1 **SUPPORTING STATEMENT** Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide (Renewal) 1. Id entification of the Information Collection a) Title: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Critical U se Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide EPA Number: 2031.06 OMB Control Number 2060

- 0482 b) Short Characterization: With this Information Collection Request (I CR), the Environmental Protection Agency ’s ( EP A) Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is seeking to renew the existing ICR for the methyl bromide critical use e xemption program (CUE) under the Clean Air Act

. This I CR seeks to characterize the burden associated with producing, importing, distributing, and using meth yl bromide under the critical use exemption program as described in 40 CFR Part 82. In addition, it includes the burden associated with appl yi ng 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 exempt ion. 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 L aw No. 105

- 277; October 21, 1998). Since 2002, entities have applied to EPA for a critical use exem ption that would allow fo r the continued production, import , and use of meth ylbromide after the phaseout in January 2005. This exemption allows for consumption only in those agricultural sectors that have demonstrated that there are no technicall y or eco nomicall y feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. The applications are rigorousl y assessed and anal yz ed b y 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 anal ys es by an international panel o f experts and advisory bodies: the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Comm ittee (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 Emergency2

Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public L aw 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 Qualit y 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 applicati on for a critical use exemption. The reported data enable EPA to:

 Ensure that critical use exempti ons 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 a ccordance with r equirements included in the annual allocation rulemaking s . 3. Nonduplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria a) Nonduplication All the information requested from respondents under this I CR 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 provide d 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 meth ylbromide but without direct relevance to the burden imposed by

the renewed information collection request. This second notice is being subm itted to the Federal Register concurrent with submission of this IC R request to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB )

. c ) Consultations3

EPA consulted with Gary Obenauf of Agricultural Research Consulting, Paul Niday of Trical and Ann Oxford o f Albemarle to seek input on the forms as well as the estimated burden numbers in the I CR 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 b y consultants , not members of the agricultural chemical m anufacturing 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 I CR. 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, especiall y for businesses that complete multiple forms. EPA reviewed the forms to determine whether redundant fields on forms can be deleted. As a re sult, 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 Meth yl 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 appli cable to producers, distributors, and applicators and is familiar with the various forms authorized under this I CR. He also noted the redundancy between forms. Mr. Niday

also expressed confusion about whether the “Pre

- 2005 Stocks” and “Sales of Critical U se Meth ylBromide” forms are to be reported annual ly or quarterly . While EPA has allowed quarterl y 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 pie ces 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

. Previousl y 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. Fi rst, the timeline for critical use applications coincides with the critical use nomination process established b y the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. An y deviation from that timeline would result in a forfeiture from inclusion in the U.S. nomination pac kage 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 quarterl y reporting from producers and importers of meth ylbromide to monitor the likelihood of compliance throughout the ye ar. T hese4

entities ty picall y prepare quarterl y reports and prefer to report smaller data sets to EPA and not leave the entire task to the end of the y ear. EPA is requesting annual reporting fr om e ntities such as distri butors and fumigation companies because they t ypically 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 ) Gene ral 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 unde r 40 CFR Part 2, S ubpart b, and will be disclosed only

i f EPA determines that the information is not entitled to confidential treatment. If no claim of confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by E PA, 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 NAI C S 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 Sy stem (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) codes for these entities are:

**TABLE I: NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF REGULATED ENTITIES Category**  **NAI CS 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 Products5 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 Im porters 325320

- Pesticide and Other Agricultural

Chemical Manufacturing 2879

- Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals b) In formation 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 ex emption. 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 pro posed use (crop/pest combination), the amount of methyl bromide to be used, the location of use, the method of application and an y 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 meth ylbromide used, the method of application and other historical use data requested b y 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 currentl y available alternatives for their proposed use and an y other information requi red 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**  Quarterl y: 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 ;  Quarterl y: the quantity of methyl bromide produced or imported for uses resulting in its transformat ion and/or destruction;  Quarterl y: the number and ty pe of expended and unexpended critical use allowances (CUAs) and Article 5 allowances ;  Annually : the total amount and ty pe of methyl bromide sold directly to critical uses;  Annually : the total amount an d ty pe of critical use methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves o r on behalf of a third part y ;  Annually : the total amount of methyl bromide that was produced/imported prior to January 1, 2005, that is held in inventory for themselves o r on behalf of a third part y ;  Periodically , ( likely

less than annuall y) : 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 emissio ns 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**  Quarterl y: names and addresses of the exporter and the recipient of the exports, and the exporter’s Employer Identification Number;  Quarterl y: the quantity of methyl bromide exported under each exemptio n ; 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 contr olled substances were exported. **Distributors and Applicators**   Annually : the total amount an d ty pe of methyl bromide purchased ;  Annually : the total amount and ty pe of methyl bromide so ld directly to critical uses ;  Annually : the total amount and ty pe of critical use methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves o r on behalf of a third part y ;  Annually : the total amount of methyl bromide that was produced/imported prior to January 1, 2005, that is held in inventory for themselves o r on behalf of a third part y ;  Periodically , ( likely

less than annuall y) : information that the Administrator may reas onably 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 emissio ns reductions p ractices. EPA may7

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 record s**  **are kept for three years. Produce**  **rs, im**  **porters , and exporters**   Self certification form for each sale that indicates the buyer will only sell or use meth yl bromide for approved critical uses;  Order forms and invoices for meth ylbromide; **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 meth ylbromide; 5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology , and Information Management a) Agency

Activities (i) Applications Submitted critical use exemption a pplications are receiv ed b y the Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch (SPIB), of the Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD) of the Of fice 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

. B oth a biologist and an economist review each application, and the appli cations are grouped according to agricultural sector. Specifically , the review determines whether or not there is sufficient information to support the contention that “no technicall y or economically feasible alternatives exist” for the specified methyl b romide 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 del ineated in Decision IX/6, as well as Section 604(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This review may require additional c onsultation with the applicant s if further clarification is needed

. EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the D epartment of State, compile s 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 b y MBTOC and TEAP, and later authorized b y the Parties at their annual meeting. Ty pically , 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 analy ze submitted applications  Review applications for completeness and inform applicants if application is not complete8

 Review applications for critical need for meth ylbromide (e.g., data supporting a finding that there is no technically

or economicall y 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 b y EPA for completeness and accuracy , often through follow

up with the reporting entity

.  EPA e nsure s that compliance has been maintained with U.S. production and consumption levels of exempted material at the national and sector levels.  EPA report s annuall y 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
.  D ata are maintained in EPA data electronic tracking s ys tem 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 spr eadsheet as active submissions through the process, after which applications become historical files. (ii) Reported Data Data are tracked b y industry and are provided to EPA on a quarterl y and/or annual basis on forms provided b y the Agency on EPA’s website (www.epa.gov/ozone/record/mbr.html)

. EPA will use our electronic tracking s ys tem 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 S ection 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. T he application information collection provide s meaningful relief for those users of meth ylbromide who do not have technicall y or economically feasible alternatives

. Applying for the exemption is voluntary and o nl y those entities that believe they have a critical use9

will submit an application. While the exemption itself will relieve burden on affected entities, the burden on all affected enti ties associated with applyingfor the exemption, and especiall y 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 g athering 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 sy stem that would remove almost all burden from the end users of meth ylbromide, 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 s ys tem that requires end users to sign a short form (1

- 2 pages in length) certifying that they are bu yi ng the exempted material for an allowable use and will use it accordingl y. T he 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 day s from the date of publication to submit an application. Applications for exemptions are requested with three ye ars 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 appli cations are submitted to EPA, the following schedule takes place:  August, Year 1 : Applications due  September

- December, Year 1 : Review of applications and developm ent of U.S. nomination  January , Year 2 : Inter
- Agenc y review of nomination package  January

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

- June, Year 2 : Adv isory body (MBTOC/TEAP) review  November

- December, Year 2 : Parties authorize critical uses  January
- December, Year 3 : EP A publishes critical uses and allocates allowances in not ice

and

- comment rulemaking Subsequent collection schedules depend on the timetables established b y 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 quarterl y basis (see section 5 a) to EPA beginning in the last quarter of 2011 and continuing for the life of the exemption. 6) Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection10

a) Estimating the Burden The basis of the burden analy sis is EPA ’s experience with implementing the critical use exemption program since 2002 and EPA’s previous I CR anal ys e s for the CUE program

. EPA expects that the burden estimate is conservative ly high as the Agency believes that the respondents are f amiliar with EPA’s regulations and likely have an established s ys tem for complying with those requirements. The burden anal yz ed is that associated with the application, reporting , and recordkeeping requirements of the program

. As in previous ICR s , 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 NAI CS code). This rate was developed by the Office of Pesticide Programs within EPA and is based on the National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employ ment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at http://www.bl s.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 NAI CS code) for estimating the respondent cost for completing the applications. EPA anticipates this rate to o verestimate 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 i s estimated to be 3 8
. The number of applications has been declining from a maximum of 61 to 33 applications last ye ar. EPA does not anticipate new users or groups to submit applications an d therefore does not expect the number to increase from 33

. EPA is conservativel y estimating 40 applicants for the next three ye ars. Total burden hours have decreased from previo us I CRs as the prior I CR 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 ye ars of implementation. EPA has also found that the majority of users have applied through their consortia, and that these c onsortia represent man y 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 be11

overestimated. This renewal , as compared to the existing IC R, reduces the expected burden for the respond ents compiling and reporting data on an annual basis . T he 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 I CR increases the number of responses for quarterl y reporting to more accuratel y reflect the number of responses EPA has received in recent years. Prior ICRs had estimated 4 quarterl y reports per ye ar 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, Im porters, 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** 
**COM BINED TOT**  **AL 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 0 012

**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 b y the Agency to review each application. The second is the number of hours and costs incur red 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 ye ars. The Agency burden in reviewing the applications has decreased from those in the previous IC R as the Agency has developed a regular sy ste m over the course of implementing the CUE program over the last nine ye ars. In addition, the number of sectors appl yi ng to the program has decreased. The values in this renewal for recordkeeping and reporting are also less than the sum of the burdens lis ted in the prior ICR. Some steps anal yz ed in prior I CRs, such as writing the reporting forms and determining the historic baseline , have already been completed are unnecessary

for this renewal

. The hourl y wage rates for EPA clerical, technical and manag erial 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 ho url y labor cost of $ 76.38 (GS

- 15 level) for managerial costs, $ 54.94 (GS

- 13 lev el) for technical staff, and $ 21.02 (GS

- 5 level) for clerical sta ff 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 sector s. 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
Revie w 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 ent ities 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 appl y through their consortia, not individually. EPA continues to encourage u sers with similar circumstances to utilize grower and user organizations to aid in completion of the application, thereby reducing both the burden on applicants (particularl y small businesses) and the Agency . The registrat ion of additional alternatives in the U.S. has also result ed in fewer applications received. There are 4 producers and importers of meth ylbromide who report quarterly and up to 7 5 distributors/ applicators of methyl bromide who may report annuall y . Thus the total number of r espondents is estimated to be 1,919 ( 1800 end users, 40 applicants, 75 distributors/applicators, and 4 producers/importers )

. e) Bottom L ine 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 Table s I I and III respectively

. The dollar estimate associated with this burden is d isplayed 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 $718,93014

Self certification: producers, importers, distributors, end users 2,450 0.25 $100.86 $61,777 **Total $988,840**  ii) Agency

burden is repo rted 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 $ 6,5 77 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, 6 60 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the bur den currentl y approved by OMB

. The primary reason for the decrease in burden hours is a decre ase 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 submiss ion 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 the15

existing way s to compl y 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 s ponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it display s a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's re gulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR C hapter 15. To comment on the Agency 's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and an y suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this I CR 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 Publi c Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. 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 doc ket that are available electronically . When in the sy stem, 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 Stre et, 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

- 0 482 in any correspondence. Part B of the Supporting Statement This Section is not applicable.