Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Notices 38887 

Dated: June 30, 2014. 

Jasmin Muriel, 

Designated Federal Officer, Office of 

Environmental Justice, U.S. EPA. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16110 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9913–55–OAR] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Request for Methyl Bromide Critical 

Use Exemption Applications for 2017 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is providing notice of the 

process for submitting applications for 

critical use exemptions for 2017. 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 authorized by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer and must be in accordance with 

the Clean Air Act. Applications received 

in accordance with 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 and 

import only in the year for which the 

Parties authorize them. All entities 

interested in obtaining a critical use 

exemption must provide EPA with 

technical and economic information 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 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Applications for the methyl 

bromide critical use exemption can also 

be submitted by U.S. mail to: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 

Stratospheric Protection Division, 

Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail 

Code 6205M, 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 information claimed as 

confidential 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 company (40 CFR 

2.203). EPA may place a copy of 

Worksheet 6 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 

Hotline, 1–800–296–1996; 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 (6205M), 1200 Pennsylvania 

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 

reducing and eliminating the 

production and consumption of 

stratospheric ozone-depleting 

substances. Methyl bromide was added 

to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting 

substance in 1992 through the 

Copenhagen Amendment. 

The Protocol provides that the Parties 

may exempt ‘‘the level of production or 

consumption that is necessary to satisfy 

uses agreed by them to be critical uses’’ 

(Art. 2H para 5). The Parties to the 

Protocol included this language in the 

treaty’s methyl bromide phaseout 

provisions in recognition that 

alternatives might not be available by 

2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide 

agreed by the Parties to be ‘‘critical 

uses.’’ 

In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the 

Parties 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 was 

phased out as of January 1, 2005. 

Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998, 

allows EPA to exempt the production 

and import of methyl bromide from the 

phaseout for critical uses, to the extent 

consistent with the Montreal Protocol. 

EPA has defined ‘‘critical use’’ at 40 

CFR 82.3 based on the criteria in 

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. 

Methyl bromide produced or imported 

by expending critical use allowances 

may be used only for the appropriate 

category of approved critical uses as 

listed in Appendix L to the regulations 

(40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl 

bromide that was produced or imported 

through the expenditure of production 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38888 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Notices 

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. 

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 30, 2014. Critical use 

exemptions are valid for only one year 

and do not automatically renew. All 

users desiring 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, must transmit nominations to the 

UNEP Ozone Secretariat by January 24, 

2015, to be considered by the Parties at 

their annual meeting at the end of 2015. 

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 

authorize an exemption from the 

Protocol’s production and consumption 

phaseout for 2017, 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 Application 

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 

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; 

• The methodology used to provide 

economic comparisons. 

EPA’s Web site (www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

mbr/alts.html) contains a list of 

available 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 must describe 

research plans which includes the 

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

practice(s) they will be testing to 

support their transition from methyl 

bromide. 

Since there is no formal end date for 

the CUE program, 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 

envisions a phaseout 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 led many sectors to transition from 

methyl bromide. The number of sectors 

nominated has declined from seventeen 

for 2006 to two for 2016. Below is 

information on how the agency 

evaluated specific uses in considering 

nominations for critical uses for 2016, as 

well as specific information needed for 

the U.S. to successfully defend future 

nominations for critical uses. 

Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and 

Nuts 

Data reviewed by EPA as part of the 

2016 nomination process 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 

must address potential economic losses 

due to pest pressures, changes in 

quality, changes in timing, and any 

other economic implications for 

producers when converting to 

alternatives. Alternatives for which such 

information is needed are: Sulfuryl 

fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), 

phosphine, and controlled atmosphere/ 

temperature treatment system. 

Applicants should include the costs to 

retrofit equipment or design and 

construct new fumigation chambers for 

these alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide: 

The amount of fumigant gas used (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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Notices 38889 

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 is not 

applicable for this purpose. Also 

include information on what pest 

control practices organic producers are 

using for their commodity. 

Dried Cured Pork 

Applicants must 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 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. Given the low volume of 

usage requested by the sector compared 

to the amount of remaining prephaseout inventory, it will also be 

important for applicants to indicate 

efforts to secure and use stockpiled 

methyl bromide. 

Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and 

Tomato 

In reviewing data for the 2016 CUE 

nomination, EPA found that although 

no single alternative is effective for all 

pest problems, a review of multiple year 

data indicates that the alternatives in 

various combinations provide control 

equal or superior to methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin. Several research 

studies show that the three way mixture 

of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin 

plus metam sodium can effectively 

suppress pathogens (P. capsici, F. 

oxysporum) and nematodes. 

To support a nomination, applicants 

must address potential changes to yield, 

quality, and timing when converting to 

alternatives, including: The mixture of 

1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, 

the University of Georgia three way 

mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate 

(DominusTM) used in place of metam, 

dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any 

fumigationless system (if data are 

available). Applications must address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers and your region’s 

production of these crops using these 

alternatives, including the costs to 

retrofit equipment and the differential 

impact of buffers for methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin compared to the 

alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season; application rates; value of the 

crop being produced; differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and 

any differences in equipment costs or 

time needed to operate equipment 

associated with alternatives. 

Strawberry Fruit 

Based on EPA’s review of information 

as part of the 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, and (3) 

in transitioning from experimental to 

commercial use of non-chemical tools, 

such as steam, anaerobic soil 

disinfestations, and substrate 

production. 

To support a nomination, applicants 

must address potential changes to yield, 

quality, and timing when converting to 

alternatives, including: The mixture of 

1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, 

the University of Georgia three way 

mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium) or 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 must address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers and your region’s 

production of these crops using these 

alternatives, including the costs to 

retrofit equipment and the differential 

impact of buffers for methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin compared to the 

alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season; application rates; value of the 

crop being produced; differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and 

any differences in equipment costs or 

time needed to operate equipment 

associated with alternatives. 

Orchard Replant 

EPA’s review of data in the 2016 

nomination process indicated that while 

no single alternative is effective for all 

pest problems, numerous field trials 

indicate alternatives to methyl bromide 

are effective. Therefore, EPA concluded 

that transitioning to the alternatives was 

feasible without substantial losses. 

Registered alternatives are available for 

individual-hole treatments and soil 

preparation procedures are available to 

enable effective treatment with 

alternatives even in soils with high 

moisture content. 

To support a nomination, applicants 

must address potential changes to yield, 

quality, and timing when converting to 

alternatives, including: The mixture of 

1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, 

the University of Georgia three way 

mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), 

and steam. Applications must address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers and your region’s 

production of these crops using these 

alternatives, including the costs to 

retrofit equipment and the differential 

impact of buffers for methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin compared to the 

alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (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. 

Ornamentals 

In considering nominations for 2016, 

EPA found that while no single 

alternative is effective for all pest 

problems, a review of multiple year data 

indicates that the alternatives in various 

combinations provide control equal or 

superior to methyl bromide plus 

chloropicrin. Research demonstrates 

that 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, 

the three way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam sodium, and dimethyl disulfide 

plus chloropicrin all show excellent 

results. To support a nomination, 

applicants must address potential 

changes to yield, quality, and timing 

when converting to alternatives, 

including: The mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38890 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / 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. 

University of Georgia 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 must address regulatory 

and economic implications for growers 

and your region’s production of these 

crops using these alternatives, including 

the costs to retrofit equipment and the 

differential impact of buffers for methyl 

bromide plus chloropicrin compared to 

the alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season; application rates; value of the 

crop being produced; differences in 

labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and 

any differences in equipment costs or 

time needed to operate equipment 

associated with alternatives. 

Nurseries 

In considering this sector in the 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 must address potential 

changes to yield, quality, and timing 

when converting to alternatives, 

including: The mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the 

University of Georgia three way mixture 

of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium) or allyl isothiocyanate 

(DominusTM) used in place of metam in 

states other than California, dimethyl 

disulfide (DMDS), and steam. 

Applications must address regulatory 

and economic implications for growers 

and your region’s production of these 

crops using these alternatives, including 

the costs to retrofit equipment and the 

differential impact of buffers for methyl 

bromide plus chloropicrin compared to 

the alternatives. For the economic 

assessment applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (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. 

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 must 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 must address 

regulatory and economic implications 

for growers using these alternatives, 

including the costs to retrofit equipment 

and the differential impact of buffers for 

methyl bromide compared to the 

alternatives. For the economic 

assessment, applicants must provide the 

following: Price per pound of fumigant 

gas used (both methyl bromide and 

alternatives) from the most recent use 

season; application rates; economic 

impact for the golf course from a 

transition to alternatives (e.g., downtime 

when resurfacing, 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. 

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. 

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

7671q. 

Dated: July 1, 2014. 

Sarah Dunham, 

Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16064 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on the agreements to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within twelve 

days of the date this notice appears in 

the Federal Register. Copies of the 

agreements are available through the 

Commission’s Web site (www.fmc.gov) 

or by contacting the Office of 

Agreements at (202)–523–5793 or 

tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. 

Agreement No.: 011463–008. 

Title: East Coast of North America to 

West Coast of South America and 

Caribbean Cooperative Working 

Agreement. 

Parties: Compania Sud Americana de 

Vapores S.A.; Norasia Container Lines 

Limited; Hamburg-Sud; and Compania 

Chilena de Navagacion Interoceania, 

S.A. 

Filing Party: Walter H. Lion, Esq.; 

McLaughlin & Stern, LLP; 260 Madison 

Avenue; New York, NY 10018. 

Synopsis: The amendment modifies 

the Agreement to reflect CSAV’s transfer 

of its container shipping business to its 

wholly-owned subsidiary, Norasia, 

modifying agreement provisions 

accordingly. 

Agreement No.: 011795–004. 

Title: Puerto Rican Cross Space 

Charter and Sailing Agreement. 

Parties: Compania Sud Americana de 

Vapores S.A.; Norasia Container Lines 

Limited; and Compania Chilena de 

Navegacion Interoceanica S.A. 

Filing Party: Walter H. Lion, Esq.; 

McLaughlin & Stern, LLP; 260 Madison 

Avenue; New York, NY 10016. 

Synopsis: The amendment modifies 

the Agreement to reflect CSAV’s transfer 

of its container shipping business to its 

wholly-owned subsidiary, Norasia, 

modifying agreement provisions 

accordingly. 

Agreement No.: 012100–003. 

Title: CMA CGM/Norasia Gulf Bridge 

Express Vessel Sharing Agreement. 

Parties: CMA CGM, S.A; Compania 

Sud Americana de Vapores S.A.; and 

Norasia Container Lines Limited. 

Filing Party: Walter H. Lion, Esq.; 

McLaughlin & Stern, LLP; 260 Madison 

Avenue; New York, NY 10016. 

Synopsis: The amendment modifies 

the Agreement to reflect CSAV’s transfer 

of its container shipping business to its 

wholly-owned subsidiary, Norasia, 

modifying agreement provisions 

accordingly. 

Agreement No.: 012103–004. 

Title: CMA CGM/Norasia Victory 

Bridge Vessel Sharing Agreement. 

Parties: CMA CGM, S.A.; Compania 

Sud American de Vapores S.A.; and 

Norasia Container Lines Limited. 

Filing Party: Walter H. Lion, Esq.; 

McLaughlin & Stern, LLP; 260 Madison 

Avenue; New York, NY 10016. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES