44302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State approval/

submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

Section 117.2145 ................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.5/8/2013 7/31/2014 [Insert FEDERAL

REGISTER citation].

Subchapter E—Multi-Region Combustion Control 

Division 1—Utility Electric Generation in East and Central Texas 

*******

Section 117.3020 ................... System Cap .......................... 4/6/2012 7/31/2014 [Insert FEDERAL

REGISTER citation].

*******

Subchapter H—Administrative Provisions 

*******

Division 2—Compliance Flexibility 

Section 117.9800 ................... Use of Emission Credits for 

Compliance.

4/6/2012 7/31/2014 [Insert FEDERAL

REGISTER citation].

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–17875 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0065; FRL–9911–99– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR80 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 

2014 and 2015 Critical Use Exemption 

from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is authorizing uses that 

qualify for the critical use exemption 

and the amount of methyl bromide that 

may be produced or imported for those 

uses for both the 2014 and 2015 control 

periods. EPA is taking this action under 

the authority of the Clean Air Act to 

reflect consensus decisions of the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer at the Twenty-Fourth and 

Twenty-Fifth Meetings of the Parties. 

EPA is also amending the regulatory 

framework to remove provisions related 

to sale of pre-phaseout inventory for 

critical uses. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0065. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and is publicly available 

only in hard copy form. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this rule, 

contact Jeremy Arling by telephone at 

(202) 343–9055, or by email at 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov or by mail at U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Stratospheric Protection Division, 

Stratospheric Program Implementation 

Branch (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

You may also visit the methyl bromide 

section of the Ozone Depletion Web site 

of EPA’s Stratospheric Protection 

Division at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr for 

further information about the methyl 

bromide critical use exemption, other 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

regulations, the science of ozone layer 

depletion, and related topics. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 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 years 2014 and 2015. Under 

the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide 

consumption (consumption is defined 

under section 601 of the CAA as 

production plus imports minus exports) 

and production were phased out on 

January 1, 2005, apart from allowable 

exemptions, such as the critical use and 

the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) 

exemptions. With this action, EPA is 

authorizing uses that qualify for the 

critical use exemption as well as 

specific amounts of methyl bromide that 

may be produced and imported for 

those uses for the 2014 and 2015 control 

periods. 

Section 553(d) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 

5, generally provides that rules may not 

take effect earlier than 30 days after they 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44303 

1See CAA section 604(d)(6): ‘‘To the extent 

consistent with the Montreal Protocol, the 

Administrator, after notice and the opportunity for 

public comment, and after consultation with other 

departments or instrumentalities of the Federal 

Government having regulatory authority related to 

methyl bromide, including the Secretary of 

Agriculture, may exempt the production, 

importation, and consumption of methyl bromide 

for critical uses.’’ 

are published in the Federal Register. 

EPA is issuing this final rule under 

section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 

which states that the provisions of 

section 553 through 557 of Title 5 shall 

not, except as expressly provided in 

section 307, apply to actions to which 

section 307(d)(1) applies. Thus, section 

553(d) of the APA does not apply to this 

rule. EPA is nevertheless acting 

consistently with the policies 

underlying APA section 553(d) in 

making this rule effective on July 31, 

2014. APA section 553(d) allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication for a rule that ‘‘that grants 

or recognizes an exemption or relieves 

a restriction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Since 

today’s action can be considered to 

either grant an exemption for limited 

critical uses during 2014 and 2015 from 

the general prohibition on production or 

import of methyl bromide after the 

phaseout date of January 1, 2005, or 

relieve a restriction that would 

otherwise prevent production or import 

of methyl bromide or sale of prephaseout inventory for critical uses, 

EPA is making this action effective 

immediately upon publication. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What is the critical use Eeemption 

process? 

A. Background of the Process 

B. How Does This Rule Relate to Previous 

Critical Use Exemption Rules? 

C. Critical Uses 

D. Critical Use Amounts 

E. Amending the Critical Stock Allowance 

Framework 

F. Emergency Uses 

G. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. 

I/4 

H. Emissions Minimization 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory 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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

Entities and categories of entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include producers, importers, and 

exporters of methyl bromide; 

applicators and distributors of methyl 

bromide; and users of methyl bromide 

that applied for the 2014 and 2015 

critical use exemption including 

growers of vegetable crops, fruits, and 

nursery stock, and owners of stored food 

commodities and structures such as 

grain mills and processors. This list is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

to provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be regulated by this 

action. To determine whether your 

facility, company, business, or 

organization could be regulated by this 

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. 

II. What is the critical use exemption 

process? 

A. Background of the Process 

Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol 

established the critical use exemption 

provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the 

Parties in 1997, the Parties established 

the criteria for an exemption in Decision 

IX/6. 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 health 

and are suitable to the crops and 

circumstances of the nomination.’’ EPA 

promulgated these criteria in the 

definition of ‘‘critical use’’ at 40 CFR 

82.3. In addition, Decision IX/6 

provides that production and 

consumption, if any, of methyl bromide 

for critical uses should be permitted 

only if a variety of conditions have been 

met, including that all technically and 

economically feasible steps have been 

taken to minimize the critical use and 

any associated emission of methyl 

bromide, that research programs are in 

place to develop and deploy alternatives 

and substitutes, and that methyl 

bromide is not available in sufficient 

quantity and quality from existing 

stocks of banked or recycled methyl 

bromide. 

EPA requested critical use exemption 

applications through Federal Register 

notices published on June 14, 2011 (76 

FR 34700) (for the 2014 control period) 

and on May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29341) (for 

the 2015 control period). Applicants 

submitted data on their use of methyl 

bromide, the technical and economic 

feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing 

research programs into the use of 

alternatives in their sector, and efforts to 

minimize use and emissions of methyl 

bromide. 

EPA 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 a 

significant market disruption if no 

exemption were available. In addition, 

an interagency workgroup reviews other 

parameters of the exemption 

applications such as dosage and 

emissions minimization techniques and 

applicants’ research or transition plans. 

As required in section 604(d)(6) of the 

CAA, for each exemption period, EPA 

consults with the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA).1

This assessment process culminates in 

the development of the U.S. critical use 

nomination (CUN). Annually since 

2003, the U.S. Department of State has 

submitted a CUN to the United Nations 

Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone 

Secretariat. The Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 

and the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP), which are 

advisory bodies to Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol, review each Party’s 

CUN and make recommendations to the 

Parties on the nominations. The Parties 

then take Decisions on critical use 

exemptions for particular Parties, 

including how much methyl bromide 

may be supplied for the exempted 

critical uses. EPA then provides an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

amounts and specific uses of methyl 

bromide that the agency is proposing to 

exempt. 

On January 31, 2012, the United 

States submitted the tenth Nomination 

for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 

America to the Ozone Secretariat of 

UNEP. This nomination contained the 

request for 2014 critical uses. In 

February 2012, MBTOC sent questions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

44304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

to the United States concerning 

technical and economic issues in the 

2014 nomination. The United States 

transmitted responses to MBTOC in 

March, 2012. In May 2012, the MBTOC 

provided their interim 

recommendations on the U.S. 

nomination in the May TEAP Progress 

Report. In that report, MBTOC posed 

questions about the U.S. nominations 

for dried fruit, dried cured ham, and 

strawberries. The United States 

responded to those questions in August 

2012. These documents, together with 

reports by the advisory bodies noted 

above, are in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. The critical uses and 

amounts authorized in this rule reflect 

the analyses contained in those 

documents. 

On January 24, 2013, the United 

States submitted the eleventh 

Nomination for a Critical Use 

Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the 

United States of America to the Ozone 

Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination 

contained the request for 2015 critical 

uses. In February and March 2013, 

MBTOC sent questions to the United 

States concerning technical and 

economic issues in the 2015 

nomination. The United States 

transmitted responses to MBTOC in 

March, 2013. In May 2013, the MBTOC 

provided its interim recommendations 

on the U.S. nomination in the May 

TEAP Progress Report and posed 

additional questions about the U.S. 

nominations. The United States 

responded to those questions in August 

2013. These documents, together with 

reports by the advisory bodies noted 

above, are in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. The critical uses and 

amounts authorized in this rule reflect 

the analyses contained in those 

documents. 

B. How does this rule relate to previous 

critical use exemption rules? 

The December 23, 2004, Framework 

Rule established the framework for the 

critical use exemption program in the 

United States, including definitions, 

prohibitions, trading provisions, and 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations. 

The preamble to the Framework Rule 

included EPA’s determinations on key 

issues for the critical use exemption 

program. 

Since publishing the Framework Rule, 

EPA has annually promulgated 

regulations to exempt specific quantities 

of production and import of methyl 

bromide, to determine the amounts that 

may be supplied from pre-phaseout 

inventory, and to indicate which uses 

meet the criteria for the exemption 

program for that year. See 71 FR 5985 

(February 6, 2006), 71 FR 75386 

(December 14, 2006), 72 FR 74118 

(December 28, 2007), 74 FR 19878 

(April 30, 2009), 75 FR 23167 (May 3, 

2010), 76 FR 60737 (September 30, 

2011), 77 FR 29218 (May 17, 2012), and 

78 FR 43797 (July 22, 2013). 

Unlike in previous years, this rule 

authorizes critical uses for both 2014 

and 2015. EPA proposed to do so to 

expedite the issuance of 2015 

allowances. EPA has received repeated 

comments to previous CUE rules that a 

failure to issue allowances in a timely 

fashion places manufacturers and 

distributors, who need to plan for the 

upcoming growing season, in a difficult 

position. For 2013, the final rule was 

not effective until July 22, 2013, and 

EPA recognized that this late date could 

cause difficulties for growers as well as 

manufacturers and distributors. EPA 

received one comment supporting the 

promulgation of CUE rules on a twoyear basis. While the commenter urges 

EPA issue future CUE rules on a twoyear basis, the agency is not able to 

commit to doing so in future and notes 

that combining two control periods in 

one rule may result in CUAs being 

issued for the first control period later 

than stakeholders would prefer. Given 

the timing of action by the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol on critical uses, EPA 

is unlikely to be able to add a second 

control period to a rule without 

affecting the rule’s schedule. 

This action continues the approach 

established in the 2013 rule for 

determining the amounts of Critical Use 

Allowances (CUAs) to be allocated for 

critical uses. A CUA is the privilege 

granted through 40 CFR part 82 to 

produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) of 

methyl bromide for an approved critical 

use during the specified control period. 

A control period is a calendar year. See 

40 CFR 82.3. The two control periods at 

issue in this rule are 2014 and 2015. 

Each year’s allowances expire at the end 

of that control period and, as explained 

in the Framework Rule, are not bankable 

from one year to the next. 

The 2013 Rule also removed from the 

regulatory framework the restriction that 

limits the sale of inventory for critical 

uses through allocations of Critical 

Stock Allowances (CSA). A CSA was the 

right granted through 40 CFR part 82 to 

sell 1 kg of methyl bromide from 

inventory produced or imported prior to 

the January 1, 2005, phaseout date for 

an approved critical use during the 

specified control period. Under the 

framework, the sale of pre-phaseout 

inventories for critical uses in excess of 

the amount of CSAs held by the seller 

was prohibited. As discussed in the 

2013 Rule, EPA removed the 

requirement for CSAs because the 

restriction was less relevant as few 

critical uses remained and because 

changes in labeling would make 

remaining inventory practically 

inaccessible. This rule removes all of 

the remaining provisions in 40 CFR part 

82 related to critical stock allowances. 

C. Critical Uses 

In Decision XXIV/5, taken in 

November 2012, the Parties to the 

Protocol agreed ‘‘[t]o permit, for the 

agreed critical-use categories for 2014 

set forth in table A of the annex to the 

present decision for each party, subject 

to the conditions set forth in the present 

decision and in Decision Ex. I/4 to the 

extent that those conditions are 

applicable, the levels of production and 

consumption for 2014 set forth in table 

B of the annex to the present decision, 

which are necessary to satisfy critical 

uses. . . .’’ The following uses are those 

set forth in table A of the annex to 

Decision XXIV/5 for the United States: 

• Commodities 

• Mills and food processing 

structures 

• Cured pork 

• Strawberry—field 

In Decision XXV/4, taken in October 

2013, the Parties to the Protocol agreed 

‘‘[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use 

categories for 2015 set forth in table A 

of the annex to the present decision for 

each party, subject to the conditions set 

forth in the present decision and in 

Decision Ex. I/4 to the extent that those 

conditions are applicable, the levels of 

production and consumption for 2015 

set forth in table B of the annex to the 

present decision, which are necessary to 

satisfy critical uses. . . .’’ The 

following uses are those set forth in 

table A of the annex to Decision XXV/ 

4 for the United States: 

• Cured pork 

• Strawberry—field 

EPA is modifying the table of critical 

uses and critical users in 40 CFR part 

82, subpart A, appendix L based on the 

amounts permitted in Decision XXIV/5 

and Decision XXV/4 and the technical 

analyses contained in the 2014 and 2015 

U.S. nominations that assess data 

submitted by applicants to the CUE 

program. 

EPA sought comment on the technical 

analyses contained in the U.S. 

nominations (available for public review 

in the docket) and information regarding 

any changes to the registration 

(including cancellations or 

registrations), use, or efficacy of 

alternatives that have occurred after the 

nominations were submitted. EPA did 

not receive comments on the technical 

analyses. EPA did receive comments 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44305 

related to alternatives, which are 

discussed in the next section of the 

preamble. EPA recognizes that as the 

market for alternatives evolves, the 

thresholds for what constitutes 

‘‘significant market disruption’’ or 

‘‘technical and economic feasibility’’ 

may change. 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 CUE. 

EPA is finalizing the lists of approved 

critical uses and approved critical users 

as proposed. For 2014, EPA is removing 

Georgia growers of cucurbits, eggplants, 

peppers, and tomatoes. These groups 

did not submit applications for 2014 

and therefore were not included in the 

2014 U.S. nomination. EPA is removing 

sectors or users that applied for a 

critical use in 2014 but that the United 

States did not nominate for 2014. EPA 

conducted a thorough technical 

assessment of each application and 

considered the effects that the loss of 

methyl bromide would have for each 

agricultural sector, and whether 

significant market disruption would 

occur as a result. As a result of this 

technical review, the United States 

Government (USG) determined that 

certain sectors or users did not meet the 

critical use criteria in Decision IX/6 and 

the United States therefore did not 

include them in the 2014 Critical Use 

Nomination. EPA notified these sectors 

of their status by letters dated February 

7, 2012. These sectors are orchard 

replant for California wine grape 

growers and Florida growers of 

eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes. For 

each of these uses, EPA found that there 

are technically and economically 

feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. 

Some sectors that were not included 

in the 2014 Critical Use Nomination 

submitted supplemental applications for 

2014. These sectors are: the California 

Association of Nursery and Garden 

Centers; California stone fruit, table and 

raisin grape, walnut, and almond 

growers; ornamental growers in 

California and Florida; California 

strawberry nurseries; stored walnuts; 

and the U.S. Golf Course 

Superintendents Association. In 

addition, some sectors that were not on 

the list of critical uses for 2013 

submitted applications for 2014. These 

sectors are: California sweet potato 

growers, Florida strawberry growers, 

Mardel melon growers, Virginia tomato 

growers, and Turfgrass Producers 

International. These sectors were not 

nominated for 2014. The USG came to 

a decision that the sectors not 

nominated for 2014 had not provided 

rigorous and convincing evidence that 

they meet the criteria laid out in 

Decision IX/6, and further that no new 

problem or large yield/quality loss had 

been demonstrated that warranted 

seeking a supplemental exemption from 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

For 2015 EPA is removing California 

wine grape growers and Florida growers 

of eggplants, peppers, tomatoes, and 

strawberries. These groups did not 

submit applications for 2015 and 

therefore were not included in the 2015 

U.S. nomination. EPA is also removing 

sectors or users that applied for a 

critical use in 2015 but that the United 

States did not nominate for 2015. As 

described above EPA conducted a 

thorough technical assessment of each 

application and the USG determined 

that certain sectors or users did not meet 

the critical use criteria. EPA notified 

these sectors of their status by letters 

dated March 26, 2013. These sectors are 

rice millers, pet food manufacturing 

facilities, members of the North 

American Millers Association, and 

California entities storing walnuts, dried 

plums, figs, and raisins. For each of 

these uses, EPA found that there are 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives to methyl bromide. In 

addition, EPA is removing entities 

storing dates as a critical use for 2015. 

While the United States nominated this 

sector for 2015, MBTOC did not 

recommend that this sector be a critical 

use in 2015 and the Parties did not 

permit this use. 

EPA has received supplemental 

applications for 2015 from sectors that 

the United States did not nominate for 

2015. These sectors are: Michigan 

cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato 

growers; Florida eggplant, pepper, 

tomato, and strawberry growers; the 

California Association of Nursery and 

Garden Centers; California stone fruit, 

table and raisin grape, walnut, and 

almond growers; ornamental growers in 

California and Florida; the U.S. Golf 

Course Superintendents Association; 

and stored walnuts, dried plums, figs, 

and raisins in California. For those 

sectors the USG came to a decision that 

the sectors not nominated have not 

provided rigorous and convincing 

evidence that they meet the criteria laid 

out in Decision IX/6, and further that no 

new problem or large yield/quality loss 

had been demonstrated that warranted 

seeking a supplemental exemption from 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

Finally, EPA is adding information to 

Column B of appendix L to clarify 

which critical uses are approved for 

which control periods. As stated in 

previous rules, the ‘‘local township 

limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene’’ 

are prohibitions on the use of 1,3- 

dichloropropene products in cases 

where local township limits on use of 

this alternative have been reached. In 

addition, ‘‘pet food’’ under subsection B 

of Food Processing refers to food for 

domesticated dogs and cats. Finally, 

‘‘rapid fumigation’’ for commodities 

refers to instances in which a buyer 

provides short (two working days or 

fewer) notification for a purchase or 

there is a short period after harvest in 

which to fumigate and there is limited 

silo availability for using alternatives. 

D. Critical Use Amounts 

Table A of the annex to Decision 

XXIV/5 lists critical uses and amounts 

agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol for 2014. The maximum 

amount of new production and import 

for U.S. critical uses in 2014, specified 

in Table B of Decision XXIV/5, is 

442,337 kg, minus available stocks. This 

figure is equivalent to 1.7% of the U.S. 

1991 methyl bromide consumption 

baseline of 25,528,270 kg. 

Similarly, Table A of the annex to 

Decision XXV/4 lists critical uses and 

amounts agreed to by the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol for 2015. The 

maximum amount of new production 

and import for U.S. critical uses in 2015, 

specified in Table B of Decision XXV/ 

4, is 376,900 kg, minus available stocks. 

This figure is equivalent to 1.5% of the 

U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption 

baseline. 

EPA proposed to determine the level 

of new production and import for 2014 

and 2015 according to the framework 

and as modified by the 2013 Rule. EPA 

is using this approach for the final rule. 

Under this approach, the amount of new 

production for each control period 

equals the total amount permitted by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol in their 

Decisions minus any reductions for 

available stocks, carryover, and the 

uptake of alternatives. These terms 

(available stocks, carryover, and the 

uptake of alternatives) are discussed in 

detail below. As established in the 2013 

Rule, EPA is not allocating critical stock 

allowances. Applying this approach, 

EPA is allocating allowances to exempt 

442,337 kg of new production and 

import of methyl bromide for critical 

uses in 2014 and 376,900 kg of new 

production and import for 2015. This is 

the same amount as the Agency 

proposed. 

EPA received three comments related 

to the proposed amount of allowances. 

One comment stated that there should 

be no exemptions for methyl bromide as 

it was banned in 2005. While the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

44306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter is correct that the phaseout 

occurred in 2005, the Montreal Protocol 

and the Clean Air Act provide 

exemptions for critical uses. EPA is 

taking this action under the authority of 

the Clean Air Act to reflect consensus 

decisions of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer at the Twenty-Fourth and 

Twenty-Fifth Meetings of the Parties. 

A second commenter stated that it is 

appropriate for EPA to reduce the new 

production/import allocation to reflect 

the adoption of methyl bromide 

alternatives, including specifically 

dimethyl disulfide. A third commenter 

supported the proposal to allocate the 

full amount permitted by the Parties but 

stated that EPA should allocate more 

than the amount requested in the CUN 

to the extent that the nominations were 

reduced based on the availability of 

chloropicrin and iodomethane. EPA 

responds to these comments later in this 

section under ‘‘Uptake of Alternatives.’’ 

In the past, EPA has also made 

reductions to the CUA amount to 

account for the amount specifically 

permitted for research, on the 

assumption that research amounts 

would come from inventory. One 

commenter stated that EPA failed to 

account for research use of methyl 

bromide in the proposed rule and 

should return to the previously 

established policy and allocate a 

separate research purpose allocation. 

EPA responds that the 2014 and 2015 

CUNs did not include, and the Parties 

did not permit, a separate amount for 

research, as had been done in prior 

years. As discussed in more detail in the 

2011 CUE final rule (76 FR 60736, 

60743, September 30, 2011), EPA views 

research as part of the nomination for 

each individual critical use. Therefore, 

EPA is not making any adjustments for 

research. 

Available Stocks: For 2014 and 2015 

the Parties indicated that the United 

States should use ‘‘available stocks,’’ but 

did not indicate a minimum amount 

expected to be taken from stocks. 

Consistent with EPA’s past practice, 

EPA considered what amount, if any, of 

the existing stocks may be available to 

critical users during 2014 and 2015. 

When EPA issued the proposed rule, the 

latest data reported to EPA was from 

December 31, 2012 and showed there 

were 627,066 kg of existing stocks. New 

data as of December 31, 2013, show that 

existing stocks declined to 356,561 kg. 

The Parties to the Protocol recognized 

in their Decisions that the level of 

existing stocks may differ from the level 

of available stocks. Both Decision XXIV/ 

5 and Decision XXV/4 state that 

‘‘production and consumption of methyl 

bromide for critical uses should be 

permitted only if methyl bromide is not 

available in sufficient quantity and 

quality from existing stocks. . . .’’ In 

addition, the Decisions recognize that 

‘‘parties operating under critical-use 

exemptions should take into account the 

extent to which methyl bromide is 

available in sufficient quantity and 

quality from existing stocks. . . .’’ 

Earlier Decisions also refer to the use of 

‘‘quantities of methyl bromide from 

stocks that the Party has recognized to 

be available.’’ Thus, it is clear that 

individual Parties may determine their 

level of available stocks. Section 

604(d)(6) of the CAA does not require 

EPA to adjust the amount of new 

production and import to reflect the 

availability of stocks; however, as 

explained in previous rulemakings, 

making such an adjustment is a 

reasonable exercise of EPA’s discretion 

under this provision. 

In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, 

July 22, 2013), EPA established an 

approach that considered whether a 

percentage of the existing inventory was 

available. In that rule, EPA took 

comment on whether 0% or 5% of the 

existing stocks was available. The final 

rule found that 0% was available to be 

allocated for critical use in 2013 for a 

number of reasons including: a pattern 

of significant underestimation of 

inventory drawdown; the increasing 

concentration of critical users in 

California while inventory remained 

distributed nationwide; and the 

recognition that the agency cannot 

compel distributors to sell inventory to 

critical users. For further discussion, 

please see the 2013 CUE Rule. EPA 

believes these circumstances remain 

true for 2014 and 2015 and proposed to 

find 0% of the existing inventory 

available for 2014 and 2015. 

EPA received one comment 

supporting EPA’s determination that 0% 

of the existing stocks are available for 

the reasons stated in the proposed rule. 

The commenter also noted that the 

manner in which stocks are distributed, 

to existing customers within their 

geographic areas, further supports a 

finding that no stocks are available. 

As discussed in the proposed rule, 

last year EPA removed the restriction 

that critical stock allowances be 

expended to sell inventory to critical 

uses. EPA was unable to calculate the 

effect this change may have on the 

remaining inventory and noted that it 

may be difficult to assess the impact of 

this change simply from updated 

inventory data given it went into effect 

in the middle of the 2013 control 

period. EPA solicited comments on 

whether, and how, to draw inferences as 

to the availability of stocks for critical 

uses based on inventory figures as of 

December 31, 2013. EPA did not receive 

any comments on how to interpret new 

stocks data in light of the change in 

policy about CSAs. Therefore, EPA is 

maintaining its proposed approach and 

finding that 0% of the existing stocks 

are available for use by critical users in 

2014 and 2015. 

Carryover Material: The Parties in 

paragraph 9 of Decision XXIV/5 ‘‘urge 

parties operating under critical-use 

exemptions to put in place effective 

systems to discourage the accumulation 

of methyl bromide produced under the 

exemptions[.]’’ EPA regulations prohibit 

methyl bromide produced or imported 

after January 1, 2005, under the critical 

use exemption from being added to the 

existing pre-2005 inventory. Quantities 

of methyl bromide produced, imported, 

exported, or sold to end-users under the 

critical use exemption in a control 

period must be reported to EPA the 

following year. EPA uses these reports 

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. EPA deducts an amount equivalent 

to this ‘‘carryover’’ from the total level 

of allowable new production and import 

in the year following the year of the data 

report. So for example, the amount of 

carryover from 2012 is factored into the 

determination for 2014. Carryover 

material (which is produced using 

critical use allowances) is not included 

in EPA’s definition of existing inventory 

(which applies to pre-2005 material) 

because this would lead to a doublecounting of carryover amounts. 

All critical use methyl bromide that 

companies reported to be produced or 

imported in 2012 was sold to end users. 

759 MT of critical use methyl bromide 

was produced or imported in 2012. 

Slightly more than the amount 

produced or imported was actually sold 

to end-users. This additional amount 

was from distributors selling material 

that was carried over from the prior 

control period. Therefore, EPA proposed 

to apply a carryover deduction of 0 kg 

to the new production amount for 2014, 

consistent with the method used in 

previous CUE rules, and with the format 

in Decision XVI/6 for calculating 

column L of the U.S. Accounting 

Framework. 

Production, import, and sales data for 

2013 was not reported to EPA by the 

time of the proposed rule so EPA 

assumed 0 kg of carryover. New data 

reported to EPA show that 562 MT of 

critical use methyl bromide was 

produced or imported in 2013. Again, 

slightly more than the amount produced 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44307 

or imported was actually sold to endusers. Therefore, EPA is applying a 

carryover deduction of 0 kg to the new 

production amount for 2014 and 2015. 

All U.S. Accounting Frameworks for 

critical use methyl bromide, including 

the one for 2013, are available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers 

data on the availability of alternatives 

that it receives following submission of 

each nomination to UNEP. In previous 

rules EPA has reduced the total CUE 

amount when a new alternative has 

been registered and increased the new 

production amount when an alternative 

is withdrawn, but not above the amount 

permitted by the Parties. One comment 

stated that the allocation amounts 

should not impede the continued 

adoption and use of methyl bromide 

alternatives. EPA believes that 

considering the uptake of alternatives 

encourages the adoption of alternatives. 

EPA received one comment that 

dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) is registered 

in twenty-seven states and that EPA 

should reduce the new production/

import allocation to reflect the success 

that growers in many parts of the 

country have had in transitioning to 

alternatives, including DMDS. EPA also 

received one comment supporting the 

proposal not to make reductions to the 

allocation due to DMDS as it is not 

registered in California. That commenter 

stated that even if California were to 

register DMDS, growers would 

transition cautiously to ensure it works 

for their circumstances. 

EPA responds that there has been no 

change in the registration status of 

DMDS in California, the only state with 

a pre-plant CUE for 2014 or 2015. 

Because DMDS is not available in 

California it would not be appropriate to 

reduce the allocation amounts. EPA also 

does not believe that the progress 

Florida strawberry growers have made 

in transitioning to alternatives means, as 

one commenter suggests, that the EPA 

should reduce the allocation amounts. 

EPA recognizes that strawberry growers 

are successfully transitioning to 

alternatives, and the CUE allocation for 

strawberries has been declining as that 

transition has occurred. EPA considered 

the transition made to date, and the 

ability of California strawberry growers 

to further transition, when developing 

the nomination. Transition rates for 

alternatives have already been applied 

for permitted critical use amounts 

through the nomination and decision 

process. 

One commenter also stated that EPA 

should allocate more than the amount 

requested in the CUN to the extent that 

the nominations were reduced based on 

the availability of chloropicrin and 

iodomethane. The commenter states that 

the removal of iodomethane from the 

U.S. market has increased demand for 

methyl bromide. In addition, the 

proposed restrictions on the use of 

chloropicrin in California will increase 

the need for methyl bromide in that 

state. EPA responds that the CUNs for 

2014 and 2015 did not consider 

iodomethane as an available alternative 

because it had already been removed 

from the market by the time the 

nominations were submitted. Therefore, 

EPA does not believe it is appropriate to 

increase the critical use allocations 

based on the lack of availability of 

iodomethane. 

The proposed rule requested 

comment on whether proposed control 

measures from the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation on 

the use of chloropicrin could affect the 

2015 control period. EPA did not adjust 

the allocations for 2014 or 2015 because 

the changes were only proposed. One 

commenter stated that EPA should 

increase the allocation for 2015 above 

the proposed amount because the need 

for methyl bromide will increase if 

California imposes new restrictions. As 

EPA stated in the proposed rule, EPA 

views the determination of the total 

allocation, up to the amount permitted 

by the Parties, as an appropriate 

exercise of discretion. The agency will 

not increase the quantities allocated 

beyond those permitted by the Parties, 

but may exercise its discretion to 

allocate less. In addition, the critical use 

exemption program has historically only 

relied on final actions when 

determining the availability of 

alternatives. Since EPA proposed to 

allocate the full amount permitted by 

the Parties and California’s proposed 

measures are not final, EPA is not 

increasing the allocation. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule did not take into account 

the proposed tolerance revocation of 

sulfuryl fluoride. As EPA has stated in 

prior rules, the allocation rule is based 

on the current status of alternatives. 

Therefore, EPA has not based the 

allocation amounts for 2014 or 2015 on 

any anticipated impacts of that proposal 

on methyl bromide use. 

EPA is not making any other 

modifications to CUE amounts to 

account for availability of alternatives. 

Rates of transition to alternatives have 

already been applied for permitted 2014 

and 2015 critical use amounts through 

the nomination and decision process. 

Allocation Amounts: EPA is allocating 

to the four companies that hold baseline 

allowances in proportion to their 

respective critical use allowances for 

new production or import of methyl 

bromide equivalent to 442,337 kg in 

2014 and 376,900 kg in 2015. Paragraph 

3 of Decision XXIV/5 and paragraph 5 

of Decision XXV/4 state that ‘‘parties 

shall endeavor to license, permit, 

authorize or allocate quantities of 

methyl bromide for critical uses as 

listed in table A of the annex to the 

present decision. . . .’’ This is similar to 

language in prior Decisions authorizing 

critical uses. These Decisions call on 

Parties to endeavor to allocate critical 

use methyl bromide on a sector basis. 

The proposed Framework Rule 

contained several options for allocating 

critical use allowances, including a 

sector-by-sector approach. The agency 

evaluated various options based on their 

economic, environmental, and practical 

effects. After receiving comments, EPA 

determined in the final Framework Rule 

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-by-sector 

approach would pose significant 

administrative and practical difficulties. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble to the 2009 CUE rule (74 FR 

19894), and because of the limited 

number of permitted uses, the agency 

believes that under the approach 

adopted in the Framework Rule, the 

actual critical use will closely follow the 

sector breakout listed in the Parties’ 

decisions. 

E. Amending the Critical Stock 

Allowance Framework 

The 2013 Rule removed the 

provisions at § 82.4(p)(ii) and (iii) 

requiring the use of critical stock 

allowances for sales of inventory to 

critical users. In addition, EPA made 

some necessary conforming changes to 

40 CFR part 82, which follow from 

removing those restrictions. As a result 

of the changes in the 2013 CUE Rule, 

there are no restrictions under the Clean 

Air Act on the sale of pre-phaseout 

material to critical users. 

EPA took comment in the proposed 

rule on removing all of the remaining 

references to critical stock allowances in 

40 CFR part 82. EPA believes these 

provisions are no longer necessary if the 

agency is not allocating separate critical 

stock allowances. EPA received one 

comment in support of removing those 

provisions, as it would avoid confusion 

in the future. EPA is finalizing the rule 

as proposed. Specifically, EPA is 

removing the definitions of ‘‘critical 

stock allowance,’’ ‘‘critical stock 

allowance holder,’’ and ‘‘unexpended 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

44308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2This provision allows any critical stock 

allowance holder (‘‘transferor’’) to transfer critical 

stock allowances to any critical stock allowance 

holder or any methyl bromide producer, importer, 

distributor, or third party applicator (‘‘transferee’’). 

critical stock allowance’’ from § 82.3. 

EPA is removing provisions related to 

the intercompany transfer of critical 

stock allowances at § 82.12(a) 2 and the 

exchange of critical use allowances for 

critical stock allowances at § 82.12(e). 

EPA is also removing the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements related to 

critical stock allowances in § 82.13(f)(3) 

and (g)(4). EPA notes that the agency is 

maintaining the requirement to annually 

report remaining pre-phaseout 

inventory. 

F. Emergency Uses 

In 2013 EPA held discussions with 

USDA and the Department of State on 

tools that could potentially address 

immediate and unforeseen needs for 

methyl bromide including whether 

emergency situations may arise that 

warrant the use of methyl bromide 

consistent with the treaty, recognizing 

that emergency uses are not intended as 

a replacement for CUE uses. In August, 

EPA held a stakeholder meeting to 

present, among other things, the 

findings of those discussions and noted 

that the three agencies had not yet 

identified any specific situations that 

could not be addressed by current 

mechanisms. The mechanisms 

discussed include, among others: The 

continuing critical use exemption 

process, including the supplemental 

application process which allows for a 

second opportunity to review 

applications from growers with a critical 

need; the pre-phaseout inventory (if 

remaining); the emergency use 

exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA; 

and ongoing targeted research and 

outreach to develop and implement 

alternatives to methyl bromide. The U.S. 

government is committed to using 

flexibility in the Protocol’s existing 

mechanisms as an avenue to address 

changes in national circumstances that 

affect the transition to alternatives. 

EPA solicited comments on specific 

emergency situations that may 

necessitate the use of methyl bromide, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Montreal Protocol, and which could be 

difficult to address using current tools 

and authorities. EPA received one 

comment which discussed ‘‘hand-held 

probe’’ treatments for outbreaks of Oak 

Root Fungus (Armillaria) in fruit and 

nut orchards. The commenter states that 

the use is limited in scope, methyl 

bromide is the only treatment proven to 

have long term efficacy, and the 

treatment is critical to the viability of 

infested orchards. The commenter 

stated that as a threshold matter, there 

must be clear and objective criteria to 

establish the existence of an emergency 

situation and the basis for approval. In 

addition the process to meet a particular 

emergency must be efficient so as to 

enable all stakeholders to meet the need 

before the emergency has caused 

significant damage. 

Clear and objective criteria would be 

required to establish the existence of an 

emergency situation and the basis for 

approval. Decision IX/7 states that the 

Secretariat and the TEAP will evaluate 

the use according to the critical use 

criteria in IX/6. Therefore, at a 

minimum, any potential emergency use 

must also be able to qualify as a critical 

use. The example of Armillaria raised 

by the commenter was also included in 

an application for a critical use 

exemption in 2016. The U.S. 

Government did not include this as part 

of the 2016 U.S. Nomination because 

the application did not provide data to 

demonstrate either the efficacy of 

methyl bromide or that the alternatives 

are not effective. Nor did it include data 

showing that the loss of methyl bromide 

would create a significant market 

disruption. EPA will continue in 

interactions with stakeholders and other 

agencies to receive information on 

understanding emergency situations 

that may necessitate the use of methyl 

bromide. 

G. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and 

Ex. I/4 

Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/ 

4 call on Parties to apply the conditions 

set forth in Decision Ex. I/4 (to the 

extent applicable) and the criteria in 

Decision IX/6 paragraph 1 to exempted 

critical uses for the 2014 and 2015 

control periods. A discussion of the 

agency’s application of the criteria in 

paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in 

sections II.A., and II.C. of this preamble. 

EPA solicited comments on the 

technical and economic basis for 

determining that the uses listed in this 

rule meet the criteria of the critical use 

exemption. The CUNs detail how each 

critical use meets the criteria in 

paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6, apart from 

the criterion located at paragraph (b)(ii), 

as well as the criteria in paragraphs 5 

and 6 of Decision Ex. I/4. 

The criterion in Decision IX/6 

paragraph (1)(b)(ii), which refers to the 

use of available stocks of methyl 

bromide, is addressed in section II.D. of 

this preamble. The agency has 

previously provided its interpretation of 

the criterion in Decision IX/6 paragraph 

(1)(a)(i) regarding the presence of 

significant market disruption in the 

absence of an exemption. EPA refers 

readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE 

rule (71 FR 5989, February 6, 2006) as 

well as to the memo in the docket titled 

‘‘Development of 2003 Nomination for a 

Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 

America’’ for further elaboration. As 

explained in those documents, EPA’s 

interpretation of this term has several 

dimensions, including looking at 

potential effects on both demand and 

supply for a commodity, evaluating 

potential losses at both an individual 

level and at an aggregate level, and 

evaluating potential losses in both 

relative and absolute terms. 

The remaining considerations are 

addressed in the nomination documents 

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 paragraphs 5 and 6 that 

Parties consider and implement MBTOC 

recommendations, where feasible, on 

actions a Party may take to reduce the 

critical uses of methyl bromide and 

include information on the methodology 

they use to determine economic 

feasibility. 

Some of these criteria are evaluated in 

other documents. The United States has 

considered the adoption of alternatives 

and research into methyl bromide 

alternatives (see Decision IX/6 

paragraph (1)(b)(iii)) in the development 

of the National Management Strategy 

submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in 

December 2005, updated in October 

2009. The National Management 

Strategy addresses all of the aims 

specified in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraph 

3 to the extent feasible and is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

There continues to be a need for 

methyl bromide in order to conduct the 

research required by Decision IX/6. 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. As discussed in the 

preamble to the 2010 CUE rule (75 FR 

23179, May 3, 2010), research is a key 

element of the critical use process. 

Research on the crops shown in the 

table in Appendix L to subpart A 

remains a critical use of methyl 

bromide. While researchers may 

continue to use newly produced 

material for field, post-harvest, and 

emission minimization studies requiring 

the use of methyl bromide, EPA 

encourages researchers to use premstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44309 

3Additional information on risk mitigation 

measures for soil fumigants is available at http://

epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/

phaseout inventory. EPA also 

encourages distributors to make 

inventory available to researchers, to 

promote the continuing effort to assist 

growers to transition critical use crops 

to alternatives. 

H. Emissions Minimization 

Previous Decisions of the Parties have 

stated that critical users shall 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. 

EPA developed a comprehensive 

strategy for risk mitigation through the 

2009 Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

(RED) 3 for methyl bromide, available in 

the docket to this rulemaking, which is 

implemented through restrictions on 

how methyl bromide products can be 

used. This approach means that methyl 

bromide labels require that treated sites 

be tarped, except for California orchard 

replant where EPA instead requires 

deep (18 inches or greater) shank 

applications. The RED also incorporated 

incentives for applicators to use highbarrier tarps, such as virtually 

impermeable film, by allowing smaller 

buffer zones around those sites. In 

addition to minimizing emissions, use 

of high-barrier tarps has the benefit of 

providing pest control at lower 

application rates. The amount of methyl 

bromide nominated by the United States 

reflects the lower application rates 

necessary when using high-barrier tarps, 

where such tarps are allowed. 

EPA will continue to work with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture— 

Agricultural Research Service (USDA– 

ARS) and the National Institute for Food 

and Agriculture (USDA–NIFA) to 

promote emission reduction techniques. 

The federal government has invested 

substantial resources into developing 

and implementing best practices for 

methyl bromide use, including emission 

reduction practices. The Cooperative 

Extension System, which receives some 

support from USDA–NIFA provides 

locally appropriate and project-focused 

outreach education regarding methyl 

bromide transition best practices. 

Additional information on USDA 

research on alternatives and emissions 

reduction can be found at: http://

www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/

programs.htm?NP_CODE=308 and 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/

methylbromideicgp.cfm. 

Users of methyl bromide should 

continue to make every effort to 

minimize overall emissions of methyl 

bromide. EPA also encourages 

researchers and users who are using 

techniques to minimize emissions of 

methyl bromide to inform EPA of their 

experiences and to provide information 

on such techniques with their critical 

use applications. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

final rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it was deemed to raise 

novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to interagency 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

application, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements have already 

been established under previous critical 

use exemption rulemakings. This rule 

does remove requirements related to the 

recordkeeping and reporting of critical 

stock allowances which would decrease 

the 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 seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0482. 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 noticeand-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 

rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201 (see 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 than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

Category NAICS code 

NAICS Small business 

size standard (in number of employees or 

millions of dollars) 

Agricultural production 1112—Vegetable and Melon farming .......................................................................................... $0.75 million. 

1113—Fruit and Nut Tree Farming.

1114—Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production.

Storage Uses ............... 115114—Postharvest Crop activities (except Cotton Ginning) ................................................... $7 million. 

311211—Flour Milling .................................................................................................................. 500 employees. 

311212—Rice Milling ................................................................................................................... 500 employees. 

493110—General Warehousing and Storage ............................................................................. $25.5 million. 

493130—Farm Product Warehousing and Storage .................................................................... $25.5 million. 

Distributors and Applicators.115112—Soil Preparation, Planting and Cultivating ................................................................... $7 million.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

44310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Category NAICS code 

NAICS Small business 

size standard (in number of employees or 

millions of dollars) 

Producers and Importers.325320—Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing .......................................... 500 employees. 

Agricultural producers of minor crops 

and entities that store agricultural 

commodities are categories of affected 

entities that contain small entities. This 

rule only affects entities that applied to 

EPA for an exemption to the phaseout 

of methyl bromide. 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 revised this estimate in 2011 down 

to 1,800 end users of critical use methyl 

bromide. EPA believes that the number 

continues to decline as growers cease 

applying for the critical use exemption. 

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 onethird 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 rule on small entities, I 

certify 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 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 allows the use of 

methyl bromide for approved critical 

uses after the phaseout date of January 

1, 2005, this action confers a benefit to 

users of methyl bromide. EPA estimates 

in the Regulatory Impact Assessment 

found in the docket to this rule that the 

reduced costs resulting from the deregulatory creation of the exemption are 

approximately $22 million to $31 

million on an annual basis (using a 3% 

or 7% discount rate respectively). We 

have therefore concluded that this rule 

would relieve regulatory burden for all 

small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Instead, this action 

provides an exemption for the 

manufacture and use of a phased out 

compound and would not impose any 

new requirements on any entities. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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 rule is 

expected to affect producers, suppliers, 

importers, and exporters and users of 

methyl bromide. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicited comment on this action from 

State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This rule does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Indian tribal governments nor does it 

impose any enforceable duties on 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. EPA 

specifically solicited additional 

comment on this action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order No. 13045: 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

rule affects 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. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This 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 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 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 

104–113, 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 44311 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. 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 did not consider 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 rule 

does not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations, because it 

affects 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 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 in the United States. 

Populations that work or live near fields 

or other application sites may benefit 

from the reduced amount of methyl 

bromide applied, as compared to 

amounts allowed under previous critical 

use exemption rules. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective July 31, 2014. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Exports, Imports, Ozone depletion. 

Dated: July 18, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 

7671q. 

§ 82.3 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 82.3 by removing the 

definitions of ‘‘Critical stock allowance 

(CSA)’’, ‘‘Critical stock allowance (CSA) 

holder’’, and ‘‘Unexpended critical 

stock allowance (CSA)’’. 

■ 3. Amend § 82.8 by revising the table 

in paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances 

and critical use allowances. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Company 

2014 Critical 

use allowances for preplant uses* 

(kilograms) 

2014 Critical 

use allowances for postharvest uses* 

(kilograms) 

2015 Critical 

use allowances for preplant uses* 

(kilograms) 

2015 Critical 

use allowances for postharvest uses* 

(kilograms) 

Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company ...................................... 252,236 16,572 227,073 1,969 

Albemarle Corp ................................................................................................ 103,725 6,815 93,378 810 

ICL–IP America ................................................................................................ 57,321 3,766 51,602 447 

TriCal, Inc ........................................................................................................ 1,785 117 1,607 14 

Total .......................................................................................................... 415,067 27,270 373,660 3,240 

* 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 for the appropriate control period. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 82.12 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and 

removing paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 82.12 Transfers of allowances for class I 

controlled substances. 

(a) Inter-company transfers. (1) Until 

January 1, 1996, for all class I controlled 

substances, except for Group VI, and 

until January 1, 2005, for Group VI, any 

person (‘‘transferor’’) may transfer to 

any other person (‘‘transferee’’) any 

amount of the transferor’s consumption 

allowances or production allowances, 

and effective January 1, 1995, for all 

class I controlled substances any person 

(‘‘transferor’’) may transfer to any other 

person (‘‘transferee’’) any amount of the 

transferor’s Article 5 allowances. After 

January 1, 2002, any essential-use 

allowance holder (including those 

persons that hold essential-use 

allowances issued by a Party other than 

the United States) (‘‘transferor’’) may 

transfer essential-use allowances for 

CFCs to a metered dose inhaler 

company solely for the manufacture of 

essential MDIs. After January 1, 2005, 

any critical use allowance holder 

(‘‘transferor’’) may transfer critical use 

allowances to any other person 

(‘‘transferee’’). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 82.13 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (f)(3)(iv) and 

(g)(4)(vii); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(bb)(2)(iv) and (cc)(2)(iv). 

The revisions read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

44312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for class I controlled 

substances. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) The producer’s total of expended 

and unexpended production 

allowances, consumption allowances, 

Article 5 allowances, critical use 

allowances (pre-plant), critical use 

allowances (post-harvest), and amount 

of essential-use allowances and 

destruction and transformation credits 

conferred at the end of that quarter; 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(vii) The importer’s total sum of 

expended and unexpended 

consumption allowances by chemical as 

of the end of that quarter and the total 

sum of expended and unexpended 

critical use allowances (pre-plant) and 

unexpended critical use allowances 

(post-harvest); 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend subpart A by revising 

appendix L to read as follows: 

Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82— 

Approved Critical Uses and Limiting 

Critical Conditions for Those Uses for 

the 2014 and 2015 Control Periods 

Column A Column B Column C 

Approved Critical Uses ........ Approved Critical User, Location of Use, and Control 

Period.

Limiting Critical Conditions that exist, or that the approved critical user reasonably expects could arise 

without methyl bromide fumigation. 

PRE-PLANT USES: 

Strawberry Fruit ............ California growers. Control periods 2014 and 2015 ....... Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot. 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

POST-HARVEST USES: 

Food Processing ........... (a) Rice millers in the U.S. who are members of the 

USA Rice Millers’ Association. Control period 2014.

Moderate to severe beetle, weevil, or moth infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to 

corrosion. 

(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U.S. who are 

members of the Pet Food Institute. Control period 

2014.

Moderate to severe beetle, moth, or cockroach infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to 

corrosion. 

(c) Members of the North American Millers’ Association 

in the U.S. Control period 2014.

Moderate to severe beetle infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to 

corrosion. 

Commodities ................. California entities storing walnuts, dried plums, figs, raisins, and dates (in Riverside county only) in California. Control period 2014.Rapid fumigation required to meet a critical market window, such as during the holiday season. 

Dry Cured Pork Products.Members of the National Country Ham Association and 

the American Association of Meat Processors, 

Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina), and Gwaltney 

of Smithfield Inc. Control periods 2014 and 2015.

Red legged ham beetle infestation. 

Cheese/ham skipper infestation. 

Dermestid beetle infestation. 

Ham mite infestation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17595 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 12–267; FCC 13–111] 

Comprehensive Review of Licensing 

and Operating Rules for Satellite 

Services. 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register of February 12, 2014, a 

document concerning revisions in the 

Commission’s rules. The document 

inadvertently failed to include an 

amendatory instruction. This document 

corrects the omission of that instruction. 

DATES: The final rule published 

February 12, 2014, at 79 FR 8308, 

contains information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The Commission 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of the rule, this correction, and all other 

rules adopted by FCC 13–111 after 

receiving approval from the OMB for the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Spiers, Satellite Division, 

International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418– 

1593 or via email at Cindy.Spiers@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 12, 2014, at 79 FR 8308, a 

document inadvertently failed to 

include an instruction to revise the 

introductory text of paragraph (b) in 

section 25.140. This document corrects 

the omission of that instruction. 

In FR Doc. 2014–02213 79 FR 8308, 

February 12, 2014, the following 

correction is made: 

§ 25.140 [Corrected] 

■ On page 8319, in the third column, 

instruction c in paragraph 19, ‘‘Remove 

and reserve paragraphs(b)(1) and (2)’’, is 

corrected to read ‘‘Revise paragraph (b) 

introductory text to read as follows and 

remove and reserve paragraphs(b)(1) 

and (2)’’. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17962 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES