Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 43797 

deviation, call or email David H. 

Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh 

Coast Guard District; telephone 510– 

437–3516, email 

David.H.Sulouff@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City 

of San Francisco Public Works 

Department has requested a temporary 

change to the operation of the Third 

Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China 

Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The 

drawbridge navigation span provides 7 

feet vertical clearance above Mean High 

Water in the closed-to-navigation 

position. The draw opens on signal if at 

least one hour notice is given as 

required by 33 CFR 117.149. Navigation 

on the waterway is recreational. 

The drawspan will be secured in the 

closed-to-navigation position 6 a.m. to 

11:30 a.m. on August 4, 2013, to allow 

runners to participate in the Giant Race 

event. This temporary deviation has 

been coordinated with the waterway 

users. No objections to the proposed 

temporary deviation were raised. The 

drawspan can be operated upon one 

hour advance notice for emergencies 

requiring the passage of waterway 

traffic. 

No alternative route is available for 

mariners. Vessels that can transit the 

bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation 

position, may continue to do so at any 

time. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: June 19, 2013. 

D.H. Sulouff, 

District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17466 Filed 7–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0280; FRL–9809–7] 

RIN 2060–AR41 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 

2013 Critical Use Exemption From the 

Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is authorizing uses that 

qualify for the 2013 critical use 

exemption (CUE) and specifying the 

amount of methyl bromide that may be 

produced or imported for those uses. 

EPA is also amending the regulatory 

framework to remove certain 

requirements related to sale of prephaseout inventory for critical uses. 

EPA is taking this action under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect 

a consensus decision taken by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer at the Twenty-Third Meeting of 

the Parties. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 22, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0280. 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 is 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 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 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 year 2013. 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 authorizing 

uses that qualify for the 2013 critical use 

exemption as well as specific amounts 

of methyl bromide that may be 

produced and imported for critical uses 

in 2013. 

Section 553(d) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 

5, generally provides that rules may not 

take effect earlier than 30 days after they 

are published in the Federal Register. 

EPA is issuing this final rule under 

section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 

which states: ‘‘The provisions of section 

553 through 557 . . . of Title 5 shall 

not, except as expressly provided in this 

section, apply to actions to which this 

subsection applies.’’ Thus, section 

553(d) of the APA does not apply to this 

rule. EPA is nevertheless acting 

consistently with the policies 

underlying APA section 553(d) in 

making this rule effective on July 22, 

2013. APA section 553(d) allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication for a rule that ‘‘that grants 

or recognizes an exemption or relieves 

a restriction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Since 

today’s action can be considered to 

either grant an exemption for limited 

critical uses during 2013 from the 

general prohibition on production or 

import of methyl bromide after the 

phaseout date of January 1, 2005, or 

relieve a restriction that would 

otherwise prevent production or import 

of methyl bromide or sale of prephaseout inventory for critical uses, 

EPA is making this action effective 

immediately upon publication. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

II. What is the critical use exemption 

process? 

A. Background of the Process 

B. How does this rule relate to previous 

critical use exemption rules? 

C. Critical Uses 

D. Critical Use Amounts 

E. Critical Stock Allowances 

1. Determining the Level of Available 

Stocks 

2. Amending the Critical Stock Allowances 

Framework 

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

I/4 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43798 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Emissions Minimization 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

Entities and categories of entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include producers, importers, and 

exporters of methyl bromide; 

applicators and distributors of methyl 

bromide; and users of methyl bromide 

that applied for the 2013 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 

action. To determine whether your 

facility, company, business, or 

organization could be regulated by this 

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. 

II. 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 public 

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. 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. 

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. 

In response to EPA’s request for 

critical use exemption applications 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 15, 2010 (75 FR 41177), applicants 

provided data on the technical and 

economic feasibility of using 

alternatives to methyl bromide. 

Applicants also submitted data on their 

use of methyl bromide, ongoing research 

programs into the use of alternatives to 

methyl bromide 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. 

This assessment process culminates in 

the development of the U.S. critical use 

nomination (CUN). Annually since 

2003, the U.S. 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. 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, and provides an opportunity 

for public comment on the amounts and 

specific uses of methyl bromide that the 

agency is proposing to exempt. 

On February 4, 2011, the U.S. 

Government (USG) submitted the ninth 

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 2013 critical 

uses. In February 2011, MBTOC sent 

questions to the USG concerning 

technical and economic issues in the 

2013 nomination. The USG transmitted 

responses to MBTOC in February, 2011. 

These documents, together with reports 

by the advisory bodies noted above, are 

in the public docket for this rulemaking. 

The critical uses and amounts in this 

final rule reflect the analysis contained 

in those documents. 

B. How Does this 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), and 77 FR 29218 (May 17, 2012). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 43799 

Today’s action changes the EPA’s 

approach for determining the amounts 

of Critical Use Allowances (CUAs) to be 

allocated for critical uses in 2013. A 

CUA is the privilege granted through 40 

CFR part 82 to produce or import 1 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 control 

period at issue in this rule is 2013. 

These allowances expire at the end of 

the control period and, as explained in 

the Framework Rule, are not bankable 

from one year to the next. The CUA 

allocation is subject to the trading 

provisions at 40 CFR 82.12, which are 

discussed in section V.G. of the 

preamble to the Framework Rule. 

Today’s action also removes from the 

regulatory framework the restriction that 

limits the sale of inventory to 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. The 

Framework Rule established provisions 

governing the sale of pre-phaseout 

inventories for critical uses, including a 

prohibition on the sale of pre-phaseout 

inventories for critical uses in excess of 

the amount of CSAs held by the seller. 

The removal of this prohibition is 

discussed in more detail below. 

C. Critical Uses 

Today’s action amends the table in 40 

CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix L to 

reflect the agreed critical use categories 

identified in Decision XXIII/4. In that 

Decision, taken in November 2011, the 

Parties to the Protocol agreed ‘‘to 

permit, for the agreed critical-use 

categories for 2013 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 2013 

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 XXIII/4 for the United 

States: 

• Commodities 

• Mills and food processing structures 

• Dried cured pork 

• Cucurbits 

• Eggplant—field 

• Nursery stock—fruit, nuts, flowers 

• Orchard replants 

• Ornamentals 

• Peppers—field 

• Strawberry—field 

• Strawberry runners 

• Tomatoes—field 

EPA sought comment on the technical 

analysis contained in the U.S. 

nomination (available for public review 

in the docket), and information 

regarding any changes to the registration 

(including cancellations or 

registrations), use, or efficacy of 

alternatives that have occurred after the 

2013 U.S. CUN was forwarded. 

EPA received two comments about 

the critical use nomination process. One 

commenter stated that the process 

should be based in sound science, and 

be transparent, fair and objective. The 

nomination process should meet the 

critical need for methyl bromide from 

the industries and individuals that 

apply. The second commenter stated 

there is no meaningful opportunity for 

an applicant that is not included in the 

CUN to object or challenge the CUN. 

EPA agrees with the comment that the 

nomination process should be based in 

sound science and meet the critical 

needs of the applicants. EPA also strives 

to make the process transparent, fair, 

and objective. EPA conducts a rigorous 

technical assessment of the applications 

and evaluates data and current research 

to establish an internationally 

defensible basis for the nominations. In 

doing so the agency works with the 

State Department, USDA, state pesticide 

agencies, researchers, fumigators and 

applicants to assess whether there are 

technically or economically feasible 

alternatives, and whether a significant 

market disruption would result from the 

lack of a CUE. 

The U.S. CUN is submitted on behalf 

of the U.S. government by the 

Department of State to the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol. The Department of 

State has an extensive stakeholder 

engagement process to solicit input on 

the U.S. CUN. Private parties are 

encouraged to participate in that 

process. In the most recent round, EPA 

has worked to further improve the 

transparency of the nomination process 

by collaborating more closely with the 

applicants than in previous years. 

Shortly after receiving the applications, 

EPA informed the applicants of any 

obvious data gaps and scheduled 

meetings to discuss the needed 

information. In some instances, EPA 

followed up with additional calls and 

meetings. As a result of this technical 

review, EPA may determine that an 

applicant has not sufficiently shown 

that the regulatory and Montreal 

Protocol criteria for a critical use are 

met. After submitting the 2015 

nomination, EPA held calls with all the 

applicants to discuss the technical basis 

for the nomination and to show how 

future applications can be strengthened. 

EPA has posted on its Web site, and 

added to the docket, a schedule 

detailing upcoming deadlines and past 

interactions with applicants. 

In addition, EPA received comment 

that the agency should clarify what 

constitutes a significant market 

disruption since the commenter 

considers the term to be vague and 

subject to various interpretations by 

EPA. The term ‘‘significant market 

disruption’’ is left to the discretion of 

each Party to the Protocol to interpret. 

The agency has previously provided its 

interpretation of the term, and EPA 

refers readers to the preamble for 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 greater 

detail 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. 

EPA received comment that all of the 

uses contained in the nomination be 

authorized as critical uses for 2013. EPA 

agrees and is not removing any uses, 

commodities or otherwise, that were 

nominated and approved by the Parties 

for use in 2013. EPA did not receive any 

data that would support removing uses 

that were nominated and approved by 

the Parties. EPA received one comment 

that there should be no uses of methyl 

bromide given its effect on the 

stratospheric ozone layer, and one 

comment that CUE authorization should 

not impede the adoption of alternatives. 

EPA disagrees that all methyl bromide 

use should stop and does not believe 

that the CUE authorization for 2013 will 

impede the continued adoption of 

methyl bromide alternatives. The CUN 

addresses the need for methyl bromide 

for the 2013 critical uses, which, as 

described in the nomination chapters 

found in the docket, are uses for which 

EPA has found there are not technically 

and economically feasible alternatives. 

In addition, the 2013 critical uses were 

reviewed by the technical bodies to the 

Ozone Secretariat and authorized by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol. 

EPA also received a comment that the 

agency should reopen the nominations 

for 2013 to account for the withdrawal 

of iodomethane from the U.S. market, 

especially if the availability of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43800 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

iodomethane was the reason the USG 

did not nominate certain sectors. At this 

point it is not possible for the USG to 

reopen nominations for 2013. As 

described in the previous section, in 

order to provide time for EPA to 

promulgate a rule authorizing critical 

use exemptions for a particular control 

period, the USG submits a nomination 

the January two years prior to the 

control period at issue. In addition, if 

the USG had submitted a supplemental 

request for 2013 this January, the Parties 

would not have been able to consider it 

until November of 2013, which would 

not provide relief to growers. 

EPA is finalizing the lists of approved 

critical uses and approved critical users 

as proposed. First, as discussed in the 

proposal, EPA is removing from 

Appendix L two users that did not 

submit applications and therefore were 

not included in the U.S. nomination. 

These users are California rose nursery 

growers and Maryland tomato growers. 

Second, EPA is removing the National 

Pest Management Association (NPMA) 

food processing as an approved critical 

user. The NPMA did not initially apply 

to be a critical user in 2013 and the 

Parties have not authorized a critical use 

for NPMA for 2013. 

Members of the NPMA have worked 

to transition from methyl bromide to 

alternative practices and alternative 

fumigants like sulfuryl fluoride. In 

January 2004, EPA registered the first 

food uses of sulfuryl fluoride for control 

of insect pests in grain processing 

facilities and in harvested and 

processed food commodities such as 

cereal grains, dried fruits, and tree nuts. 

In July 2005, EPA approved sulfuryl 

fluoride for treatment of additional 

harvested and processed food 

commodities such as coffee and cocoa 

beans, and for fumigation of food 

handling and processing facilities. 

On January 19, 2011, EPA proposed to 

revoke the residue limits on food, 

known as tolerances, for fluoride on the 

food commodities approved for 

treatment with sulfuryl fluoride (76 FR 

3422). In response to this proposal, the 

NPMA submitted a supplemental 

request for 2013 methyl bromide use 

during the open period for 2014 

applications. The USG did not include 

NPMA’s supplemental request in the 

2014 nomination submitted to UNEP on 

January 31, 2012, because EPA has only 

proposed to revoke the tolerances for 

sulfuryl fluoride and has not taken 

action in any final rule. U.S. critical use 

nominations are based on final 

decisions about alternatives. 

Additionally, the proposed tolerance 

revocation included a staggered 

implementation scheme, making it 

unlikely that any specific revocation 

will be effective in 2013. Therefore, EPA 

is not finalizing NPMA as an approved 

critical user in 2013. 

Third, EPA is removing sectors or 

users that applied for a critical use in 

2013 but that the United States did not 

nominate for 2013. 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 USG 

determined that certain sectors or users 

did not meet the critical use criteria in 

Decision IX/6, and the USG therefore 

did not include them in the 2013 

Critical Use Nomination. EPA notified 

these sectors of their status in July 2011, 

and those letters are in the public 

docket for this rule. These sectors are: 

members of the Southeastern Cucurbit 

Consortium and cucurbit growers in 

Maryland and Delaware; growers in the 

forest nursery sector (Southern Forest 

Nursery Management Cooperative, 

Northeastern Forest and Conservation 

Nursery Association, and Michigan 

seedling growers); members of the 

Southeastern Pepper Consortium; 

members of the Southeastern Strawberry 

Consortium and Florida strawberry 

growers; California sweet potato slip 

growers; members of the Southeastern 

Tomato Consortium and Virginia tomato 

growers. For each of these uses, EPA 

found that there are technically and 

economically feasible alternatives to 

methyl bromide. 

Finally, EPA is limiting the CUE for 

cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato 

sectors in Georgia to small growers. The 

EPA review of the available information 

for Georgia indicates that farmers 

growing fewer than 10 acres of these 

crops need an additional year to 

successfully transition to the 

alternatives. These small growers do not 

have as much experience with the 

alternatives and need to convert their 

equipment to the University of Georgia 

(UGA) ‘‘3-Way’’ mixture (a combination 

of 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, 

and metam). The EPA conducted an 

economic assessment of small growers’ 

ability to convert their equipment (see 

revised nomination, dated July 14, in 

the docket). The assessment 

demonstrates that despite the UGA 3- 

Way mixture being more affordable than 

methyl bromide plus chloropicrin on a 

per acre basis, retrofitting farm 

equipment to use the UGA 3-Way 

mixture at a cost of $3,450 is not 

affordable for growers under four acres, 

amortized over 10 years at 7% interest 

(7% is a home equity loan rate for this 

region at the time the nomination was 

submitted; interest on agricultural loans 

could be lower). However, due to 

variations in impacts for individual 

growers and uncertainties in the 

assumptions used in the economic 

analysis, farms smaller than 10 acres are 

reasonably expected to incur negative 

impacts from having to covert to the 

UGA 3-Way mixture. This analysis can 

be found in the July 14, 2011, reply to 

MBTOC available in the docket to this 

rule. Therefore, EPA is limiting the 

Georgia cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and 

tomato critical uses to small growers, 

which EPA defines as growers growing 

fewer than 10 acres. 

EPA 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 is 

when 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. 

EPA received a request from two 

commenters that the agency confirm 

that being removed from the table of 

approved critical uses for 2013 does not 

preclude the use from being added back 

in the future. The Agency reviews every 

application received each year against 

the CUE criteria. The removal of a user 

from the list of approved critical uses 

indicates that a determination was made 

that technically or economically feasible 

alternatives exist. However, the EPA 

recognizes that circumstances may 

change, or additional information 

emerge, that could merit including that 

use in a future nomination. 

Furthermore, EPA recognizes that in 

2003 the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol recognized in Decision ExI.3 

that each Party should aim at 

significantly and progressively 

decreasing its production and 

consumption of methyl bromide for 

critical uses with the intention of 

completely phasing out methyl bromide 

as soon as technically and economically 

feasible alternatives are available. 

D. Critical Use Amounts 

Table A of the annex to Decision 

XXIII/4 lists critical uses agreed to by 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. The 

maximum amount of new production 

and consumption for U.S. critical uses, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 43801 

specified in Table B of Decision XXIII/ 

4, is 562,326 kg, minus available stocks. 

This figure is equivalent to 2.2% of the 

U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption 

baseline of 25,528,270 kg. 

EPA received three comments 

supporting the proposal to allocate at 

least the full amount authorized by the 

Parties. Two of those commenters stated 

that EPA should allocate more than the 

amount requested in the CUN. One 

commenter stated that this is 

appropriate since the nomination was 

based on the continued availability of 

iodomethane. The other commenter 

stated that the CUN was inadequate and 

failed to reflect the need for methyl 

bromide as identified in the 

applications that were filed. Therefore, 

the proposed amount is insufficient to 

meet the critical needs of U.S. growers. 

One commenter questioned whether it 

would ever be appropriate for EPA to 

allocate less than the full amount 

authorized by the Parties. 

EPA is not allocating at or above the 

amount in the CUN. The CUN itself 

exceeds the amount authorized by the 

Parties. As EPA stated in the proposed 

rule, EPA views the determination of 

the total allocation, up to the amount 

authorized by the Parties, as an 

appropriate exercise of discretion. The 

agency will not increase the quantities 

in the final rule beyond those 

authorized by the Parties, but may 

exercise its discretion to allocate less. 

Article 2H(5) of the Montreal Protocol 

provides that the 2005 methyl bromide 

phaseout shall not apply ‘‘to the extent 

the Parties decide to permit the level of 

production or consumption that is 

necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them 

to be critical uses.’’ Decision XXIII/4 

contains the Parties’ critical use 

authorization for 2013. In this rule, EPA 

is honoring commitments made by the 

United States in the Montreal Protocol 

context, including Decision XXIII/4. For 

2013, EPA is allocating the full amount 

authorized by the Parties. 

In the past, EPA has also made 

reductions to the CUA amount to 

account for the amount specifically 

authorized for research, on the 

assumption that research amounts 

would come from inventory. One 

commenter stated that EPA failed to 

account for research use of methyl 

bromide in the proposed rule and 

should return to the previously 

established policy and allocate a 

separate research purpose allocation. 

EPA responds that the 2013 CUN did 

not include, and the Parties did not 

authorize, a separate amount for 

research, as had been done in prior 

years. As discussed in more detail in the 

2011 CUE final rule (76 FR 60736, 

60743, September 30, 2011), EPA views 

research as part of the nomination for 

each individual critical use. Therefore, 

EPA is not making any adjustments for 

research, carryover, or the uptake of 

alternatives. 

Carryover Material The Parties in 

paragraph 6 of Decision XXIII/4 ‘‘urge 

parties operating under critical-use 

exemptions to put in place effective 

systems to discourage the accumulation 

of methyl bromide produced under the 

exemption.’’ 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. 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 double-counting of carryover 

amounts, and a double reduction of 

critical use allowances (CUAs). 

All critical use methyl bromide that 

companies reported to be produced or 

imported in 2011 was sold to end users. 

The information reported to EPA is that 

1,499 MT of critical use methyl bromide 

was produced or imported in 2011. 

Slightly more than the amount 

produced or imported was actually sold 

to end-users. This additional amount 

was due to distributors selling material 

that was carried over from the prior 

control period. Therefore, EPA is 

applying the carryover deduction of 0 kg 

to the new production amount. EPA’s 

calculation of the amount of carryover at 

the end of 2011 is consistent with the 

method used in previous CUE rules, and 

with the method agreed to by the Parties 

in Decision XVI/6 for calculating 

column L of the U.S. Accounting 

Framework. Past U.S. Accounting 

Frameworks, including the one for 2011, 

are available in the public docket for 

this rulemaking. 

Uptake of Alternatives Under the 

existing framework, 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. When an alternative is 

withdrawn, EPA will not increase the 

total CUE amount above the amount 

authorized by the Parties. However, the 

section on critical stock allowances 

below discusses how EPA is responding 

to the withdrawal of iodomethane. 

Since the USG submitted the 2013 

CUN, Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) has 

been registered in additional states. In 

July 2010, EPA registered DMDS to 

control nematodes, weeds, and 

pathogens in tomatoes, peppers, 

eggplants, curcurbits, strawberries, 

ornamentals and forest nursery 

seedlings, and onions. The CUN 

considered only a limited uptake of 

DMDS in 2013 as only a few states had 

registered DMDS and it was not 

registered in either California or Florida. 

EPA received comment that DMDS is 

now registered in twenty-seven states, 

including Georgia and Florida. The 

commenter requests that EPA reduce the 

new production/import allocation to 

reflect the increased registrations and to 

reflect the success that growers have 

had in transitioning to alternatives 

generally. EPA also received one 

comment supporting the proposal not to 

make reductions for DMDS in the 

Southeast. The commenter also stated 

that even if California were to register 

DMDS, growers would transition 

cautiously to ensure it works for their 

circumstances. 

EPA is not making a reduction to the 

new production/import allocation based 

on these additional state registrations. 

As discussed below, 91% of the amount 

authorized for 2013 is for critical uses 

in California, which has not yet 

registered DMDS. Growers in Florida 

account for less than 3% of the 

authorized amount. EPA anticipates that 

the uptake of DMDS in Florida will 

therefore not significantly affect total 

demand for critical use methyl bromide. 

EPA does not believe that the progress 

California and Florida strawberry 

growers have made in transitioning to 

alternatives means, as one commenter 

suggests, that the EPA should reduce the 

allocation amounts in the 2013 rule. 

EPA recognizes that strawberry growers 

are successfully transitioning to 

alternatives, and the CUE allocation for 

strawberries has been declining as that 

transition has occurred. EPA has 

considered the transition made to date, 

and the ability of strawberry growers to 

further transition, when developing the 

nomination. Transition rates for 

alternatives have already been applied 

for authorized 2013 critical use amounts 

through the nomination and 

authorization process. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule did not take into account 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43802 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the proposed tolerance revocation of 

sulfuryl fluoride. As EPA has stated in 

prior rules, this allocation rule is based 

on the current status of alternatives and 

is limited to 2013. The proposed 

tolerance revocation includes a 

staggered implementation scheme so 

that it is unlikely that any specific 

revocation will be effective as soon as 

2013 (76 FR 3447). Therefore, EPA has 

not based the allocation amounts for 

2013 on any anticipated impacts of that 

proposal on methyl bromide use. 

In summary, EPA is exempting 

562,326 kg of new production and 

import of methyl bromide for critical 

uses in 2013. EPA is allocating 

allowances to the four companies that 

hold baseline allowances. The 

allocation, as in previous years, is in 

proportion to those baseline amounts, as 

shown in the table at 40 CFR 82.8(c)(1). 

Paragraph 3 of Decision XXIII/4 states 

‘‘that parties shall endeavor 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 Framework Rule proposed 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 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 sectorby-sector approach would pose 

significant administrative and practical 

difficulties. EPA received one comment 

supporting the continued use of the 

universal allocation approach. For the 

reasons discussed in the preamble to the 

2009 CUE rule (74 FR 19894), the 

agency believes that the approach 

adopted in the Framework Rule is the 

most appropriate approach and that it is 

likely the actual critical use will closely 

follow the sector breakout listed in the 

Parties’ decisions. 

E. Critical Stock Allowances 

Decision XXIII/4 indicates that the 

United States’ permitted level of 

production and consumption for 2013 is 

562,326 kg minus ‘‘available stocks.’’ As 

part of this rulemaking, EPA considered 

what amount, if any, of existing stocks 

may be available to critical users during 

2013. 

1. Determining the Level of Available 

Stocks 

Individual Parties have the ability to 

determine their level of available stocks. 

The Parties to the Protocol recognized in 

their Decisions that the amount of 

available stocks may differ from the 

total amount of existing stocks. Decision 

XXIII/4 states 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, earlier 

Decisions refer to the use of ‘‘quantities 

of methyl bromide from stocks that the 

Party has recognized to be available.’’ 

Decision XXIII/4 reinforces this concept 

by including the phrase ‘‘minus 

available stocks’’ as a footnote to the 

United States’ authorized level of 

production and consumption in Table 

B. 

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. Pre-phaseout 

inventory, or ‘‘stocks,’’ refers to methyl 

bromide that was produced using 

consumption allowances prior to the 

2005 phaseout date under the Clean Air 

Act and the Montreal Protocol. It does 

not include methyl bromide that was 

produced after January 1, 2005, under 

the critical use exemption and carried 

over into subsequent years. Nor does it 

include methyl bromide produced 1) 

under the quarantine and preshipment 

(QPS) exemption, 2) with Article 5 

allowances to meet the basic domestic 

needs of Article 5 countries, or 3) for 

feedstock or transformation purposes. 

The aggregate amount of pre-phaseout 

methyl bromide reported as being in 

inventory at the end of 2012 is 627,066 

kg. As explained in the 2008 CUE Rule, 

EPA intends to continue releasing 

aggregate methyl bromide inventory 

data reported to the agency under the 

reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 

at the end of each control period. If the 

number of competitors in the industry 

were to decline appreciably, EPA may 

revisit the question of whether the 

aggregate is entitled to treatment as 

confidential information and whether to 

release the aggregate without notice. 

EPA did not propose to change the 

treatment of submitted information but 

welcomes information concerning the 

composition of the industry. The 

aggregate information for 2003 through 

2013 is available in the docket. 

Consistent with EPA’s past practice, 

and our commitments to the Parties, 

EPA considered the level of ‘‘available 

stocks’’ that may be allocated in this 

rulemaking. EPA requested comments 

on two approaches for determining how 

many CSAs to allocate. Under the first 

approach, the agency would calculate 

‘‘available stocks’’ as either 5% or 0% 

of the existing inventory, as was 

reported to EPA on January 1, 2012. The 

second approach would be to continue 

using the existing framework of 

estimating drawdown and a supply 

chain factor. EPA is finalizing the first 

approach but finds that no stocks are 

available to meet the critical demand for 

2013. Therefore, EPA is not issuing 

CSAs in this final rule. 

In this final rule, EPA is rejecting the 

older approach of using the existing 

framework to estimate drawdown. In the 

2012 Final Rule, EPA recognized that 

our ‘‘estimates [of available stocks] have 

become increasingly inexact in 

characterizing actual drawdown of prephaseout inventory, as the amounts in 

inventory have declined over time. EPA 

intends to consider the adequacy of 

using this formula to assess ‘available 

stocks’ in a future action.’’ 

Initially, the drawdown estimate was 

a simple linear model based on past 

years’ rates. EPA modified the approach 

in the 2009 CUE Rule when it became 

apparent that the inventory was 

decreasing exponentially rather than 

linearly. EPA noted that the slowing rate 

of drawdown was based mostly on the 

business decisions of the companies 

that hold pre-phaseout inventory, and 

included aspects that are difficult for 

EPA to know or quantify, such as 

honoring long-term relationships with 

non-CUE customers or holding 

inventory in response to price 

fluctuations. To refine the analysis in 

subsequent rules EPA separately 

analyzed the use of inventory on critical 

uses, for which there are a set number 

of allowances, and non-critical uses, for 

which there are not. 

Despite increased specificity, precise 

estimates still proved elusive. In 

successive years, EPA substantially 

overestimated inventory drawdown. In 

the 2012 Rule, EPA estimated a 

drawdown of 1,110,633 kg, when the 

actual drawdown was half that amount, 

or 556,794 kg. The results of the 

methodology using the updated data 

were sufficiently different that EPA 

considered providing additional notice 

and the opportunity to comment to 

incorporate them into the final 

allocation rule. EPA is concerned that as 

the total amount of both the U.S. 

authorization and the pre-phaseout 

stocks become smaller, efforts to perfect 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 43803 

1EPA treats company-specific methyl bromide 

inventory information as confidential and believes 

that disaggregating the inventory data by geographic 

area could potentially reveal CBI. EPA solicited 

comment on this issue but did not propose to 

release data showing how much inventory is 

located in or near California. However, even in the 

absence of specific inventory data broken down by 

region, EPA believes that the fact that over 90% of 

critical use is in California is relevant to judging the 

availability of existing stocks. 

2The commenter also stated that the stocks of 

methyl bromide should be available to non-critical 

uses. This commenter disagrees with EPA’s 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision that resulted in 

the removal of various non-exempt uses from the 

methyl bromide product labels. This comment is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

EPA estimates in this area will delay 

needed rulemaking. The fact that the 

agency’s projections consistently overestimate the amount of inventory that 

will be drawn down is evidence that the 

approach substantially over-estimates 

the availability of pre-phaseout stocks. 

EPA believes constraints on the 

ability of critical users to acquire and 

use stocks may become worse due to a 

recent change in the geographic 

distribution of critical users. In the past, 

EPA has considered all pre-phaseout 

inventory to be available to all users, 

regardless of location. This assumption, 

as discussed in the 2009 CUE rule (74 

FR 19887, April 30, 2009), was based on 

the fact that inventory is held in 

California and the Southeast, the two 

primary critical use growing regions, as 

well as other locations around the 

country. While the geographic 

distribution of inventory generally 

remains the same, the authorized 

critical uses have shifted to California 

over the last two years. In the 2011 

control period, 49% of the total 

authorization was for pre-plant uses in 

California and 38% was for pre-plant 

uses in the Southeast. In 2013, this ratio 

is 91% and 4% respectively.1 EPA 

believes that inventory held in the 

Southeast may not be equally available 

to critical users in California. Unlike 

newly produced or imported material, 

which enters nationwide distribution 

networks, inventory is mostly held by 

regional distributors. EPA received 

comment that the first priority of these 

distributors is to maintain the supply 

and service obligations they have to 

their customers within the geographic 

areas where they operate. 

EPA proposed to allocate CSAs equal 

to 5% of the January 1, 2012, reported 

inventory, which is equal to 62,444 kg. 

EPA based this percentage on historic 

patterns of use. Since 2006, the amount 

of prior year inventory used through the 

expenditure of CSAs has ranged from 

8% to 26%. EPA proposed an amount 

less than the historic pattern in an effort 

to ensure that the amount allocated for 

2013 would be available to critical users 

in that year. 

EPA also solicited comment on 

allocating 0 kg from stocks. EPA was 

particularly interested in comments 

from critical stock allowance holders 

who would be barred under the existing 

framework from selling inventory to 

critical users in 2013 absent an 

allocation of CSAs. EPA stated it was 

interested in learning whether an 

allocation at or close to 0 kg would 

prevent the drawdown of stocks or 

prevent the fulfillment of contracts or 

commitments to sell pre-phaseout 

inventory in 2013. EPA also sought 

comment on whether the restriction at 

40 CFR 82.4(p) that limits the sale of 

inventory to critical uses through the 

CSA allocation should be lifted. 

One commenter agreed that the prior 

calculation was unacceptably time 

consuming, unwieldy and prone to 

inaccuracies. This commenter stated 

that, especially with the withdrawal of 

iodomethane, EPA should authorize the 

full amount of critical use methyl 

bromide authorized by the Parties, and 

that even that amount may be 

insufficient to meet the needs of 

growers. However, this commenter also 

stated that a limited amount of CSAs is 

still appropriate to provide registrants 

and distributors flexibility to meet the 

needs of all growers. Therefore, this 

commenter supported the proposal to 

allocate 5% of the prior year’s starting 

inventory. 

One commenter stated that the full 

amount for critical uses should come 

from new production. This commenter 

points out that the private parties 

holding stocks are the only ones who 

can decide to make them available, and 

states that it would be unreasonable to 

reduce the amount of new production 

due to those stocks. Another commenter 

stated that it was important for existing 

stocks to be available for drawdown, 

since otherwise stocks will never be 

used.2

EPA has considered all of these 

comments, and recent developments 

related to the critical use of methyl 

bromide, and has determined that it will 

allocate the full amount of the critical 

use authorization to new production, 

but also lift the prohibition on selling 

stocks of methyl bromide for critical 

uses without a CSA. 

EPA intends for the entire allocation 

of critical use allowances and critical 

stock allowances to be expended to 

meet each year’s critical demand. 

However, the total allocation of critical 

stock allowances has never been used. 

In fact, typically one third to one half of 

the critical stock allowances allocated 

each year remains unexpended. EPA 

believes there is demand for methyl 

bromide given the fact that there was no 

carryover in 2010 and 2011. This means 

that all the methyl bromide that was 

produced or imported for critical uses 

for those years was used. However, 40% 

of the 2010 and 30% of the 2011 critical 

stock allowance allocations were not 

used. 

Consistent with these data, comments 

to this and past allocation rules state 

that the existing inventory is not 

actually available to users because of 

reductions in the number of distributors 

and market decisions by distributors to 

sell inventory to current customers or 

hold inventory for future use. The 

recent concentration of critical uses in 

California may also mean that stocks in 

the Southeast are even more unavailable 

as a practical matter for critical users. 

The data show that inventory is 

continually less ‘‘available’’ than EPA 

estimated. At the same time, meeting 

the demand for critical use methyl 

bromide is especially important for 2013 

due to the withdrawal of iodomethane. 

In light of these circumstances, 

including the facts that the agency is 

unable to require the sale of inventory 

to meet the critical demand and there is 

evidence that inventory will not be sold 

to meet that demand, EPA is 

determining that there are not stocks 

available to be allocated for 2013. 

Therefore, EPA is allocating 0 CSAs for 

2013. 

2. Amending the Critical Stock 

Allowance Framework 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

believes, as a practical matter, existing 

stocks of methyl bromide are not 

available for critical users in 2013. 

However, at the same time, EPA agrees 

that it would not be appropriate to 

completely prohibit use of existing 

stocks, since EPA does not believe that 

stocks should be held indefinitely. EPA 

solicited comment on whether the 

prohibition on selling stocks of MeBr for 

a critical use without a CSA should be 

lifted. After consideration of comments, 

EPA is lifting the prohibition. 

One provision in the framework rule, 

40 CFR 82.4(p), limits the amount of 

pre-phaseout methyl bromide that can 

be sold for critical uses to the amount 

of critical stock allowances held by that 

distributor. EPA developed the concept 

of critical stock allowances in the 

Framework Rule to meet the 

requirement of Decision Ex I/3(3). That 

Decision states that ‘‘a Party using 

stocks under paragraph 2 above shall 

prohibit the use of stocks [for critical 

uses]... when amounts from stocks 

combined with allowable production 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43804 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and consumption for critical uses 

exceed the total level for that Party set 

forth in annex II A to the present 

report.’’ 

As discussed in the Framework Rule, 

EPA read Decision Ex I/3(3) as calling 

for limits on the use of stocks for 

approved critical uses in order to 

receive the benefit of new production 

and import in that Decision for 2005. 

However, Decision Ex I/3(3) was only 

applicable to the 2005 control period. 

Subsequent Decisions by the Parties 

authorizing critical uses and new 

production and import amounts for later 

control periods did not contain similar 

language. For the reasons discussed 

herein, EPA no longer believes that the 

restrictions established by EPA to meet 

the requirements of Decision Ex I/3(3) 

remain appropriate. EPA believes this 

approach is consistent with Decision 

XXIII/4 which authorizes an amount of 

new production and import of methyl 

bromide for 2013 but does not call for 

limits on the total use of methyl 

bromide for critical uses. 

Several changes relevant to the 

drawdown of the pre-phaseout 

inventory have occurred since 2004. 

When the critical use exemption was 

being established by the Parties, the 

United States made assurances that it 

would responsibly manage the 

inventory. At that time, the inventory 

was 16,422 MT which is 26 times 

greater than the level of inventory today. 

The United States and other Parties 

were concerned that this large amount 

of inventory could overwhelm the 

critical use exemption. EPA therefore 

limited the use of inventory on critical 

uses through the issuance of critical 

stock allowances. 

Since that time, EPA has taken further 

steps to restrict the use of stocks 

through FIFRA labeling changes. Under 

the reregistration decision for methyl 

bromide, EPA removed all but seven 

non-critical ‘‘Group II uses’’ from the 

pre-plant methyl bromide labels. Four of 

those seven uses were cancelled as of 

December 31, 2012, two will be 

removed at the end of 2013, and the last 

will be removed at the end of 2014. As 

these Group II uses are removed from 

product labels, and as the number of 

critical uses decreases, the demand for 

pre-phaseout inventory will continue to 

decline. The decreasing number of uses 

and geographical limitations on critical 

use discussed above may also lead to a 

slowing in the rate of inventory 

drawdown. 

Together these two actions have the 

potential to significantly limit the use of 

inventory. However it is clear that the 

concerns expressed through Decision Ex 

I/3(3), to restrict the use of stocks, has 

also changed. Decision XXII/6, which 

authorized critical uses for 2012, 

stressed that ‘‘parties should reduce 

their stocks of methyl bromide retained 

for employment in critical-use 

exemptions to a minimum in as short a 

time period as possible.’’ EPA believes 

that ending the restriction on the use of 

stocks for critical uses is appropriate to 

avoid a situation, either now or in the 

future, where the inventory becomes 

practically inaccessible. If this occurs, 

there will be few uses of inventory and 

stocks could remain indefinitely. 

To implement this change EPA is 

removing the restrictions at § 82.4(p)(ii) 

and (iii). In addition, EPA is removing 

the reference to CSAs from the 

definition of ‘‘critical use methyl 

bromide.’’ EPA believes additional 

conforming changes may be appropriate 

but will address those changes in a 

future rulemaking. 

EPA also requested comment on 

potential mechanisms within the Clean 

Air Act or other statutory authorities to 

respond to the withdrawal of 

iodomethane, and other unforeseen or 

emergency situations. EPA received 

three comments requesting that the 

agency undertake a rulemaking to 

implement Decision IX/7 regarding 

emergency uses of methyl bromide. One 

commenter noted that EPA announced 

in 2000 that it would draft a rule for 

emergency uses, which would be 

separate from its authority to grant 

emergency or crisis exemptions under 

FIFRA section 18. The commenter noted 

that clarification of the process for 

emergency uses, whether through 

section 18 or through additional 

rulemaking, is warranted since previous 

section 18 exemptions had been granted 

for methyl bromide prior to the 2005 

phase-out. 

As EPA noted in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking and elsewhere, 

this rule implements the Clean Air Act’s 

requirement to phase out consumption 

and production of methyl bromide, 

subject to the critical use exemption. 

Nothing in this rule is intended to 

derogate from FIFRA or 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. 

The commenter went on to note that 

Australia and Canada have also utilized 

the Decision IX/7 emergency exemption 

provision of the Montreal Protocol. 

Another commenter notes that 

unforeseen shortages of methyl bromide 

alternatives could have the same effect 

as other emergency conditions that may 

warrant use exemptions. 

This spring EPA held discussions 

with USDA and the Department of State 

on whether emergency situations may 

arise that warrant the use of methyl 

bromide and other tools that could 

potentially address immediate and 

unforeseen needs for methyl bromide. 

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

I/4 

Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Decision XXIII/ 

4 request Parties to ensure that the 

conditions or criteria listed in Decisions 

Ex. I/4 and IX/6, paragraph 1, are 

applied to exempted critical uses for the 

2013 control period. A discussion of the 

agency’s application of the criteria in 

paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in 

Section II of this preamble. EPA 

solicited comments on the technical and 

economic basis for determining that the 

uses listed in this rule meet the criteria 

of the critical use exemption. The CUNs 

detail how each proposed critical use 

meets the criteria listed 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(1)(b)(ii), which refers to the use of 

available stocks of methyl bromide, is 

addressed in section II.E. of this 

preamble. The agency has previously 

provided its interpretation of the 

criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(a)(i) 

regarding the presence of significant 

market disruption in the absence of an 

exemption. 

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(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, 

criterion (1)(b)(iii) in Decision IX/6, 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(3) 

to the extent feasible and is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 43805 

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 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 

2006 Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

(RED) for methyl bromide, which is 

implemented through restrictions on 

how methyl bromide products can be 

used. This approach requires that 

methyl bromide labels include 

directions 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 highbarrier 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 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 to the extent consistent with 

State and local laws and regulations. 

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. 

III. 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 

final rule 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 and this 

action does not add any new 

requirements. 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 SIC Code 

NAICS Small 

business size 

standard 

(in number of 

employees or 

millions of 

dollars) 

Agricultural production ............................. 1112—Vegetable and Melon farming ....

1113—Fruit and Nut Tree Farming 

1114—Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production 

0171—Berry Crops ................................

0172—Grapes. 

0173—Tree Nuts. 

0175—Deciduous Tree Fruits (except 

apple orchards and farms). 

0179—Fruit and Tree Nuts, NEC. 

$0.75 million. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43806 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Category NAICS Code SIC Code 

NAICS Small 

business size 

standard 

(in number of 

employees or 

millions of 

dollars) 

0181—Ornamental Floriculture and 

Nursery Products. 

0831—Forest Nurseries and Gathering 

of Forest Products. 

Storage Uses ........................................... 115114—Postharvest Crop activities 

(except Cotton Ginning).

311211—Flour Milling 

311212—Rice Milling 

493110—General Warehousing and 

Storage 

493130—Farm Product Warehousing 

and Storage 

2041—Flour and Other Grain Mill Products.

2044—Rice Milling 

4225—General Warehousing and Storage 

4221—Farm Product Warehousing and 

Storage 

$7 million. 

500 employees. 

500 employees. 

$25.5 million. 

$25.5 million. 

Distributors and Applicators .................... 115112—Soil Preparation, Planting and 

Cultivating.

0721—Crop Planting, Cultivation, and 

Protection.

$7 million. 

Producers and Importers ......................... 325320—Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing.2879—Pesticides and Agricultural 

Chemicals, NEC.

500 employees. 

Agricultural producers of minor crops 

and entities that store agricultural 

commodities are categories of affected 

entities that contain small entities. This 

rule only affects 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 critical uses. 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 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 exempts methyl 

bromide for approved critical uses after 

the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, 

this action confers 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 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 

provides 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 

Executive Order 13132. This rule is 

expected to affect producers, suppliers, 

importers, and exporters and users of 

methyl bromide. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this 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 

solicited comment on this 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 solicited additional 

comment on this action from tribal 

officials. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 43807 

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 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 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 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 rulemaking 

does not involve technical standards. 

Therefore, EPA did not consider 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 rule 

does 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 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. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective July 22, 2013. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Exports, Imports, Ozone depletion. 

Dated: July 16, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR Part 82 is 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. 

■ 2. Section 82.3 is amended by revising 

the definition of ‘‘Critical use methyl 

bromide’’ to read as follows: 

§ 82.3 Definitions for class I and class II 

controlled substances. 

* * * * * 

Critical use methyl bromide means 

the class I, Group VI controlled 

substance produced or imported 

through expending a critical use 

allowance or that portion of inventory 

produced or imported prior to the 

January 1, 2005 phaseout date that is 

sold only for approved critical uses. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 82.4 is amended by revising 

paragraph (p)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 82.4 Prohibitions for Class I controlled 

substances. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(1) No person shall sell critical use 

methyl bromide without first receiving 

a certification from the purchaser that 

the quantity purchased will be sold or 

used solely for an approved critical use. 

Every kilogram of critical use methyl 

bromide sold without first obtaining 

such certification constitutes a separate 

violation of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 82.8 is amended as follows: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising the table in paragraph 

(c)(1); 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(2). 

§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances 

and critical use allowances. 

* * * * * 

(c) Effective January 1, 2005, critical 

use allowances are apportioned as set 

forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section 

for the exempted production and import 

of class I, Group VI controlled 

substances specifically for those 

approved critical uses listed in 

appendix L to this subpart for the 

applicable control period. Every 

kilogram of production and import in 

excess of the total number and type of 

unexpended critical use allowances 

held for a particular type of use 

constitutes a separate violation of this 

subpart. 

(1) * * * 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43808 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Company 

2013 Critical use allowances for pre-plant 

uses * 

(kilograms) 

2013 Critical use allowances for post-harvest 

uses * 

(kilograms) 

Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company .............................................................. 323,564 18,162 

Albemarle Corp ........................................................................................................................ 133,057 7,469 

ICL–IP America ........................................................................................................................ 73,530 4,127 

TriCal, Inc ................................................................................................................................ 2,289 129 

Total ** .............................................................................................................................. 532,440 29,886 

* 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. 

** Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly. 

(2) [Reserved] ■ 5. Appendix L to Subpart A is revised 

to read as follows: 

APPENDIX L TO SUBPART A OF PART 82—APPROVED CRITICAL USES AND LIMITING CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE

USES FOR THE 2013 CONTROL PERIOD

Column A Column B Column C 

Approved Critical Uses Approved Critical User and Location of Use Limiting Critical Conditions that exist, or that 

the approved critical user reasonably expects 

could arise without methyl bromide 

fumigation: 

PRE-PLANT USES 

Cucurbits ............................................................ Georgia growers on fewer than 10 acres ........ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe root knot nematode infestation. 

Eggplant ............................................................. (a) Florida growers ........................................... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and soils not supporting 

seepage irrigation. 

(b) Georgia growers on fewer than 10 acres .. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe pythium collar, crown and 

root rot. 

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features. 

Nursery Stock (Fruit, Nut, Flower) ..................... Members of the California Association of 

Nursery and Garden Centers representing 

Deciduous Tree Fruit Growers.

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Medium to heavy clay soils. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3- 

dichloropropene. 

Orchard Replant ................................................. California stone fruit, table and raisin grape, 

wine grape, walnut, and almond growers.

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Replanted orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. 

Medium to heavy soils. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3- 

dichloropropene. 

Ornamentals ....................................................... (a) California growers ...................................... Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3- 

dichloropropene. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 43809 

APPENDIX L TO SUBPART A OF PART 82—APPROVED CRITICAL USES AND LIMITING CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE

USES FOR THE 2013 CONTROL PERIOD—Continued 

Column A Column B Column C 

(b) Florida growers ........................................... Moderate to severe weed infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and soils not supporting 

seepage irrigation. 

Peppers .............................................................. (a) Florida growers ........................................... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and soils not supporting 

seepage irrigation. 

(b) Georgia growers on fewer than 10 acres .. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation, or 

moderate to severe pythium root and collar 

rots. 

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or root rot. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features. 

Strawberry Fruit .................................................. California growers ............................................ 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. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

Strawberry Nurseries .......................................... California growers ............................................ Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Tomatoes ............................................................ (a) Florida growers ........................................... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features and soils not supporting 

seepage irrigation. 

(b) Georgia growers on fewer than 10 acres .. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge 

infestation 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features. 

POST-HARVEST USES 

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

of the USA Rice Millers Association.

Moderate to severe beetle, weevil, or moth infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment 

subject to corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in the 

U.S. who are members of the Pet Food Institute.

Moderate to severe beetle, moth, or cockroach infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment 

subject to corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(c) Members of the North American Millers’ 

Association in the U.S.

Moderate to severe beetle infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment 

subject to corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
43810 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX L TO SUBPART A OF PART 82—APPROVED CRITICAL USES AND LIMITING CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE

USES FOR THE 2013 CONTROL PERIOD—Continued 

Column A Column B Column C 

Commodities ....................................................... California entities storing walnuts, dried 

plums, figs, raisins, and dates (in Riverside 

county only) in California.

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.Red legged ham beetle infestation. 

Cheese/ham skipper infestation. 

Dermested beetle infestation. 

Ham mite infestation. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17569 Filed 7–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2013–0447; FRL–9833–7] 

State of Kansas; Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Immediate final rule. 

SUMMARY: Kansas has applied to EPA for 

Final authorization of the changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for Final 

authorization, and is authorizing the 

State’s changes through this immediate 

final action. EPA is publishing this rule 

to authorize the changes without a prior 

proposal because EPA believes this 

action is not controversial and does not 

expect comments that oppose it. Unless 

EPA receives written comments that 

oppose this authorization during the 

comment period, the decision to 

authorize Kansas’ changes to its 

hazardous waste program will take 

effect. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 20, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

the close of business August 21, 2013. 

If EPA receives such comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

immediate final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that this 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: haugen.lisa@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Lisa Haugen, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7, 

Enforcement Coordination Office, 11201 

Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 

66219. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Lisa Haugen, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, Enforcement Coordination 

Office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation of 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2013– 

0447. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, including 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

Federal http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the 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 http://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, the 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 the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm). 

You can view and copy the 

documents that form the basis for this 

authorization and codification and 

associated publicly available materials 

from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday 

through Friday at the following location: 

EPA, Region 7, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, 

phone number: (913) 551–7877. 

Interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Haugen, Region 7, Enforcement 

Coordination Office, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, 

Phone number: (913) 551–7877, and 

Email address: haugen.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authorization of State-Initiated 

Changes 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received Final 

authorization from the EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

hazardous waste program. As the 

Federal program changes, the States 

must change their programs and ask the 

EPA to authorize the changes. Changes 

to State hazardous waste programs may 

be necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

States can also initiate their own 

changes to their hazardous waste 

program and these changes must then be 

authorized. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES