Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 61985 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–809 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–809 Safety Zone, Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway; Oak Island, North 

Carolina. 

(a) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this section, Captain of the Port means 

the Commander, Sector North Carolina. 

Representative means any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been authorized to act on the 

behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(b) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: Specified waters of the 

Captain of the Port Sector North 

Carolina zone, as defined in 33 CFR 

3.25–10, all waters of the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway within a 100 yard 

radius of latitude 33°55′11′′ N., 

longitude 078°03′24′′ W. in Oak Island, 

North Carolina. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

North Carolina or his designated 

representatives. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this safety zone 

shall: 

(i) If on scene proceed as directed by 

any commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer on shore or on board a vessel that 

is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) The Captain of the Port, North 

Carolina can be reached through the 

Sector North Carolina Command Duty 

Officer at Sector North Carolina in 

Wilmington, North Carolina at 

telephone number (910) 343–3882. 

(4) The Coast Guard Representatives 

enforcing the safety zone can be 

contacted on VHF–FM marine band 

radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and 

channel 16 (156.8 Mhz). 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced on October 12, 13, 19, 

and 20, 2015, between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 

p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

Dated: September 23, 2015. 

S.R. Murtagh, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2015–26193 Filed 10–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0369; FRL–9935–69– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS44 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 

2016 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 the 2016 control period. EPA is 

issuing 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-Sixth 

Meeting of the Parties in November 

2014. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0369. 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: 

Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343– 

9055; email address arling.jeremy@

epa.gov. 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: 

I. Executive Summary 

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. 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 the uses that will qualify for 

the critical use exemption as well as 

specific amounts of methyl bromide that 

may be produced and imported for 

those critical uses for 2016. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

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 2016 critical use 

exemption including growers of 

vegetable crops, ornamentals, fruits, and 

nursery stock, and owners of stored food 

commodities. 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. 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61986 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

III. What is Methyl Bromide? 

Methyl bromide is an odorless, 

colorless, toxic gas which is used as a 

broad-spectrum pesticide and is 

controlled under the CAA as a Class I 

ozone-depleting substance (ODS). 

Methyl bromide was once widely used 

as a fumigant to control a variety of 

pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, 

pathogens, and nematodes. 

Methyl bromide is also regulated by 

EPA under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

and other statutes and regulatory 

authorities, as well as by States under 

their own statutes and regulatory 

authority. Under FIFRA, methyl 

bromide is a restricted use pesticide. 

Restricted use pesticides are subject to 

Federal and State requirements 

governing their sale, distribution, and 

use. Nothing in this rule implementing 

Title VI of the Clean Air Act is intended 

to derogate from provisions in any other 

Federal, State, or local laws or 

regulations governing actions including, 

but not limited to, the sale, distribution, 

transfer, and use of methyl bromide. 

Entities affected by this action must 

comply with FIFRA and other pertinent 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for pesticides (including, but not limited 

to, requirements pertaining to restricted 

use pesticides) when producing, 

importing, exporting, acquiring, selling, 

distributing, transferring, or using 

methyl bromide. The provisions in this 

action are intended only to implement 

the CAA restrictions on the production, 

consumption, and use of methyl 

bromide for critical uses exempted from 

the phaseout of methyl bromide. 

IV. What is the background to the 

Phaseout Regulations for OzoneDepleting substances? 

The regulatory requirements of the 

stratospheric ozone protection program 

that limit production and consumption 

of ozone-depleting substances are in 40 

CFR part 82, subpart A. The regulatory 

program was originally published in the 

Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 

FR 30566), in response to the 1987 

signing and subsequent ratification of 

the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal 

Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is the 

international agreement aimed at 

reducing and eliminating the 

production and consumption of 

stratospheric ozone-depleting 

substances. The United States was one 

of the original signatories to the 1987 

Montreal Protocol, and the United 

States ratified the Protocol in 1988. 

Congress then enacted, and President 

George H.W. Bush signed into law, the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(CAAA of 1990), which included Title 

VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection, 

codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, 

Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United 

States could satisfy its obligations under 

the Protocol. EPA issued regulations to 

implement this legislation and has since 

amended the regulations as needed. 

Methyl bromide was added to the 

Protocol as an ozone-depleting 

substance in 1992 through the 

Copenhagen Amendment to the 

Protocol. The Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol (Parties) agreed that each 

developed country’s level of methyl 

bromide production and consumption 

in 1991 should be the baseline for 

establishing a freeze on the level of 

methyl bromide production and 

consumption for developed countries. 

EPA published a rule in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 

65018), listing methyl bromide as a 

Class I, Group VI controlled substance. 

This rule froze U.S. production and 

consumption at the 1991 baseline level 

of 25,528,270 kilograms, and set forth 

the percentage of baseline allowances 

for methyl bromide granted to 

companies in each control period (each 

calendar year) until 2001, when the 

complete phaseout would occur. This 

phaseout date was established in 

response to a petition filed in 1991 

under sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of 

the CAAA of 1990, requesting that EPA 

list methyl bromide as a Class I 

substance and phase out its production 

and consumption. This date was 

consistent with section 602(d) of the 

CAAA of 1990, which, for newly listed 

Class I ozone-depleting substances 

provides that ‘‘no extension [of the 

phaseout schedule in section 604] under 

this subsection may extend the date for 

termination of production of any class I 

substance to a date more than 7 years 

after January 1 of the year after the year 

in which the substance is added to the 

list of class I substances.’’ 

At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties 

(MOP) in 1995, the Parties agreed to 

adjustments to the methyl bromide 

control measures and agreed to 

reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout 

date for developed countries with 

exemptions permitted for critical uses. 

At that time, the United States 

continued to have a 2001 phaseout date 

in accordance with section 602(d) of the 

CAAA of 1990. At the Ninth MOP in 

1997, the Parties agreed to further 

adjustments to the phaseout schedule 

for methyl bromide in developed 

countries, with reduction steps leading 

to a 2005 phaseout. The Parties also 

established a phaseout date of 2015 for 

countries operating under Article 5 of 

the Protocol (developing countries). 

V. What is the legal authority for 

exempting the production and import of 

methyl bromide for critical uses 

permitted by the parties to the Montreal 

Protocol? 

In October 1998, the U.S. Congress 

amended the Clean Air Act to prohibit 

the termination of production of methyl 

bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to 

require EPA to align the U.S. phaseout 

of methyl bromide with the schedule 

specified under the Protocol, and to 

authorize EPA to provide certain 

exemptions. These amendments were 

contained in section 764 of the 1999 

Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. 

L. 105–277, October 21, 1998) and were 

codified in section 604 of the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that 

specifically addresses the critical use 

exemption appears at section 604(d)(6), 

42 U.S.C. 7671c(d)(6). EPA revised the 

phaseout schedule for methyl bromide 

production and consumption in a 

rulemaking on November 28, 2000 (65 

FR 70795), which allowed for the 

reduction in methyl bromide 

consumption specified under the 

Protocol and extended the phaseout to 

2005 while creating a placeholder for 

critical use exemptions. Through an 

interim final rule on July 19, 2001 (66 

FR 37751), and a final rule on January 

2, 2003 (68 FR 238), EPA amended the 

regulations to allow for an exemption 

for quarantine and preshipment 

purposes. 

On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), 

EPA published a rule (the ‘‘Framework 

Rule’’) that established the framework 

for the critical use exemption, set forth 

a list of approved critical uses for 2005, 

and specified the amount of methyl 

bromide that could be supplied in 2005 

from stocks, new production, or through 

imports to meet the needs of approved 

critical uses. EPA has subsequently 

published rules applying the critical use 

exemption framework for each of the 

annual control periods from 2006 to 

2015. 

In accordance with Article 2H(5) of 

the Montreal Protocol, the Parties have 

issued several Decisions pertaining to 

the critical use exemption. These 

include Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4, 

which set forth criteria for review of 

critical uses. The status of Decisions is 

addressed in NRDC v. EPA, (464 F.3d 1, 

D.C. Cir. 2006) and in EPA’s 

‘‘Supplemental Brief for the 

Respondent,’’ filed in NRDC v. EPA and 

available in the docket for this action. In 

this rule, EPA is honoring commitments 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 61987 

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.’’ 

made by the United States in the 

Montreal Protocol context. 

Under authority of section 604(d)(6) 

of the CAA, EPA is now listing 

approved critical uses, as well as 

authorizing the amount of methyl 

bromide that may be produced or 

imported to satisfy those uses during 

2016. The critical uses and amounts 

reflect Decision XXVI/6, taken at the 

Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties in 

November 2014. 

VI. 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 for 2016 through a Federal 

Register notice published on May 31, 

2013 (78 FR 32646). 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 proposed to 

exempt. 

On January 22, 2014, the United 

States submitted the twelfth 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 2016 critical uses. In March 

2014, MBTOC sent questions to the 

United States concerning technical and 

economic issues in the 2016 

nomination. The United States 

transmitted responses to MBTOC in 

March 2014. In May 2014, the MBTOC 

provided their interim 

recommendations on the U.S. 

nomination in the May TEAP Interim 

Report. These documents, together with 

reports by the advisory bodies noted 

above, are in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. The critical uses and 

amounts approved 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 issued regulations to 

indicate which uses meet the criteria for 

the exemption and to exempt specific 

quantities of production and import of 

methyl bromide for a particular year. 

This action continues the approach 

established in the 2013 Rule (78 FR 

43797, July 22, 2013) 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. 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. 

C. Critical Uses 

In Decision XXVI/6, taken in 

November 2014, the Parties to the 

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

agreed critical-use categories for 2015 

and 2016 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 

and 2016 set forth in table B of the 

annex to the present decision, which are 

necessary to satisfy critical uses. . . .’’ 

Cured pork and strawberry field 

production are the uses that are set forth 

in table A of the annex to Decision 

XXVI/6 for the United States for 2016. 

This rule modifies the table in 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart A, appendix L to reflect 

the agreed critical use categories. EPA is 

amending the table of critical uses and 

critical users based on the uses 

permitted in Decision XXVI/6 and the 

technical analyses contained in the 2016 

U.S. nomination that assess data 

submitted by applicants to the CUE 

program. For reasons discussed below, 

EPA is removing the time limitation in 

appendix L for the approval of drycured pork products as a critical use to 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61988 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

allow for the continued use of carryover 

post-harvest methyl bromide after 2016. 

Specifically, this rule removes the 

food processing uses that were listed in 

the joint 2014/2015 CUE rule as critical 

uses for 2014. The California Date 

Commission as well as all users under 

the food processing use (rice millers, pet 

food manufacturing facilities, and 

members of the North American Millers’ 

Association) did not submit CUE 

applications for 2016 and therefore were 

not included in the 2016 U.S. 

nomination to the Parties of the 

Montreal Protocol. 

This rule also removes the remaining 

commodity uses (walnuts, dried plums, 

figs, and raisins). These sectors applied 

for a critical use in 2016 but the United 

States did not nominate them for 2016. 

In addition, some sectors that were not 

on the list of critical uses for 2014 or 

2015 submitted applications for 2016. 

These sectors are: Michigan cucurbit, 

eggplant, pepper, and tomato growers; 

Florida eggplant, pepper, strawberry, 

and tomato 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; and the U.S. Golf 

Course Superintendents Association. 

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. Following this 

technical review, EPA consulted with 

the USDA and the Department of State. 

EPA determined that these users did not 

meet the critical use criteria in Decision 

IX/6 and the United States did not 

include them in the 2016 Critical Use 

Nomination. EPA notified these sectors 

of their status by letters dated March 28, 

2014. For each of these uses, EPA found 

that there are technically and 

economically feasible alternatives to 

methyl bromide. EPA refers readers to 

the Federal Register Notice ‘‘Request for 

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption 

Applications for 2017’’ (79 FR 38887; 

July 9, 2014) for a summary of 

information on how the Agency 

evaluated specific uses and available 

alternatives when considering 

applications for critical uses for 2016. 

EPA requested comment on the 

technical assessments of the 

applications in the sector summaries 

found in the docket and the 

determination that these users did not 

meet the critical use criteria. EPA also 

requested any new or additional 

information that the Agency may 

consider in preparing future 

nominations. EPA also sought comment 

on the technical analyses contained in 

the U.S. nomination and information 

regarding any changes to the registration 

(including cancellations or 

registrations), use, or efficacy of 

alternatives that occurred after the 

nomination was submitted. 

As EPA noted in the proposed rule, 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 received one comment on the 

proposed rule. This commenter 

highlighted the chemical and nonchemical alternatives in use in the 

European Union, including other 

fumigants, integrated crop management 

systems, heat treatment, gamma 

irradiation, cold storage, resistant 

varieties and cultivars, crop rotation, 

cover crops, soil solarization, and 

anaerobic disinfestation. EPA 

considered these alternatives when 

developing the nomination for critical 

uses for 2016, but concluded that 

additional research on alternatives is 

still necessary for dry cured ham 

production, and that additional time to 

transition to chloropicrin is needed for 

California strawberries. 

The same commenter urged the 

Agency to announce an end date for all 

methyl bromide exemptions and, in 

light of the recent human health 

incident in the U.S. Virgin Islands, to 

end the use of all methyl bromide in the 

United States. Neither the Protocol nor 

the Clean Air Act establishes a specific 

end date for the critical use exemption. 

However, as noted in Decision Ex. I/4, 

the Parties intended for the critical use 

exemption to be a limited, temporary 

derogation from that phaseout. Progress 

in developing alternatives in key areas 

of historical methyl bromide use has 

been significant and has allowed many 

sectors to successfully transition from 

methyl bromide over the last decade. 

Specifically, the number of sectors 

nominated has declined from seventeen 

for 2006 to one for 2017. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

request that EPA end all use of methyl 

bromide in the U.S., we note that 

production for quarantine and 

preshipment is excluded from the 

phaseout under the Montreal Protocol 

and that section 604(d)(5) of the Clean 

Air Act directs EPA to exempt 

production for this purpose. EPA 

continues to support this important 

exemption to prevent the introduction 

and spread of quarantine pests while 

encouraging research into alternatives 

that meet the rigorous standards for 

quarantine and preshipment 

applications. 

D. Critical Use Amounts 

Table A of the annex to Decision 

XXVI/6 lists critical uses and amounts 

agreed by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol for 2016. The maximum 

amount of new production and import 

for U.S. critical uses in 2016, specified 

in Table B of the annex to Decision 

XXVI/6, is 234.78 MT, minus available 

stocks. This figure is equivalent to less 

than 1 percent of the U.S. 1991 methyl 

bromide consumption baseline of 

25,528 MT. 

EPA has determined the level of new 

production and import according to the 

Framework Rule, as modified by the 

2013 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. Applying this approach, EPA is 

allocating allowances to exempt 140,531 

kg of new production and import of 

methyl bromide for critical uses in 2016, 

making reductions for available stocks 

and carryover. This is the same amount 

EPA proposed to allocate. 

Available Stocks: For 2016 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 2016. The latest data reported to 

EPA from December 31, 2014, show 

existing stocks to be 158,121 kg. This 

shows that 198,440 kg of pre-2005 

stocks were sold in 2014. 

The Parties to the Protocol recognized 

in their Decisions that the level of 

existing stocks may differ from the level 

of available stocks. Decision XXVI/6 

states 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 

Decision states that ‘‘parties operating 

under critical-use exemptions should 

take into account the extent to which 

methyl bromide is available in sufficient 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 61989 

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 0% was available 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, see the 2013 CUE 

Rule (78 FR 43802). 

EPA believes that 5% of existing 

stocks will be available in 2016 for the 

two critical uses. As a result of the 

changes to the FIFRA labeling, methyl 

bromide sold or distributed in 2015 can 

only be used for approved critical uses 

or for quarantine and preshipment 

purposes. Except for sectors with 

quarantine and preshipment uses, 

California strawberries is the only preplant sector that will be able to use 

stocks in 2015 or 2016. EPA does not 

anticipate stocks to be used for 

quarantine and preshipment uses as 

there are no production allowances 

required to manufacture that material 

and it tends to be less expensive than 

stocks. Distributors will therefore likely 

make stocks available to California 

strawberry growers in 2015 and 2016. 

While EPA has not estimated the 

amount of stocks that will be used in 

2015, EPA believes that at least 5% of 

stocks will be available in 2016. As 

discussed in the section on carryover 

below, demand by California strawberry 

growers in 2014 for critical use methyl 

bromide was lower than anticipated. For 

the first time since 2009, not all of the 

critical use material produced or 

imported for a control period was sold. 

Decreased demand for critical use 

methyl bromide in 2014 means that 

unsold material already produced will 

be available in 2015 in addition to 

stocks. 

Furthermore, EPA now knows the 

national distribution and composition of 

stocks (e.g. pure or mixed with 

chloropicrin) due to a recent 

information collection request under 

section 114 of the Clean Air Act. After 

reviewing results of the information 

collection request, EPA believes there is 

geographically accessible pure methyl 

bromide for ham producers in the 

Southeastern U.S. as well as pre-plant 

methyl bromide for California 

strawberry producers. 

For these reasons, EPA finds that 5% 

of the existing inventory is available for 

use in 2016. Existing stocks, as of 

December 31, 2014, were equal to 

158,121 kg. Therefore, EPA is reducing 

the amount of new production for 2016 

by 7,906 kg, as proposed. 

EPA specifically invited comment on 

whether between 0% and 5% of existing 

inventory will be available to critical 

users in 2016. EPA did not receive any 

comments on that specific issue but did 

receive a comment that it is unclear 

whether the information received by 

EPA is an accurate reflection of the 

existing and available stocks of methyl 

bromide in the United States. The 

commenter encouraged improved 

information gathering to better ensure 

that these stocks are being used in 

compliance with the FIFRA labeling and 

the critical use exemption. 

EPA has undertaken two information 

gathering requests in 2015 under section 

114 of the CAA. The first request was 

discussed in the proposed rule and 

sought information about the 

composition (i.e. pure vs mixed with 

chloropicrin), quantity, and location of 

stocks. The new information provided 

to the Agency in response to this request 

has enhanced EPA’s understanding of 

existing and available stocks of methyl 

bromide in the United States. EPA’s 

second request for information under 

section 114 of the Clean Air Act was in 

part a response to the misuse of methyl 

bromide in a residential space in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands and sought 

additional sales information from all 

known methyl bromide distributors. 

Specifically, EPA sought the names of 

all distributors and third party 

applicators of CUE, QPS, and pre-2005 

stocks in 2014. EPA is currently 

reviewing responses to this request. 

As a further response, under FIFRA, 

EPA is also working to implement 

changes to methyl bromide commodity 

labels in order to clarify uses and 

provide additional protections for 

workers and bystanders. EPA is also 

looking at how additional reporting 

could help ensure compliance with 

label requirements through EPA’s 

Registration Review program, which 

evaluates pesticides on a regular basis. 

Information on the review of methyl 

bromide, along with a schedule of when 

the next public comment periods are 

anticipated, can be found on 

regulations.gov at docket number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2013–0269. 

Carryover Material: EPA regulations 

prohibit methyl bromide produced or 

imported after January 1, 2005, under 

the critical use exemption, from being 

added to the 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 next year. EPA uses these reports to 

calculate any excess methyl bromide left 

over from that year’s CUE and, using the 

framework established in the 2005 CUE 

Rule, reduces the following year’s total 

allocation by that amount. Carryover 

had been reported to the Agency every 

year from 2005 to 2009. 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. 

In 2015, companies reported that 

442,200 kg of methyl bromide was 

produced or imported for U.S. critical 

uses in 2014. Companies also reported 

that 355,857 kg of critical use methyl 

bromide was sold to end-users in 2014. 

EPA calculates that the carryover at the 

end of 2014 was 86,343 kg, which is the 

difference between the reported amount 

of critical use methyl bromide produced 

or imported in 2014 and the reported 

amount of sales of that material to end 

users in 2014. EPA’s calculation of 

carryover is 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. All U.S. 

Accounting Frameworks for critical use 

methyl bromide are available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. EPA 

is therefore reducing the total level of 

new production and import for critical 

uses by 86,343 kg to reflect the amount 

of carryover material available at the 

end of 2014, in addition to the 7,906 kg 

reduction for available stocks discussed 

above. 

EPA has considered the possibility 

that there might be methyl bromide 

produced in 2015 and 2016 carried over 

into subsequent years. Any pre-plant 

critical use methyl bromide carried over 

from the 2015 control period could not 

be subtracted in 2017, as would usually 

be done. That is because critical use 

material produced for a pre-plant use 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61990 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

must be used on a pre-plant use and the 

United States has not nominated a preplant use for 2017. Such carryover could 

be used in 2016 while California 

strawberry production is a critical use. 

Any pre-plant methyl bromide 

produced under the authority of this 

rule in 2016 that is not used in 2016 

would have to be destroyed. EPA has 

discussed these matters with methyl 

bromide distributors, producers, and 

importers that reported to EPA that they 

have carryover material to make them 

aware of the need to use all pre-plant 

critical use methyl bromide by the end 

of 2016. California strawberry growers 

represent a large end-use with capacity 

to use all remaining pre-plant critical 

use material by the end of 2016. 

EPA believes that not all 2014 

carryover produced for post-harvest 

uses may be used by the end of 2016 

given the low volume used by the ham 

production sector. As discussed above, 

EPA has accounted for 2014 postharvest carryover in this rule and has 

reduced the production of new material. 

EPA is also working to connect dry 

cured ham producers with distributors 

that hold post-harvest carryover to help 

ensure that it will be used. However, 

EPA believes that ham producers should 

be allowed to continue to use carryover 

post-harvest critical use methyl bromide 

should any remain after 2016. EPA 

believes that hams may not have a 

technically or economically feasible 

alternative by the end of 2016 and thus 

will likely continue to meet the critical 

use criteria beyond 2016. Therefore, to 

provide certainty to the ham producers 

and to continue an orderly reduction in 

methyl bromide produced for critical 

uses, EPA will allow the continued use 

of post-harvest carryover for hams 

beyond 2016. Accordingly, EPA is not 

specifying a date limitation in appendix 

L for the approval of dry cured pork 

products as critical uses. 

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. Neither 

circumstance has occurred since the 

nomination was submitted for 2016. 

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 2016 

critical use amounts through the 

nomination and authorization process. 

EPA continues to gather information 

about methyl bromide alternatives 

through the CUE application process, 

and by other means. EPA also continues 

to support research and adoption of 

methyl bromide alternatives, and to 

request information about the economic 

and technical feasibility of all existing 

and potential alternatives. 

Allocation Amounts: EPA is issuing 

critical use allowances for new 

production or import of methyl bromide 

equivalent to 140,531 kg to Great Lakes 

Chemical Corporation, Albemarle 

Corporation, ICL–IP America, and 

TriCal, Inc in proportion to their 

respective baselines. Paragraph 3 of 

Decision XXVI/6 states that ‘‘parties 

shall endeavour 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 

permitting critical uses. These Decisions 

call on Parties to endeavor to allocate 

critical use methyl bromide on a sector 

basis. 

EPA is assigning the 7,906 kg 

reduction for available stocks and 

86,343 kg reduction for carryover in 

proportion to the amounts indicated in 

Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/ 

6. In other words, both the pre-plant and 

the post-harvest allocation are reduced 

by 40%. Specifically, the pre-plant 

allocation for California strawberry 

production is 138,592 kg and the postharvest allocation for dry cured ham is 

1,939 kg. Reported data show that the 

critical use methyl bromide carried over 

from 2014 and the existing stocks 

include both pre-plant and post-harvest 

material. 

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. 

Because there is only one use in the preplant sector and one use in the postharvest sector, this rule follows the 

breakout of specific uses in Decision 

XXVI/6. 

Emergency Use: The U.S. government 

is committed to using flexibility in the 

Protocol’s existing mechanisms as an 

avenue to address changes in national 

circumstance that affect the transition to 

alternatives. EPA requested comments 

and any new information 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 did not receive any 

comments in response to this request. 

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

I/4 

Decision XXVI/6 calls on Parties to 

apply the criteria in Decision IX/6, 

paragraph 1 and the conditions set forth 

in Decision Ex. I/4 (to the extent 

applicable) to exempted critical uses for 

the 2016 control period. The following 

section provides references to sections 

of this preamble and other documents 

where EPA considers the criteria of 

those two Decisions. 

Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 contains 

the critical use criteria, which are 

summarized in Section III.A of the 

preamble. The nomination documents 

detail how each critical use meets the 

criteria in Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 

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; 

and the development of research and 

transition plans. The nomination 

documents also address 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. 

A discussion of the Agency’s 

application of the critical use criteria to 

the critical uses in this rule appears in 

Sections III.A., III.C., and III.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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 61991 

2Additional information on risk mitigation 

measures for soil fumigants is available at http://

epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/. 

level and at an aggregate level, and 

evaluating potential losses in both 

relative and absolute terms. 

The United States also considered the 

research and adoption of alternatives 

when developing the National 

Management Strategy submitted to the 

Ozone Secretariat in December 2005 and 

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. 

F. Emissions Minimization 

Previous Decisions of the Parties have 

stated that critical users shall employ 

emissions 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) 2 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. 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. 

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 emissions reduction 

techniques. The Federal government has 

invested substantial resources into 

developing and implementing best 

practices for methyl bromide use, 

including emissions 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=303, http://

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

programs.htm?NP_CODE=304, and 

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

Users of methyl bromide should 

continue 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. 

G. Technical Correction to 

Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions 

EPA is making minor technical 

changes to section 82.13(y) and (z) 

related to recordkeeping and reporting 

under the quarantine and preshipment 

exemption. Section 82.13(y) contains a 

reference to paragraph (aa) where it 

should reference paragraph (y). 

Similarly, section 82.13(z) contains a 

reference to paragraph (bb) where it 

should reference paragraph (z). This 

merely corrects a typographical error 

and is not a substantive change to the 

recordkeeping requirements or the 

quarantine and preshipment exemption 

program. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0482. The application, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements have already been 

established under previous critical use 

exemption rulemakings. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. 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 regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on 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. We have therefore 

concluded that this action will relieve 

regulatory burden for all directly 

regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. The action 

imposes no enforceable duty on any 

state, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. 

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. This action 

allocates allowances for the production 

and import of methyl bromide to private 

entities. This rule also limits the critical 

uses to geographical areas that reflect 

the scope of the trade associations that 

applied for a critical use. This rule does 

not impose any duties or 

responsibilities on state governments or 

allocate any rights to produce or use 

methyl bromide to a state government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. 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. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 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 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in the Regulatory Impacts 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
61992 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Analysis and Benefits Analysis found in 

the docket. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

This action does not pertain to any 

segment of the energy production 

economy nor does it regulate any 

manner of energy use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes this action will 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. Any ozone 

depletion that results from this action 

will result in impacts that are, in 

general, equally distributed across 

geographical regions in the United 

States. The impacts do not fall 

disproportionately on minority or lowincome populations but instead vary 

with a wide variety of factors. 

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 January 1, 2016. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Exports, Imports, Ozone depletion. 

Dated: October 5, 2015. 

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. 

■ 2. 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 

2016 Critical 

use allowances for preplant uses * 

(kilograms) 

2016 Critical 

use allowances for postharvest uses * 

(kilograms) 

Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company .............................................................................................. 84,222 1,179 

Albemarle Corp. ....................................................................................................................................................... 34,634 485 

ICL–IP America ........................................................................................................................................................ 19,140 268 

TriCal, Inc. ............................................................................................................................................................... 596 8 

Total ......................................................................................................................................................................... 138,592 1,939 

* 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 82.13 by revising 

paragraphs (y) and (z) to read as follows: 

§ 82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for class I controlled 

substances. 

* * * * * 

(y) Every distributor of methyl 

bromide (class I, Group VI controlled 

substances) who purchases or receives a 

quantity produced or imported solely 

for quarantine or preshipment 

applications under the exemptions in 

this subpart must comply with 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in this paragraph 

(y) of this section. 

(z) Every applicator of class I, Group 

VI controlled substances who purchases 

or receives a quantity produced or 

imported solely for quarantine and 

preshipment applications under the 

exemptions in this subpart must comply 

with recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in this paragraph 

(z) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. 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 

Column A Column B Column C 

Approved Critical Uses Approved Critical User, Location of Use ......... 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 in 2015 and 2016. ............. Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 61993 

Column A Column B Column C 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene 

POST–HARVEST USES 

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..

Red legged ham beetle infestation 

Cheese/ham skipper infestation 

Dermestid beetle infestation 

Ham mite infestation 

[FR Doc. 2015–26301 Filed 10–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Public Health Service 

42 CFR Part 5 

Designation of Health Professional(s) 

Shortage Areas 

CFR Correction 

In Title 42 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 1 to 399, revised as of 

October 1, 2014: 

1 On page 70, in Appendix A to Part 

5, Part III, paragraph A is removed and 

Part I, paragraph A is redesignated as 

Part III, paragraph A; and on page 67, 

Part I, paragraph A is reinstated to read 

as follows: 

APPENDIX A TO PART 5—CRITERIA 

FOR DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

HAVING SHORTAGES OF PRIMARY 

MEDICAL CARE PROFESSIONAL(S) 

PART I—Geographic Areas 

A. Criteria 

A geographic area will be designated as 

having a shortage of primary medical care 

manpower if the following three criteria are 

met: 

1. The area is a rational area for the 

delivery of primary medical care services. 

2. One of the following conditions prevails 

within the area: 

(a) The area has population to full-timeequivalent primary care physician ratio of at 

least 3,500:1. 

(b) The area has a population to full-timeequivalent primary care physician ratio of 

less than 3,500:1 but greater than 3,000:1 and 

has usually high needs for primary care 

services or insufficient capacity of existing 

primary care providers. 

3. Primary medical care manpower in 

contiguous areas are overutilized, excessively 

distant, or inaccessible to the population of 

the area under consideration. 

* * * * * 

2. On page 74, in Appendix B to Part 

5, Part III, paragraph A is removed and 

Part I, paragraph A is redesignated as 

Part III, paragraph A; and on page 71, 

Part I, paragraph A is reinstated to read 

as follows: 

APPENDIX B TO PART 5—CRITERIA 

FOR DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

HAVING SHORTAGES OD DENTAL 

PROFESSIONAL(S) 

Part I—Geographic Areas 

A. Criteria 

A geographic area will be designated as 

having a dental manpower shortage if the 

following three criteria are met: 

1. The area is a rational area for the 

delivery of dental services. 

2. One of the following conditions prevails 

in the area: 

(a) The area has a population to full-timeequivalent dentist ratio of less than 5,000:1 

or 

(b) The area has a population to full-timeequivalent dentist ratio of less than 5,000:1 

but greater than 4,000:1 and has unusually 

high needs for dental services or insufficient 

capacity of existing dental providers. 

3. Dental manpower in contiguous areas 

are over utilized, excessively distant, or 

inaccessible to the population of the area 

under consideration. 

* * * * * 

3. On page 77, in Appendix C to Part 

5, Part III, paragraph A is revised to read 

as follows: 

APPENDIX C TO PART 5—CRITERIA 

FOR DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

HAVING SHORTAGES OF MENTAL 

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 

Part III—Facilities 

A. Federal and State Correctional Institutions 

1. Criteria. 

Medium to maximum security Federal and 

State correctional institutions and youth 

detention facilities will be designated as 

having a shortage of psychiatric manpower if 

both of the following criteria are met: 

(a) The institution has more than 250 

inmates, and 

(b) The ratio of the number of internees per 

year to the number of FTE psychiatrists 

serving the institution is at least 1,000:1. 

Here the number of internees is defined as 

follows: 

(i) If the number of new inmates per year 

and the average length-of-stay are not 

specified, or if the information provided does 

not indicate that intake psychiatric 

examinations are routinely performed upon 

entry, then— 

Number of internees=average number of 

inmates 

(ii) If the average length-of-stay is specified 

as one year or more, and the intake 

psychiatric examinations are routinely 

performed upon entry, then— 

Number internees=average number of 

inmates+number of new inmates per year 

(iii) If the average length-of-stay is 

specified as less than one year, and intake 

psychiatric examinations are routinely 

performed upon entry, then— 

Number of internees=average number of 

inmates+1⁄3×[1+(2×ALOS)]×number of new 

inmates per year 

where ALOS=average length-of-stay (in 

fraction of year) (The number of FTE 

psychiatrists is computed as in Part I, Section 

B, paragraph 3 above.) 

2. Determination of Degree of Shortage. 

Designated correctional institutions will be 

assigned to degree-of-shortage groups, based 

on the number of inmates and/or the ration 

(R) of internees to FTE psychiatrists, as 

follows: 

Group 1—Institutions with 500 or more 

inmates and no psychiatrist. 

Group 2—Other institutions with no 

psychiatrists and institutions with R greater 

than (or equal to) 3,000:1. 

Group 3—Institutions with R greater than 

(or equal to) 2,000:1 but less than 3,000:1. 

[FR Doc. 2015–26249 Filed 10–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1827 and 1852 

NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Technical amendments. 

SUMMARY: NASA is making technical 

amendments to the NASA FAR 

Supplement (NFS) to provide needed 

editorial changes. 

DATES: Effective: October 15, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Manuel Quinones, NASA, Office of 

Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES