13006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 Information on the executive order is available 

at: http://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/

index.html. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–2013–0020] 

RIN No. 1218–AC82 

Process Safety Management and 

Prevention of Major Chemical 

Accidents; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Request for information; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) is 

extending the deadline for submitting 

comments on the Request for 

Information on Process Safety 

Management and Prevention of Major 

Chemical Accidents. 

DATES: The comment due date for the 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register on December 9, 2013 (78 FR 

73756) is extended. Comments must be 

submitted (postmarked, sent, or 

received) by March 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and 

additional material using any of the 

following methods: 

Electronically: Submit comments 

along with attachments electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, which is 

the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Click 

on the ‘‘COMMENT NOW!’’ box next to 

the title ‘‘Process Safety Management 

and Prevention of Major Chemical 

Accidents’’ and follow the instructions 

on-line for making electronic 

submissions. 

Fax: Commenters may fax 

submissions, including attachments, 

that are not longer than 10 pages to the 

OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648. 

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, 

messenger, or courier service: Submit 

comments to the OSHA Docket Office, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room N– 

2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 

693–2350 (OSHA’s TTY number is (877) 

889–5627). The Docket Office accepts 

deliveries (hand, express mail, 

messenger, or courier service) during 

normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 

p.m., e.t. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the Agency name and the 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(Docket No. OSHA–2013–0020). OSHA 

places all comments, including any 

personal information provided, in the 

public docket without change and this 

information will be available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

OSHA cautions commenters about 

submitting personal information such as 

Social Security numbers and birthdates. 

Security-related procedures may 

significantly delay receipt of 

submissions sent by regular mail. 

Contact the Docket Office for 

information about security-related 

procedures. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments submitted in response to this 

Federal Register notice, go to Docket 

No. OSHA–2013–0020 at http://

www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA 

Docket Office at the address above. All 

comments and submissions are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index; 

however, some information (e.g., 

copyrighted material) is not publicly 

available to read or download through 

that Web site. All comments and 

submissions are available for inspection 

and, when permissible, copying at the 

OSHA Docket Office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General information and press 

inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, 

Director, Office of Communications, 

Room N–3647, OSHA, U.S. Department 

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 

693–1999; email: meilinger.francis2@

dol.gov. 

Technical inquiries: Contact Lisa 

Long, Director, Office of Engineering 

Safety, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Room N–3609, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–2222 or email: 

long.lisa@dol.gov. 

Copies of this Federal Register notice: 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice are available at http://

regulations.gov. Copies also are 

available from the OSHA Office of 

Publications, Room N–3101, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–1888. This notice, 

as well as news releases and other 

relevant information, also are available 

at OSHA’s Web site at http://

www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

OSHA published a request for 

information (RFI) on December 09, 

2013, on Process Safety Management 

and Prevention of Major Chemical 

Accidents (78 FR 73756) in response to 

Section 6(e) of Executive Order 13650: 

Improving Chemical Facility Safety and 

Security. The RFI notice requested 

comments by March 10, 2014. Section 

6(a) of the Executive Order requests 

public input on options for policy, 

regulation, and standards 

modernization. The comment period for 

Section 6(a) runs until March 31, 2014. 

OSHA received comments from several 

stakeholders who are preparing 

responses to the Section 6(a) docket, as 

well as comments in response to the 

RFI. These stakeholders noted that 

much of the subject matter in Section 

6(a) is similar to the subject matter 

addressed by the RFI. Accordingly, the 

stakeholders requested that the deadline 

for submitting comments to the RFI 

correspond to the deadline for the 

Section 6(a) comment period, which is 

March 31, 2014, thereby allowing them 

to prepare complete and accurate 

comments for both records. Therefore, 

to allow commenters adequate time to 

prepare complete and accurate 

comments to the RFI, OSHA is, with 

this notice, extending the deadline for 

submitting comments in response to the 

RFI to March 31, 2014.1

II. Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

authorized the preparation of this notice 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657, 40 

U.S.C. 333, 33 U.S.C. 941, Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, 

Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on March 4, 

2014. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04983 Filed 3–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0065; FRL–9903–64– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR80 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 

2014 and 2015 Critical Use Exemption 

from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing uses that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13007 

qualify for the critical use exemption 

(CUE) and the amount of methyl 

bromide that may be produced or 

imported for those uses for both the 

2014 and 2015 control periods. EPA is 

proposing this action under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect 

consensus decisions taken by the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer at the 

Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth 

Meetings of the Parties. EPA is also 

proposing to amend the regulatory 

framework to remove provisions related 

to sale of pre-phaseout inventory for 

critical uses. EPA is seeking comment 

on the list of critical uses, on EPA’s 

determination of the specific amounts of 

methyl bromide that may be produced 

and imported for those uses, and on the 

amendments to the regulatory 

framework. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

April 21, 2014. Any party requesting a 

public hearing must notify the contact 

person listed below by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on March 12, 2014. If a 

hearing is requested it will be held on 

March 24, 2014. EPA will post 

information regarding a hearing, if one 

is requested, on the Ozone Protection 

Web site www.epa.gov/ozone/

strathome.html. Persons interested in 

attending a public hearing should 

consult with the contact person below 

regarding the location and time of the 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0065, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Phone: (202) 566–1742. 

• U.S. Mail: Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2014–0065, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 

28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0065, EPA Docket 

Center—Public Reading Room, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0065. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The 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 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this proposed 

rule, contact Jeremy Arling by telephone 

at (202) 343–9055, or by email at 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov or by mail at U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Stratospheric Protection Division, 

Stratospheric Program Implementation 

Branch (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

You may also visit the methyl bromide 

section of the Ozone Depletion Web site 

of EPA’s Stratospheric Protection 

Division at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr for 

further information about the methyl 

bromide critical use exemption, other 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

regulations, the science of ozone layer 

depletion, and related topics. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act 

(CAA) restrictions on the consumption, 

production, and use of methyl bromide 

(a Class I, Group VI controlled 

substance) for critical uses during 

calendar years 2014 and 2015. Under 

the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide 

consumption (consumption is defined 

under section 601 of the CAA as 

production plus imports minus exports) 

and production were phased out on 

January 1, 2005, apart from allowable 

exemptions, such as the critical use and 

the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) 

exemptions. With this action, EPA is 

proposing and seeking comment on the 

uses that will qualify for the critical use 

exemption as well as specific amounts 

of methyl bromide that may be 

produced and imported for proposed 

critical uses for the 2014 and 2015 

control periods. EPA also seeks 

comment on the amendments to the 

regulatory framework to remove 

provisions related to sale of prephaseout inventory for critical uses. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

B. What Should I Consider When Preparing 

My Comments? 

II. What Is Methyl Bromide? 

III. What Is the Background to the Phaseout 

Regulations for Ozone-Depleting 

Substances? 

IV. What Is the Legal Authority for 

Exempting the Production and Import of 

Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses 

Authorized by the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol? 

V. What Is the Critical Use Exemption 

Process? 

A. A. Background of the Process 

B. How Does This Proposed Rule Relate to 

Previous Critical Use Exemption Rules? 

C. Proposed Critical Uses 

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts 

E. Amending the Critical Stock Allowance 

Framework 

F. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. 

I/4 

G. Emissions Minimization 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

13008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

Entities and categories of entities 

potentially regulated by this proposed 

action include producers, importers, 

and exporters of methyl bromide; 

applicators and distributors of methyl 

bromide; and users of methyl bromide 

that applied for the 2014 and 2015 

critical use exemption including 

growers of vegetable crops, fruits, and 

nursery stock, and owners of stored food 

commodities and structures such as 

grain mills and processors. This list is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

to provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be regulated by this 

proposed action. To determine whether 

your facility, company, business, or 

organization could be regulated by this 

proposed action, you should carefully 

examine the regulations promulgated at 

40 CFR part 82, subpart A. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding 

section. 

B. What should I consider when 

preparing my comments? 

1. Confidential Business Information. 

Do not submit confidential business 

information (CBI) to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is methyl bromide? 

Methyl bromide is an odorless, 

colorless, toxic gas which is used as a 

broad-spectrum pesticide and is 

controlled under the CAA as a Class I 

ozone-depleting substance (ODS). 

Methyl bromide was once widely used 

as a fumigant to control a variety of 

pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, 

pathogens, and nematodes. Information 

on methyl bromide can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr. 

Methyl bromide is also regulated by 

EPA under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

and other statutes and regulatory 

authority, as well as by States under 

their own statutes and regulatory 

authority. Under FIFRA, methyl 

bromide is a restricted use pesticide. 

Restricted use pesticides are subject to 

Federal and State requirements 

governing their sale, distribution, and 

use. Nothing in this proposed rule 

implementing Title VI of the Clean Air 

Act is intended to derogate from 

provisions in any other Federal, State, 

or local laws or regulations governing 

actions including, but not limited to, the 

sale, distribution, transfer, and use of 

methyl bromide. Entities affected by this 

proposal must comply with FIFRA and 

other pertinent statutory and regulatory 

requirements for pesticides (including, 

but not limited to, requirements 

pertaining to restricted use pesticides) 

when producing, importing, exporting, 

acquiring, selling, distributing, 

transferring, or using methyl bromide. 

The provisions in this proposed action 

are intended only to implement the 

CAA restrictions on the production, 

consumption, and use of methyl 

bromide for critical uses exempted from 

the phaseout of methyl bromide. 

III. What Is the background to the 

phaseout regulations for ozonedepleting substances? 

The regulatory requirements of the 

stratospheric ozone protection program 

that limit production and consumption 

of ozone-depleting substances are in 40 

CFR part 82, subpart A. The regulatory 

program was originally published in the 

Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 

FR 30566), in response to the 1987 

signing and subsequent ratification of 

the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal 

Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is the 

international agreement aimed at 

reducing and eliminating the 

production and consumption of 

stratospheric ozone-depleting 

substances. The United States was one 

of the original signatories to the 1987 

Montreal Protocol and the United States 

ratified the Protocol in 1988. Congress 

then enacted, and President George 

H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 

1990) which included Title VI on 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified 

as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, 

to ensure that the United States could 

satisfy its obligations under the 

Protocol. EPA issued regulations to 

implement this legislation and has since 

amended the regulations as needed. 

Methyl bromide was added to the 

Protocol as an ozone-depleting 

substance in 1992 through the 

Copenhagen Amendment to the 

Protocol. The Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol (Parties) agreed that each 

developed country’s level of methyl 

bromide production and consumption 

in 1991 should be the baseline for 

establishing a freeze on the level of 

methyl bromide production and 

consumption for developed countries. 

EPA published a final rule in the 

Federal Register on December 10, 1993 

(58 FR 65018), listing methyl bromide as 

a Class I, Group VI controlled substance. 

This rule froze U.S. production and 

consumption at the 1991 baseline level 

of 25,528,270 kilograms, and set forth 

the percentage of baseline allowances 

for methyl bromide granted to 

companies in each control period (each 

calendar year) until 2001, when the 

complete phaseout would occur. This 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13009 

phaseout date was established in 

response to a petition filed in 1991 

under sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of 

the CAAA of 1990, requesting that EPA 

list methyl bromide as a Class I 

substance and phase out its production 

and consumption. This date was 

consistent with section 602(d) of the 

CAAA of 1990, which, for newly listed 

Class I ozone-depleting substances 

provides that ‘‘no extension [of the 

phaseout schedule in section 604] under 

this subsection may extend the date for 

termination of production of any class I 

substance to a date more than 7 years 

after January 1 of the year after the year 

in which the substance is added to the 

list of class I substances.’’ 

At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties 

(MOP) in 1995, the Parties agreed to 

adjustments to the methyl bromide 

control measures and agreed to 

reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout 

date for developed countries with 

exemptions permitted for critical uses. 

At that time, the United States 

continued to have a 2001 phaseout date 

in accordance with section 602(d) of the 

CAAA of 1990. At the Ninth MOP in 

1997, the Parties agreed to further 

adjustments to the phaseout schedule 

for methyl bromide in developed 

countries, with reduction steps leading 

to a 2005 phaseout. The Parties also 

established a phaseout date of 2015 for 

Article 5 countries. 

IV. What is the legal authority for 

exempting the production and import of 

methyl bromide for critical uses 

authorized by the parties to the 

Montreal Protocol? 

In October 1998, the U.S. Congress 

amended the Clean Air Act to prohibit 

the termination of production of methyl 

bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to 

require EPA to align the U.S. phaseout 

of methyl bromide with the schedule 

specified under the Protocol, and to 

authorize EPA to provide certain 

exemptions. These amendments were 

contained in Section 764 of the 1999 

Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. 

L. 105–277, October 21, 1998) and were 

codified in section 604 of the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that 

specifically addresses the critical use 

exemption appears at section 604(d)(6), 

42 U.S.C. 7671c(d)(6). EPA revised the 

phaseout schedule for methyl bromide 

production and consumption in a 

rulemaking on November 28, 2000 (65 

FR 70795), which allowed for the 

reduction in methyl bromide 

consumption specified under the 

Protocol and extended the phaseout to 

2005 while creating a placeholder for 

critical use exemptions. EPA amended 

the regulations to allow for an 

exemption for quarantine and 

preshipment (QPS) purposes through an 

interim final rule on July 19, 2001 (66 

FR 37751), and a final rule on January 

2, 2003 (68 FR 238). 

On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), 

EPA published a rule (the ‘‘Framework 

Rule’’) that established the framework 

for the critical use exemption, set forth 

a list of approved critical uses for 2005, 

and specified the amount of methyl 

bromide that could be supplied in 2005 

from stocks and new production or 

import to meet the needs of approved 

critical uses. EPA subsequently 

published rules applying the critical use 

exemption framework for each of the 

annual control periods from 2006 to 

2012. In the 2013 rule, EPA amended 

the framework to remove certain 

requirements related to sale of prephaseout inventory for critical uses. 

Under authority of section 604(d)(6) 

of the CAA, EPA is proposing the uses 

that will qualify as approved critical 

uses for two separate control periods 

(2014 and 2015) as well as the amount 

of methyl bromide that may be 

produced or imported to satisfy those 

uses in each of those years. EPA is also 

proposing to amend the regulatory 

framework to remove additional 

provisions related to sale of prephaseout inventory for critical uses. The 

proposed critical uses and amounts for 

2014 reflect Decision XXIV/5, taken at 

the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the 

Parties in November 2012. The 

proposed critical uses and amounts for 

2015 reflect Decision XXV/4, taken at 

the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Parties 

in October 2013. 

In accordance with Article 2H(5) of 

the Montreal Protocol, the Parties have 

issued several Decisions pertaining to 

the critical use exemption. These 

include Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4, 

which set forth criteria for review of 

critical uses. The status of Decisions is 

addressed in NRDC v. EPA, (464 F.3d 1, 

D.C. Cir. 2006) and in EPA’s 

‘‘Supplemental Brief for the 

Respondent,’’ filed in NRDC v. EPA and 

available in the docket for this proposed 

action. In this proposed rule on critical 

uses for 2014 and 2015, EPA is honoring 

commitments made by the United States 

in the Montreal Protocol context. 

V. What is the critical use exemption 

process? 

A. Background of the Process 

Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol 

established the critical use exemption 

provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the 

Parties in 1997, the Parties established 

the criteria for an exemption in Decision 

IX/6. In that Decision, the Parties agreed 

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.’’ EPA 

promulgated these criteria in the 

definition of ‘‘critical use’’ at 40 CFR 

82.3. In addition, the Parties decided 

that production and consumption, if 

any, of methyl bromide for critical uses 

should be permitted only if a variety of 

conditions have been met, including 

that all technically and economically 

feasible steps have been taken to 

minimize the critical use and any 

associated emission of methyl bromide, 

that research programs are in place to 

develop and deploy alternatives and 

substitutes, and that methyl bromide is 

not available in sufficient quantity and 

quality from existing stocks of banked or 

recycled methyl bromide. 

EPA requested critical use exemption 

applications through Federal Register 

notices published on June 14, 2011 (76 

FR 34700) (for the 2014 control period) 

and on May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29341) (for 

the 2015 control period). Applicants 

submitted data on their use of methyl 

bromide, the technical and economic 

feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing 

research programs into the use of 

alternatives in their sector, and efforts to 

minimize use and emissions of methyl 

bromide. 

EPA reviews the data submitted by 

applicants, as well as data from 

governmental and academic sources, to 

establish whether there are technically 

and economically feasible alternatives 

available for a particular use of methyl 

bromide, and whether there would be a 

significant market disruption if no 

exemption were available. In addition, 

an interagency workgroup reviews other 

parameters of the exemption 

applications such as dosage and 

emissions minimization techniques and 

applicants’ research or transition plans. 

As required in section 604(d)(6) of the 

CAA, for each exemption period, EPA 

consults with the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

other departments and institutions of 

the Federal government that have 

regulatory authority related to methyl 

bromide. This assessment process 

culminates in the development of the 

U.S. critical use nomination (CUN). 

Annually since 2003, the U.S. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

13010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Department of State has submitted a 

CUN to the United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP) Ozone Secretariat. 

The Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee (MBTOC) and the 

Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel (TEAP), which are advisory 

bodies to Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol, review each Party’s CUN and 

make recommendations to the Parties on 

the nominations. The Parties then make 

Decisions on the authorization of 

critical use exemptions for particular 

Parties, including how much methyl 

bromide may be supplied for the 

exempted critical uses. EPA then 

provides an opportunity for public 

comment on the amounts and specific 

uses of methyl bromide that the agency 

is proposing to exempt. 

On January 31, 2012, the United 

States submitted the tenth Nomination 

for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 

America to the Ozone Secretariat of 

UNEP. This nomination contained the 

request for 2014 critical uses. In 

February 2012, MBTOC sent questions 

to the United States concerning 

technical and economic issues in the 

2014 nomination. The United States 

transmitted responses to MBTOC in 

March, 2012. In May 2012, the MBTOC 

provided their interim 

recommendations on the U.S. 

nomination in the May TEAP Progress 

Report. In that report, MBTOC posed 

questions about the U.S. nominations 

for dried fruit, dried cured ham, and 

strawberries. The United States 

responded to those questions in August 

2012. These documents, together with 

reports by the advisory bodies noted 

above, are in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. The proposed critical uses 

and amounts reflect the analysis 

contained in those documents. 

On January 24, 2013, the United 

States submitted the eleventh 

Nomination for a Critical Use 

Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the 

United States of America to the Ozone 

Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination 

contained the request for 2015 critical 

uses. In February and March 2013, 

MBTOC sent questions to the United 

States concerning technical and 

economic issues in the 2015 

nomination. The United States 

transmitted responses to MBTOC in 

March, 2013. In May 2013, the MBTOC 

provided its interim recommendations 

on the U.S. nomination in the May 

TEAP Progress Report and posed 

additional questions about the U.S. 

nominations. The United States 

responded to those questions in August 

2013. These documents, together with 

reports by the advisory bodies noted 

above, are in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. The proposed critical uses 

and amounts reflect the analyses 

contained in those documents. 

B. How does this proposed rule relate to 

previous critical use exemption rules? 

The December 23, 2004, Framework 

Rule established the framework for the 

critical use exemption program in the 

United States, including definitions, 

prohibitions, trading provisions, and 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations. 

The preamble to the Framework Rule 

included EPA’s determinations on key 

issues for the critical use exemption 

program. 

Since publishing the Framework Rule, 

EPA has annually promulgated 

regulations to exempt specific quantities 

of production and import of methyl 

bromide, to determine the amounts that 

may be supplied from pre-phaseout 

inventory, and to indicate which uses 

meet the criteria for the exemption 

program for that year. See 71 FR 5985 

(February 6, 2006), 71 FR 75386 

(December 14, 2006), 72 FR 74118 

(December 28, 2007), 74 FR 19878 

(April 30, 2009), 75 FR 23167 (May 3, 

2010), 76 FR 60737 (September 30, 

2011), 77 FR 29218 (May 17, 2012), and 

78 FR 43797 (July 22, 2013). 

Unlike in previous years, EPA today 

proposes critical uses for both 2014 and 

2015. EPA is proposing to do so to 

expedite the issuance of 2015 

allowances. EPA has received repeated 

comments in recent years that a failure 

to issue CUE allowances in a timely 

fashion places manufacturers and 

distributors, who need to plan for the 

upcoming growing season, in a difficult 

position. For 2013, the final rule was 

not effective until July 22, 2013, and 

EPA recognizes that this late date could 

cause difficulties for growers as well as 

manufacturers and distributors. EPA 

seeks to avoid such difficulties for 2015 

by issuing the authorization for that year 

in this rulemaking. 

Today’s proposed action continues 

the approach established in the 2013 

rule for determining the amounts of 

Critical Use Allowances (CUAs) to be 

allocated for critical uses. A CUA is the 

privilege granted through 40 CFR part 

82 to produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) 

of methyl bromide for an approved 

critical use during the specified control 

period. A control period is a calendar 

year. See 40 CFR 82.3. The two control 

periods at issue in this rule are 2014 and 

2015. Each year’s allowances expire at 

the end of that control period and, as 

explained in the Framework Rule, are 

not bankable from one year to the next. 

The 2013 Rule also removed from the 

regulatory framework the restriction that 

limits the sale of inventory for critical 

uses through allocations of Critical 

Stock Allowances (CSA). A CSA was the 

right granted through 40 CFR part 82 to 

sell 1 kg of methyl bromide from 

inventory produced or imported prior to 

the January 1, 2005, phaseout date for 

an approved critical use during the 

specified control period. Under the 

framework, the sale of pre-phaseout 

inventories for critical uses in excess of 

the amount of CSAs held by the seller 

was prohibited. Today, EPA is 

proposing to remove all of the 

remaining provisions in 40 CFR part 82 

related to critical stock allowances. 

C. Proposed Critical Uses 

In Decision XXIV/5, taken in 

November 2012, the Parties to the 

Protocol agreed ‘‘to permit, for the 

agreed critical-use categories for 2014 

set forth in table A of the annex to the 

present decision for each party, subject 

to the conditions set forth in the present 

decision and in decision Ex.I/4 to the 

extent that those conditions are 

applicable, the levels of production and 

consumption for 2014 set forth in table 

B of the annex to the present decision, 

which are necessary to satisfy critical 

uses . . .’’ The following uses are those 

set forth in table A of the annex to 

Decision XXIV/5 for the United States: 

• Commodities 

• Mills and food processing structures 

• Cured pork 

• Strawberry—field 

In Decision XXV/4, taken in October 

2013, the Parties to the Protocol agreed 

‘‘[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use 

categories for 2015 set forth in table A 

of the annex to the present decision for 

each party, subject to the conditions set 

forth in the present decision and in 

decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those 

conditions are applicable, the levels of 

production and consumption for 2015 

set forth in table B of the annex to the 

present decision, which are necessary to 

satisfy critical uses . . .’’ The following 

uses are those set forth in table A of the 

annex to Decision XXV/4 for the United 

States: 

• Cured pork 

• Strawberry—field 

EPA is proposing to modify the table 

in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix 

L to reflect the agreed critical use 

categories identified in Decision 

XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/4. EPA is 

proposing to amend the table of critical 

uses and critical users based on the 

authorizations in Decision XXIV/5 and 

Decision XXV/4 and the technical 

analyses contained in the 2014 and 2015 

U.S. nominations that assess data 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13011 

submitted by applicants to the CUE 

program. 

EPA is seeking comment on the 

technical analyses contained in the U.S. 

nominations (available for public review 

in the docket). Specifically, EPA 

requests information regarding any 

changes to the registration (including 

cancellations or registrations), use, or 

efficacy of alternatives that have 

occurred after the nominations were 

submitted. EPA recognizes that as the 

market for alternatives evolves, the 

thresholds for what constitutes 

‘‘significant market disruption’’ or 

‘‘technical and economic feasibility’’ 

may change. Such information has the 

potential to alter the technical or 

economic feasibility of an alternative 

and could thus cause EPA to modify the 

analysis that underpins EPA’s 

determination as to which uses and 

what amounts of methyl bromide 

qualify for the CUE. 

The following are proposed changes 

to the existing appendix, starting with 

changes due to the applications and 

analysis conducted for the 2014 control 

period. For 2014, EPA is proposing to 

remove Georgia growers of cucurbits, 

eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes. These 

groups did not submit applications for 

2014 and therefore were not included in 

the 2014 U.S. nomination. 

EPA is proposing to remove sectors or 

users that applied for a critical use in 

2014 but that the United States did not 

nominate for 2014. EPA conducted a 

thorough technical assessment of each 

application and considered the effects 

that the loss of methyl bromide would 

have for each agricultural sector, and 

whether significant market disruption 

would occur as a result. As a result of 

this technical review, the United States 

Government (USG) determined that 

certain sectors or users did not meet the 

critical use criteria in Decision IX/6 and 

the United States therefore did not 

include them in the 2014 Critical Use 

Nomination. EPA notified these sectors 

of their status by letters dated February 

7, 2012. These sectors are orchard 

replant for California wine grape 

growers and Florida growers of 

eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes. For 

each of these uses, EPA found that there 

are technically and economically 

feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. 

Some sectors that were not included 

in the 2014 Critical Use Nomination 

submitted supplemental applications for 

2014. These sectors are: The California 

Association of Nursery and Garden 

Centers; California stone fruit, table and 

raisin grape, walnut, and almond 

growers; ornamental growers in 

California and Florida; California 

strawberry nurseries; stored walnuts; 

and the U.S. Golf Course 

Superintendents Association. For those 

sectors the USG came to a decision that 

the sectors not nominated have not 

provided rigorous and convincing 

evidence that they meet the criteria laid 

out in Decision IX/6, and further that no 

new problem or large yield/quality loss 

had been demonstrated that warranted 

seeking a supplemental authorization 

from the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

The following are proposed changes 

to the existing appendix due to the 

applications and analysis conducted for 

the 2015 control period. For 2015 EPA 

is proposing to remove California wine 

grape growers and Florida growers of 

eggplants, peppers, tomatoes, and 

strawberries. These groups did not 

submit applications for 2015 and 

therefore were not included in the 2015 

U.S. nomination. 

EPA is proposing to remove sectors or 

users that applied for a critical use in 

2015 but that the United States did not 

nominate for 2015. As described above 

EPA conducted a thorough technical 

assessment of each application and the 

USG determined that certain sectors or 

users did not meet the critical use 

criteria. EPA notified these sectors of 

their status by letters dated March 26, 

2013. These sectors are rice millers, pet 

food manufacturing facilities, members 

of the North American Millers 

Association, and California entities 

storing walnuts, dried plums, figs, and 

raisins. In addition, EPA is proposing to 

remove entities storing dates as a critical 

use for 2015. While the United States 

nominated this sector for 2015, MBTOC 

did not recommend that this sector be 

a critical use in 2015 and the Parties did 

not authorize this use. 

EPA has received supplemental 

applications for 2015 from sectors that 

the United States did not nominate for 

2015. These sectors are: Michigan 

cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato 

growers; Florida eggplant, pepper, 

tomato, and strawberry growers; the 

California Association of Nursery and 

Garden Centers; California stone fruit, 

table and raisin grape, walnut, and 

almond growers; ornamental growers in 

California and Florida; the U.S. Golf 

Course Superintendents Association; 

and stored walnuts, dried plums, figs, 

and raisins in California. The USG is 

currently reviewing these supplemental 

applications for 2015 and EPA is not 

proposing at this time to authorize 

critical use for these sectors. EPA is not 

proposing at this time to authorize 

critical use for these sectors but may 

take future action as appropriate. 

Finally, EPA is adding information to 

Column B of appendix L to clarify 

which critical uses are approved for 

which control periods. EPA is not 

proposing other changes to the table but 

is repeating the following clarifications 

made in previous years for ease of 

reference. The ‘‘local township limits 

prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene’’ are 

prohibitions on the use of 1,3- 

dichloropropene products in cases 

where local township limits on use of 

this alternative have been reached. In 

addition, ‘‘pet food’’ under subsection B 

of Food Processing refers to food for 

domesticated dogs and cats. Finally, 

‘‘rapid fumigation’’ for commodities 

refers to instances in which a buyer 

provides short (two working days or 

fewer) notification for a purchase or 

there is a short period after harvest in 

which to fumigate and there is limited 

silo availability for using alternatives. 

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts 

Table A of the annex to Decision 

XXIV/5 lists critical uses and amounts 

agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol for 2014. The maximum 

amount of new production and import 

for U.S. critical uses, specified in Table 

B of Decision XXIV/5, is 442,337 kg, 

minus available stocks. This figure is 

equivalent to 1.7% of the U.S. 1991 

methyl bromide consumption baseline 

of 25,528,270 kg. 

Similarly, Table A of the annex to 

Decision XXV/4 lists critical uses and 

amounts agreed to by the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol for 2015. The 

maximum amount of new production 

and import for U.S. critical uses, 

specified in Table B of Decision XXV/ 

4, is 376,900 kg, minus available stocks. 

This figure is equivalent to 1.5% of the 

U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption 

baseline. 

For 2014 and 2015, EPA is proposing 

to determine the level of new 

production and import according to the 

framework and as modified by the 2013 

Rule. Under this approach, the amount 

of new production for each control 

period would equal the total amount 

authorized by the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol in their Decisions 

minus any reductions for available 

stocks, carryover, and the uptake of 

alternatives. These terms (available 

stocks, carryover, and the uptake of 

alternatives) are discussed in detail 

below. As established in the 2013 Rule, 

EPA would not allocate critical stock 

allowances. EPA would still determine 

whether there are any ‘‘available stocks’’ 

and reduce the new production 

allocation by that amount. Applying this 

approach, EPA is proposing to allocate 

allowances to exempt 442,337 kg of new 

production and import of methyl 

bromide for critical uses in 2014 and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

13012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

376,900 kg of new production and 

import for 2015. 

Available Stocks: For 2014 and 2015 

the Parties indicated that the United 

States should use ‘‘available stocks,’’ but 

did not indicate a minimum amount 

expected to be taken from stocks. 

Consistent with EPA’s past practice, 

EPA is considering what amount, if any, 

of the existing stocks may be available 

to critical users during 2014 and 2015. 

The amount of existing stocks reported 

to EPA as of December 31, 2012, was 

627,066 kg. 

The Parties to the Protocol recognized 

in their Decisions that the level of 

existing stocks may differ from the level 

of available stocks. Both Decision XXIV/ 

5 and Decision XXV/4 state that 

‘‘production and consumption of methyl 

bromide for critical uses should be 

permitted only if methyl bromide is not 

available in sufficient quantity and 

quality from existing stocks. . . .’’ In 

addition, the Decisions recognize that 

‘‘parties operating under critical-use 

exemptions should take into account the 

extent to which methyl bromide is 

available in sufficient quantity and 

quality from existing stocks. . . .’’ 

Earlier Decisions also refer to the use of 

‘‘quantities of methyl bromide from 

stocks that the Party has recognized to 

be available.’’ Thus, it is clear that 

individual Parties may determine their 

level of available stocks. Section 

604(d)(6) of the CAA does not require 

EPA to adjust the amount of new 

production and import to reflect the 

availability of stocks; however, as 

explained in previous rulemakings, 

making such an adjustment is a 

reasonable exercise of EPA’s discretion 

under this provision. 

In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, 

July 22, 2013), EPA established an 

approach that considered whether a 

percentage of the existing inventory was 

available. In that rule, EPA took 

comment on whether 0% or 5% of the 

existing stocks was available. The final 

rule found that 0% was available to be 

allocated for critical use in 2013 for a 

number of reasons including: A pattern 

of significant underestimation of 

inventory drawdown; the increasing 

concentration of critical users in 

California while inventory remained 

distributed nationwide; and the 

recognition that the agency cannot 

compel distributors to sell inventory to 

critical users. For further discussion, 

please see the 2013 CUE Rule. EPA 

believes these circumstances remain 

true for 2014 and 2015. 

In addition, the 2013 CUE Rule 

removed the restriction that critical 

stock allowances be expended to sell 

inventory to critical uses. As a result, for 

the first time in the history of the CUE 

program, distributors were free to sell 

their entire remaining inventory to 

critical users. At this time, EPA is 

unable to calculate what effect this 

policy change may have had on the 

remaining inventory, although the 

agency will docket end of year 

inventory data that will be reported to 

EPA in February 2014. EPA notes that 

it may be difficult to assess the impact 

of this change, which went into effect in 

mid-2013, simply from updated 

inventory data. EPA solicits comments 

on whether, and how, to draw 

inferences as to the availability of stocks 

for critical uses based on inventory 

figures as of December 31, 2013, (e.g., 

whether the magnitude of the reduction 

in pre-phaseout stocks could be 

evidence of the degree of availability for 

critical uses). 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

find 0% of the existing inventory 

available for 2014 and 2015. EPA 

specifically invites comment on 

whether 0% or 5% of existing inventory 

will be available to critical users in 2014 

and/or 2015, taking into consideration 

the recent history of inventory 

drawdown, the removal of the critical 

stock allowance provisions, the quantity 

and geographical location of authorized 

uses, and the quantity and location of 

stocks. 

Existing stocks, as of December 31, 

2012, were equal to 627,066 kg. 

Therefore, 5% would be 31,353 kg. 

Were EPA to find 5% of existing stocks 

to be available, EPA would reduce the 

amount of new production for 2014 

and/or for 2015 by 31,353 kg. EPA notes 

that it is not proposing to allocate a 

corresponding amount of critical stock 

allowances, as had been the case prior 

to 2013. EPA removed the requirement 

to expend critical stock allowances 

when selling inventory to critical users 

in the 2013 CUE Rule. EPA notes that 

it will receive updated end of year 

inventory data in February 2014. EPA 

anticipates that inventory will have 

been further drawn down, and therefore 

5% of the existing stocks, based on the 

updated data, is likely to be 

significantly less than 31,353 kg. EPA 

solicits comment on whether, if EPA 

concludes some portion of existing 

stocks are ‘‘available,’’ EPA should 

calculate the portion that is available for 

2014 and/or 2015 based on the updated 

data for inventory as of December 31, 

2013. 

Carryover Material: The Parties in 

paragraph 9 of Decision XXIV/5 ‘‘urge 

parties operating under critical-use 

exemptions to put in place effective 

systems to discourage the accumulation 

of methyl bromide produced under the 

exemptions.’’ EPA regulations prohibit 

methyl bromide produced or imported 

after January 1, 2005, under the critical 

use exemption from being added to the 

existing pre-2005 inventory. Quantities 

of methyl bromide produced, imported, 

exported, or sold to end-users under the 

critical use exemption in a control 

period must be reported to EPA the 

following year. EPA uses these reports 

to calculate the amount of methyl 

bromide produced or imported under 

the critical use exemption, but not 

exported or sold to end-users in that 

year. EPA deducts an amount equivalent 

to this ‘‘carryover’’ from the total level 

of allowable new production and import 

in the year following the year of the data 

report. So for example, the amount of 

carryover from 2012 is factored into the 

determination for 2014. Carryover 

material (which is produced using 

critical use allowances) is not included 

in EPA’s definition of existing inventory 

(which applies to pre-2005 material) 

because this would lead to a doublecounting of carryover amounts. 

All critical use methyl bromide that 

companies reported to be produced or 

imported in 2012 was sold to end users. 

759 MT of critical use methyl bromide 

was produced or imported in 2012. 

Slightly more than the amount 

produced or imported was actually sold 

to end-users. This additional amount 

was from distributors selling material 

that was carried over from the prior 

control period. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to apply the carryover 

deduction of 0 kg to the new production 

amount for 2014. EPA’s calculation of 

the amount of carryover at the end of 

2012 is consistent with the method used 

in previous CUE rules, and with the 

format in Decision XVI/6 for calculating 

column L of the U.S. Accounting 

Framework. Past U.S. Accounting 

Frameworks, including the one for 2012, 

are available in the public docket for 

this rulemaking. 

Production, import, and sales data for 

2013 will be reported to EPA in 

February 2014. Without these data, the 

agency is unable to calculate how, or 

whether, a reduction for carryover 

would affect the 2015 allocation 

amount. However, EPA anticipates that 

the carryover will remain 0 kg, as it has 

been at that level since 2009. Based on 

information available, EPA believes that 

the demand for critical use methyl 

bromide continues to be high and all 

material produced or imported for a 

particular control period is sold in that 

control period. Therefore, while the 

proposed allocation amount for 2015 

assumes 0 kg of carryover in 2013, EPA 

proposes to use the reported data to 

calculate the actual carryover amount 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13013 

1This provision allows any critical stock 

allowance holder (‘‘transferror’’) to transfer critical 

stock allowances to any critical stock allowance 

holder or any methyl bromide producer, importer, 

distributor, or third party applicator (‘‘transferee’’). 

for 2013, and subtract that amount (if 

any) from the authorization for new 

production and import in the final rule. 

Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers 

data on the availability of alternatives 

that it receives following submission of 

each nomination to UNEP. In previous 

rules EPA has reduced the total CUE 

amount when a new alternative has 

been registered and increased the new 

production amount when an alternative 

is withdrawn, but not above the amount 

authorized by the Parties. 

Since the United States submitted the 

2014 CUN on January 31, 2012, the 

California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation has proposed control 

measures for the use of chloropicrin 

with the intent of reducing risk from 

acute exposures that might occur near 

fields fumigated with products 

containing chloropicrin. Because this 

regulation is at the proposed stage and 

has not been finalized, EPA is unable to 

state what effects these changes may 

have on the availability of methyl 

bromide alternatives for 2014. It is more 

likely that the proposed changes to the 

chloropicrin regulation would affect the 

2015 control period and EPA 

specifically invites comments on the 

implications for 2015. However EPA is 

not proposing to make any reductions 

for either the 2014 or 2015 control 

periods because of these uncertainties. 

The critical use exemption program has 

historically only relied on final actions 

when determining the availability of 

alternatives. EPA is not aware of any 

other actions regarding alternatives that 

would lead to either an increase or 

decrease in 2014 and 2015. 

EPA is not proposing to make any 

other modifications to CUE amounts to 

account for availability of alternatives. 

Rates of transition to alternatives have 

already been applied for authorized 

2014 and 2015 critical use amounts 

through the nomination and 

authorization process. EPA will 

consider new data received during the 

comment period and continues to gather 

information about methyl bromide 

alternatives through the CUE 

application process, and by other 

means. EPA also continues to support 

research and adoption of methyl 

bromide alternatives, and to request 

information about the economic and 

technical feasibility of all existing and 

potential alternatives. 

Allocation Amounts: EPA is 

proposing to allocate 2014 critical use 

allowances for new production or 

import of methyl bromide equivalent to 

442,337 kg. Because EPA is taking 

comment on finding 5% of existing 

inventory to be available, EPA is also 

taking comment on an allocation of 

410,984 kg. EPA is also proposing to 

allocate 2015 critical use allowances for 

new production or import of methyl 

bromide equivalent to 376,900 kg. EPA 

is also taking comment on whether it 

should find 5% of existing inventory to 

be available, which would result in an 

allocation of 345,547 kg. EPA is taking 

further comment on whether, if EPA 

concludes some portion of existing 

stocks are ‘‘available,’’ EPA should 

calculate the portion that is available for 

2014 and/or 2015 based on the updated 

data for inventory to be submitted in 

February 2014. 

EPA is proposing to allocate the 2014 

and 2015 allowances to the four 

companies that hold baseline 

allowances. The proposed allocations, 

as in previous years, are in proportion 

to those baseline amounts, as shown in 

the proposed changes to the table in 40 

CFR 82.8(c)(1). Paragraph 3 of Decision 

XXIV/5 and paragraph 5 of Decision 

XXV/4 state that ‘‘parties shall 

endeavour to license, permit, authorize 

or allocate quantities of methyl bromide 

for critical uses as listed in table A of 

the annex to the present decision.’’ This 

is similar to language in prior Decisions 

authorizing critical uses. These 

Decisions call on Parties to endeavor to 

allocate critical use methyl bromide on 

a sector basis. The proposed Framework 

Rule contained several options for 

allocating critical use allowances, 

including a sector-by-sector approach. 

The agency evaluated various options 

based on their economic, 

environmental, and practical effects. 

After receiving comments, EPA 

determined in the final Framework Rule 

that a lump-sum, or universal, 

allocation, modified to include distinct 

caps for pre-plant and post-harvest uses, 

was the most efficient and least 

burdensome approach that would 

achieve the desired environmental 

results, and that a sector-by-sector 

approach would pose significant 

administrative and practical difficulties. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble to the 2009 CUE rule (74 FR 

19894), and because of the limited 

number of authorized uses, the agency 

believes that under the approach 

adopted in the Framework Rule, the 

actual critical use will closely follow the 

sector breakout listed in the Parties’ 

decisions. 

E. Amending the Critical Stock 

Allowance Framework 

The 2013 Rule removed the 

provisions at § 82.4(p)(ii) and (iii) 

requiring the use of critical stock 

allowances for sales of inventory to 

critical users. In addition, EPA made 

some necessary conforming changes to 

40 CFR Part 82, which follow from 

removing those restrictions including 

removing the reference to the restriction 

on selling inventory pursuant to a CSA 

from the definition of ‘‘critical use 

methyl bromide.’’ 

The 2013 Rule also stated that EPA 

believed additional conforming changes 

may be appropriate but that it would 

address those changes in a future 

rulemaking. Today EPA is proposing 

and taking comment on removing the 

remaining references to critical stock 

allowances in 40 CFR Part 82. EPA 

believes these provisions are no longer 

necessary if the agency is not allocating 

separate critical stock allowances. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

remove the definitions of ‘‘critical stock 

allowance,’’ ‘‘critical stock allowance 

holder,’’ and ‘‘unexpended critical stock 

allowance’’ from § 82.3. EPA is 

proposing to no longer allow for the 

intercompany transfer of critical stock 

allowances at § 82.12(a) 1 or the 

exchange of critical use allowances for 

critical stock allowances at § 82.12(e). 

EPA is also proposing to remove the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements related to critical stock 

allowances in § 82.13(3) and (4). EPA 

invites comment on the necessity of 

these provisions, the appropriateness of 

removing them from the Code of Federal 

Regulations, and whether there are other 

provisions that should be amended in 

light of the removal of the requirement 

to use critical stock allowances for sales 

of inventory to critical users. 

In 2013 EPA held discussions with 

USDA and the Department 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 other things, the 

findings of those discussions and noted 

that the three agencies had not yet 

identified any specific situations that 

could not be addressed by current 

mechanisms. The U.S. government is 

committed to using flexibility in the 

Protocol’s existing mechanisms as an 

avenue to address changes in national 

circumstance that affect the transition to 

alternatives. EPA welcomes comments 

on specific emergency situations that 

may necessitate the use of methyl 

bromide, consistent with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

13014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of the Montreal Protocol, 

and which could be difficult to address 

using current tools and authorities. 

F. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. 

I/4 

Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/ 

4 call on Parties to apply the conditions 

and criteria listed in Decisions Ex. I/4 

(to the extent applicable) and IX/6 

paragraph 1 to exempted critical uses 

for the 2014 and 2015 control periods. 

A discussion of the agency’s application 

of the criteria in paragraph 1 of Decision 

IX/6 appears in sections V.A., and V.C. 

of this preamble. Section V.C. solicits 

comments on the technical and 

economic basis for determining that the 

uses listed in this proposed rule meet 

the criteria of the critical use exemption. 

The CUNs detail how each proposed 

critical use meets the criteria in 

paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6, apart from 

the criterion located at (b)(ii), as well as 

the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of 

Decision Ex. I/4. 

The criterion in Decision IX/6 

paragraph (1)(b)(ii), which refers to the 

use of available stocks of methyl 

bromide, is addressed in section V.D. of 

this preamble. The agency has 

previously provided its interpretation of 

the criterion in Decision IX/6 paragraph 

(1)(a)(i) regarding the presence of 

significant market disruption in the 

absence of an exemption. EPA refers 

readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE 

rule (71 FR 5989, February 6, 2006) as 

well as to the memo in the docket titled 

‘‘Development of 2003 Nomination for a 

Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 

America’’ for further elaboration. As 

explained in those documents, EPA’s 

interpretation of this term has several 

dimensions, including looking at 

potential effects on both demand and 

supply for a commodity, evaluating 

potential losses at both an individual 

level and at an aggregate level, and 

evaluating potential losses in both 

relative and absolute terms. 

The remaining considerations are 

addressed in the nomination documents 

including: The lack of available 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives under the circumstance of 

the nomination; efforts to minimize use 

and emissions of methyl bromide where 

technically and economically feasible; 

the development of research and 

transition plans; and the requests in 

Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that 

Parties consider and implement MBTOC 

recommendations, where feasible, on 

reductions in the critical use of methyl 

bromide and include information on the 

methodology they use to determine 

economic feasibility. 

Some of these criteria are evaluated in 

other documents as well. For example, 

the United States has considered the 

adoption of alternatives and research 

into methyl bromide alternatives (see 

Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(b)(iii)) in 

the development of the National 

Management Strategy submitted to the 

Ozone Secretariat in December 2005, 

updated in October 2009. The National 

Management Strategy addresses all of 

the aims specified in Decision Ex.I/4 

paragraph 3 to the extent feasible and is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

There continues to be a need for 

methyl bromide in order to conduct the 

research required by Decision IX/6. A 

common example is an outdoor field 

experiment that requires methyl 

bromide as a standard control treatment 

with which to compare the trial 

alternatives’ results. As discussed in the 

preamble to the 2010 CUE rule (75 FR 

23179, May 3, 2010), research is a key 

element of the critical use process. 

Research on the crops shown in the 

table in Appendix L to subpart A 

remains a critical use of methyl 

bromide. While researchers may 

continue to use newly produced 

material for field, post-harvest, and 

emission minimization studies requiring 

the use of methyl bromide, EPA 

encourages researchers to use prephaseout inventory. EPA also 

encourages distributors to make 

inventory available to researchers, to 

promote the continuing effort to assist 

growers to transition critical use crops 

to alternatives. 

G. Emissions Minimization 

Previous Decisions of the Parties have 

stated that critical users shall employ 

emission minimization techniques such 

as virtually impermeable films, barrier 

film technologies, deep shank injection 

and/or other techniques that promote 

environmental protection, whenever 

technically and economically feasible. 

EPA developed a comprehensive 

strategy for risk mitigation through the 

2009 Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

(RED) for methyl bromide, which is 

implemented through restrictions on 

how methyl bromide products can be 

used. This approach means that methyl 

bromide labels require that treated sites 

be tarped (except for California orchard 

replant where EPA instead requires 

deep (18 inches or greater) shank 

applications). The RED also 

incorporated incentives for applicators 

to use high-barrier tarps, such as 

virtually impermeable film (VIF), by 

allowing smaller buffer zones around 

those sites. In addition to minimizing 

emissions, use of high-barrier tarps has 

the benefit of providing pest control at 

lower application rates. The amount of 

methyl bromide nominated by the 

United States reflects the lower 

application rates necessary when using 

high-barrier tarps, where such tarps are 

allowed. 

EPA will continue to work with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture— 

Agricultural Research Service (USDA– 

ARS) and the National Institute for Food 

and Agriculture (USDA–NIFA) to 

promote emission reduction techniques. 

The federal government has invested 

substantial resources into developing 

and implementing best practices for 

methyl bromide use, including emission 

reduction practices. The Cooperative 

Extension System, which receives some 

support from USDA–NIFA provides 

locally appropriate and project-focused 

outreach education regarding methyl 

bromide transition best practices. 

Additional information on USDA 

research on alternatives and emissions 

reduction can be found at: http://

www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/

programs.htm?NP_CODE=308 and 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/

methylbromideicgp.cfm. 

Users of methyl bromide should 

continue to make every effort to 

minimize overall emissions of methyl 

bromide. EPA also encourages 

researchers and users who are using 

such techniques to inform EPA of their 

experiences and to provide such 

information with their critical use 

applications. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

proposal is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it was deemed to raise 

novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to interagency 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

application, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements have already 

been established under previous critical 

use exemption rulemakings. This rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13015 

does propose to remove requirements 

related to the recordkeeping and 

reporting of critical stock allowances 

which would decrease the information 

collection burden. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0482. The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201 (see Table below); (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

Category NAICS code 

NAICS small 

business size 

standard 

in number of 

employees or 

millions of 

dollars) 

Agricultural production ............................................ 1112—Vegetable and Melon farming ....................................................... $0.75 million. 

1113—Fruit and Nut Tree Farming.

1114—Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production.

Storage Uses .......................................................... 115114—Postharvest Crop activities (except Cotton Ginning) ................ $7 million. 

311211—Flour Milling ............................................................................... 500 employees. 

311212—Rice Milling ................................................................................ 500 employees. 

493110—General Warehousing and Storage ........................................... $25.5 million. 

493130—Farm Product Warehousing and Storage .................................. $25.5 million. 

Distributors and Applicators ................................... 115112—Soil Preparation, Planting and Cultivating ................................. $7 million. 

Producers and Importers ........................................ 325320—Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing ........ 500 employees. 

Agricultural producers of minor crops 

and entities that store agricultural 

commodities are categories of affected 

entities that contain small entities. This 

proposed rule would only affect entities 

that applied to EPA for an exemption to 

the phaseout of methyl bromide. In most 

cases, EPA received aggregated requests 

for exemptions from industry consortia. 

On the exemption application, EPA 

asked consortia to describe the number 

and size distribution of entities their 

application covered. EPA estimated that 

3,218 entities petitioned EPA for an 

exemption for the 2005 control period. 

EPA revised this estimate in 2011 down 

to 1,800 end users of critical use methyl 

bromide. EPA believes that the number 

continues to decline as growers cease 

applying for the critical use exemption. 

Since many applicants did not provide 

information on the distribution of sizes 

of entities covered in their applications, 

EPA estimated that, based on the above 

definition, between one-fourth and onethird of the entities may be small 

businesses. In addition, other categories 

of affected entities do not contain small 

businesses based on the above 

description. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603–604). Thus, an agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves a regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. Since this rule would allow the use 

of methyl bromide for approved critical 

uses after the phaseout date of January 

1, 2005, this action would confer a 

benefit to users of methyl bromide. EPA 

estimates in the Regulatory Impact 

Assessment found in the docket to this 

rule that the reduced costs resulting 

from the de-regulatory creation of the 

exemption are approximately $22 

million to $31 million on an annual 

basis (using a 3% or 7% discount rate 

respectively). We have therefore 

concluded that this proposed rule 

would relieve regulatory burden for all 

small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Instead, this action 

would provide an exemption for the 

manufacture and use of a phased out 

compound and would not impose any 

new requirements on any entities. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

13016 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

rule is expected to affect producers, 

suppliers, importers, and exporters and 

users of methyl bromide. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed 

action from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This rule does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Indian tribal governments nor does it 

impose any enforceable duties on 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order No. 13045: 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

rule affects the level of environmental 

protection equally for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This proposed rule does not pertain to 

any segment of the energy production 

economy nor does it regulate any 

manner of energy use. Therefore, we 

have concluded that this proposed rule 

is not likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations, 

because it affects the level of 

environmental protection equally for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

Any ozone depletion that results from 

this proposed rule will impact all 

affected populations equally because 

ozone depletion is a global 

environmental problem with 

environmental and human effects that 

are, in general, equally distributed 

across geographical regions in the 

United States. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Exports, Imports, Ozone depletion. 

Dated: February 14, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7671q. 

§ 82.3 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 82.3 by removing the 

definitions for ‘‘Critical stock allowance 

(CSA)’’, ‘‘Critical stock allowance (CSA) 

holder’’ and ‘‘Unexpended critical stock 

allowance (CSA)’’. 

■ 3. Amend § 82.8 by revising the table 

in paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances 

and critical use allowances. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Company 

2014 Critical use 

allowances for 

pre-plant uses * 

(kilograms) 

2014 Critical use 

allowances for 

post-harvest uses * 

(kilograms) 

2015 Critical use 

allowances for 

pre-plant uses * 

(kilograms) 

2015 Critical use 

allowances for 

post-harvest uses * 

(kilograms) 

Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company ...... 252,236 16,572 227,073 1,969 

Albemarle Corp ................................................................ 103,725 6,815 93,378 810 

ICL–IP America ................................................................ 57,321 3,766 51,602 447 

TriCal, Inc ........................................................................ 1,785 117 1,607 14 

Total .......................................................................... 415,067 27,270 373,660 3,240 

* For production or import of Class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendix L 

to this subpart for the appropriate control period. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 13017 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 82.12 by revising 

paragraph (a) and removing paragraph 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 82.12 Transfers of allowances for class I 

controlled substances. 

(a) Inter-company transfers. (1) Until 

January 1, 1996, for all class I controlled 

substances, except for Group VI, and 

until January 1, 2005, for Group VI, any 

person (‘‘transferor’’) may transfer to 

any other person (‘‘transferee’’) any 

amount of the transferor’s consumption 

allowances or production allowances, 

and effective January 1, 1995, for all 

class I controlled substances any person 

(‘‘transferor’’) may transfer to any other 

person (‘‘transferee’’) any amount of the 

transferor’s Article 5 allowances. After 

January 1, 2002, any essential-use 

allowance holder (including those 

persons that hold essential-use 

allowances issued by a Party other than 

the United States) (‘‘transferor’’) may 

transfer essential-use allowances for 

CFCs to a metered dose inhaler 

company solely for the manufacture of 

essential MDIs. After January 1, 2005, 

any critical use allowance holder 

(‘‘transferor’’) may transfer critical use 

allowances to any other person 

(‘‘transferee’’). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 82.13 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (f)(3)(iv) and 

(g)(4)(vii); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(bb)(2)(iv) and (cc)(2)(iv) 

The revised text reads as follows. 

§ 82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for class I controlled 

substances. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) The producer’s total of expended 

and unexpended production 

allowances, consumption allowances, 

Article 5 allowances, critical use 

allowances (pre-plant), critical use 

allowances (post-harvest), and amount 

of essential-use allowances and 

destruction and transformation credits 

conferred at the end of that quarter; 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(vii) The importer’s total sum of 

expended and unexpended 

consumption allowances by chemical as 

of the end of that quarter and the total 

sum of expended and unexpended 

critical use allowances (pre-plant) and 

unexpended critical use allowances 

(post-harvest); 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend Subpart A by revising 

Appendix L to read as follows: 

Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82— 

Approved Critical Uses and Limiting 

Critical Conditions for Those Uses for 

the 2014 and 2015 Control Periods 

Column A Column B Column C 

Approved critical 

uses Approved critical user, location of use, and control period 

Limiting critical conditions that exist, or that the approved 

critical user reasonably expects could arise without methyl 

bromide fumigation: 

PRE-PLANT USES 

Strawberry Fruit ........ California growers. Control periods 2014 and 2015 ............. Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot. 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

POST-HARVEST USES 

Food Processing ...... (a) Rice millers in the U.S. who are members of the USA 

Rice Millers Association. Control period 2014.

Moderate to severe beetle, weevil, or moth infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion. 

(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U.S. who are 

members of the Pet Food Institute. Control period 2014.

Moderate to severe beetle, moth, or cockroach infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion. 

(c) Members of the North American Millers’ Association in 

the U.S. Control period 2014.

Moderate to severe beetle infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion. 

Commodities ............ California entities storing walnuts, dried plums, figs, raisins, 

and dates (in Riverside county only) in California. Control 

period 2014.

Rapid fumigation required to meet a critical market window, 

such as during the holiday season. 

Dry Cured Pork 

Products.

Members of the National Country Ham Association and the 

Association of Meat Processors, Nahunta Pork Center 

(North Carolina), and Gwaltney and Smithfield Inc. Control periods 2014 and 2015.

Red legged ham beetle infestation. 

Cheese/ham skipper infestation. 

Dermested beetle infestation. 

Ham mite infestation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04882 Filed 3–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

45 CFR Part 1626 

Restrictions on Legal Assistance to 

Aliens 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 

ACTION: Proposed program letter. 

SUMMARY: This proposed program letter 

serves as a companion to 45 CFR part 

1626. The proposed program letter 

should have been published in the 

Federal Register with the further notice 

of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) on 

February 5, 2014, 79 FR 6859. LSC seeks 

comments on the proposed program 

letter. Additional information on the 

request for comments is located in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

program letter are due April 7, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be 

submitted to Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant 

General Counsel, Legal Services 

Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20007; (202) 337–6519 

(fax) or 1626rulemaking@lsc.gov. 

Electronic submissions are preferred via 

email with attachments in Acrobat PDF 

format. Written comments sent to any 

other address or received after the end 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS