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? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices 32647 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
32648 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices 

1EPA also noted that growers can use a 

combination of methyl bromide for quarantine 

situations 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Notices 32649 

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; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 Transportation 

Intermediary (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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES