Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices 37611 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/

comments.html. 

C. How can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

A copy of the proposed guidance 

document is available in the docket 

under docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2015–0302. 

II. What action is the Agency taking? 

The Agency is making available for 

comment a proposed guidance 

document called the ‘‘Antimicrobial 

Pesticide Use Site Index.’’ In the 

Federal Register on May 8, 2013 (78 FR 

26936) (FRL–8886–5), the Agency 

published a final rule amending 40 CFR 

part 158, the section of the regulations 

setting forth the data requirements that 

support an application to register a 

pesticide product. The final rule, which 

is codified as 40 CFR part 158 subpart 

W (158W), contains the data 

requirements specifically applicable to 

antimicrobial pesticides. The rule 

became effective July 8, 2013. 

The proposed guidance document 

serves as a compilation of the specific 

use sites that are commonly listed on 

antimicrobial labels. The specific use 

sites are further organized into 

categories of twelve general use 

patterns. The general use patterns are 

broad designations and are used as 

columns in the antimicrobial data 

requirements tables to identify which 

data requirements might be pertinent to 

the particular pesticide use site. The 

Agency has developed the proposed 

guidance document to provide 

additional information about these use 

patterns. This guidance document is 

intended to assist antimicrobial 

pesticide applicants and registrants by 

helping them to identify the data 

requirements that are necessary to 

register their product(s), and will 

likewise be used by Agency staff 

evaluating antimicrobial pesticide 

applications. 

As a guidance document, the 

association of a particular antimicrobial 

use site with a general antimicrobial use 

pattern should be viewed as a 

recommendation only and is not to be 

construed as binding on either EPA or 

any outside parties. EPA may depart 

from the guidance where circumstances 

warrant and without prior notice. 

The posting of this proposed guidance 

document for public comment satisfies 

a condition of the March 2, 2015, 

settlement agreement between EPA and 

the American Chemistry Council (ACC), 

which followed ACC’s July 2013 

initiation of a legal challenge to the data 

requirements regulation (subpart 158W 

of Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations) in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. Under that settlement 

agreement, the Agency committed to 

taking comment on this proposed 

guidance document within 4 months of 

the effective date of the settlement 

agreement. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y and 21 

U.S.C. 346a. 

Dated: June 24, 2015. 

Jim Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16232 Filed 6–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9929–86–OAR] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Request for Methyl Bromide Critical 

Use Exemption Applications 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the 

process for submitting applications for 

critical use exemptions for 2018 and 

subsequent years. Critical use 

exemptions are exceptions to the 

phaseout of production and import of 

methyl bromide, a controlled class I 

ozone-depleting substance. Critical use 

exemptions must be permitted by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer and must also be in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act and EPA 

regulations. Applications received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered as the basis for submitting 

potential nominations for critical use 

exemptions to future Meetings of the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Critical 

use exemptions allow production, 

import, and use of methyl bromide in 

the specific year for which the Parties to 

the Montreal Protocol permit the use. 

All entities interested in obtaining a 

critical use exemption must provide 

EPA with the technical and economic 

information outlined in this notice to 

support a ‘‘critical use’’ claim by the 

deadline specified in this notice, even if 

they have applied for an exemption in 

previous years. 

DATES: Applications for critical use 

exemptions must be submitted to EPA 

no later than September 15 of the 

calendar year three years prior to the 

calendar year for which the exemption 

is sought. An application for a critical 

use exemption for calendar year 2018, 

for example, must be submitted by 

September 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Application forms are 

available at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/

cueinfo.html. EPA encourages users to 

submit applications electronically to 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov. Users can also 

submit applications 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. 

Confidentiality: Application materials 

that are confidential should be 

submitted under separate cover and be 

clearly identified as ‘‘confidential 

business information.’’ Information 

covered by a claim of business 

confidentiality will be treated in 

accordance with the procedures for 

handling such information under 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B, and will be 

disclosed only to the extent and by 

means of the procedures set forth in that 

subpart. If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the information when it is 

received by EPA, the information may 

be made available to the public by EPA 

without further notice to the submitter 

(40 CFR 2.203). EPA may place a copy 

of Worksheet 6 from the application in 

the public domain. Any information on 

Worksheet 6 shall not be considered 

confidential and will not be treated as 

such by the Agency. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General Information: U.S. EPA 

Stratospheric Ozone Information inbox, 

spdcomment@epa.gov; also 

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 (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 202– 

343–9055. EPA encourages users to 

submit their applications electronically 

to arling.jeremy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Critical Use 

Exemption 

The Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the 

international agreement aimed at 

protecting the ozone layer by reducing 

and eliminating the production and 

consumption of stratospheric ozonedepleting substances. Methyl bromide 

was added to the Protocol as an ozonedepleting substance in 1992 through the 

Copenhagen Amendment. 

While the Protocol requires developed 

countries like the United States to phase 

out the production and consumption of 

Methyl Bromide in 2005, it also states 

that the Parties may exempt from that 

phaseout ‘‘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 

the 2005 phaseout date for certain uses 

agreed by the Parties to be ‘‘critical 

uses.’’ 

In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the 

Parties 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; 

(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 [which includes the U.S.] must 

demonstrate that research programs are 

in place to develop and deploy 

alternatives and substitutes. 

In 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 

Protocol 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 were 

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 based on the criteria in 

paragraph (a) of Decision IX/6. 

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. 

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, is subject to 

the labeling restrictions under FIFRA as 

specified in the product labeling. 

II. Critical Use Nomination Process 

Entities requesting critical use 

exemptions should send a completed 

application to EPA on the candidate use 

by September 15, three years prior to the 

year of the intended use. This timing is 

necessary for the U.S. Government to 

complete its consideration for 

nomination to the United Nations 

Environment Programme and the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol in a timely 

manner; for the Parties to reach a 

decision on the nomination; and for 

EPA to undertake notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. For example, applications 

for the 2018 growing season must be 

submitted by September 15, 2015. 

Critical use exemptions are valid for 

only one year and do not automatically 

renew. All users wanting to obtain an 

exemption must apply to EPA annually 

even if they have applied for critical 

uses in prior years. Because of the 

potential for changes to registration 

status, costs, and economic aspects of 

producing critical use crops and 

commodities, applicants must fill out 

the application form completely. 

Upon receipt of applications, EPA 

will review the information and work 

with other interested Federal agencies 

as required in section 604 of the Clean 

Air Act to determine whether the 

candidate use satisfies Clean Air Act 

requirements, and whether it meets the 

critical use criteria adopted by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol and 

warrants nomination by the United 

States for an exemption. 

All Parties, including the United 

States, choosing to submit nominations 

to the UNEP Ozone Secretariat must do 

so by January 24 to be considered by the 

Parties at their annual meeting later that 

year. The UNEP Ozone Secretariat 

forwards nominations to the Montreal 

Protocol’s Technical and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP) and the 

Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee (MBTOC). The MBTOC and 

the TEAP review the nominations to 

determine whether they meet the 

criteria for a critical use established by 

Decision IX/6, and to make 

recommendations to the Parties for 

critical use exemptions. The Parties 

then consider those recommendations at 

their annual meeting before making a 

final decision. If the Parties determine 

that a specified use of methyl bromide 

is critical and permit an exemption from 

the Protocol’s production and 

consumption phaseout for that year, 

EPA may then take domestic action to 

allow the production and consumption 

to the extent consistent with the Clean 

Air Act. 

III. Information Required for Critical 

Use Applications 

In prior years, EPA issued an annual 

notice requesting applications for 

critical use exemptions. Through this 

action, EPA provides the information 

necessary to enable applications to be 

submitted for critical use exemptions for 

methyl bromide for all future control 

periods (calendar years). Entities 

interested in obtaining a critical use 

exemption must complete the 

application form available at 

www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. 

Applications requesting critical use 

allowances should include information 

that U.S. Government agencies and the 

Parties to the Protocol can use to 

evaluate the candidate use according to 

the criteria in Decision IX/6 described 

above. Applications that fail to include 

sufficient information may not be 

nominated. 

Specifically, applications should 

include the information requested in the 

current version of the TEAP Handbook 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices 37613 

1Where an alternative is not registered for use in 

a particular jurisdiction, growers in that jurisdiction 

need not address the performance of that particular 

alternative. 

on Critical Use Nominations. The 

handbook is available electronically at 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_

Panels/TEAP/Reports/MBTOC/

Handbook%20CUN-version5- 

27Nov06.pdf. EPA requests that 

applications contain the following 

information, as described in the 

handbook, in order for the U.S. to 

provide sufficient information to the 

Montreal Protocol’s technical review 

bodies within the nomination: 

• A clear statement on the specific 

circumstances of the nomination which 

describe the critical need for methyl 

bromide and quantity of methyl 

bromide requested; 

• Data on the availability and 

technical and economic feasibility of 

alternatives to the proposed methyl 

bromide use; 

• A review of the comparative 

performance of methyl bromide and 

alternatives including control of target 

pests in research and commercial scale 

up studies; 1

• A description of all technically and 

economically feasible steps taken by the 

applicant to minimize methyl bromide 

use and emissions; 

• Data on the use and availability of 

stockpiled methyl bromide; 

• A description of efforts made to 

test, register, and commercially adopt 

alternatives; 

• Plans for phase-out of critical uses 

of methyl bromide; and 

• The methodology used to provide 

economic comparisons. 

EPA’s Web site (www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

mbr/alts.html) contains a list of current 

and potential alternatives. To support 

the assertion that a specific use of 

methyl bromide meets the requirements 

of the critical use exemption, applicants 

must demonstrate that none of the listed 

alternatives are technically and 

economically feasible for that use. In 

addition, applicants should describe 

research plans which include the 

pest(s), chemical(s), or management 

practice(s) they will be testing to 

support their transition from methyl 

bromide. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this notice under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0482. 

Since neither the Protocol nor the 

Clean Air Act establish a specific end 

date for Critical Use Exemptions, 

anyone interested in obtaining a critical 

use exemption may apply. However, the 

language and spirit of controls on ozone 

depleting substances under the 

Montreal Protocol envision a phaseout 

of methyl bromide and for the critical 

use exemption to be a ‘‘temporary 

derogation’’ from that phaseout. Over 

the last decade, the research, 

registration, and adoption of alternatives 

has allowed many sectors to 

successfully transition from methyl 

bromide. The number of sectors 

nominated has declined from seventeen 

for 2006 to one for 2017. Below is 

information on how the agency 

evaluated recent applications for 

specific uses when considering 

nominations for critical uses, as well as 

specific information needed for the 

United States to successfully defend any 

future nominations for critical uses. 

Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and 

Nuts 

Data reviewed by EPA for 

commodities such as dried fruit and 

nuts indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is 

effective against key pests. The industry 

has mostly converted to sulfuryl 

fluoride and no market disruption has 

occurred. Rapid fumigation is not a 

critical condition for this sector and 

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 

should 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 systems. 

Applicants should include the costs 

to retrofit equipment or design and 

construct new fumigation chambers for 

these alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants should provide: 

The amount of fumigant gas used (for 

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. Applicants should 

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, 

including 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 may not 

be applicable for this purpose. In 

addition, include information on what 

pest control practices organic producers 

are using for their commodity. 

Applicants should also address their 

efforts to secure and use stockpiled 

methyl bromide. 

Dried Cured Pork 

Applicants should list how many 

facilities have been fumigated with 

methyl bromide over the last three 

years; the rate, volume, and target 

concentration over time [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 important 

for applicants in this sector to specify 

research plans into alternatives and 

alternative practices that support the 

transition from methyl bromide, as well 

as information on the technical and 

economic feasibility of using recapture 

technologies. Applicants should also 

address their efforts to secure and use 

stockpiled methyl bromide. This is 

particularly important for this sector 

given the low volume of methyl 

bromide usage. 

Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and 

Tomato 

EPA found in its review of 

applications for cucurbits, eggplant, 

pepper, and tomato that although no 

single alternative is effective for all pest 

problems, 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 

should address potential changes to 

yield, quality, and timing when 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
37614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices 

2EPA 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. 

converting to alternatives, including: 

The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene 

plus chloropicrin, the three-way 

mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate 

(DominusTM) used in place of metam, 

dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any 

fumigationless system (if data are 

available). 

Applications should 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 should 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. Applicants 

should also address their efforts to 

secure and use stockpiled methyl 

bromide. 

Strawberry Fruit 

Based on EPA’s review of information 

as part of the 2016 nomination process, 

EPA believes alternatives are available 

as advances have been made: (1) In 

safely applying 100% chloropicrin, (2) 

in strategies to improve efficacy in 

applying 1,3-dichloropropene, or 

mixtures of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin, (3) in using the three-way 

mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate 

(DominusTM) used in place of metam in 

states other than California, and (4) 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 

should address potential changes to 

yield, quality, and timing when 

converting to alternatives, including: 

Straight chloropicrin, the mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 

three-way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl 

isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in 

place of metam in states other than 

California, or dimethyl disulfide 

(DMDS), and any fumigationless system 

(if data are available). 

Applications should address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers and their 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 should 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. Applicants 

should also address their efforts to 

secure and use stockpiled methyl 

bromide. 

Orchard Replant 

Data reviewed by EPA for orchard 

replant indicate that while no single 

alternative is effective for all pest 

problems, numerous field trials indicate 

alternatives to methyl bromide are 

effective. Therefore, EPA has concluded 

that transitioning to the alternatives is 

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 

should address potential changes to 

yield, quality, and timing when 

converting to alternatives, including: 

The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene 

plus chloropicrin, the three waymixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), 

and steam. 

Applications should 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 should provide 

the following: Price per pound of 

fumigant gas used (for 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. Applicants should also 

address their efforts to secure and use 

stockpiled methyl bromide. 

Ornamentals 

EPA found in its review of 

applications for ornamentals that while 

no single alternative is effective for all 

pest problems, multiple-year data 

indicate 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 should address potential 

changes to yield, quality, and timing 

when converting to alternatives, 

including: The mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 

three way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam (sodium or potassium) or allyl 

isothiocyanate (DominusTM) used in 

place of metam, dimethyl disulfide 

(DMDS), and steam. 

Applications should address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers and their 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 should 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. Applicants 

should also address their efforts to 

secure and use stockpiled methyl 

bromide. 

Nurseries 

In considering this sector in the 2016 

nomination process, EPA noted that a 

Special Local Need label allows Telone 

II to be used in accordance with 

certification standards for propagative 

material.2

To support a nomination, applicants 

should address potential changes to 

yield, quality, and timing when 

converting to alternatives, including: 

The mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene 

plus chloropicrin, the three-way 

mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Notices 37615 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate 

(DominusTM) used in place of metam in 

states other than California, dimethyl 

disulfide (DMDS), and steam. 

Applications should 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 should provide 

the following: Price per pound of 

fumigant gas used (for 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. Applicants should also 

address their efforts to secure and use 

stockpiled methyl bromide. 

Golf Courses 

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 should address potential 

changes to quality when converting to 

alternatives, including: Basamid, 

chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropene, 1,3- 

dichloropene plus chloropicrin, metam 

sodium, or allyl isothiocyanate 

(DominusTM), and steam. Non-fumigant 

alternatives currently in use (e.g., 

additional pesticides, fertilizers, 

different cultural practices, and 

increased management) should also be 

described. 

Applications should 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 compared to the 

alternatives. For the economic 

assessment, applicants should 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, years between 

fumigations); 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 

could be included that would 

demonstrate that alternatives lead to 

more frequent resurfacing and therefore, 

greater adverse economic impacts. 

Applicants should also address their 

efforts to secure and use stockpiled 

methyl bromide. 

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

7671q. 

Dated: June 23, 2015. 

Sarah Dunham, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16044 Filed 6–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9929–87–OA] 

Notification of Two Public 

Teleconferences of the Science 

Advisory Board Chemical Assessment 

Advisory Committee Augmented for 

the Review of EPA’s Draft 

Benzo[a]pyrene Assessment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office 

announces two public teleconferences 

of the SAB Chemical Assessment 

Advisory Committee Augmented for the 

Review of the Draft Benzo[a]pyrene 

Assessment (CAAC-Benzo[a]pyrene 

Panel) to discuss its draft report 

concerning EPA’s draft Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) Toxicological 

Review of Benzo[a]pyrene (September, 

2014 External Review Draft). 

DATES: The public teleconferences will 

be held on Friday August 21, 2015 and 

Wednesday September 2, 2015. The 

teleconferences will be held from 1:00 

p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on both 

days. 

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference 

will be conducted by telephone only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing further 

information concerning the 

teleconferences may contact Dr. Diana 

Wong, Designated Federal Officer 

(DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/ 

voice mail at (202) 564–2049; or via 

email at wong.diana-M@epa.gov. 

General information concerning the EPA 

Science Advisory Board can be found at 

the EPA SAB Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/sab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The SAB was 

established pursuant to the 

Environmental Research, Development, 

and Demonstration Authorization Act 

(ERDAA) codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to 

provide independent scientific and 

technical advice to the Administrator on 

the technical basis for Agency positions 

and regulations. The SAB is a Federal 

Advisory Committee chartered under 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will 

comply with the provisions of FACA 

and all appropriate SAB Staff Office 

procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA 

and EPA policy, notice is hereby given 

that the SAB CAAC—Benzo[a]pyrene 

Panel will hold public teleconferences 

to discuss its draft report regarding the 

draft IRIS Toxicological Review of 

Benzo[a]pyrene (September 2014 

External Review Draft). The EPA SAB 

Staff Office augmented the SAB CAAC 

with subject matter experts to provide 

advice through the chartered SAB 

regarding this IRIS assessment. 

The SAB CAAC—Benzo[a]pyrene 

Panel held a public meeting on April 

15–17, 2015. The purpose of that 

meeting was to develop responses to the 

peer review charge on the agency’s draft 

IRIS Toxicological Review of 

Benzo[a]pyrene (September 2014 

External Review Draft). The purpose of 

these public teleconferences is for the 

Panel to discuss its draft report peer 

reviewing the agency’s draft 

toxicological review. The two public 

teleconferences will be conducted as 

one complete meeting, beginning on 

August 21, 2015 and if necessary, will 

continue on September 2, 2015. 

Availability of Meeting Materials: 

Additional background on this SAB 

activity, the teleconference agenda, draft 

report, and other materials for the 

teleconferences will be posted on the 

SAB Web site at http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20BaP?Open

Document 

Procedures for Providing Public Input: 

Public comment for consideration by 

EPA’s federal advisory committees and 

panels has a different purpose from 

public comment provided to EPA 

program offices. Therefore, the process 

for submitting comments to a federal 

advisory committee is different from the 

process used to submit comments to an 

EPA program office. Federal advisory 

committees and panels, including 

scientific advisory committees, provide 

independent advice to the EPA. 

Members of the public can submit 

relevant comments pertaining to the 

meeting materials or the group 

conducting this SAB activity. Input 

from the public to the SAB will have the 

most impact if it consists of comments 

that provide specific scientific or 

technical information or analysis for 

SAB committees and panels to consider 

or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy 

of the technical information. Members 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES