1 Arling, Jeremy Subject: FW: Revised format of language on methyl bromide - emergency use Attachments: MeBr CUE 2014 2015 Revised 7 2 14_Final_Draft.doc

From: Hufford, Drusilla Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 11:31 AM To: 'Laity, Jim' Cc: Donaldson, David Subject: RE: Revised format of language on methyl bromide - emergency use Jim – Attached is a draft that reflects our interpr etation of your email w/r/t Cheryl’s view – so stil l in redline. Also, we have included language that addresses the question you raised yesterday, as an effort to be clearer ab out the Armillaria example. Thanks,
DrusillaF. Emergency Uses

In 2013 EPA held discussions with USDA and the Depa rtment of State on tools that could potentially address immediate and unforeseen needs for methyl bromide including whether emergency situations may arise that warrant the use of methyl bromide consistent with the treaty, recognizing that emergency uses are not intended as a replacement for CUE uses. In August, EPA held a stakeholder meeting to present, among ot her things, the findings of those discussions and noted that the three agencies had not yet ident ified any specific situations that could not be addressed by current mechanisms. The mechanisms discussed include, among others: the continuing critical use exemption process, includin g the supplemental application process which allows for a second opportunity to review applicati ons from growers with a critical need; the prephaseout inventory (if remaining); the emergency us e exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA; and ongoing targeted research and outreach to devel op and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. The U.S. government is committed to using flexibili ty in the Protocol’s existing mechanisms as an avenue to address changes in natio nal circumstances that affect the transition to alternatives. EPA solicited comments on specific emergency situat ions that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide, consistent with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol, and which could be difficult to address using current tools and author ities. EPA received one comment which discussed “hand-held probe” treatments for outbreak s of Oak Root Fungus ( Armillaria ) in fruit and nut orchards. The commenter states that the use is limited in scope, methyl bromide is the only treatment proven to have long term efficacy, a nd the treatment is critical to the viability of infested orchards. The commenter stated that as a t hreshold matter, there must be clear and objective criteria to establish the existence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval.In addition the process to meet a particular emerge ncy must be efficient so as to enable all

stakeholders to meet the need before the emergency has caused significant damage. Clear and objective criteria would be required to e stablish the existence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. Decision IX/7 states that the Secretariat and the TEAP will evaluate the use according to the critical use crit eria in IX/6. Therefore, at a minimum, any potential emergency use must also be able to qualif y as a critical use. The example of Armillaria raised by the commenter was also included in an application for a critical use exemption in 2016. The U.S. Government did not include this as part of the 2016 U.S. Nomination because the application did not provide data to demonstrate either the efficacy of methyl bromid e or that the alternatives are not effective. Nor did it include data showing that the loss of me thyl bromide would create a significant market disruption. EPA will continue in interactions with stakeholders and other agencies to receive information on understanding emergency situations t hat may necessitate the use of methyl bromide.