1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 

(Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection

a) Title: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of 

Methyl Bromide

EPA Number: 2031.06

OMB Control Number 2060-0482

b) Short Characterization:

With this Information Collection Request (ICR), the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is seeking to renew the existing ICR for the methyl 

bromide critical use exemption program (CUE) under the Clean Air Act. This ICR seeks to 

characterize the burden associated with producing, importing, distributing, and using methyl

bromide under the critical use exemption program as described in 40 CFR Part 82. In addition, it 

includes the burden associated with applying for the critical use exemption. Entities applying for this 

exemption are asked to submit to EPA applications with necessary data to evaluate the need for a 

critical use exemption. This information collection is conducted to meet U.S. obligations under 

Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and to 

implement Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated 

and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998). 

Since 2002, entities have applied to EPA for a critical use exemption that would allow for the 

continued production, import, and use of methyl bromide after the phaseout in January 2005. This 

exemption allows for consumption only in those agricultural sectors that have demonstrated that 

there are no technically or economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. The applications 

are rigorously assessed and analyzed by EPA experts from the Office of Pesticide Programs. On an 

annual basis, EPA uses the data submitted by applicants to nominate future critical uses. The 

Department of State, on behalf of the U.S. Government, submits the nomination to the Ozone 

Secretariat for their review. That review includes analyses by an international panel of experts and 

advisory bodies: the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technical 

and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). EPA makes the uses authorized internationally by the 

Parties to the Protocol available in the U.S. on an annual basis through the annual critical use 

exemption allocation rulemaking. 

2. Need For, and Use Of, the Collection

a) Authority for the Collection

This information collection is authorized under Section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
2

Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998).

Because this action involves the controlled use of a pesticide, EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Programs collaborates in the exemption application process. The regulation of pesticides is 

conducted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). 

b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The applications enable EPA to:

 Maintain consistency with the Protocol by supporting critical use nominations to the 

Parties to the Protocol, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Decision IX/6 of the Protocol;

 Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with Section 604(d)(6), as added to the CAA 

in 1998;

 Provide EPA with necessary data to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of 

methyl bromide alternatives in the circumstance of the specific use, as presented in an 

application for a critical use exemption.

The reported data enable EPA to:

 Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with Section 604(d)(6) as added to the CAA

in 1998;

 Maintain compliance with the Protocol requirements for annual data submission on the 

production of ozone depleting substances;

 Analyze technical use data to ensure that exemptions are used in accordance with 

requirements included in the annual allocation rulemakings.

3. Nonduplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria

a) Nonduplication

All the information requested from respondents under this ICR is authorized by statute (CAA 

Sections 114 and 604(d)(6)) and is not available from other sources because it is proprietary or 

sensitive information.

b) Public Notice

EPA provided public notice and comment regarding this ICR with the publication of a notice 

in the Federal Register (76 FR 11447, 3/2/2011). EPA received one comment generally opposed to a 

critical use exemption process for methyl bromide but without direct relevance to the burden 

imposed by the renewed information collection request. This second notice is being submitted to the 

Federal Register concurrent with submission of this ICR request to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

c) Consultations
3

EPA consulted with Gary Obenauf of Agricultural Research Consulting, Paul Niday of Trical 

and Ann Oxford of Albemarle to seek input on the forms as well as the estimated burden numbers in 

the ICR supporting statement. 

Mr. Obenauf has prepared multiple CUE applications over the past several years. He noted 

that the $100.86/hour cost for preparing the application forms is low. EPA based that cost on the 

estimated hourly mean wage rate for management within the Pesticide, Fertilizer, & Other 

Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing sector (325300 Series NAICS code). Most CUE applications 

are prepared by consultants, not members of the agricultural chemical manufacturing sector. EPA 

has revised the cost estimate to reflect the estimated hourly mean wage rate of $136.93 for 

management within the Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services sector (541600 

Series NAICS code).

Mrs. Oxford completes forms applicable to producers, distributors, and applicators and is 

thus familiar with the various forms authorized under this ICR. She noted that the $100.86/hour cost 

is a fair estimate of costs. She also found the hourly burden numbers to be accurate. She commented 

that there is some redundancy between the forms, especially for businesses that complete multiple 

forms. EPA reviewed the forms to determine whether redundant fields on forms can be deleted. As 

a result, the revised producer and importer forms no longer contain “CSA allowance balance” fields. 

Producers and importers cannot produce or import pre-phaseout inventory so these fields are 

unnecessary and the information is captured in the CSA form. Mrs. Oxford also noted that the 

“Notification of Methyl Bromide Transfers” form contains an arithmetic error in the formula for 

calculating the offset. EPA has corrected the error and clarified the equation in the new form.

Mr. Niday also completes forms applicable to producers, distributors, and applicators and is 

familiar with the various forms authorized under this ICR. He also noted the redundancy between 

forms. Mr. Niday also expressed confusion about whether the “Pre-2005 Stocks” and “Sales of 

Critical Use Methyl Bromide” forms are to be reported annually or quarterly. While EPA has 

allowed quarterly reporting of these two forms, only a few companies did so and in some instances 

did both. EPA’s regulations only require annual reporting for these two pieces of information so 

EPA is clarifying in the new forms that they are only to be submitted annually. EPA has also tried to 

simplify the sales form to make it more user-friendly. EPA believes these changes will reduce 

confusion and burden for businesses completing these two forms.

EPA welcomes continued input on the user-friendliness of the required forms. For example, 

EPA has also revised all of the forms so that the cell with the original submittal and re-submittal 

check boxes has a white background. Previously the background was black so any marks in the 

check boxes were not visible.

d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA’s timing for information collection is motivated by the U.S. Government’s requirements 

under the Montreal Protocol. First, the timeline for critical use applications coincides with the 

critical use nomination process established by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Any deviation 

from that timeline would result in a forfeiture from inclusion in the U.S. nomination package and 

subsequent consideration by the Parties. Second, the U.S. government is required to report data to 

the Ozone Secretariat on an annual basis. EPA is requesting quarterly reporting from producers and 

importers of methyl bromide to monitor the likelihood of compliance throughout the year. These 
4

entities typically prepare quarterly reports and prefer to report smaller data sets to EPA and not leave 

the entire task to the end of the year. EPA is requesting annual reporting from entities such as 

distributors and fumigation companies because they typically have less regulatory compliance 

infrastructure and/or are less familiar with Protocol reporting requirements. This annual request is 

now clear on the revised forms.

e) General Guidelines

This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines found at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

f) Confidentiality

EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality for any of 

the information they submit. Information claimed confidential will be treated in accordance with the 

procedures for handling information claimed as confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart b, and 

will be disclosed only if EPA determines that the information is not entitled to confidential 

treatment. If no claim of confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by EPA, it may

be made available to the public without further notice to the respondents (40 CFR 2.203).

g) Sensitive Information

Individual reporting data may be claimed as sensitive and will be treated as confidential 

information in accordance with procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 2.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

a) Respondents NAICS Codes

Respondents include producers, importers, distributors, and custom applicators of methyl 

bromide, organizations, consortia, and associations of methyl bromide users, as well as individual 

methyl bromide users. The appropriate North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for these entities are:

TABLE I: NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF REGULATED ENTITIES

Category NAICS code SIC code

Agricultural 

production

1112- Vegetable and Melon farming 0171- Berry Crops

1113- Fruit and Nut Tree Farming 0172- Grapes

1114- Greenhouse, Nursery, and 

Floriculture Production

0173- Tree Nuts

0175- Deciduous Tree Fruits (except apple 

orchards and farms)

0179- Fruit and Tree Nuts

0181- Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery 

Products
5

0831- Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest 

Products

1119- Other Crop Farming

Storage Uses 115114- Postharvest Crop activities (except 

Cotton Ginning)

311211- Flour Milling 2041- Flour and Other Grain Mill Products

311212- Rice Milling 2044- Rice Milling

493110- General Warehousing and Storage 4225- General Warehousing and Storage

493130- Farm Product Warehousing and 

Storage

4221- Farm Product Warehousing and Storage

Distributors and 

Applicators

115112- Soil Preparation, Planting and 

Cultivating

0711- Soil Preparation Services

0721- Crop Planting, Cultivation, and 

Protection

0723- Crop Preparation Service for Market 

(except Cotton Ginning)

424910- Farm Supplies and Merchant 

Wholesalers

Producers and 

Importers

325320- Pesticide and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing

2879- Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals

b) Information Requested

(i) Applications

The Agency intends to continue seeking the same information as in previous years and will 

use the current application forms. The following information encompasses any information that will 

be requested from those entities seeking a critical use exemption, and includes applications for both 

pre-plant and post-harvest sectors: 

 Identity of contact person(s). Unless otherwise specified, the person who submits the 

application will be considered the contact person for all matters relating to the critical use 

exemption. Requests must identify by name and telephone number one or more qualified 

experts who may be contacted in case any questions arise concerning the application.

 Description of the proposed use. The applications shall provide information on the 

proposed use (crop/pest combination), the amount of methyl bromide to be used, the location 

of use, the method of application and any other use information requested by the 

Administrator. 

 Description of past use. The applications shall provide information on past use (crop/pest 

combination), acreage, the amount of methyl bromide used, the method of application and 

other historical use data requested by the Administrator. 

 Consideration of alternatives (Technical). The applicant must demonstrate what steps 

have been, and will be, taken to find and implement alternatives. The applicant must also 

provide an explanation of, and data relating to, the technical feasibility of currently available 

alternatives for their proposed use and any other information required by the Administrator to 

determine whether technically feasible alternatives are available for the proposed use.

 Consideration of alternatives (Economic). To determine whether an applicant’s proposed 

use has economically feasible alternatives, EPA will request information on historical 

revenue and available economic measures, such as operating costs. 
6

 Additional information. Additional information required of applicants may include, but is 

not limited to, agricultural statistics, fumigation conditions and timeline, research proposals 

and funding levels, and transition plans. 

(ii) Reporting

EPA is requesting that entities provide the following information to the Agency:

Producers and importers

 Quarterly: the quantity of methyl bromide produced or imported under the exemptions for 

Quarantine and Preshipment (QPS), critical uses, emergency uses, lab uses, and export to 

Article 5 countries;

 Quarterly: the quantity of methyl bromide produced or imported for uses resulting in its 

transformation and/or destruction;

 Quarterly: the number and type of expended and unexpended critical use allowances (CUAs) 

and Article 5 allowances;

 Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide sold directly to critical uses; 

 Annually: the total amount and type of critical use methyl bromide held in inventory for 

themselves or on behalf of a third party;

 Annually: the total amount of methyl bromide that was produced/imported prior to January 1, 

2005, that is held in inventory for themselves or on behalf of a third party;

 Periodically, (likely less than annually): information that the Administrator may reasonably

require in carrying out the critical use exemption program under Section 604(d)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act including management and composition of pre-phaseout inventory, price of 

methyl bromide and its alternatives, and fumigant emissions reductions practices. EPA may

also use the information gathering authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to ensure 

compliance with existing regulations under the critical use exemption program. 

Exporters

 Quarterly: names and addresses of the exporter and the recipient of the exports, and the 

exporter’s Employer Identification Number;

 Quarterly: the quantity of methyl bromide exported under each exemption; the date on which, 

and the port from which, the controlled substances were exported from the United States or 

its territories; and the country to which the controlled substances were exported.

Distributors and Applicators

 Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide purchased;

 Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide sold directly to critical uses; 

 Annually: the total amount and type of critical use methyl bromide held in inventory for 

themselves or on behalf of a third party;

 Annually: the total amount of methyl bromide that was produced/imported prior to January 1, 

2005, that is held in inventory for themselves or on behalf of a third party;

 Periodically, (likely less than annually): information that the Administrator may reasonably

require in carrying out the critical use exemption program under Section 604(d)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act including management and composition of pre-phaseout inventory, price of 

methyl bromide and its alternatives, and fumigant emissions reductions practices. EPA may
7

also use the information gathering authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to ensure 

compliance with existing regulations under the critical use exemption program. 

(iii) Recordkeeping

EPA is requiring the following records are kept for three years.

Producers, importers, and exporters

 Self certification form for each sale that indicates the buyer will only sell or use methyl

bromide for approved critical uses;

 Order forms and invoices for methyl bromide;

Distributors and Applicators

 Self certification form for each sale that indicates the buyer will only sell/use the methyl 

bromide for approved critical uses;

 Order forms and invoices for methyl bromide;

5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information 

Management

a) Agency Activities

(i) Applications

Submitted critical use exemption applications are received by the Stratospheric Program

Implementation Branch (SPIB), of the Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD) of the Office of 

Atmospheric Programs (OAP). The Biological and Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) of the 

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) conducts a technical review of the applications. Both a biologist 

and an economist review each application, and the applications are grouped according to agricultural 

sector. Specifically, the review determines whether or not there is sufficient information to support 

the contention that “no technically or economically feasible alternatives exist” for the specified 

methyl bromide use. The review also determines if a lack of methyl bromide availability would 

cause a significant market disruption. These requirements for critical use exemptions were agreed to 

by the Parties to the Protocol at their Seventh Meeting, and are delineated in Decision IX/6, as well 

as Section 604(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This review may require additional consultation with 

the applicants if further clarification is needed.

EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of State, 

compiles a nomination package containing all uses to be nominated by the U.S. as “critical.” This 

package is submitted to the Ozone Secretariat of the Protocol, reviewed by MBTOC and TEAP, and 

later authorized by the Parties at their annual meeting. Typically, EPA must respond to one or two 

rounds of questions from MBTOC as that body conducts a technical review of the U.S. Nomination.

In order to complete the application process, EPA must:

 Publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of applications

 Collect, compile, and analyze submitted applications

 Review applications for completeness and inform applicants if application is not complete
8

 Review applications for critical need for methyl bromide (e.g., data supporting a finding that 

there is no technically or economically feasible alternative)

 Transpose data from the applications into the required nomination format (as consistent with 

the MBTOC Handbook)

 Compile applications into U.S. nomination package for submission to the Ozone Secretariat

(ii) Reported Data

Reported data are received by the Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch (SPIB), of the 

Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD) of the Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP).

 All reported data are reviewed by EPA for completeness and accuracy, often through followup with the reporting entity.

 EPA ensures that compliance has been maintained with U.S. production and consumption 

levels of exempted material at the national and sector levels.

 EPA reports annually to the Ozone Secretariat, through the U.S. Department of State, on U.S. 

compliance with allowable production and consumption levels.

 EPA uses data on actual use levels and material in inventory to adjust future nomination and 

allocation amounts.

 Data are maintained in EPA data electronic tracking system and file room.

b) Collection and Methodology and Management

(i) Applications

When applications for methyl bromide critical uses are received by EPA, they are assigned a 

CUE number and tracked in a spreadsheet as active submissions through the process, after which 

applications become historical files. 

(ii) Reported Data

Data are tracked by industry and are provided to EPA on a quarterly and/or annual basis on 

forms provided by the Agency on EPA’s website (www.epa.gov/ozone/record/mbr.html). EPA will 

use our electronic tracking system to update company specific and overall U.S. compliance with 

production, consumption, and use. Confidential business information are stored in appropriately

controlled areas.

c) Small Entity Flexibility

This information collection is authorized by statute under Section 604 of the Clean Air Act 

and is required in order to ensure U.S. compliance with international treaty obligations under the 

Montreal Protocol. 

Methyl bromide was phased out under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act in 2005, 

except for limited exemptions. The application information collection provides meaningful relief for 

those users of methyl bromide who do not have technically or economically feasible alternatives. 

Applying for the exemption is voluntary and only those entities that believe they have a critical use
9

will submit an application. While the exemption itself will relieve burden on affected entities, the 

burden on all affected entities associated with applying for the exemption, and especially the burden 

on small entities, has been reduced to every extent possible. EPA encouraged small businesses to 

participate in and/or form representative organizations that will serve to aid in gathering information 

and completion of applications. Today, most applications received are submitted by such 

organizations.

Bearing in mind U.S. obligations under the Protocol, EPA designed a reporting and 

recordkeeping system that would remove almost all burden from the end users of methyl bromide, 

some of whom are small entities. This program seeks to place the burden instead on chemical 

manufacturers, distributors, and applicators who are not small entities. EPA created a system that 

requires end users to sign a short form (1-2 pages in length) certifying that they are buying the 

exempted material for an allowable use and will use it accordingly. The form is kept by the supplier, 

not the end user. Participation in this exemption program is voluntary and constitutes a benefit.

d) Collection Schedule

(i) Applications

EPA annually publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the 

pre-plant and post-harvest applications. Entities have between 60 and 90 days from the date of 

publication to submit an application. Applications for exemptions are requested with three years of 

anticipation due to the international process and EPA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. 

For example, the first time EPA requested applications, in May 2002, the exemptions were requested 

for the use of methyl bromide during the 2005 calendar year. The applications requested in May

2003 were for use in the 2006 calendar year, etc. Once applications are submitted to EPA, the 

following schedule takes place:

 August, Year 1: Applications due

 September-December, Year 1: Review of applications and development of U.S. nomination

 January, Year 2: Inter-Agency review of nomination package

 January 24, Year 2: U.S. nomination submitted to Ozone Secretariat

 February-June, Year 2: Advisory body (MBTOC/TEAP) review

 November-December, Year 2: Parties authorize critical uses

 January-December, Year 3: EPA publishes critical uses and allocates allowances in noticeand-comment rulemaking

Subsequent collection schedules depend on the timetables established by the Parties. In some 

instances additional (“Extraordinary”) meetings have been required, delaying the schedule.

(ii) Reported Data

The information is to be submitted on an annual or quarterly basis (see section 5a) to EPA 

beginning in the last quarter of 2011 and continuing for the life of the exemption. 

6) Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection
10

a) Estimating the Burden

The basis of the burden analysis is EPA’s experience with implementing the critical use 

exemption program since 2002 and EPA’s previous ICR analyses for the CUE program. EPA 

expects that the burden estimate is conservatively high as the Agency believes that the respondents 

are familiar with EPA’s regulations and likely have an established system for complying with those 

requirements.

The burden analyzed is that associated with the application, reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements of the program. As in previous ICRs, EPA identified the steps involved in applying for 

and complying with the requirements of the CUE program. This includes identifying the principal 

information needed to support U.S. nominations to Parties to the Protocol. The burden has been 

estimated by identifying the number of times the step will be undertaken and the number of hours 

required to complete each step.

b) Estimating the Respondent Cost

i) Applications

To determine the respondent cost, EPA used an hourly industry wage rate of $136.93 per 

hour, including benefits and overhead. This is the estimated hourly mean wage rate for management 

within the Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services sector (541600 Series NAICS 

code). This rate was developed by the Office of Pesticide Programs within EPA and is based on the 

National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. Based on consultations on this 

ICR, EPA is no longer using the Pesticide, Fertilizer, & Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

sector (325300 Series NAICS code) for estimating the respondent cost for completing the 

applications. EPA anticipates this rate to overestimate the burden on the whole universe of 

respondents, as the wage rates are lower for growers, applicators, and other respondents within the 

Critical Use Exemption program. 

Burden hours needed to complete each application that is forwarded to EPA is estimated to 

be 38. The number of applications has been declining from a maximum of 61 to 33 applications last 

year. EPA does not anticipate new users or groups to submit applications and therefore does not 

expect the number to increase from 33. EPA is conservatively estimating 40 applicants for the next 

three years. Total burden hours have decreased from previous ICRs as the prior ICR estimated 75

respondents. EPA believes that the number of hours may be an overestimate as there have been

minimal formatting /data changes to the application form, encouragement of electronic submissions, 

reduced requirements for repeat applicants, frequent communication with stakeholders, and nine

years of implementation. EPA has also found that the majority of users have applied through their 

consortia, and that these consortia represent many growers.

ii) Reported Data

To determine respondent costs for recordkeeping and reporting, EPA used an hourly industry

wage rate of $100.86 per hour as described above. Some activities, such as rule familiarization, are 

one time activities therefore total respondent burden hours indicated in Table II (below) may be 
11

overestimated. This renewal, as compared to the existing ICR, reduces the expected burden for the 

respondents compiling and reporting data on an annual basis. The number of distributors of methyl 

bromide has decreased as the amount of critical use methyl bromide sold in the U.S. has decreased. 

Second, this ICR increases the number of responses for quarterly reporting to more accurately reflect 

the number of responses EPA has received in recent years. Prior ICRs had estimated 4 quarterly 

reports per year per respondent, but some respondents submit more than 4 reports as they are 

producers, importers, and distributors and must file separate reports for each. As discussed above, 

the number of applications submitted the last three years has declined. This corresponds to a similar 

decrease in the end user universe which EPA now estimates to be approximately 1800. 

TABLE II- RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS PER YEAR

Collection Activity No. of 

Respondents

Total No. of 

Responses

Hours per 

Response

Total 

Hours

i) Applications

Read CAA Request for applications 40 40 0.5 20

Process, compile, and review the requested 

data for accuracy and appropriateness

40 40 30 1200

Generate application correspondence (and any 

follow-up information requested)

40 40 7 280

Store, file, or maintain the information 40 40 0.5 20

Total burden for applications 40 40 38 1,520

ii) Recordkeeping and Reporting

Rule Familiarization 75 75 2 150

Data Compilation (quarterly basis) 4 40 4 160

Data Compilation (annual basis) 75 75 8.5 637.5

Data Reporting (quarterly basis) 4 40 0.5 20

Data Reporting (annual basis) 75 75 1 75

Reporting on Allowance Trading Activities 4 16 0.5 8

Responding to periodic questions regarding 

CUE program and fumigation industry

75 75 1 75

Self Certification Activities by Producers, 

Importers, and Distributors 

75 150 0.25 37.5

Self Certification Activities by End Users 1,800 2,300 0.25 575

Total Burden for reporting and 

recordkeeping

1,879 2846 18 1,738.0

COMBINED TOTAL BURDEN HOURS 1919 2886 56 3,258.0

There are no capital and operating costs associated this action.

TABLE III- CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Activity No of Entities 

Affected

Estimated Annual 

Cost per entity

Total Estimated 

Annual Cost

TOTAL CAPITAL AND 0 0 0
12

OPERATING COSTS

c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The estimated cost to the Federal Government of the critical use exemption process consists 

of two components. The first is the number of hours and costs incurred by the Agency to review 

each application. The second is the number of hours and costs incurred by the Agency in reviewing 

reporting data, preparing nominations, submitting data to the Ozone Secretariat on U.S. compliance, 

distributing critical use allowances, and developing guidance for regulated entities.

The calculations below are based on combined OAR/OPP experience implementing the CUE 

program over the past nine years. The Agency burden in reviewing the applications has decreased 

from those in the previous ICR as the Agency has developed a regular system over the course of 

implementing the CUE program over the last nine years. In addition, the number of sectors applying 

to the program has decreased. The values in this renewal for recordkeeping and reporting are also

less than the sum of the burdens listed in the prior ICR. Some steps analyzed in prior ICRs, such as 

writing the reporting forms and determining the historic baseline, have already been completed are 

unnecessary for this renewal. 

The hourly wage rates for EPA clerical, technical and managerial staff were derived from the 

2010 OPM pay table multiplied by 1.6, the standard government benefits multiplier. The hourly

wage rates are as follows: EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost of $76.38 (GS-15 level) for 

managerial costs, $54.94 (GS-13 level) for technical staff, and $21.02 (GS-5 level) for clerical staff 

based on 2010 figures. While the number of occurrences of each activity is shown per application, 

EPA intends to continue grouping applications according to agricultural sectors. Each hour of 

extramural (contractor) time is valued at $120.00 per hour including overhead and fringe benefits. 

TABLE IV- AGENCY BURDEN HOURS

No. of 

Responses

Managerial 

hours per 

response

Technical 

hours per 

response

Clerical 

hours 

per 

response

Extramural 

hours per 

response

i) Applications

Read and review the applications for 

completeness; make appropriate amount of 

electronic/paper copies

40 0 1 1 0.25

Review information submitted for accuracy 40 0 10 0 0

Perform economic and technical analysis and 

compile nomination on proposed exemption 

to the Ozone Secretariat

40 5 40 45 0

Respond to 2 rounds of questions on 

Nomination from MBTOC/TEAP (advisory 

bodies to Parties to Protocol)

80 2 10 0 0

Final decision on each sector 12 10 15 0 0

Store, file, and maintain applications 40 0 1 1 0.25

TOTAL per response (applications) 17 77 47 0.5

TOTAL per year (applications) 480 3,060 1,880 20
13

i) Reporting and Recordkeeping

Process annual reports 75 0.25 1 0 0.25

Process quarterly reports 40 0.25 1 0 0.25

Report to the Ozone Secretariat 1 0.25 10 0 1

Provide Guidance 30 0.25 1 0 0

Seek information on CUE program and 

fumigation industry

75 0.25 0.25 0 0

TOTAL per response (recordkeeping and 

reporting)

1.25 13.25 0 1.5

TOTAL per year (recordkeeping and 

reporting)

55.25 173.75 0 29.75

TOTAL FOR ALL AGENCY ACTION 

PER YEAR 535 3,234 1,880 50

d) Estimating the Respondent Universe

EPA’s estimate of the number of regulated entities is based upon the Agency’s experience 

regulating those entities under the CUE program for the last nine years. This program does not 

require reporting or recordkeeping from end users of methyl bromide, but the Agency is able to 

make an estimation based on self reported data from entities who requested an exemption.

As mentioned above, the number of applications has been declining, and was 33 last year. 

The number of applicants for the exemption is much less than the estimated end user universe of 

1,800 as the majority of end users apply through their consortia, not individually. EPA continues to 

encourage users with similar circumstances to utilize grower and user organizations to aid in 

completion of the application, thereby reducing both the burden on applicants (particularly small 

businesses) and the Agency. The registration of additional alternatives in the U.S. has also resulted

in fewer applications received. 

There are 4 producers and importers of methyl bromide who report quarterly and up to 75 

distributors/ applicators of methyl bromide who may report annually. Thus the total number of 

respondents is estimated to be 1,919 (1800 end users, 40 applicants, 75 distributors/applicators, and

4 producers/importers).

e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

i) The burden hour portion of the respondent application, reporting, and recordkeeping

burden and operating/capital costs are estimated in Tables II and III respectively. The dollar estimate 

associated with this burden is displayed in Table V below. The total annual labor cost burden is 

$988,840. 

TABLE V- RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS

Response No of 

Responses

Hours per 

response

Cost/Hour Total Cost

Application 40 38 $136.93 $208,134 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 396 18 $100.86 $718,930 
14

Self certification: producers, importers, 

distributors, end users

2,450 0.25 $100.86 $61,777 

Total $988,840 

ii) Agency burden is reported in Table IV. This includes technical review of each application 

as well as distributing critical use allowances, reviewing reporting data, submitting data to the Ozone 

Secretariat on U.S. compliance, preparing nominations, and developing guidance for regulated 

entities. The total annual labor cost burden below in Table VI is $6,577 per application and $1,003

per recordkeeping and reporting response. Total annual cost to the Agency is $264,032.

TABLE VI- ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS

Managerial 

Hours 

Annual 

Total

Technical 

Hours 

Annual 

Total

Clerical 

Hours 

Annual 

Total 

Extramural 

Hours 

Annual 

Total

Total 

Agency 

Hours per 

Response

Total 

Agency 

Costs per 

response

$76.38 $54.94 $21.02 $120.00

Part I. Hours per response

 -Application 17 77 47 0.50 142 $6,577

 -Recordkeeping 

and reporting 1.25 13.25 0 1.50 16.00 $1,003

Part II. Hours per year

 -Application 480 3,060 1,880 20 5,440

 -Recordkeeping 

and reporting 55 174 0 30 258.75

TOTAL HOURS 535 3,234 1,880 50 5,699

TOTAL COSTS $40,882 $177,662 $39,518 $5,970 $264,032

f) Reasons for Change in Burden

There is a decrease of 1,660 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with 

the burden currently approved by OMB. The primary reason for the decrease in burden hours is a 

decrease in the number of applicants. There also reflects a decline in the number of end users. Other 

reasons for burden reduction include increased stakeholder familiarity with the critical use 

exemption program, the encouragement of electronic submission of applications and other data and 

frequent EPA communication with methyl bromide stakeholders. 

g) Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is 

estimated to average 1 hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and 

utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 
15

existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train 

personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and 

review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0085, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public 

docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public 

comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select 

“search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 

NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0085 and OMB control number 2060-0482 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This Section is not applicable.