prior Decisions related to the critical use
exemption.

In the Framework Rule, which established the architecture of the CUE
program and set out the exempted levels of critical use for 2005, EPA
interpreted paragraph 5 of Decision Ex. I/3, which is similar to
Decision XVIII/13(6), "as meaning that the U.S. should not authorize
critical use exemptions without including provisions addressing drawdown
from stocks for critical uses" (69 FR 76987). Consistent with that
interpretation, The Framework Rule (69 FR 52366) established provisions
governing the sale of pre-phaseout inventories for critical uses,
including the concept of CSAs and a prohibition on the sale of
pre-phaseout inventories for critical uses in excess of the amount of
CSAs held by the seller. In addition, EPA noted that stocks were further
taken into account through the trading provisions that allow CUAs to be
converted into CSAs. EPA is not proposing changes to these basic CSA
provisions for calendar year 2008.

In the August 25, 2004 Proposed Framework Rule (69 FR 52366), EPA
proposed to adjust the authorized level of new production and
consumption for critical uses by the amount of "available" stocks. The
methodology for determining the amount of "available" stocks considered
exports, methyl bromide for feedstock uses, and the need for a buffer in
case of catastrophic events. However, EPA did not adopt the proposed
methodology for determining available stocks in the final Framework
Rule. Instead, EPA issued CSAs in an amount equal to the difference
between the total authorized CUE amount and the amount of new production
or import authorized by the Parties (Total Authorized CUE Amount --
Authorized New Production and Import).

In the 2006 CUE Rule, published February 6, 2006 (71 FR 5997), EPA
applied the approach described in the Framework Rule by allocating as
CSAs the difference between the total authorized CUE amount and the
amount of new production and import authorized by the Parties (2.0% of
baseline), as well as the small supplemental allocation in Decision
XVII/9 (0.4% of baseline). EPA also issued CSAs allowing additional
amounts of existing stocks to be sold for critical uses (roughly 3.0% of
baseline). In the 2006 CUE Rule EPA issued a total of 1,136,008 CSAs,
equivalent to 5.0% of baseline. Similarly, in the 2007 CUE Rule, EPA
issued a number of CSAs that represented not only the difference between
the total authorized CUE amount and the amount of authorized new
production and import (6.2% of baseline), but also an additional amount
(1.3% of baseline) for a total of 1,915,600 CSAs (7.5% of baseline). By
allocating additional CSAs, EPA adjusted the portion of CUE methyl
bromide to come from new production and import as compared to the
proportion to come from stocks so that the total amount of methyl
bromide exempted for critical uses did not exceed the total amount
authorized by the Parties for that year.

EPA viewed the additional CSA amounts as an appropriate exercise of its
discretion. EPA reasoned that the Agency was not required to allocate
the full amount of authorized new production and consumption. The
Parties agreed to "permit" a particular level of production and
consumption; they did not---and could not---mandate that the U.S.
authorize this level of production and consumption domestically. Nor
does the CAA require EPA to exempt the full amount permitted by the
Parties. Section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not require
EPA to exempt any amount of production and consumption for critical
uses, but instead specifies that the Agency "may" exempt amounts for
production, importation, and consumption, thus providing EPA with
substantial discretion in creating critical use exemptions.

In the July 6, 2006 Proposed 2007 CUE Rule (71 FR 38325), EPA sought
comment on "whether, in the critical use exemption context, it would be
appropriate to adjust the level of new production and import with the
goal of maintaining a stockpile of some specified duration \[...\] and
on how many months of methyl bromide inventory would be appropriate, in
order to maintain non-disruptive management of this chemical in the
supply chain" (71 FR 38339). In the Final 2007 CUE Rule, EPA noted that
"the Parties have not taken a decision on an appropriate amount of
inventory for reserve. Nor has EPA reached any conclusion regarding what
amount might be appropriate. Given this uncertainty, and the continuing
decline in inventory levels, EPA is exercising caution in this year's
CSA allocation. EPA will consider various approaches to this issue in
the future based on the data received during this notice and comment
rulemaking process and other information obtained by the Agency" (71 FR
75399).

Data on the aggregate amount of methyl bromide held in inventory at the
end of calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 is available in the
public docket for this rulemaking. Using this aggregated inventory data,
and other data gathered by EPA, the Agency estimates that on January 1,
2008 the aggregate inventory will be less than one-year's supply of
critical use methyl bromide.

The benefits of methyl bromide reserves for critical uses were discussed
at the 18^th^ Meeting of the Parties (MOP). The Parties did not take a
decision at the 18^th^ MOP on whether it would be appropriate for a
member country to maintain a reserve, or what size inventory would be
adequate; however, in other instances, namely the Essential Use
Exemption process for CFC inhalers, the Parties have allowed for working
stocks up to one year's supply. Instead, they left the matter for future
discussion, and left open the possibility that a decision related to the
issue might be taken at the 19^th^ Meeting of the Parties in September
2007.

In this action, EPA is not proposing to maintain a reserve of methyl
bromide for critical uses, or to guarantee that a certain amount of
methyl bromide would always be held in reserve. EPA is, however,
proposing to calculate the amount of existing methyl bromide stocks that
is available for critical uses in 2008, and to consider this amount in
the Agency's determination of how much sale of existing stocks and how
much production and importation to allow for critical uses in 2008.
Section V.D.2. describes EPA's proposed method to calculate the amount
of existing stocks that is available for critical use in 2008. Section
V.D.3. explains how EPA proposes to apply the calculated amount of
available stocks in the Agency's critical use amount determinations.

The proposed methods for determining the critical use amounts, described
in Section V.D.2. and V.D.3. of this preamble, refine the Agency\'s
approach for determining how much critical use methyl bromide may be
produced and imported and how much may be sold to critical users from
existing inventories in a given year. EPA proposes to use these
refinements in 2008 and, as feasible and appropriate, each year
thereafter. Through data collection and experience, EPA has gained
information about the CUE program that the Agency did not have when the
program began. The pre-phaseout inventory has gradually declined to the
point where, for the first time, EPA estimates that at the start of next
year (2008) inventory will represent less than a one-year supply of
critical use methyl bromide. The proposed approach for determining CUE
production and import levels addresses the decline in methyl bromide
inventories by considering in a more transparent manner the amount of
existing stocks that is available for critical uses. As described below,
the proposed approach establishes a clear and repeatable process for the
Agency to make allocations that reflect a reasonable estimate of the
amount of inventory available in a future control period based on data
collected from earlier control periods. This will help EPA continue
allocating CSA amounts responsibly. Thus, while EPA does not view
refinements to its approach as legally required, EPA does view them as
an appropriate discretionary action for the reasons given here. EPA
seeks comment on the refined approach for determining critical use
methyl bromide levels, which is described in detail in Sections V.D.2.
and V.D.3. of this preamble, and also in a Technical Support Document
available on the public docket for this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-1016).

*2. Calculation of Available Stocks*

In this action, EPA is proposing to adjust the authorized level of new
production and consumption for critical uses to account for the amount
of existing stocks that is "available" for critical uses. This section
explains how EPA proposes to calculate the amount of existing stocks
that is available for critical uses in 2008. As described in more detail
in Section V.D.3. of this preamble, EPA proposes to allow sale of the
amount of existing inventory that the Agency has determined to be
available for critical uses by issuing an equivalent number of critical
stock allowances (CSAs), on a one-CSA-per-one-kilogram-of-methyl-bromide
basis. EPA wants to be clear that in this action the Agency is not
proposing to create a methyl bromide reserve or strategic inventory of
any kind, or to guarantee that a certain amount of methyl bromide would
always be held in reserve. Furthermore, in this action EPA is not
proposing to add any new restrictions on sales of methyl bromide
inventories.

The Parties to the Protocol recognized in their Decisions that the level
of existing stocks may differ from the level of available stocks as
discussed in the Proposed Framework Rule. Most recently, Decision
XVIII/13(4) states, "That a Party with a critical use exemption level in
excess of permitted levels of production and consumption for critical
uses is to make up any such differences between those levels by using
quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized
to be available." Thus, in Decisions XVIII/13, XVII/9, Ex. II/1, XVI/2,
Ex. I/3 and IX/6 the Parties recognized that not all existing stocks may
be available to meet critical needs. Section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air
Act does not require that EPA adjust the amount of new production and
import to reflect the availability of stocks: however, making such an
adjustment is a reasonable exercise of EPA's discretion under this
provision. Section 604(d)(6) provides that, "to the extent consistent
with the Montreal Protocol" EPA "may" exempt production, importation,
and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses, thus providing the
Agency substantial discretion to determine whether, and to what extent,
production and import is appropriate for critical uses.

One commenter disagreed with EPA's interpretation in the Proposed
Framework Rule that the Agency has the authority, as recognized by the
Parties in Decision Ex.I/3 and similar Decisions, to "assess how much
methyl bromide is available from existing inventories" (69 FR 52373).
According to the commenter, EPA was making a "false distinction" between
the terms "available" stocks and "existing" stocks of methyl bromide.
The commenter submitted that the only difference between "available" and
"existing" is the deduction to reflect developing country needs. The
commenter based this argument on the language in Decision
IX/6(1)(b)(ii), which states the condition that methyl bromide "is not
*available* in sufficient quality and quantity from *existing* stocks of
banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing
countries' need for methyl bromide." Thus, the commenter argued that
Dec. Ex.I/3 does not create a new meaning for "available" that
encompasses more deductions than for the developing country needs.

EPA disagrees with the commenter's broad application of the language in
Decision IX/6(1)(b)(ii). EPA believes that in Dec. IX/6(1)(b)(ii) the
Parties were stressing the importance of developing countries' needs,
and not precluding the consideration of other factors in each individual
Party's determination of available stocks of methyl bromide. Dec.
IX/6(1)(b)(ii) says "*also* bearing in mind developing countries' need,"
it does not say "*only* bearing in mind..." Furthermore, EPA underscores
Dec. XVIII/13(4) and similar decisions which use the phrasing,
"quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized
to be available." EPA believes that in that Decision, and in similar
language in other decisions, the Parties acknowledged that individual
Parties have the discretion to determine their level of available
stocks. For these reasons, EPA believes it is acting consistently with
the relevant decisions. In addition, given the substantial discretion
afforded by Congress under section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
believes it has the authority to determine, through a notice and comment
rulemaking process, what factors to include in the method for estimating
the amount of existing stocks that is available.

Today\'s proposed approach is a logical extension of the approach used
in EPA's 2006 and 2007 CUE allocation rules where EPA concluded that it
was reasonable to adjust the proportion of CUE methyl bromide to come
from new production and import as compared to the proportion to come
from stocks. Furthermore, it is appropriate for EPA to refine its
approach in light of new information.

EPA is considering new information it has gathered about the
availability of stocks for critical uses. That information is included
in a Technical Support Document available in the docket for this
rulemaking. EPA is proposing, and seeking comment on, the following
approach to calculate the amount of existing stocks that is available
for critical uses. EPA's proposed methodology for calculating the amount
of available stocks can be expressed as follows: AS = ES -- D -- SCF,
where AS = available stocks on January 1, 2008; ES = existing
pre-phaseout stocks of methyl bromide held in the United States by
producers, importers, and distributors on January 1, 2007; D = estimated
drawdown of existing stocks during calendar year 2007; and SCF = a
supply chain factor, the calculation of which is described below and in
more detail in the Technical Support Document. Using the above method,
EPA calculates that 1,715,438 kg (6.7% of baseline) of existing
pre-phaseout stocks of methyl bromide will be "available" for critical
uses on January 1, 2008. EPA seeks comment on the amount of the
pre-phaseout stock that it estimates will be available for critical uses
on January 1, 2008.

In the above formula "existing stocks" refers to pre-phaseout inventory
-- i.e., methyl bromide that was produced before January 1, 2005 that is
still held by domestic producers, distributors and third-party
applicators. January 1, 2005 was the phaseout date for production and
import of methyl bromide in the United States. ES does not include
critical use methyl bromide that was produced after January 1, 2005 and
carried over into subsequent years. That "carry-over" amount is treated
separately as described in Section V.D.4. of this preamble. For the
reasons discussed in Section V.D.4., EPA deducts an amount equivalent to
the carry-over amount from the amount of allowable new production for
the control period in question. ES also does not include methyl bromide
produced under the exemption for quarantine and preshipment (QPS),
methyl bromide produced with Article 5 allowances to meet the basic
domestic needs of Article 5 countries, or methyl bromide produced for
feedstock or transformation purposes. Such amounts have been removed
from the calculation of the amount of "available stocks" for critical
uses. Methyl bromide produced for QPS uses or for export to Article 5
countries may not be sold to domestic entities for critical uses. That
methyl bromide, therefore, is separate from the CUE program.

To estimate the drawdown of existing stocks during 2007, the "D" term in
the above method, EPA proposes to project the size of the pre-phaseout
methyl bromide inventory on January 1, 2008 with a simple linear fit
estimation using EPA data about the size of that inventory on January 1
of the years for which EPA has data: 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Using a
simple linear fit, EPA projects that the pre-phaseout methyl bromide
inventory, which was 7,671,091 kg on January 1, 2007, will be drawn down
by 3,224,351 kg during 2007. Therefore, EPA estimates that the size of
the pre-phaseout inventory will be 4,447,740 kg on January 1, 2008.
EPA's methodology for estimating the inventory drawdown is described in
more detail in the Technical Support Document available on the public
docket for this rulemaking.

EPA's proposed method for determining the amount of existing stocks that
is available for critical uses includes a supply chain factor (SCF). The
SCF represents EPA's technical estimate of the amount of methyl bromide
inventory that would be adequate to meet critical use methyl bromide
shortfalls after an unforeseen domestic production failure. For 2008,
EPA proposes to use a SCF equal to 2,731,211 kg in the Agency's
calculation of the amount of available stocks. EPA wants to be very
clear that in this action the Agency is not proposing to create a
"reserve" or "strategic inventory" of any kind. he SCF is merely a
transparent analytical tool that will help EPA to continue issuing
responsible CSA amounts.

There is one active methyl bromide production facility in the United
States. EPA estimates that following an unforeseen shutdown of that
facility (e.g., due to an explosion, fire, hurricane), it would take
6-12 months to restart production, but only 15 weeks for significant
imports of methyl bromide to reach the U.S. As discussed in the
Technical Support Document, EPA estimates that after 15 weeks, U.S.
demand for critical use methyl bromide could be adequately supplied with
imported material. In Decision XVIII/13, the Parties authorized
5,355,946 kg for U.S. critical uses in 2008. If supply is evenly
distributed across each 15-week period of 2008, then a supply disruption
would cause a 15-week shortfall of 1,544,984 kg (15 weeks/52 weeks \*
5,355,946 kg). However, EPA data -- collected pursuant to the reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 -- shows that a disproportionate amount of
critical use methyl bromide is produced in the first 15 weeks of each
year. EPA's analysis in the Technical Support Document suggests that
heavy production at the beginning of each year is related to peak demand
during the spring planting season. Therefore, EPA estimates that a
supply disruption at or near the beginning of 2008 would cause a supply
shortfall greater than 1,544,984 kg.

EPA proposes a conservative estimate of the supply chain factor that
considers a supply disruption during the estimated peak 15-week period
of critical use supply. As explained in more detail in the Technical
Support Document, EPA estimates that since the beginning of the CUE
program on January 1, 2005, critical use methyl bromide production in
the first 15 weeks of each year has accounted for 51.0% of annual
critical use methyl bromide production. EPA, therefore, estimates that
the peak 15-week shortfall in 2008 could be 2,731,211 kg (51.0% \*
5,355,946 kg). For the reasons discussed above, EPA proposes to include
a supply chain factor of 2,731,211 kg in its calculation of the amount
of available stocks in 2008. EPA's analysis considers many factors
including foreign production capacity, shipping container capacity,
shipping logistics and market dynamics. EPA seeks comment on the
proposed supply chain factor in its calculation of the amount of
available stocks in 2008, and on its methods and reasoning for this
proposal as described in the Technical Support Document.

This estimate of a 15 week supply disruption assumes that registrants of
methyl bromide products have equal access to all sources of available
methyl bromide. The Agency recognizes that not all registrants are
allowed to access alternative sources of methyl bromide. Therefore,
registrants may need to submit applications to amend their existing
registrations to legally allow alternative sources of methyl bromide to
be used in formulating methyl bromide end-use products. Because such
applications may require the submission of product chemistry and acute
toxicology data, registrants should plan accordingly, bearing in mind
the registration requirements under FIFRA and the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act (PRIA). As it is uncertain how the amendment process
would affect the estimate of supply disruption, EPA will use the 15 week
figure unless other information becomes available.

There are other limitations associated with EPA's 15 week supply
disruption estimate, which are discussed in the Technical Support
Document. One of these limitations is that under the reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13, EPA collects information about the amount
of pre-phaseout inventory and which entities own it, but the Agency does
not collect information about the characteristics of that inventory.
These unknown characteristics, such as the purity of the pre-phaseout
inventory, could affect users' ability to use this inventory to meet
their critical needs. For example, inventory intended for pre-plant uses
may be pre-mixed with chloropicrin in compressed gas cylinders and
therefore could not be used for post-harvest fumigations that require
pure methyl bromide. EPA seeks information about the characteristics of
the pre-phaseout inventory, because that information could help EPA
refine its proposed CSA allocation amount. For example, if EPA obtains
verifiable information that none of the pre-phaseout inventory is of
sufficient composition for post-harvest uses, the Agency may decide not
to allocate CSAs for post-harvest sectors. Instead, that amount of CSAs
would be allocated as post-harvest CUAs.

EPA believes there is precedent for allowing a reasonable amount of a
chemical that has been phased out to remain in the supply chain to meet
the needs of exempted uses. For example, in the context of the essential
use exemption, as explained in the "FDA determination letter" available
on the public docket for this rulemaking, FDA bases its determination of
the amount of CFC production that is necessary for medical devices "on
an estimate of the quantity of CFCs that would allow manufacturers to
maintain as much as a 12-month stockpile." That action is consistent
with Decision XVI/12(3), which specifies that "Parties, when preparing
essential use nominations for CFCs, should give due consideration to
existing stocks, whether owned or agreed to be acquired from a
metered-dose inhaler manufacturer, of banked or recycled controlled
substances as described in paragraph 1(b) of decision IV/25, with the
objective of maintaining no more than one year's operational supply."

Given that today\'s proposal is to make methyl bromide available for
critical uses in 2008, the small number of methyl bromide production
facilities around the world, and the continued drawdown of existing
methyl bromide inventories make a major supply disruption an important
issue for Agency consideration. The fact that EPA is not aware of a
major methyl bromide supply disruption does not mean that such a
disruption is impossible or even improbable in the future.

The Technical Support Document discusses in detail the efficacy and
limitations of importing methyl bromide from abroad in the event of a
domestic production plant failure. In fact, EPA estimates that in the
event of a plant production failure, importing methyl bromide from
abroad is likely to be the fastest and most practical short-term way to
replace the lost production. Therefore, issues such as foreign excess
production capacity, shipping container capacity, shipping logistics,
and market dynamics are the primary focus of EPA's analysis.

As explained above, EPA is not proposing to set aside, or physically
separate, stocks as an inventory reserve. By including a supply chain
factor in its calculation of available stocks EPA is considering the
drawdown of stocks and allocating critical use amounts that reflect the
size of the existing stockpile of pre-phaseout material. Under EPA's
proposed approach, stocks of methyl bromide may be used to "fill the
distribution chain" and simultaneously provide some buffer in case of a
major supply disruption.

Exports were an important consideration in EPA's inclusion of the supply
chain factor. The U.S. faces different circumstances from many other
Parties because it is a methyl bromide producing country as well as a
user country. In fact, historically the U.S. has been the world's
largest supplier of methyl bromide. Since U.S. companies supply a
significant portion of the world demand for methyl bromide, a supply
disruption in the U.S. would not only affect U.S. users, but would
probably affect users with agreed critical uses in developed countries
as well as users in developing countries that have basic domestic needs
for methyl bromide. Therefore, depending on how domestic suppliers
manage their inventories, the supply chain factor could indirectly
reduce the risks for entities in other countries which need methyl
bromide.

As explained in the Technical Support Document, EPA did not directly
consider domestic demand for methyl bromide for QPS uses in its
estimation of the possible shortfall of methyl bromide supplies in the
event of a major supply disruption. Congress provided separate grants of
authority to EPA for the quarantine and preshipment exemption and the
critical use exemption in CAA sections 604(d)(5) and 604(d)(6),
respectively. Therefore, methyl bromide produced for QPS uses is
regulated under a completely separate exemption program from the CUE. On
January 2, 2003 EPA published the QPS Rule in the **Federal Register**
(68 FR 2138), which established the framework and guidelines for
regulating methyl bromide produced for uses that meet the definition of
QPS uses, as defined in that rule and at 40 CFR 82.3. The QPS exemption
program does not restrict the amount of methyl bromide that is newly
produced and imported for QPS purposes. In addition, existing
regulations allow manufacturers and distributors of QPS methyl bromide
to manage stockpiles of QPS methyl bromide.

EPA is acting consistently with the Montreal Protocol by not including
QPS methyl bromide in calculating consumption and inventory levels
related to the phase-out of methyl bromide and the CUE. Article 2H(6) of
the Protocol states that the 1991 baseline level of consumption and
production "shall not include the amounts used by the Party for
quarantine and pre-shipment purposes."

Similarly, EPA did not consider domestic demand for methyl bromide for
feedstock and transformation purposes in its calculation of the supply
chain factor. As with the QPS exemption, methyl bromide producers are
allowed to responsibly manage inventories of feedstock methyl bromide.
Therefore, EPA does not find compelling reasons to account for domestic
demand for feedstock methyl bromide in the supply chain factor. In this
action, EPA is not proposing to change or add restrictions on methyl
bromide produced for feedstock and transformation purposes.

In the past, stakeholders have raised concerns about their ability to
understand exactly how EPA derives CSA amounts. One of EPA's motivations
for introducing the refined methodology, described above in this
section, is to provide more clarity about how proposed amounts are
derived, and to make EPA's calculations more transparent. For these
reasons, EPA tried to make the terms in the proposed method for
calculating available stocks proposed in this preamble as clear and
definitive as possible. Since the original proposed rule, EPA has gained
significant experience and information pertaining to the CUE program,
and the methyl bromide industry more generally. EPA is using its added
knowledge to propose a more transparent and definitive method for
calculating the amount of available stocks. Further detail about the
factors in the method proposed in this preamble is provided in the
Technical Support Document available on the public docket for this
rulemaking.

*3. Proposed Approach for Determining Critical Use Amounts*

As described in Section V.D.2. of this preamble, EPA estimates that
there will be 1,715,438 kg of available stocks on January 1, 2008. Based
on these calculated figures and the allocation approach described in
this Section, and after making reductions for carry-over amounts as
explained in Section V.D.4. of this preamble, EPA proposes to allocate
critical use allowances (CUAs) permitting 3,101,076 kg of new methyl
bromide production and import for critical uses in 2008, and to allow
sale of 1,715,438 kg from existing stocks for critical uses by
allocating an equivalent number of critical stock allowances (CSAs). EPA
seeks comment on the amount of CUAs and CSAs that the Agency is
proposing to distribute in 2008. EPA also seeks comment on the more
refined allocation approach that the Agency is proposing to use in 2008
and beyond, as described below in this Section.

EPA's proposed allocation amounts will drawdown existing stockpiles
faster than required by the Parties. This is consistent with Decision
Ex. 1/3(5), which EPA has interpreted "as meaning that the U.S. should
not authorize critical use exemptions without including provisions
addressing drawdown from stocks for critical uses" (69 FR 76987).
Furthermore, as 2008 will be the fourth year of the CUE program, the
utility of existing stockpiles to ease the transition to alternatives
for entities that decided not to participate in the CUE process has
diminished. Using existing stocks for critical uses also has
stratospheric ozone protection benefits, because it eliminates the need
for extra production of new methyl bromide to meet those needs. These
are some of the reasons that EPA is proposing to refine its analytical
approach for drawing down existing stockpiles at a responsible rate.

In this action, EPA is proposing to refine its allocation approach for
2008 and beyond. EPA proposes that in 2008 and in each year thereafter,
when appropriate and feasible, EPA will allocate CSAs in an amount equal
to the number of kilograms of available stocks on January 1 of the year
in question, as estimated by EPA using the method described in Section
V.D.2. of this preamble. As in past years, EPA intends to allocate a
total number of CUAs, such that the total number of CUAs and CSAs is not
greater than the total critical use amount authorized by the Parties for
the year in question. To account for carry-over amounts of methyl
bromide, amounts for research purposes, or for other appropriate
reasons, including updated information on alternatives, EPA may allocate
a total number of CUAs and CSAs that is less than the total critical use
amount authorized by the Parties for the year in question. As in
previous CUE rules, if EPA does allow less than the total amount
authorized by the Parties, the Agency will propose and seek comment on
the reasons for, and amounts of, each reduction before finalizing any
such reductions. In this action EPA is not proposing to create a methyl
bromide reserve or strategic inventory of any kind, or to guarantee that
a certain amount of methyl bromide would always be held in reserve.
Furthermore, EPA is not proposing to add any restrictions on sales of
methyl bromide inventories.

EPA recognizes that in a future CUE allocation rule proposal, the Agency
could estimate, using the method described in Section V.D.2. of this
preamble, that the amount of available stocks at the beginning of a
future year is less than the difference between the total critical use
amount authorized by the Parties and the amount of new production and
imports authorized by the Parties for the year in question. This
scenario can be described with the following inequality: Available
Stocks \< (Total CUE Amount Authorized -- New Production and Imports
Authorized). If that scenario arises, EPA proposes to allow the maximum
amount of new production and imports authorized by the Parties, minus
any reductions as described below. EPA would also allow critical users
to access a limited amount of existing stocks by allocating a number of
CSAs equal to the difference between the total CUE amount authorized by
the Parties and the amount of new production and imports authorized for
the year in question (CSA = Total CUE Amount Authorized -- New
Production and Imports Authorized), again minus any reductions as
discussed here. Of course, this scenario would not happen instantly. EPA
will continue to collect inventory data and make critical use
allocations on an annual basis. Similarly, unless the Parties approve
multi-year critical use exemptions, EPA proposes to calculate the amount
of available stocks on an annual basis and to explain those calculations
in the annual CUE allocation rulemaking process. To account for
carry-over amounts of methyl bromide, amounts for research purposes, or
for other appropriate reasons, including updated information on
alternatives, EPA could allocate a total number of CUAs and CSAs that is
less than the total critical use amount authorized by the Parties for
the year in question. As in previous CUE rules, if EPA does allow less
than the total amount authorized by the Parties, the Agency will propose
and seek comment on the reasons for, and amounts of, each reduction
before finalizing any such reductions.

EPA recognizes that in a future CUE allocation rule proposal it could
estimate, using the method described in Section V.D.2. of this preamble,
that the amount of available stocks at the beginning of a future year is
greater than the total critical use amount authorized by the Parties for
the year in question. This scenario can be described with the following
inequality: Available Stocks \> Total CUE Amount Authorized. In that
somewhat unlikely scenario, EPA proposes to allocate a number of CSAs
that is equivalent to the total CUE amount authorized by the Parties for
the year in question. However, EPA could still make reductions, such as
for amounts of carry-over CUE material. Therefore, in the situation
described by the above inequality, EPA would not allocate any CUAs for
the year in question, because the amount of available stocks would be
large enough to provide an adequate amount of critical use material for
the year in question to allow suppliers to responsibly manage their
pre-phaseout stockpiles.

EPA recognizes that future consensus decisions of the Parties have the
potential to influence the approach that EPA takes in the final 2008 CUE
Rule. For example, EPA anticipates that at the 19^th^ Meeting of the
Parties in September 2007, the Parties may discuss the future when it is
likely that there will be no more, or very little, pre-phaseout
inventory remaining. At this point in time EPA is not proposing specific
approaches that the Agency might take when pre-phaseout inventories are
gone. EPA is, however, seeking advance comment on approaches that the
Agency might consider when very little or no pre-phaseout inventory
remains.

*4. Treatment of Carry-Over Material*

As described in the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule (69 FR 76997), EPA
is not permitting entities to build stocks of methyl bromide produced or
imported after January 1, 2005 under the critical use exemption. Under
the current regulations, quantities of methyl bromide produced,
imported, exported, or sold to end-users under the critical use
exemption in a calendar year must be reported to EPA the following year.
These reporting requirements appear at Sections 82.13(f)(3),
82.13(g)(4), 82.13(h)(1), 82.13(bb)(2 ), and 82.13(cc)(2). EPA uses the
reported information to calculate the amount of methyl bromide produced
or imported under the critical use exemption, but not exported or sold
to end-users in that year. An amount equivalent to this "carry-over,"
whether pre-plant or post-harvest, is then deducted from the total level
of allowable new production and import in the year following the year of
the data report. For example, the amount of carry-over from 2005, which
was reported in 2006, was deducted from the allowable amount of
production or import for critical uses in 2007. As discussed in Section
V.D.2. of this preamble, carry over material is not included in EPA's
definition of existing stocks (ES) as it applies to the proposed formula
for determining the amount of available stocks (AS). EPA is not
including carry-over amounts as part of ES, because doing so could lead
to a double-counting of carry-over amounts, and thus a double reduction
of critical use allowances (CUAs).

In 2007, 53 entities reported information to EPA under the reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 about critical use methyl bromide
production, imports, exports, sales and/or inventory holdings in 2006.
6,923,926 kg of critical use methyl bromide was acquired through
production or import in 2006. The information reported to EPA indicates
that 6,384,493 kg of critical use methyl bromide was exported or sold to
end-users in 2006. EPA calculates that the carry-over amount at the end
of 2006 was 539,433 kg, which is the difference between the reported
amount of critical use methyl bromide acquired in 2006 and the reported
amount of exports or sales of that material to end users in 2006
(6,923,926 kg -- 6,384,493 kg = 539,433 kg). EPA's calculation of the
amount of carry-over at the end of 2006 is consistent with the method
used in the final 2007 CUE Rule, and with the method agreed to by the
Parties in Decision XVI/6, which established the Accounting Framework
for critical use methyl bromide, for calculating column L of the U.S.
the Accounting Framework. The 2006 U.S. Accounting Framework is
available in the public docket for this rulemaking. EPA seeks comment on
its method for calculating the amount of carry-over critical use
material at the end of each year. Commenters suggesting alternative
methods for calculating the amount of carry-over material at the end of
each year should be detailed and comprehensive; address what changes
would be needed to the reporting requirements; and the degree of
administrative burden that alternative practice might impose. EPA also
seeks comment on ways to improve the completeness of data reporting by
affected companies. It is important for stakeholders to recognize that
the process for calculating the amount of carry-over CUE material each
year relies on sales to end-user data reported to EPA by distributors
and applicators. EPA specifically requests comment on whether requiring
producers, importers, and distributors to report to the Agency the names
of distributors and third-party applicators to whom they have sold
critical-use methyl bromide would result in more complete reporting of
sales to end-user data, and whether this would justify the additional
burden of such requirements.

In previous CUE rules, EPA has used the approach described in the
Framework Rule for implementing carry-over reductions. Consistent with
that approach, EPA is proposing to reduce the total level of new
production and import for critical uses by 539,432 kg to reflect the
total level of carry-over material available at the end of 2006. After
applying this reduction to the total volumes of allowable new production
or import, EPA pro-rated CUAs to each company based on their 1991
baseline market share.

Chemtura Corporation has submitted a petition available on the public
docket for this rulemaking that recommends alternative methods for
apportioning carry-over reductions among CUA holders. Some of Chemtura's
proposals would require increases to existing reporting requirements for
producers, distributors or third-party applicators. EPA encourages
interested parties to consult Chemtura's petition. EPA seeks comment on
the recommendations in that petition, as well as any additional
suggestions regarding the apportionment of carry-over among companies.
Comments suggesting alternative methods for implementing carry-over
reductions should be detailed and comprehensive; address what changes,
if any, would be needed to the reporting requirements; and the degree of
burden the alternative practice might impose.

*5. Amounts for Research Purposes*

Decision XVII/9(7) "request\[ed\] Parties to endeavor to use stocks,
where available, to meet any demand for methyl bromide for the purposes
of research and development." Consistent with that Decision, in the 2007
CUE Rule, EPA reduced the amount of new production and import by 21,702
kilograms, which was the amount needed for research. Consistent with
Decision XVII/9, EPA continued to encourage methyl bromide suppliers to
sell inventory to researchers and encouraged researchers to purchase
inventory.

Decision XVIII/15(1) authorizes "the production and consumption of
\[methyl bromide\] necessary to satisfy laboratory and analytical
critical uses." Paragraph 2 of that decision states that methyl bromide
produced under the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses may be
used as a reference or standard; in laboratory toxicology studies; to
compare the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives inside a
laboratory; and as a laboratory agent which is destroyed in a chemical
reaction in the manner of feedstock. In a separate notice-and-comment
rulemaking titled the "Global Essential Laboratory and Analytical Use
Exemption," EPA is proposing to implement the exemption authorized in
Decision XVIII/15. More information about that rulemaking process is
available on the docket for that rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0384).

There continues to be a need for methyl bromide for research purposes
that do not meet the criteria for laboratory and analytical uses, as
defined in Decision XVIII/15. A common example is an outdoor field
experiment that requires methyl bromide as a standard control treatment
with which to compare the trial alternatives' results. The critical use
sectors that were approved by the Parties to use methyl bromide for
research purposes in 2008 are listed in Section V.C. and have "research
purposes" listed in their limiting critical conditions in Table I of
this preamble.

In this action, EPA is proposing to allow sale of 15,491 kg of existing
stocks for research purposes in 2008 to account for the amount
authorized for those purposes. EPA proposes to allow methyl bromide sale
from stocks for exempted research purposes by expending CSAs. An
explanation of what amounts of methyl bromide and of what sectors
qualify for research purposes can be found in Section V.C. of this
preamble. If EPA adopts this proposal it will continue to encourage
methyl bromide suppliers to sell inventory to researchers and to
encourage researchers to purchase inventory for research purposes. EPA
seeks comment on its proposal to issue CSAs for sale of methyl bromide
stocks for exempted research purposes.

*6. Methyl Bromide Alternatives*

In the 2006 CUE Rule (71 FR 5985) EPA allocated less methyl bromide for
critical uses than was authorized by the Parties in order to account for
the recent registration of sulfuryl fluoride. The allocation reductions
in that rule reflected transition rates that were included for the first
time in the 2007 U.S. Critical Use Nomination (CUN). In the 2007 CUE
Rule, EPA explained why a similar reduction was made in that rule: "The
report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)
indicated that the MBTOC did not make any reductions in these
\[post-harvest\] use categories for the uptake of sulfuryl fluoride in
2007 because the United States Government indicated that it would do so
in its domestic allocation procedures. Therefore, EPA is reducing the
total volume of critical use methyl bromide by 53,703 kilograms to
reflect the continuing transition to sulfuryl fluoride" (75 FR 75390).

The United States continues to make progress transitioning to
alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Preliminary results of a
study (forthcoming) indicate that the cost of post-harvest cocoa
fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride is not substantially greater than the
cost of using methyl bromide for that fumigation. As a result the
National Pest Management Association (NPMA) decided to withdraw its
nomination request for critical use methyl bromide for cocoa for
calendar year 2009 and not to seek critical use methyl bromide for cocoa
at all in calendar year 2010.

NPMA, however, has expressed the need for some critical use methyl
bromide for cocoa in 2008 as the sector transitions to sulfuryl
fluoride. NPMA explained to EPA that some larger companies have already
begun integrating sulfuryl fluoride into their operations. However,
there are other companies that have not begun that transition. NPMA
believes that those companies would be unprepared if EPA does not allow
a portion of the 50,188 kg of critical use methyl bromide for cocoa
approved by the Parties for 2008. Given the circumstances discussed
above, EPA seeks comment on how much of the 50,188 kg of critical use
methyl bromide approved by the Parties for cocoa for 2008 should be
allowed by the Agency. Commenters on this topic should recommend
specific amounts of critical use methyl bromide for cocoa in 2008, and
provide detailed justifications for their recommendations.

Besides the issues regarding post-harvest cocoa fumigation discussed
above, EPA is not proposing to make any other reductions in post-harvest
or pre-plant critical use allowances to account for the uptake of
sulfuryl fluoride, or any other pre-plant or post-harvest alternatives.
In the 2008 CUN the Agency applied transition rates for all critical use
sectors. The MBTOC report of September 2006 included reductions in its
recommendations for critical use categories based on the transition
rates in the 2008 CUN. MBTOC's recommendations were then considered in
the Parties' 2008 authorization amounts, as listed in Decision XVIII/13.
Therefore, transition rates, which account for the uptake of
alternatives, have already been applied for authorized 2008 critical use
amounts. Furthermore, the 2009 CUN, which represents the most recent
analysis and the best available data for methyl bromide alternatives,
does not conclude that transition rates should be increased for 2008.

As the 2009 CUN reflects, besides the post-harvest cocoa issue discussed
above in this section, the United States Government has not found new
information that supports changing the 2008 transition rates included in
the 2008 CUN and applied by MBTOC. EPA continues to gather information
about methyl bromide alternatives through the CUE application process,
and by other means. For example, in August 2006, under the authority of
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, EPA collected information from a group
of millers and fumigators about their experiences with sulfuryl fluoride
and methyl bromide.

EPA seeks comment on its proposal not to make further reductions in 2008
to account for the uptake of methyl bromide alternatives, because the
Agency has already accounted for alternatives' transition rates. EPA
continues to support research and adoption of methyl bromide
alternatives, and to request information about the economic and
technical feasibility of all existing and potential alternatives.

**E. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4**

Paragraphs 2 and 6 of Decision XVIII/13 request parties to ensure that
the conditions or criteria listed in Decisions Ex. I/4 and IX/6,
paragraph 1, are applied to exempted critical uses for the 2008 control
period. A discussion of the Agency's application of the criteria in
paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in sections V.A., V.C., V.D., and
V.H. of this preamble. In section V.C. the Agency is soliciting comments
from the public on the technical and economic basis for determining that
the uses listed in this proposed rule meet the criteria of the critical
use exemption (CUE). The critical use nominations (CUNs) detail how each
proposed critical use meets the criteria listed in paragraph 1 of
Decision IX/6, apart from the criterion located at (b)(ii), as well as
the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision Ex. I/4.

The criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(b)(ii), which refers to the use of
available stocks of methyl bromide, is addressed in sections V.D., V.G.,
and V.H. of this preamble. The Agency has previously provided its
interpretation of the criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(a)(i) regarding the
presence of significant market disruption in the absence of an
exemption, and EPA refers readers to the 2006 CUE final rule (71 FR
5989) as well as to the memo on the docket titled "*Development of 2003*
*Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the
United States of America*" for further elaboration.

The remaining considerations, including the lack of available
technically and economically feasible alternatives under the
circumstance of the nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions of
methyl bromide where technically and economically feasible; the
development of research and transition plans; and the requests in
Decision Ex. I/4(5) that Parties consider and implement MBTOC
recommendations, where feasible, on reductions in the critical use of
methyl bromide and in paragraph 6 for Parties that submit critical use
nominations to include information on the methodology they use to
determine economic feasibility, are all addressed in the nomination
documents.

Some of these criteria are evaluated in other documents as well. For
example, the U.S. has further considered matters regarding the adoption
of alternatives and research into methyl bromide alternatives, criterion
(1)(b)(iii) in Decision IX/6, in the development of the National
Management Strategy (NMS) submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in December
2005 and in on-going consultations with industry. The NMS addresses all
of the aims specified in Decision Ex.I/4(3) to the extent feasible and
is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

**F. Emissions Minimization**

EPA notes for the regulated community the reference to emission
minimization techniques in paragraph 8 of Decision XVIII/13, which
states that Parties shall request critical users to employ "emission
minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier
film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that
promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically
feasible." In addition, EPA understands that research is being conducted
on the potential to reduce rates and emissions using newly available
high-barrier films and that these studies show promising results. Users
of methyl bromide should make every effort to minimize overall emissions
of methyl bromide by implementing measures such as the ones listed
above, to the extent consistent with state and local laws and
regulations. The Agency encourages researchers and users who are
successfully utilizing such techniques to inform EPA of their
experiences as part of their comments on this proposed rule and to
provide such information with their critical use applications. In
addition, the Agency welcomes comments on the implementation of emission
minimization techniques and whether and how further emission
minimization could be achieved.

**F. Critical Use Allowance Allocations**

EPA is proposing to allow limited amounts of new production or import of
methyl bromide for critical uses for 2008 up to the amount of 3,101,076
kg (12.2% of baseline) as shown in Table II below. EPA is seeking
comment on the total levels of exempted new production or import for
pre-plant and post-harvest critical uses in 2008. Each critical use
allowance (CUA) is equivalent to 1 kg of critical use methyl bromide.
These allowances expire at the end of the control period and, as
explained in the Framework Rule, are not bankable from one year to the
next. This proposal for allocating the following number of pre-plant and
post-harvest CUAs to the entities listed below is subject to the trading
provisions at 40 CFR 82.12, which are discussed in section V.G. of the
preamble to the Framework Rule (69 FR 76982).

**Table II: Proposed Allocation of Critical Use Allowances**

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Company**           | **2008 Critical use   | **2008 Critical use   |
|                       | allowances for        | allowances for        |
|                       | pre-plant uses\*      | post-harvest uses\*   |
|                       | (kilograms)**         | (kilograms)**         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Great Lakes Chemical  | 1,691,276             | 193,248               |
| Corp.                 |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| A Chemtura Company    |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Albemarle Corp.       | 695,491               | 79,468                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Ameribrom, Inc.       | 384,343               | 43,916                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| TriCal, Inc.          | 11,967                | 1,367                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Total*               | *2,783,078*[^2]       | *317,998*[^3]         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

\* For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substance
exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in Appendix
L to 40 CFR Part 82.

Paragraph five of Decision XVIII/13 states "that Parties shall endeavor
to license, permit, authorize, or allocate quantities of critical use
methyl bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present
decision." This is similar to language in Decisions Ex. I/3(4), Ex.
II/1(4) and VII/9(4) regarding 2005, 2006 and 2007 critical uses,
respectively. The language from these Decisions calls on Parties to
endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis.

In establishing the critical use exemption program, the Agency
endeavored to allocate directly on a sector-by-sector basis by analyzing
and proposing this option among others in the August 2004 Framework Rule
notice (69 FR 52366). EPA solicited comment on both universal and
sector-based allocation of critical use allowances. The Agency evaluated
the various options based on their economic, environmental, and
practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA determined in the final
Framework Rule (69 FR 76989) that a lump-sum, or universal, allocation,
modified to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-harvest uses,
was the most efficient and least burdensome approach that would achieve
the desired environmental results, and that a sector-specific approach
would pose significant administrative and practical difficulties.
Although the approach adopted in the Framework Rule does not directly
allocate allowances to each category of use, the Agency anticipates that
reliance on market mechanisms will achieve similar results indirectly.
The TEAP recommendations are based on data submitted by the U.S. which
in turn are based on recent historic use data in the current methyl
bromide market. In other words, the TEAP recommendations agreed to by
the Parties are based on current use and the current use patterns take
place in a market where all pre-plant and post-harvest methyl bromide
uses compete for a lump sum supply of critical use material. Therefore,
the Agency believes that under a system of universal allocations,
divided into pre-plant and post-harvest sectors, the actual critical use
will closely follow the sector breakout listed by the TEAP. These issues
were addressed in the previous rule and EPA is not aware of any factors
that would alter the analysis performed during the development of the
Framework Rule. A summary of the options analysis conducted by EPA is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.

EPA is not proposing to change the approach adopted in the Framework
Rule for the allocation of CUAs but, in an endeavor to address Decision
XVIII/13(5), EPA will consider additional comment on the Agency's
allocation of CUAs in the two groupings (pre-plant and post-harvest)
that the Agency has employed in the past.

**H. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations and Total Volumes of Critical
Use Methyl Bromide**

For the reasons described in Section V.D., EPA is proposing to allocate
critical stock allowances (CSAs) to the entities listed below in Table
III for the 2008 control period in the amount of 1,715,438 kilograms
(kg) (6.7% of US 1991 baseline). This proposed amount of CSA allowances
is consistent with the proposed approach described in Section V.D.4. and
in a Technical Support Document available on the public docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID#: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-1016).

In 2006 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
upheld EPA's treatment of company-specific methyl bromide inventory
information as confidential. NRDC v. Leavitt, 2006 WL 667327 (D.D.C.
March 14, 2006). EPA's allocation of CSAs is based on each company's
proportionate share of the aggregate inventory. Therefore, the
documentation regarding company-specific allocation of CSAs is in the
confidential portion of the rulemaking docket and the individual CSA
allocations are not listed in the table below. EPA will inform the
listed companies of their CSA allocations in a letter following
publication of the final rule.

**Table III: Allocation of Critical Stock Allowances**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Company**                         

  Albemarle                           Industrial Fumigation Company

  Ameribrom, Inc.                     J.C. Ehrlich Co.

  Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc.       Pacific Ag

  Blair Soil Fumigation               Pest Fog Sales Corp.

  Burnside Services, Inc.             Prosource One

  Cardinal Professional Products      Reddick Fumigants

  Carolina Eastern, Inc.              Royster-Clark, Inc.

  Degesch America, Inc.               Southern State Cooperative, Inc.

  Dodson Bros.                        Trical Inc.

  Great Lakes Chemical Corp.          Trident Agricultural Products

  Harvey Fertilizer & Gas             UAP Southeast (NC)

  Helena Chemical Co.                 UAP Southeast (SC)

  Hendrix & Dail                      Univar

  Hy Yield Bromine                    Vanguard Fumigation Co.

                                      Western Fumigation

  *TOTAL -- 1,715,438* *kilograms*    
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Several companies that receive very small amounts of CSAs from EPA have
contacted the Agency and requested that they be permitted to permanently
retire their allowances. Some companies receive as few as 3 allowances
which allow the holder to sell up to 3 kilograms of methyl bromide to
critical uses. Due to the small allocation and because they typically do
not sell critical use methyl bromide, they find the allocation of CSAs,
and associated record-keeping and reporting requirements, to be unduly
burdensome. In response to this concern, in the Proposed 2007 CUE rule
EPA proposed to allow CSA holders, on a voluntary basis, to permanently
relinquish their allowances through written notification to the Agency.
EPA received no adverse comments. However, no CSA holders contacted EPA
to take advantage of that voluntary opportunity.

For purposes of the 2008 CUE rule and beyond, EPA is again allowing CSA
holders, on a voluntary basis, to permanently relinquish their
allowances through written notification to the person indicated in the
"addresses" section of this preamble during the comment period for this
rulemaking. Such companies would not receive CSA allocations and would
be excluded from future allocations. All allowances forfeited by
companies through the written notification process will be reallocated
to the remaining companies on a pro-rata basis. EPA strongly encourages
CSA holders to take advantage of this voluntary opportunity to retire
their CSA allocations in order to reduce their administrative burden.

**I. Stocks of Methyl Bromide**

As discussed above and in the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule, an
approved critical user may obtain access to exempted production and
import of methyl bromide and to limited inventories of pre-phaseout
methyl bromide, the combination of which constitute the supply of
"critical use methyl bromide" intended to meet the needs of agreed
critical uses. The Framework Rule established provisions governing the
sale of pre-phaseout inventories for critical uses, including the
concept of CSAs and a prohibition on the sale of pre-phaseout
inventories for critical uses in excess of the amount of CSAs held by
the seller. In the Framework Rule EPA also established trading
provisions that allow critical use allowances (CUAs) to be converted
into CSAs. Under this proposed action, no significant changes would be
made to those provisions.

EPA believes that the approach proposed in Section V.D. of this preamble
includes important measures that could reduce the risks of methyl
bromide shortages for critical uses. For example, this approach
considers the amount of available stocks, and, as explained in Section
V.D.3. of this preamble, the Agency accordingly makes certain
adjustments to the allowed critical use amounts. However, the Agency
will continue to closely monitor CUA and CSA data. Further, as stated in
the final 2006 CUE rule, if an inventory shortage occurs, EPA may
consider various options including, but not limited to, promulgating a
final version of the petition process proposed on October 27, 2005 (70
FR 62030), taking into account comments received on that proposal;
proposing a different administrative mechanism to serve the same
purpose; or authorizing conversion of a limited number of CSAs to CUAs
through a rulemaking, bearing in mind the upper limit on U.S.
production/import for critical uses. In sections V.D. and V.G. of this
preamble, EPA seeks comment on the amount of critical use methyl bromide
to come from stocks compared to new production and import.

With regard to information about stocks of methyl bromide, EPA has
requested such information since late 2003. On December 11, 2003, EPA
initially requested information on the amount of methyl bromide held in
inventory from a group of five methyl bromide producers, importers, and
distributors. The information submitted in response to that Section 114
request was subsequently requested under the Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA"). On August 26, 2004, EPA issued a final determination
concerning the confidentiality of that information. In the
determination, EPA found that aggregated data on the amount of methyl
bromide that had been stockpiled and maintained in inventory in 2002 and
2003 by the group of five businesses ("5-business aggregate") could not
be withheld pursuant to any FOIA exemption. Part of the basis for EPA's
determination was that entities' individual information could not be
deduced from aggregate stockpile data, and therefore, the 5-business
aggregate was not confidential.

Subsequent to the August 26, 2004 determination, two of the businesses
whose information was included in the five-business aggregate filed suit
to prevent EPA from releasing this information. [Ameribrom v. Leavitt
*et al*]{.underline}., 2:04-cv-04393 (D.N.J.), was filed September 9,
2004 and [Hendrix and Dail v. Leavitt, *et al*]{.underline}., 04-CV-134
(E.D.N.C.), was filed September 14, 2004. However, [both companies
subsequently filed for voluntary dismissal.]{.underline}

In addition to 2002 and 2003 methyl bromide inventory data for the group
of five entities, EPA has collected similar information for a broader
group of entities for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and now 2006. 2003
stockpile data for all entities that held stocks of methyl bromide for
sale or for transfer was collected in accordance with a notice published
on August 25, 2004 (69 FR 52403) titled "Request for Information on
Existing and Available Stocks of Methyl Bromide." 2004 stockpile data
for all methyl bromide producers, importers, exporters, distributors,
and applicators was collected pursuant to a Section 114 request dated
April 15, 2005. 2005 and 2006 stockpile data for all methyl bromide
producers, importers, distributors, and applicators was collected
pursuant to a rule published on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73604) that
amended methyl bromide reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 in a
manner that enables EPA to calculate the aggregate stockpile for each
calendar year. On September 7, 2006 the Agency released data on the
aggregate amount of methyl bromide held in inventory at the end of
calendar years 2003, 2004 and 2005.

On April 23, 2007 EPA sent letters to all entities which had reported
holding methyl bromide inventory at the end of 2003, 2004, 2005, or
2006. The letters confirmed EPA's intention to treat the aggregate of
the methyl bromide stockpile information reported to the Agency for
calendar year 2006 in the same manner as similar aggregates calculated
from information for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. The letters
explained that under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 2.204(d)(2), the
aggregate of the methyl bromide stockpile information for calendar year
2006 reported to the Agency under the requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 is
clearly not eligible for confidential treatment. This determination was
based in part on the great difficulty (due to the number of submitters)
of ascertaining the size of any individual entity's methyl bromide
stockpile from the information submitted under the reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13, as aggregated by the Agency. EPA did not
receive any objections to releasing the aggregate information for 2006
and proceeded to release that information on May 14, 2007. The aggregate
information for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.

In this action, EPA is proposing to release the aggregate of methyl
bromide stockpile information reported to the Agency under the reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 for the end of 2007, and each year
thereafter. For the reasons given in the April 23, 2007 letters, which
are available in the docket, this aggregate information is clearly not
entitled to confidential treatment. EPA proposes to release the
aggregate of this stockpile data in future years without first notifying
entities by letter, as EPA has done in the past two years. EPA seeks
comment on this proposal. If the Agency does not receive any comments
opposing this proposal, the aggregate of methyl bromide stockpile data
collected under the reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 will not be
treated as confidential information and may be released in future
without further notice.

**VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**

**A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review**

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action proposes a \"significant regulatory action." This action is
likely to result in a rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
action.

**B. Paperwork Reduction Act**

This proposed action does not impose any new information collection
burden. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations at 40 CFR Part 82 under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 [et]{.underline}
[seq]{.underline}. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0564, and
EPA ICR numbers 2179.02 and 2179.03. A copy of the OMB approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby,
Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 566-1672.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection

of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA\'s regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

**C. Regulatory Flexibility Act**

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute
unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a
small business that is identified by the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Code in the Table below; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less that
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.

+---------------+----------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Category      | NAICS code     | SIC code         | NAICS Small     |
|               |                |                  | business size   |
|               |                |                  | standard (in    |
|               |                |                  | number of       |
|               |                |                  | employees or    |
|               |                |                  | millions of     |
|               |                |                  | dollars)        |
+---------------+----------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Agricultural  | 1112-          | 0171- Berry      | \$0.75 million  |
| production    | Vegetable and  | Crops            |                 |
|               | Melon farming  |                  | \$6.5 million   |
| Storage Uses  |                | 0172- Grapes     |                 |
|               | 1113- Fruit    |                  | 500 employees   |
| Distributors  | and Nut Tree   | 0173- Tree Nuts  |                 |
| and           | Farming        |                  | \$23.5 million  |
| Applicators   |                | 0175- Deciduous  |                 |
|               | 1114-          | Tree Fruits      | \$6.5 million   |
| Producers and | Greenhouse,    | (except apple    |                 |
| Importers     | Nursery, and   | orchards and     | 500 employees   |
|               | Floriculture   | farms)           |                 |
|               | Production     |                  |                 |
|               |                | 0179- Fruit and  |                 |
|               | 115114-        | Tree Nuts, NEC   |                 |
|               | Postharvest    |                  |                 |
|               | Crop           | 0181- Ornamental |                 |
|               | activities     | Floriculture and |                 |
|               | (except Cotton | Nursery Products |                 |
|               | Ginning)       |                  |                 |
|               |                | 0831- Forest     |                 |
|               | 311211- Flour  | Nurseries and    |                 |
|               | Milling        | Gathering of     |                 |
|               |                | Forest Products  |                 |
|               | 311212- Rice   |                  |                 |
|               | Milling        | 2041- Flour and  |                 |
|               |                | Other Grain Mill |                 |
|               | 493110-        | Products         |                 |
|               | General        |                  |                 |
|               | Warehousing    | 2044- Rice       |                 |
|               | and Storage    | Milling          |                 |
|               |                |                  |                 |
|               | 493130- Farm   | 4221- Farm       |                 |
|               | Product        | Product          |                 |
|               | Warehousing    | Warehousing and  |                 |
|               | and Storage    | Storage          |                 |
|               |                |                  |                 |
|               | 115112- Soil   | 4225- General    |                 |
|               | Preparation,   | Warehousing and  |                 |
|               | Planting and   | Storage          |                 |
|               | Cultivating    |                  |                 |
|               |                | 0721- Crop       |                 |
|               | 325320-        | Planting,        |                 |
|               | Pesticide and  | Cultivation, and |                 |
|               | Other          | Protection       |                 |
|               | Agricultural   |                  |                 |
|               | Chemical       | 2879- Pesticides |                 |
|               | Manufacturing  | and Agricultural |                 |
|               |                | Chemicals, NEC   |                 |
+---------------+----------------+------------------+-----------------+

Agricultural producers of minor crops and entities that store
agricultural commodities are categories of affected entities that
contain small entities. This proposed rule will only affect entities
that applied to EPA for a de-regulatory exemption. In most cases, EPA
received aggregated requests for exemptions from industry consortia. On
the exemption application, EPA asked consortia to describe the number
and size distribution of entities their application covered. EPA
estimated that 3,218 entities petitioned EPA for an exemption for the
2005 control period. EPA received requests from a comparable number of
entities for the 2006 and 2007 control periods. Since many applicants
did not provide information on the distribution of sizes of entities
covered in their applications, EPA estimated that, based on the above
definition, between one-fourth and one-third of the entities may be
small businesses. In addition, other categories of affected entities do
not contain small businesses based on the above description.

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant [adverse]{.underline} economic impact on small entities,
since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory alternatives "which minimize any
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities." (5
U.S.C. §§ 603- 604). Thus, an Agency may certify that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves a regulatory burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the
rule. Since this rule exempts methyl bromide for approved critical uses
after the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this is a de-regulatory
action which will confer a benefit to users of methyl bromide. EPA
believes the estimated de-regulatory value for users of methyl bromide
is between \$20 million and \$30 million annually. We have therefore
concluded that this proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all
small entities.

**D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act**

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104-4,
establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must
prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
proposed and final rules with \"Federal mandates\" that may result in
expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of \$100 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This action is deregulatory and does
not impose any new requirements on any entities. Thus, this proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA. Further, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.

**E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism**

Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
"meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications."
The phrase "policies that have federalism implications" is defined in
the Executive Order to include regulations that have "substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government."

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule is expected to
primarily affect producers, suppliers, importers and exporters and users
of methyl bromide. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule.

**F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments**

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications." This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

**G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks**

Executive Order 13045: ''Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ''economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under Section 5--501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

**H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use**

This proposed rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in
Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule
does not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor
does it regulate any manner of energy use. Therefore, we have concluded
that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.

**I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act**

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (\"NTTAA\"), Public Law. No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

**J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations**

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it effects the
level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or
low-income population. Any ozone depletion that results from this
proposed rule will impact all affected populations equally because ozone
depletion is a global environmental problem with environmental and human
effects that are, in general, equally distributed across geographical
regions.

**List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82**

Environmental protection, Ozone depletion, Chemicals, Exports, Imports.

Dated: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 82 is proposed to be
amended as follows:

**PART 82- PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE**

1\. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

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

2\. Section 82.8 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (c)(1)
and paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

**§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances and critical use
allowances**.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Company**           | **2008 Critical use   | **2008 Critical use   |
|                       | allowances for        | allowances for        |
|                       | pre-plant uses\*      | post-harvest uses\*   |
|                       | (kilograms)**         | (kilograms)**         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Great Lakes Chemical  | 1,691,276             | 193,248               |
| Corp.                 |                       |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
| A Chemtura Company    |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Albemarle Corp.       | 695,491               | 79,468                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Ameribrom, Inc.       | 384,343               | 43,916                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| TriCal, Inc.          | 11,967                | 1,367                 |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Total*               | *2,783,078*           | *317,998*             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

\* For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substance
exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendix
L to this subpart.

\(2\) Allocated critical stock allowances granted for specified control
period. The following companies are allocated critical stock allowances
for 2008 on a pro-rata basis in relation to the inventory held by each.

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Company**                         

  Albemarle                           Industrial Fumigation Company

  Ameribrom, Inc.                     J.C. Ehrlich Co.

  Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc.       Pacific Ag

  Blair Soil Fumigation               Pest Fog Sales Corp.

  Burnside Services, Inc.             Prosource One

  Cardinal Professional Products      Reddick Fumigants

  Carolina Eastern, Inc.              Royster-Clark, Inc.

  Degesch America, Inc.               Southern State Cooperative, Inc.

  Dodson Bros.                        Trical Inc.

  Great Lakes Chemical Corp.          Trident Agricultural Products

  Harvey Fertilizer & Gas             UAP Southeast (NC)

  Helena Chemical Co.                 UAP Southeast (SC)

  Hendrix & Dail                      Univar

  Hy Yield Bromine                    Vanguard Fumigation Co.

                                      Western Fumigation

  *TOTAL -- 1,715,438 kilograms*      
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

3\. Appendix L to Subpart A is revised to read as follows:

**APPENDIX L TO PART 82 SUBPART A -- APPROVED CRITICAL USES AND LIMITING
CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE USES FOR THE 2008 CONTROL PERIOD**

+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Column A   | Column B            | Column C                          |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Approved   | Approved Critical   | Limiting Critical Conditions      |
| Critical   | User and Location   |                                   |
| Uses       | of Use              | that either exist, or that the    |
|            |                     | approved critical user reasonably |
|            |                     | expects could arise without       |
|            |                     | methyl bromide fumigation:        |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| PRE-PLANT  |                     |                                   |
| USES       |                     |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Cucurbits  | \(a\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Southeastern  | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | U.S. limited to     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | growing locations   |                                   |
|            | in Alabama,         | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | Arkansas, Kentucky, | disease infestation               |
|            | Louisiana,          |                                   |
|            | Mississippi, North  | Moderate to severe root knot      |
|            | Carolina, South     | nematode infestation              |
|            | Carolina,           |                                   |
|            | Tennessee, and      | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            | Virginia            | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Georgia       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe root knot      |
|            |                     | nematode infestation              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Eggplant   | \(a\) Florida       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Georgia       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe pythium        |
|            |                     | collar, crown and root rot        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe southern       |
|            |                     | blight infestation                |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Forest     | \(a\) Growers in    | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
| Nursery    | Alabama, Arkansas,  | purple nutsedge infestation       |
| Seedlings  | Georgia, Louisiana, |                                   |
|            | Mississippi, North  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | Carolina, Oklahoma, | disease infestation               |
|            | South Carolina,     |                                   |
|            | Tennessee, Texas,   | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | and Virginia        | infestation                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) International | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Paper and its       | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | subsidiaries        | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | limited to growing  | disease infestation               |
|            | locations in        |                                   |
|            | Alabama, Arkansas,  |                                   |
|            | Georgia, South      |                                   |
|            | Carolina, and Texas |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Public        | Moderate to severe weed           |
|            | (government-owned)  | infestation including purple and  |
|            | seedling nurseries  | yellow nutsedge infestation       |
|            | in Illinois,        |                                   |
|            | Indiana, Kentucky,  | Moderate to severe Canada thistle |
|            | Maryland, Missouri, | infestation                       |
|            | New Jersey, Ohio,   |                                   |
|            | Pennsylvania, West  | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | Virginia, and       | infestation                       |
|            | Wisconsin           |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Weyerhaeuser  | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Company and its     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | subsidiaries        |                                   |
|            | limited to growing  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | locations in        | disease infestation               |
|            | Alabama, Arkansas,  |                                   |
|            | North Carolina, and | Moderate to severe nematode or    |
|            | South Carolina      | worm infestation                  |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) Weyerhaeuser  | Moderate to severe yellow         |
|            | Company and its     | nutsedge infestation              |
|            | subsidiaries        |                                   |
|            | limited to growing  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | locations in Oregon | disease infestation               |
|            | and Washington      |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(f\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe Canada thistle |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nutsedge       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(g\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | herbaceous          | infestation                       |
|            | perennials growers  |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow         |
|            |                     | nutsedge and other weed           |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Orchard    | \(a\) Members of    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
| Nursery    | the Western         | infestation                       |
| Seedlings  | Raspberry Nursery   |                                   |
|            | Consortium limited  | Presence of medium to heavy clay  |
|            | to growing          | soils                             |
|            | locations in        |                                   |
|            | California and      | Prohibition on use of             |
|            | Washington          | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Members of    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | the California      | infestation                       |
|            | Association of      |                                   |
|            | Nursery and Garden  | Presence of medium to heavy clay  |
|            | Centers             | soils                             |
|            | representing        |                                   |
|            | Deciduous Tree      | Prohibition on use of             |
|            | Fruit Growers       | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | rose nurseries      | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Strawberry | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
| Nurseries  | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            |                     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) North         | Moderate to severe black root rot |
|            | Carolina and        |                                   |
|            | Tennessee growers   | Moderate to severe root-knot      |
|            |                     | nematode infestation              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow and     |
|            |                     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Orchard    | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
| Replant    | stone fruit growers | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of medium to heavy soils |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits on  |
|            |                     | use of this alternative have been |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | table and raisin    | infestation                       |
|            | grape growers       |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | wine grape growers  | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | walnut growers      | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) California    | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | almond growers      | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Replanted (non-virgin) orchard    |
|            |                     | soils to prevent orchard replant  |
|            |                     | disease                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Medium to heavy soils             |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| O          | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
| rnamentals | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Florida       | Moderate to severe weed           |
|            | growers             | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Peppers    | \(b\) Alabama,      | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Arkansas, Kentucky, | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | Louisiana,          | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | Mississippi, North  | infestation                       |
|            | Carolina, South     |                                   |
|            | Carolina,           | Moderate to severe pythium root,  |
|            | Tennessee, and      | collar, crown and root rots       |
|            | Virginia growers    |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Florida       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Georgia       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation, or moderate to       |
|            |                     | severe pythium root and collar    |
|            |                     | rots                              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe southern       |
|            |                     | blight infestation, crown or root |
|            |                     | rot                               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Strawberry | \(a\) California    | Moderate to severe black root rot |
| Fruit      | growers             | or crown rot                      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            |                     | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Prohibition on use of             |
|            |                     | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
|            |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Florida       | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | growers             | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            |                     | infestation                       |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            |                     | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Carolina geranium or cut-leaf     |
|            |                     | evening primrose infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            |                     | to karst topographical features   |
|            |                     | and soils not supporting seepage  |
|            |                     | irrigation                        |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | a need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Alabama,      | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Arkansas, Georgia,  | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | Illinois, Kentucky, |                                   |
|            | Louisiana,          | Moderate to severe nematode       |
|            | Maryland,           | infestation                       |
|            | Mississippi,        |                                   |
|            | Missouri, New       | Moderate to severe black root and |
|            | Jersey, North       | crown rot                         |
|            | Carolina, Ohio,     |                                   |
|            | South Carolina,     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            | Tennessee, and      | research purposes                 |
|            | Virginia growers    |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Sweet      | \(a\) California    | Prohibition on use of             |
| Potato     | growers             | 1,3-dichloropropene products      |
| Slips      |                     | because local township limits for |
|            |                     | this alternative have been        |
|            |                     | reached                           |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Tomatoes   | \(a\) Michigan      | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | growers             | disease infestation               |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Moderate to severe fungal         |
|            |                     | pathogen infestation              |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Alabama,      | Moderate to severe yellow or      |
|            | Arkansas, Florida,  | purple nutsedge infestation       |
|            | Georgia, Kentucky,  | Moderate to severe soilborne      |
|            | Louisiana,          | disease infestation               |
|            | Mississippi, North  |                                   |
|            | Carolina, South     | Moderate to severe nematodes      |
|            | Carolina,           |                                   |
|            | Tennessee, and      | Restrictions on alternatives due  |
|            | Virginia growers    | to karst topographical features,  |
|            |                     | and in Florida, soils not         |
|            |                     | supporting seepage irrigation     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| PO         |                     |                                   |
| ST-HARVEST |                     |                                   |
| USES       |                     |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Food       | \(a\) Rice millers  | Moderate to severe infestation of |
| Processing | in all locations in | beetles, weevils or moths         |
|            | the U.S. who are    |                                   |
|            | members of the USA  | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | Rice Millers        | properly sealed to use an         |
|            | Association.        | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            |                     | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Pet food      | Moderate to severe infestation or |
|            | manufacturing       | beetles, moths, or cockroaches    |
|            | facilities in the   |                                   |
|            | U.S. who are active | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | members of the Pet  | properly sealed to use an         |
|            | Food Institute (For | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            | this proposed rule, |                                   |
|            | "pet food" refers   | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            | to domestic dog and | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            | cat food).          |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternatives                      |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Bakeries in   | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | the U.S.            | properly sealed to use an         |
|            |                     | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            |                     | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Members of    | Moderate to severe beetle         |
|            | the North American  | infestation                       |
|            | Millers'            |                                   |
|            | Association in the  | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | U.S.                | properly sealed to use an         |
|            |                     | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            |                     | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Time to transition to an          |
|            |                     | alternative                       |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(e\) Members of    | Moderate to severe beetle or moth |
|            | the National Pest   | infestation                       |
|            | Management          |                                   |
|            | Association         | Older structures that can not be  |
|            | associated with dry | properly sealed to use an         |
|            | commodity structure | alternative to methyl bromide     |
|            | fumigation (cocoa)  |                                   |
|            | and dry commodity   | Presence of sensitive electronic  |
|            | fumigation          | equipment subject to corrosion    |
|            | (processed food,    |                                   |
|            | herbs and spices,   | Time to transition to an          |
|            | dried milk and      | alternatives                      |
|            | cheese processing   |                                   |
|            | facilities)         |                                   |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| C          | \(a\) California    | Rapid fumigation is required to   |
| ommodities | entities storing    | meet a critical market window,    |
|            | walnuts, beans,     | such as during the holiday        |
|            | dried plums, figs,  | season, rapid fumigation is       |
|            | raisins, dates (in  | required when a buyer provides    |
|            | Riverside county    | short (2 working days or less)    |
|            | only), and          | notification for a purchase or    |
|            | pistachios in       | there is a short period after     |
|            | California          | harvest in which to fumigate and  |
|            |                     | there is limited silo             |
|            |                     | availability for using            |
|            |                     | alternatives                      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | A need for methyl bromide for     |
|            |                     | research purposes                 |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Dry Cured  | \(a\) Members of    | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
| Pork       | the National        |                                   |
| Products   | Country Ham         | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            | Association         |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(b\) Members of    | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
|            | the American        |                                   |
|            | Association of Meat | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            | Processors          |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(c\) Nahunta Pork  | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
|            | Center (North       |                                   |
|            | Carolina)           | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+
|            | \(d\) Gwaltney and  | Red legged ham beetle infestation |
|            | Smithfield Inc.     |                                   |
|            |                     | Cheese/ham skipper infestation    |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Dermested beetle infestation      |
|            |                     |                                   |
|            |                     | Ham mite infestation              |
+------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+

[^1]: NPMA stands for National Pest Management Association.

[^2]: Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly.

[^3]: Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly.