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 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 prephaseout inventory; 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 has also been raised by applicants 

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 demonstrate 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 other agencies to seek information on specific emergency situations that may necessitate the use of 

methyl bromide.

Jeremy Arling 

U.S. EPA 

Stratospheric Protection Division 
2

Office of Atmospheric Programs 

Mail Code: 6205J 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

202-343-9055 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov 
1

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. Thanks.
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 agencieshad not completed those discussions. 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 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 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 has also been raised by applicants 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 demonstrate 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 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 discussions 

Deleted: had not yet identified any specific situations that 

could not be addressed by current mechanisms

Deleted: specific
1

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.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 

Importance: High 

Some edits. Let me know your reaction by 5:30. Thanks.
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 available); 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 has also been raised by applicants 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 demonstrate 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 other agencies to seek information on 

understanding emergency situations that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide.