### 32646 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this teleconference may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), GLAB, by telephone at (312)
886–6815 or email at cestaric.rita@epa.gov. General
information on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and the
GLAB can be found on the GLRI Web

site at http://www.glri.us.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Background: The GLAB is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92–463. EPA established the GLAB in 2013 to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator in his or her capacity as
Chair of the federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The GLAB
conducts business in accordance with FACA and related regulations.

The GLAB consists of 18 members appointed by EPA’s Administrator. Members serve as representatives of state, local and tribal government, environmental groups, agriculture, business, transportation, foundations,
educational institutions and as technical experts.

The GLAB held a teleconference and meeting on May 21–22, 2013 (as noticed in 78 FR 26636–26637) to discuss the development of a draft FY 2015–2019
GLRI Action Plan.

The teleconference will provide opportunity for members of the public to submit oral comments in response to the charge questions for consideration by the GLAB. The charge questions are
available at http://www.glri.us.

Also, periodic opportunities for the public to provide input for the GLAB to consider will be provided after the June
12 teleconference.

Availability of Teleconference
Materials: The agenda and other materials in support of the
teleconference will be available on the
GLRI Web site at http://www.glri.us in
advance of the teleconference.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to federal agencies. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for consideration by the GLAB. Input from the public to the GLAB will have the most impact if it provides specific information for the
GLAB to consider. Members of the public wishing to provide comments should contact the DFO directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public
teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker, subject to the number of people wanting to comment. Interested parties should contact Rita Cestaric, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by June 10, 2013 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the
teleconference.

Written Statements: Written statements must be received by June 10, 2013 so that the information may be
made available to the GLAB for
consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via email. Commenters are requested to provide two versions of
each document submitted: one each with and without signatures because only documents without signatures may be published on the GLRI Web page.

Accessibility: For information on
access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Rita Cestaric at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least 10 days prior to the teleconference, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Dated: May 23, 2013.

Cameron Davis,

Senior Advisor to the Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2013–12962 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0369, FRL–9816–9]**

**Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide Critical**  **Use Exemption Applications for 2016**

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

**ACTION :**  Notice of Solicitation of Applications and Information on
Alternatives.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is soliciting applications for the critical use exemption from the phaseout of methyl bromide for 2016. Critical use exemptions last only one year. All entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption for 2016 must provide EPA with technical and economic information to support a ‘‘critical use’’ claim and must do so by the deadline specified in this notice even if they have applied for an exemption in previous years. Today’s notice also invites interested parties to provide EPA with new data on the technical and economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives. **DATES :**  Applications for the 2016 critical use exemption must be submitted on or before August 29, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA encourages users to submit their applications electronically to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection Division, at arling.jeremy@epa.gov. If the application is submitted electronically, applicants must fax a signed copy of Worksheet 1 to 202–343–2338 by the application deadline. Applications for the methyl bromide critical use exemption can also be submitted by
U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by courier delivery to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Review Team, 1310 L St. NW., Room 1047E, Washington DC 20005.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  General Information: U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline, 1–800–296–1996; also http:// www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr

.

Technical Information: Bill Chism, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 703–308–8136.
Email: chism.bill@epa.gov

.

Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 202–
343–9055. Email: arling.jeremy@epa.gov

.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Table of Contents

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications? A. Who can respond to this request for

information? B. How do I obtain an application form for

the methyl bromide critical use exemption? C. What must applicants address when

applying for a critical use exemption? D. What if I applied for a critical use

exemption in a previous year? E. What portions of the applications will be

considered confidential business
information? II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption? A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA)

authority for the critical use exemption? B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority

for the critical use exemption? C. What is the timing for applications for

the 2016 control period?


### 32647 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications?

A. Who can respond to this request for information?

Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must complete the application form available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ cueinfo.html . The application may be submitted by a consortium representing multiple users who have similar circumstances or by individual users. EPA encourages groups of users with similar circumstances to submit a single application.

While anyone interested in obtaining a critical use exemption may apply, EPA notes that in January, 2013, the United States government submitted its nomination for critical use exemption during 2015, and that nomination included only three uses (strawberries, fresh dates and dry cured ham). Since information about alternatives, economic impacts, and other factors
relevant to the critical use criteria change from year to year, applicants must provide all of the necessary technical and economic information,
whether or not a use has been nominated for a critical use exemption in the past.

In addition to requesting information from applicants for the critical use exemption, this solicitation for information provides an opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on methyl bromide alternatives (e.g., technical or economic feasibility research).

B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical use exemption?

Application forms for the methyl bromide critical use exemption can be obtained in PDF, Microsoft Word, and
Microsoft Excel formats at EPA’s Web

site http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ cueinfo.html or at Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0369 at http:// www.regulations.gov

. C. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use exemption?

To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide meets the requirements of the critical use exemption, applicants must
demonstrate that there are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives available for that use. EPA’s
Web site contains a list of available and potential alternatives at http:// www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html

. Applicants must show that they are taking steps to minimize their critical use of methyl bromide and any associated emissions. In addition, applicants must describe research plans which includes the pest(s), chemical(s), or management practice(s) they will be testing to support their transition from methyl bromide.

Below, EPA is providing information on how it evaluated specific uses in considering nominations for critical uses for 2015, as well as specific
information needed for the U.S. to successfully defend its nominations for
critical uses.

Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and

Nuts

Data reviewed by EPA as part of the 2015 nomination process indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is effective against key pests. The industry has mostly converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no market disruption has occurred. For this sector, rapid fumigation is not a critical condition. Therefore, products can be treated with sulfuryl fluoride or phosphine and be held for relatively long periods of time without a significant economic impact. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives. Alternatives
for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), phosphine, and controlled atmosphere/temperature treatment system. Applicants should include the costs to retrofit equipment or design and construct new fumigation chambers for
these alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide: The amount of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives, which may include heat), price per pound of the fumigant gas from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) associated with alternatives, the amount of commodity treated with each fumigant/treatment and the value of the commodity being treated/produced. Also provide information on changes in costs for any other practices or equipment used (e.g. sanitation and IPM) that are not needed when methyl bromide is used for fumigation. Include information on the size of fumigation chambers where methyl bromide is used, the percent of commodity fumigated under tarps, the length of the harvest season, peak of the harvest season and duration, and volume of commodity treated daily at the harvest peak.

Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by explanation of why the methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemption is not applicable for this purpose. Also include information on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their commodity.

Structures and Facilities (flour mills, rice mills, pet food)

Published data reviewed by EPA during the 2015 nomination process did not show a statistically significant
difference in control effectiveness between methyl bromide and sulfuryl
fluoride or heat treatments. The cost of alternatives is also generally less than cost of methyl bromide except for heat alone. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other economic implications for producers when converting to
alternatives. Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl fluoride, micro-sanitation, and heat. Applicants should include the costs to retrofit equipment for these pest control
methods. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages) associated with alternatives, and value of the commodity being treated/ produced. List how many mills have been fumigated with methyl bromide over the last three years; the rate, volume, and target CT of methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and date the facility was
constructed.

Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by explanation of why the QPS exemption is not applicable for this purpose. Also include information on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their facilities.

Dried Cured Pork

Applicants must list how many facilities have been fumigated with methyl bromide over the last three


### 32648 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices

1 EPA also noted that growers can use a combination of methyl bromide for quarantinesituations and 1,3-D plus chloropicrin for nonquarantine situations to meet certification requirements. years; the rate, volume, and target CT of methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and the materials from which the facility was constructed. It is also important for this sector to specify research plans into alternatives and alternative practices to support the transition from methyl bromide.

Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and

Tomato

In reviewing data for the 2015 CUE nomination, EPA found that although no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, a review of multiple year
data indicates that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Several research studies show that the three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium can effectively suppress pathogens ( P. capsici, F.

oxysporum ) and nematodes. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The mixture of 1,3- dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any fumigationless system (if data are available). Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the
alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment
associated with alternatives.

Strawberry Fruit

Based on EPA’s review of information as part of the 2015 nomination process,
EPA believes there will continue to be a reduced critical need for methyl
bromide in the near future as advances are made (1) In safely applying 100% chloropicrin, (2) in strategies to improve efficacy in applying 1,3- dichloropropene, and (3) in transitioning from experimental to commercial use of non-chemical tools, such as steam, anaerobic soil disinfestations, and substrate production. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3- dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in states other than California, and any fumigationless system (if data are available). Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the
alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment
associated with alternatives.

Orchard Replant

EPA’s review of data in the 2015 nomination process indicated that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, numerous field trials indicate alternatives to methyl bromide are effective. Therefore, EPA concluded that transitioning to the alternatives was
feasible without substantial losses. Registered alternatives are available for
individual-hole treatments and soil preparation procedures are available to
enable effective treatment with alternatives even in soils with high moisture content. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3- dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the
alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment
associated with alternatives.

Ornamentals

In considering nominations for 2015, EPA found that while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, a review of multiple year data
indicates that the alternatives in various combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. Research demonstrates that 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, the three way mixture of 1,3- dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium, and dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin all show excellent results. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3- dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the
alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment
associated with alternatives.

Nurseries

In considering this sector in the 2015 nomination process, EPA noted that a Special Local Need label allows Telone
II to be used in accordance with certification standards for propagative
material. 1 To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the mixture of 1,3- dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of Georgia three way mixture


### 32649 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices

of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your region’s production of these crops using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the
alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment
associated with alternatives.

Golf Courses

To date, EPA has not found that a significant market disruption would occur in the golf industry in the absence of methyl bromide. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: Basamid, chloropicrin, 1,3- dichloropene, 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, metam sodium, and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for growers using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to
the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season; application rates; economic impact for the golf course from a transition to alternatives (e.g. downtime when resurfacing); differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives. Supporting evidence might be included that would
demonstrate that alternatives lead to more frequent resurfacing and therefore, greater adverse economic impacts.

D. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous year?

Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not automatically renew. All users desiring to obtain an exemption for 2016 must apply to EPA even if they have applied for critical uses in prior years. Because of the latest changes in registrations, costs, and economic aspects for producing critical use crops and commodities, applicants must fill out the application form completely.

E. What portions of the applications will be considered confidential business information?

You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information by placing on (or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as ‘‘trade secret,’’ ‘‘proprietary,’’ or ‘‘company confidential.’’ You should clearly identify the allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents, and you may submit them separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If you desire confidential treatment only until a
certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, your notice should state that. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under 40 CFR part 2 subpart B; 41 FR 36752, 43 FR 40000,
50 FR 51661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when EPA receives it, EPA may make it available to the public
without further notice.

Do not include on the ‘‘Worksheet 6: Application Summary’’ page of the application any information that you
wish to claim as confidential business information. Any information on
Worksheet 6 shall not be considered
confidential and will not be treated as such by the Agency. EPA will place a copy of Worksheet 6 in the public domain. Please note, claiming business confidentiality may delay EPA’s ability to review your application.

II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical use exemption?

In October 1998, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the provisions of the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer for
industrialized countries and to allow EPA to provide a critical use exemption.
These amendments were codified in Section 604 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. Under EPA implementing regulations, the production and consumption of methyl bromide was phased out as of January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998, allows EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from the phaseout for critical uses, to the extent
consistent with the Montreal Protocol.
EPA has defined ‘‘critical use’’ at 40

CFR 82.3.

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 prohibit the production and import of methyl bromide in excess of the amount of unexpended critical use allowances held by the producer or importer, unless authorized under a separate exemption. Methyl bromide produced or imported by expending critical use allowances may be used only for the appropriate category of approved critical uses as listed in Appendix L to the regulations (40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl bromide that was produced or imported through the expenditure of production or consumption allowances prior to 2005, while not confined to critical uses under EPA’s phaseout regulations, are subject to the labeling restrictions under

FIFRA.

B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use exemption?

The Montreal Protocol provides that the Parties may exempt ‘‘the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses’’ (Art. 2H para 5). The
Parties to the Protocol included this language in the treaty’s methyl bromide phaseout provisions in recognition that alternatives might not be available by 2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the Parties to be ‘‘critical

uses.’’

In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a ‘‘critical use’’ determination and an exemption from the production and consumption phaseout:

(a) 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.

(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for a critical use should be permitted only if:

(i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide;

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind the developing countries’ need for methyl bromide;


### 32650 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialize, and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination . . . Non-Article 5 Parties [e.g., developed countries, including the U.S.] must demonstrate that research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and
substitutes. . . .

The term ‘‘significant market disruption’’ is left to the discretion of each Party to the Protocol to interpret. 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. EPA refers readers to the preamble for the 2006 CUE rule (71 FR 5989) 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.

C. What is the timing for applications for the 2015 control period?

There is both a domestic and international component to the critical use exemption process. The projected timeline for the process for the 2016 critical use exemption is below. A more
detailed schedule is on EPA’s Web site

at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ cueinfo.html.

May 31, 2013: Solicit applications for the methyl bromide critical use exemption for 2016.

August 29, 2013: Deadline for submitting critical use exemption applications to EPA.

Fall 2013: U.S. Government (EPA, Department of State, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other interested Federal agencies) prepares U.S. Critical Use Nomination package.

January 24, 2014: Deadline for U.S.
Government to submit U.S. nomination package to the Protocol Parties.

Early 2014: Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) review the nominations for critical use exemptions.

Mid 2014: Parties consider TEAP/
MBTOC recommendations.

November 2014: Parties decide
whether to authorize critical use exemptions for methyl bromide for production and consumption in 2016.

Mid 2015: EPA publishes proposed rule for allocating critical use exemptions in the U.S. for 2016. Late 2015: EPA publishes final rule allocating critical use exemptions in the
U.S. for 2016.

January 1, 2016: Critical use exemption permits the limited production and import of methyl bromide for specified uses for the 2016 control period.

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

Dated: May 16, 2013.

Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.

[FR Doc. 2013–12968 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE**
**CORPORATION**

**Sunshine Act Meeting**

Pursuant to the provisions of the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, to consider the following matters:

**SUMMARY AGENDA :**  No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.

Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors’ Meetings.

Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed Revisions to the Authority of
the Case Review Committee.

Memorandum and resolution re: Delegation of Authority from the FDIC Board of Directors Regarding Order of Succession During Emergency

Situations.

Summary reports, status reports, reports of the Office of Inspector General, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the
Board of Directors.

**DISCUSSION AGENDA :**  Memorandum and
resolution re: Final Rule—Definition of ‘‘Predominantly Engaged in Activities
that are Financial in Nature or Incidental Thereto’’ § 201(b).

The meeting will be held in the Board
Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.

This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and subsequently
made available on-demand approximately one week after the event.

Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/ boardmeetings.asp to view the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.

The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call 703–562–2404 (Voice) or 703–649–4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202–

898–7043.

Dated: May 28, 2013. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2013–13009 Filed 5–29–13; 11:15 am]

**BILLING CODE 6714–01–P**

**FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION**

**Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants** 

The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean TransportationIntermediary (OTI) license as a NonVessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI)
for a licensee.

Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523–5843 or by email

at OTI@fmc.gov.
A&A Contract Customs Brokers, USA,

Inc., A&A International Freight Forwarding (NVO & OFF), #2 12th Street, Blaine, WA 98230, Officers: Michelle R. Russell, Vice President (QI), Graham S. Robins, President, Application Type: QI Change Abaco Logistics Corporation (OFF),

8051 NW 67th Street, Miami, FL 33166, Officers: Manuel T. Soto, Vice President (QI), Jhon J. Silva Villa, President, Application Type: New

OFF License All International Solutions Inc. (NVO),

281 E. Redondo Beach Blvd., Gardena, CA 90248, Officer: Alexis F. Robin, President (QI), Application Type:

New NVO License Atlas Latin Cargo LLC (NVO & OFF),

5065 NW. 74th Avenue, Suite 7, Miami, FL 33166, Officers: Guillermo S. Carbi H, Manager (QI), Gil De Freites, Manager Member,