1 Arling, Jeremy

From: **Arling, Jeremy** Sent: **Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:22 PM** To: **'Thomas, Amanda'** Cc: **Donaldson, David** Subject: **Revised Text for 2014/2015 CUE Rule**

Amanda

Here is the revised section:

F. Emergency Uses In 2013 EPA held discussions with USDA and the Depa rtment of State on tools that could potentially address immediate and unforeseen needs for methyl b romide including whether emergency situations may arise that warrant the use of methyl bromide consis tent with the treaty, recognizing that emergency us es are not intended as a replacement for CUE uses. In Augu st, EPA held a stakeholder meeting to present, amon g other things, the findings of those discussions and noted that the three agencies had not yet identifi ed 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 pr ocess which allows for a second opportunity to review app lications from growers with a critical need; the pr ephaseout inventory; the emergency use exemption und er Section 18 of FIFRA; and ongoing targeted resear ch and outreach to develop and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. The U.S. g overnment is committed to using flexibility in the Protocol’s existing mechan isms as an avenue to address changes in national circumstances that affect the transition to alterna tives. EPA solicited comments on specific emergency situat ions that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide, consistent with the requirements of the Mo ntreal Protocol, and which could be difficult to ad dress using current tools and authorities. EPA received o ne comment which discussed “hand-held probe” treatments for outbreaks of Oak Root Fungus ( Armillaria ) in fruit and nut orchards. The commenter states t hat the use is limited in scope, methyl bromide is the only treatment proven to have long term efficacy, a nd 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 estab lish the existence of an emergency situation and th e basis for approval. In addition the process to meet a par ticular 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 e stablish the existence of an emergency situation an d the basis for approval. Decision IX/7 states that t he Secretari at 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 a ble to qualify as a critical use. The example of Armillaria raised by the commenter has also been raised by ap plicants for critical uses. EPA has considered this situatio n but has not nominated it as a critical use becaus e the agency does not have sufficient information to demonstrate either the efficacy of methyl bromide or that the alternatives are not effective. EPA appreciates this example and will continue in i nteractions with stakeholders and other agencies to seek information on specific emergency situations that may necessitate the use o f methyl bromide.

Jeremy Arling U.S. EPA Stratospheric Protection Division2 Office of Atmospheric Programs Mail Code: 6205J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 202-343-9055 arling.jeremy@epa.gov1 Arling, Jeremy

From: Thomas, Amanda <Amanda_L._Thomas@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:03 PM To: Arling, Jeremy; Donaldson, David; Hufford, Drusilla Subject: FW: Fw: Revised Text for 2014/2015 CUE Rule Attachments: Allocation Rule language.docx

Importance: High

Some edits. Let me know your reaction by 5:30. Th anks.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 defining an
emergency that might 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 preliminary findings and noted that the three agencies had not completed those discussions

. The mechanisms discussed include, among others: the continuing critical use exempti on 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 available) ; the emergency use exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA; and ongoing targeted research and outreach to develop and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. Of this list, only the Section 18 of FIFRA meets the criteria of an emergency with regard to time, assuming there are no state regulatory restrictions

. 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 nec essitate 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 evalua te 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 has also been raised by applicants for critica l uses. EPA has considered this situation but has not nominated it as a critical use because the agency does not have sufficient information to demonstrate either the efficacy of methyl bromide or that the alternatives are not effective. EPA appreciates th is example and will continue in interactions with stakeholders and other agencies to seek information on understanding emergency situations that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide. Deleted: whether

Deleted: situations may arise that

Deleted: of those discus sions
Deleted: had not yet identified any specific situations that could not be addressed by current mechanisms

Deleted: specific1 Arling, Jeremy

From: **Hufford, Drusilla** Sent: **Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:43 PM** To: **Thomas, Amanda; Arling, Jeremy; Donaldson, David** Subject: **RE: Fw: Revised Text for 2014/2015 CUE Rule** Attachments: **Allocation Rule languageV2.docx**

Amanda – Here is our revised text. Thanks so much for continuing to work with us on this.

Drusilla

From: Thomas, Amanda [mailto:Amanda_L._Thomas@omb.eop.go v] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:03 PM To: Arling, Jeremy; Donaldson, David; Hufford, Drusill a Subject: FW: Fw: Revised Text for 2014/2015 CUE Rule Importance: High

Some edits. Let me know your reaction by 5:30. Th anks.F. Emergency Uses

In 2013 EPA held discussions with USDA and the Depa rtment 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 int ended 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 n ot yet identified any specific situations that could not be addressed by current mechanisms. The mechanisms discussed include, among others: the continuing critical use exemption proce ss, including the supplemental application process which allows for a second opportunity to re view applications from growers with a critical need; the pre-phaseout inventory (if avail able); 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 flexibil ity in the Protocol’s existing mechanisms as an avenue to addr ess changes in national circumstances that affect the transition to alternatives. EPA solicited comments on specific emergency situat ions 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 a nd authorities. EPA received one comment which discussed “hand-held probe” treatments for ou tbreaks of Oak Root Fungus ( Armillaria ) in fruit and nut orchards. The commenter states that t he use is limited in scope, methyl bromide is the only treatment proven to have long term efficac y, and the treatment is critical to the viability of infested orchards. The commenter state d that as a threshold matter, there must be clear and objective criteria to establish the exist ence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. In addition the process to meet a par ticular 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 e stablish the existence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. Dec ision IX/7 states that the Secretariat and the TEAP will evaluate the use according to the cri tical use criteria in IX/6. Therefore, at a minimum, any potential emergency use must also be a ble to qualify as a critical use. The example of Armillaria raised by the commenter has also been raised by ap plicants for critical uses. EPA has considered this situation but has not nominated it as a critical use because the agency does not have sufficient information to demo nstrate either the efficacy of methyl bromide or that the alternatives are not effective. EPA appreciates this example and will continue in interactions with stakeholders and othe r agencies to seek information on understanding emergency situations that may necess itate the use of methyl bromide.