1 

## Arling, Jeremy

From: Donaldson, David Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:09 AM To: Whiteman, Chad Cc: Arling, Jeremy; Hufford, Drusilla; Schillo, Bruce Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments on EPA draft MeBr CUE 2016 NO PR Attachments: EPA Summary Walnuts CA CUE 2014 Final.docx; EO12866 MeBrCUE2060- AS44NPRM040615.docx; EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 201 4 Final.docx; EPA Summary Orchard Replant CA CUE 2014 Final.docx; EPA Summary Ornamentals Ca Fl CUE 2014 Final.docx; EPA Summary Strawberry FL CUE 2014 Fina l.docx; EPA Summary Tree Nurseries CA CUE 2014 Final.docx; EPA Summary Veget ables FL MI CUE 2014 Final.docx



### Chad, Please see the attached documents for the interagen cy call. Talk to you at 11. Best, David

From: Whiteman, Chad [mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:48 PM To: Donaldson, David Subject: EO 12866 Comments on EPA draft MeBr CUE 2016 NOPR Hi David, Attached are the EO 12866 interagency comments o n the EPA draft proposed rule titled, “Protection o f Stratospheric Ozone: The 2016 Critical Use Exemption from the Pha seout of Methyl Bromide,” RIN: 2060-AS44. Regards, Chad*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

1 of 29 6560-50-P EO12866MeBrCUE2060-AS44NPRM 040615 .doc ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369; FRL-9922-39-OAR] RIN: 2060-AS44 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2016 Critica l Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is propo sing uses that qualify for the critical use exemption and the amou nt of methyl bromide that may be produced or imported for those uses for the 2016 co ntrol period. EPA is proposing this action under the authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect consensus decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer at the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties in November 2014

. DATES: Comments must be submitted by [insert date 30 days after publication in the federal register]

. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-- 2013-0369 , by one of the following methods:

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instruction s for submitting comments.

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

• Fax: (202) 566-9744 Deleted: 012015

Commented [A1]: Has EPA considered issuing a proposed rule for both the 2016 and 2017 control periods? If the agency has already proposed to the Parties of the Montreal Pro tocol the CUEs for 2017, then it would seem that including the 201 7 control period in this rulemaking action would be a good idea. Wh at are the pros and cons of doing this? Commented [A2R1]: Response: The 2017 U.S. nomination is still under review by the parties. Commented [A3]: May be useful to include the month/year of the meeting to help explain the sequencing of event s.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

2 of 29 • Phone: (202) 566-1742

• U.S. Mail: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Air and Radiation Docket , Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-03 69, EPA Docket Center - Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Ro om 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operat ion, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be includ ed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations .gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes i nformation claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other in formation whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information th at you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Th e www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of yo ur comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.r egulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Inte rnet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-RO M you submit. If EPA cannot*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

3 of 29 read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Elect ronic files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket vi sit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket : All documents in the docket are listed on the www .regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is n ot publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information who se disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted materia l, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publi cly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulat ions.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 fro m 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Th e telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone n umber for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this proposed rule, contact Jeremy Arling by telephone a t (202) 343-9055, or by e-mail at arling.jeremy@epa.gov or by mail at U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Stratospheric Pr ogram Implementation Branch (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington , D.C., 20460. You may also visit the methyl bromide section of the Ozone Deple tion website of EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr for fu rther information about the methyl Deleted: ,*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

4 of 29 bromide critical use exemption, other Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and related topic s. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) res trictions on the consumption, production, and use of methyl bromide (a Class I, G roup VI controlled substance) for critical uses during calendar year 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide consumption (consumption is defined under section 6 01 of the CAA as production plus imports minus exports) and production were phased o ut on January 1, 2005, apart from allowable exemptions, such as the critical use and the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemptions. With this action, EPA is proposing and seeking comment on the uses that will qualify for the critical use exemption as well as specific amounts of methyl bromide that may be produced and imported for proposed crit ical uses for 2016.
I. General Information Entities and categories of entities potentially re gulated by this proposed action include producers, importers, and exporters of meth yl bromide; applicators and distributors of methyl bromide; and users of methyl bromide that applied for the 2016 critical use exemption including growers of vegetab le crops, ornamentals, fruits, and nursery stock, and owners of stored food commoditie s. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for reade rs regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed action. To determine whe ther your facility, company, business, or organization could be regulated by thi s proposed action, you should carefully examine the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. If you have questions*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

5 of 29 regarding the applicability of this action to a par ticular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section. B. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comment s?
1. Confidential Business Information . Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI infor mation in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD -ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specif ic information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed ex cept in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one comp lete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for in clusion in the public docket.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).

• Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respo nd to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternat ives and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

6 of 29 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concer ns, and suggest alternatives.

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment pe riod deadline identified. II. What Is Methyl Bromide? Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless, toxic ga s which is used as a broadspectrum pesticide and is controlled under the CAA as a Class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS). Methyl bromide was once widely use d as a fumigant to control a variety of pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, p athogens, and nematodes. Information on methyl bromide can be found at http://www.epa.go v/ozone/mbr. Methyl bromide is also regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and other st atutes and regulatory authority, as well as by States under their own statutes and regu latory authority. Under FIFRA, methyl bromide is a restricted use pesticide. Restricted u se pesticides are subject to Federal and State requirements governing their sale, distributi on, and use. Nothing in this proposed rule implementing Title VI of the Clean Air Act is intended to derogate from provisions in any other Federal, State, or local laws or regul ations governing actions including, but not limited to, the sale, distribution, transfer, a nd use of methyl bromide. Entities affected by this proposal must comply with FIFRA and other p ertinent statutory and regulatory requirements for pesticides (including, but not lim ited to, requirements pertaining to restricted use pesticides) when producing, importin g, exporting, acquiring, selling, distributing, transferring, or using methyl bromide . The provisions in this proposed action Commented [A4]: EPA is allowing CA to use methyl bromide, but not Florida or Georgia so it is not clear how t his action does not limit the use of methyl bromide. Please explain. Commented [A5R4]: Response: This rule does not limit other authorities that may affect methyl bromide. For instance, it d oes not affect FIFRA labeling, CAA hazardous air pollutant controls, or CA Dept. of Pesticide Regulation use reporting.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

7 of 29 are intended only to implement the CAA restrictions on the production, consumption, and use of methyl bromide for critical uses exempted fr om the phaseout of methyl bromide. III. What Is the Background to the Phaseout Regulat ions for Ozone-Depleting Substances? The regulatory requirements of the stratospheric o zone protection program that limit production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances are in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. The regulatory program was originally pu blished in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1 987 signing and subsequent ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is the i nternational agreement aimed at reducing and eliminating the production and consump tion of stratospheric ozonedepleting substances. The United States was one of the original signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol , and the United States ratified the Protocol in 198 8. Congress then enacted, and President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 1990), which included T itle VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subch apter VI, to ensure that the United States could satisfy its obligations under the Prot ocol. EPA issued regulations to implement this legislation and has since amended th e regulations as needed. Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozo ne-depleting substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protoc ol. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Parties) agreed that each developed count ry’s level of methyl bromide production and consumption in 1991 should be the ba seline for establishing a freeze on the level of methyl bromide production and consumpt ion for developed countries. EPA*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

8 of 29 published a rule in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018), listing methyl bromide as a Class I, Group VI controlled su bstance. This rule froze U.S. production and consumption at the 1991 baseline lev el of 25,528,270 kilograms, and set forth the percentage of baseline allowances for met hyl bromide granted to companies in each control period (each calendar year) until 2001 , when the complete phaseout would occur. This phaseout date was established in respon se to a petition filed in 1991 under sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of the CAAA of 1990, requesting that EPA list methyl bromide as a Class I substance and phase out its pr oduction and consumption. This date was consistent with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1 990, which, for newly listed Class I ozone-depleting substances provides that “no extens ion [of the phaseout schedule in section 604] under this subsection may extend the d ate for termination of production of any class I substance to a date more than 7 years a fter January 1 of the year after the year in which the substance is added to the list of clas s I substances.” At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties (MOP) in 199 5, the Parties agreed to adjustments to the methyl bromide control measures and agreed to reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout date for developed countries with exe mptions permitted for critical uses. At that time, the United States continued to have a 2001 phaseout date in accordance with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990. At the Ninth MO P in 1997, the Parties agreed to further adjustments to the phaseout schedule for me thyl bromide in developed countries, with reduction steps leading to a 2005 phaseout. Th e Parties also established a phaseout date of 2015 for countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol (developing countries).*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

9 of 29 IV. What Is the Legal Authority for Exempting the P roduction and Import of Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses Authorized by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol? In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the Cle an Air Act to prohibit the termination of production of methyl bromide prior t o January 1, 2005, to require EPA to align the U.S. phaseout of methyl bromide with the schedule specified under the Protocol, and to authorize EPA to provide certain exemptions. These amendments were contained in Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 19 98) and were codified in section 604 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that spe cifically addresses the critical use exemption appears at section 604(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. 7 671c(d)(6). EPA revised the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide production and consumpt ion in a rulemaking on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), which allowed for the reduc tion in methyl bromide consumption specified under the Protocol and extended the phase out to 2005 while creating a placeholder for critical use exemptions. Through an interim final rule on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37751), and a final rule on January 2, 2003 (68 FR 238), EPA amended the regulations to allow for an exemption for quarantine and preshipment purposes. On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), EPA published a rule (the “Framework Rule”) that established the framework for the criti cal use exemption, set forth a list of approved critical uses for 2005, and specified the amount of methyl bromide that could be supplied in 2005 from stocks and new production or import to meet the needs of approved critical uses. EPA subsequently published rules applying the critical use exemption framework for each of the annual control periods from 2006 to 2015. Deleted: (QPS) Deleted: through an interim final rule on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37751), and a final rule on January 2, 2003 (68 FR 238)*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

10 of 29 In accordance with Article 2H(5) of the Montreal Pr otocol, the Parties have issued several Decisions pertaining to the critical use ex emption. These include Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4, which set forth criteria for review of critical uses. The status of Decisions is addressed in NRDC v. EPA, (464 F.3d 1, D.C. Cir. 20 06) and in EPA’s “Supplemental Brief for the Respondent,” filed in NRDC v. EPA and available in the docket for this proposed action. In this proposed rule on critical uses for 2016, EPA is [proposing to honor] [ honoring ] commitments made by the United States in the Montr eal Protocol

context. Under authority of section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, EP A is now proposing the uses that will qualify as approved critical uses for 201 6 , as well as the amount of methyl bromide that may be produced or imported to satisfy those uses. The proposed critical uses and amounts reflect Decision XXVI/6, taken at the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties in November 2014. V. What Is the Critical Use Exemption Process? A. Background of the Process Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol established th e critical use exemption provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1 997, 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 o f 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 a vailable to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and a re suitable to the crops and Commented [A7]: Response: This has been standard CUE preamble language for many years.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

11 of 29 circumstances of the nomination.” EPA promulgated t hese criteria in the definition of “critical use” at 40 CFR 82.3. In addition, Decision IX/6 provides that production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitte d only if a variety of conditions have been met, including that all technically and econom ically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emi ssion of methyl bromide, that research programs are in place to develop and deploy alterna tives and substitutes, and that methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide. EPA requested critical use exemption applications for 2016 through a Federal Register notice published on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32646). Ap plicants submitted data on their use of methyl bromide, the technical and econ omic feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing research programs into the use of alternati ves in their sector, and efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. EPA reviews the data submitted by applicants, as w ell as data from governmental and academic sources, to establish whether there ar e technically and economically feasible alternatives available for a particular us e of methyl bromide, and whether there would be a significant market disruption if no exem ption were available. In addition, an interagency workgroup reviews other parameters of t he exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization techniques and ap plicants’ research or transition plans. As required in section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each exemption period, EPA*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

12 of 29 consults with the United States Department of Agric ulture (USDA). 1 This assessment process culminates in the development of the U.S. c ritical use nomination (CUN). Annually since 2003, the U.S. Department of State h as submitted a CUN to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone Secretar iat. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technol ogy 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 take Decisions on critical use exemptions for particular Parties, including how much methyl bromide may be supplied for the exempted cri tical uses. EPA then provides an opportunity for public comment on the amounts and s pecific uses of methyl bromide that the agency is proposing to exempt. On January 22, 2014, the United States submitted t he twelfth Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America to the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination containe d the request for 2016 critical uses. In March 2014, MBTOC sent questions to the United S tates concerning technical and economic issues in the 2016 nomination. The United States transmitted responses to MBTOC in March 2014. In May 2014, the MBTOC provide d their interim recommendations on the U.S. nomination in the May T EAP Interim Report. These documents, together with reports by the advisory bo dies noted above, are in the public

1 See CAA section 604(d)(6): “To the extent consiste nt with the Montreal Protocol, the Administrator, a fter notice and the opportunity for public comment, and after consultation with other departments or instrumentalities of the Federal Government having regulatory authority related to methyl bromide, including the Secretary of Agriculture, may exempt the production, importation, and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses” Commented [A8]: Does this happen at the same time every year? Commented [A9R8]: Response: Yes.

Deleted: ,*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

13 of 29 docket for this rulemaking. The proposed critical u ses and amounts authorized in this rule reflect the analyses contained in those documents. B. How Does This Proposed Rule Relate to Previous C ritical 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 annua lly promulgated regulations to exempt specific quantities of production and imp ort of methyl bromide and to indicate which uses meet the criteria for the exemption prog ram for that year. This proposed action continues the approach establi shed in the 2013 R ule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013) for determining the amounts of Critical Use Allowa nces (CUAs) to be allocated for critical uses. A CUA is the privil ege granted through 40 CFR part 82 to produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) of methyl bromide for an approved critical use during the specified control period. A control period is a calendar year. See 40 CFR 82.3. Each year’s allowances expire at the end of that control period and, as explained in the Framework Rule, are not bankable from one year to t he next. C. Proposed Critical Uses In Decision XXVI/6, taken in November 2014, the Pa rties to the Protocol agreed “[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categorie s for 2015 and 2016 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 Deleted: r

Commented [A10]: Does the table also include the quantity that may be used or just the critical-use categories? I f it includes the quantities, suggest including next to the categorie s list below. Commented [A11R10]: Response: Easier to follow a discussion of critical uses in this section and cri tical use amounts in the next section.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

14 of 29 applicable, the levels of production and consumptio n for 2015 and 2016 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are n ecessary to satisfy critical uses ....” The following uses are those set forth in table A o f the annex to Decision XXVI/6 for the United States for 2016:

• Cured pork
• Strawberry field EPA is proposing to modify the table in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix L to reflect the agreed critical use categories for 2016 . EPA is proposing to amend the table of critical uses and critical users based on the uses permitted in Decision XXVI/6 and the technical analyses contained in the 2016 U.S. nomin ation that assess data submitted by applicants to the CUE program. Specifically, EPA is proposing to remove the food p rocessing uses that were listed as critical uses for 2014. The California Da te Commission as well as all users under the food processing use (rice millers, pet food man ufacturing facilities, and members of the North American Millers’ Association) did not su bmit CUE applications for 2016 and therefore were not included in the 2016 U.S. nomina tion to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol

. EPA is also proposing to remove the remaining commo dity uses (walnuts, dried plums, figs, and raisins). These sectors applied fo r a critical use in 2016 but the United States did not nominate them for 2016. In addition, some sectors that were not on the list of critical uses for 2014 or 2015 submitted applica tions for 2016. These sectors are: Michigan cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato gro wers; Florida eggplant, pepper, strawberry, and tomato growers; the California Asso ciation of Nursery and Garden Centers; California stone fruit, table and raisin g rape, walnut, and almond growers; Deleted: amounts

Commented [A12]: Reproduce proposed (amended) table here? Or at least indicate amounts? Might also be helpful to identify critical uses, cr itical use amounts, and critical users for the prior year (or even repr oduce the table found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html to demonstrate that CUE amounts are steadily declin ing? Commented [A13R12]: Comment 1: Reproduce proposed (amended) table here? Or at least indicate amounts? Response: Easier to follow a discussion of critical uses in t his section and critical use amounts in the next sectio n. The sentence should say “uses” and not “amounts.” See edit. Comment 2: Might also be helpful to identify critical uses, cr itical use amounts, and critical users for the prior year (or even reproduce the table found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html to demonstrate that CUE amounts are steadily declin ing? Response: This is accomplished by re-ordering the subsequent paragraphs, per the next comment. Commented [A14]: Move paragraphs marked *** (below) to here, as they offer more detail on the specific pro posed amendments to the table of critical uses and users? Deleted: EPA is proposing to amend appendix L to subpart A t o reflect the lists of approved critical uses authori zed by the Parties for 2016.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

15 of 29 ornamental growers in California and Florida; and t he U.S. Golf Course Superintendents Association. EPA conducted a thorough technical ass essment of each application and considered the effects that the loss of methyl brom ide would have for each agricultural sector, and whether significant market disruption w ould occur as a result. As a result of this technical review, EPA in consultation with the USDA and the Departmen t of State determined that these users did not meet the critic al use criteria in Decision IX/6 and the United States therefore did not include them in the 2016 Critical Use Nomination. EPA notified these sectors of their status by letters d ated March 28, 2014. For each of these uses, EPA found that there are technically and econ omically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA requests comment on the technical assessment of the applications found in the docket to this rule and the determinat ion that these users did not meet the critical use criteria and whether there is any new or additional information that the agency may consider in preparing future nominations. EPA is also seeking comment on the technical analyses contained in the U.S. nomination (available for public review in the dock et) and information regarding any changes to the registration (including cancellation s or registrations), use, or efficacy of alternatives that occurred after the nomination was submitted. EPA recognizes that as the market for alternatives evolves, the thresholds for what constitutes “significant market disruption” or “technical and economic feasibility” may change. Such information has the potential to alter the technical or economic feasib ility 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. EPA notes that it will not finalize a rule containing uses beyond those agreed to by the Parties for 2016. Commented [A15]: Please provide the technical assessment. Commented [A16R15]: Response: This assessment can be found in the docket to the rule.

Deleted: the United States Government (USG) Commented [A17]: Will EPA simply specify the other agencies...”the Department of State in consultation w ith EPA and USDA determined...”

Commented [A18]: Please include a discussion concerning how the agency arrived at this conclusion that there ar e technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromid e. EPA references the cost analysis that was conducted so it would be helpful to describe this in the preamble and go out for comment on the assumptions. Commented [A19R18]: Response: Added inserted sentence along with a reference to the technical documents c ontained in the docket and reference to future nominations.

Commented [A20]: Suggest deleting or stating the challenges associated with changing; however, the agency shoul d allow for the public notice and comment process to proceed before making such a definitive statement. Commented [A21R20]: Response: This is standard preamble language.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

16 of 29 D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/6 lists criti cal uses and amounts agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2016. T he maximum amount of new production and import for U.S. critical uses in 201 6, specified in Table B of the annex to Decision XXVI/6, is 234.78 MT, minus available stoc ks. This figure is equivalent to less than 1 percent of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide cons umption baseline of 25,528 MT. EPA is proposing to determine the level of new prod uction and import according to the framework and as modified by the 2013 Rule. Under this approach, the amount of new production for each control period would equal the total amount permitted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in their Decisions minus any reductions for available stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives. These terms (available stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives) are discussed in de tail below. Applying this approach, EPA is proposing to allocate allowances to exempt 2 34,780 kg (234.78 MT) of new production and import of methyl bromide for critica l uses in 2016. Available Stocks: For 2016 the Parties indicated t hat the United States should use “available stocks,” but did not indicate a minimum amount expected to be taken from stocks. Consistent with EPA’s past practice, EPA is conside ring what amount, if any, of the existing stocks may be available to critical us ers during 2016. The latest data reported to EPA from December 31, 2013, show existing stocks to be 356,561 kg. These data do not reflect drawdown of stocks that occurred during 2014 or that is likely to occur during 2015. The Parties to the Protocol recognized in their Dec isions that the level of existing stocks may differ from the level of available stock s. Decision XXVI/6 states that Commented [A22]: Does this mean the uses have to be satisfied from available stocks first? Below, there is a prop osal to? Commented [A23R22]: Response: That is correct, which is why the rule analyzes whether/ and to what extent t here are “available stocks.” EPA proposes below to find that there are no available stocks to subtract from the authorization

.
Commented [A24]: Is this an EPA rule or reference to a MP rule? Please provide the citation if not already p rovided previously. Commented [A25R24]: Response: EPA rule. This is the second reference to the rule. Added the FR cite whe re it is first mentioned on page 13.

Commented [A26]: Suggest using the same units of MT to avoid any confusion. Or, list the kg number alongs ide the ton number in the previous paragraph.... “is 234.78 MT (2 34,780 kg), minus available...”

Commented [A27]: How certain is this number? Also, the agency indicates on p. 17 that it does not include quantities that end users have stockpiled. Do we have any idea the size of those stockpiles? Regarding existing stockpiles, what is EPA’s view o n whether there’s legal authority under CAA/obligation under MP to regulate the use of any MeBr stockpiled by end users (golf c ourses, etc.)? Commented [A28R27]: Comment 1: How certain is this number? Response: EPA will update with latest data when available. Comment 2: Also, the agency indicates on p. 17 that it does n ot include quantities that end users have stockpiled. Do we have any idea the size of those stockpiles? Response: EPA does not collect data on quantities that end u sers have stockpiled. Comment 3: Regarding existing stockpiles, what is EPA’s view on whether there’s legal authority under CAA/obligatio n under MP to regulate the use of any MeBr stockpiled by end user s (golf courses, etc.)? Response: We do not regard stocks in the hands of end users as “available” to other users.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

17 of 29 “production and consumption of methyl bromide for c ritical uses should be permitted only if methyl bromide is not available in sufficie nt quantity and quality from existing stocks... .” In addition, the Decision states that “parties o perating under critical-use exemptions should take into account the extent to w hich methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stock s....” Earlier Decisions also refer to the use of “quantities of methyl bromide from stocks th at the Party has recognized to be available.” Thus, it is clear that individual Parti es may determine their level of available stocks. Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA does not requi re EPA to adjust the amount of new production and import to reflect the availability o f stocks; however, as explained in previous rulemakings, making such an adjustment is a reasonable exercise of EPA’s discretion under this provision. In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013), EPA established an approach that considered whether a percentage of th e existing inventory was available. In that rule, EPA took comment on whether 0% or 5% of the existing stocks was available. The final rule found that 0% was available for crit ical use in 2013 for a number of reasons including: a pattern of significant underes timation of inventory drawdown; the increasing concentration of critical users in Calif ornia while inventory remained distributed nationwide; and the recognition that th e agency cannot compel distributors to sell inventory to critical users. For further discu ssion, please see the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43802)

. EPA believes these circumstances remain true for 20 16. First, EPA believes that stocks were likely drawn down significantly in 2014 . In part, this is because, as a consequence of changes in FIFRA labeling, the last date for sale of pre-phaseout methyl Commented [A29]: Will EPA explain this legal interpretation to help us understand why the agency does not regulate existing stocks? Commented [A30R29]: Response: EPA has always distinguished between “existing stocks” and “availa ble stocks.” In determining how much production and consumption sho uld be permitted, EPA takes into account the portion of “e xisting stocks” that it determines to be “available. ”

Commented [A31]: Please provide the FR citation.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

18 of 29 bromide for golf courses was November 30, 2014. EPA is aware that end users worked to secure supplies prior to that date. Supplies of met hyl bromide in the hands of end users are not included in calculating existing stocks. Se cond, while stocks remain distributed nationally, the only pre-plant critical use permitt ed for 2016 is strawberry fruit in California. This is also the only pre-plant sector that can continue to purchase stocks in 2015 as a result of the changes to FIFRA labeling, except for sectors with quarantine and preshipment uses. Therefore, EPA anticipates much of the invent ory in California to be drawn down in 2015. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find 0% of t he existing inventory available for use in 2016. EPA specifically invites comment o n whether between 0% and 5% of existing inventory will be available to critical us ers in 2016, taking into consideration the FIFRA labeling changes, the recent history of inven tory drawdown, the removal of the critical stock allowance provisions that limited the amount of stocks that can be sold for critical uses , the quantity and geographical location of authori zed uses, and the quantity and location of stocks. Existing stocks, as of Dece mber 31, 2013, were [estimated to be] equal to 356,561 kg. Therefore, 5% would be 17,828 kg. Were EPA to find 5% of existing stocks to be available, EPA would reduce t he amount of new production for 2016 by that amount. Carryover Material: EPA regulations prohibit methyl bromide produced or imported after January 1, 2005, under the critical use exemption , from being added to the pre-2005 inventory. Quantities of methyl bromide pr oduced, 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 calcu late any excess methyl bromide left Commented [A32]: Please discuss the petitions received by Florida and Georgia strawberry growers, the reason for rejecting their request, and request comment on whether there is any new information that EPA should consider when issuing t he final rule. Commented [A33R32]: Response: Georgia strawberries did not apply for critical use methyl bromide for 2016. EPA is requesting comment on the Florida analysis per the comment on page 15. Deleted: QPS

Commented [A34]: Suggest revising this sentence/paragraph to clarify. In another sentence in the preamble, the agency says, “The maximum amount of new production and import for U.S . critical uses in 2016 ... is 234.78 MT, minus available stocks ” Why just 0% and 5% and not the range of numbers in between? Deleted: or Commented [A35]: To what does this refer? Commented [A36R35]: Response: The U.S. 2005 authorization limited the total amount of stocks th at could be used for critical uses. EPA built this into the framewor k and continued this through the 2012 rule as the “critical stock a llocation.” However, subsequent decisions by the Parties did no t cap the amount of stocks that could be used for critical us es and thus EPA removed the restriction in the 2013 CUE Rule. Commented [A37]: Response: Existing stocks is reported data, so it is not an estimate (unlike available stocks).

Deleted: existing Commented [A38]: Is there a difference between the existing inventory, and the “existing pre-2005 inventory”?

Deleted: the amount of methyl bromide produced or imported under the critical use exemption, but not exported or sold to endusers in that year*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

19 of 29 over from that year’s CUE and reduces next year’s t otal allocation by that amount. Carryover material (which is produced using critica l use allowances) is not included in EPA’s definition of existing inventory (which appli es to pre-2005 material) because this would lead to a double-counting of carryover amount s. EPA anticipates that all critical use methyl bromid e that companies reported to be produced or imported in 2014 will be sold to end us ers for that year. EPA bases this assumption on the fact that there has been no carry over for the last four years. EPA notes that the agency will look at the reported 2014 data when issuing the final rule. Therefore, EPA is proposing to apply a carryover deduction of 0 kg to the new production amount for 2016, consistent with the method used in previo us CUE rules, and with the format in Decision XVI/6 for calculating column L of the U.S. Accounting Framework. All U.S. Accounting Frameworks for critical use methyl bromi de are available in the public docket for this rulemaking. Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers data on the a vailability of alternatives that it receives following submission of each nomination to UNEP. In previous rules EPA has reduced the total CUE amount when a new alternative has been registered and increased the new production amount when an alternative is wi thdrawn, but not above the amount permitted by the Parties. Neither circumstance has occurred since the nomination was submitted for 2016. EPA is not proposing to make any other modification s to CUE amounts to account for availability of alternatives. Rates of transition to alternatives have already been applied for permitted 2016 critical use amount s through the nomination and authorization process. EPA will consider new data r eceived during the comment period Deleted: . EPA

Deleted: deducts an amount equivalent to this “carryover” fr om the total level of allowable new production and imp ort in the year following the year of the data reportnext allocatio n rule. So for example, the amount of carryover from 2014 is facto red into the determination allocation for 2016. Commented [A39]: Could EPA explain this more easily by saying something like, “any excess MeBr left from a ny given year’s CUE is “carried over,” and EPA reduces the next yea r’s CUE request by this amount.” Does EPA add each year’s carryover amount to the “existing inventory,” because that te rm is used to refer only to the amount of MeBr that existed as of Janua ry 1, 2005 when [something happened?]? Would be helpful if EPA included the actual numbers and requested comment on the values. Commented [A40R39]: Comment: Could EPA explain this more easily by saying something like, “any excess M eBr left from any given year’s CUE is “carried over,” and EPA red uces the next year’s CUE request by this amount.” Response: See edits. Comment: Does EPA add each year’s carryover amount to the “existing inventory,” because that term is used to refer only to the amount of MeBr that existed as of January 1, 2005 w hen [something happened?]? Response: No, the terms “inventory” and “stocks” only refer to pre2005 material, when the phaseout occurred. Carryove r does not get added to the inventory or stocks. Comment: Would be helpful if EPA included the actual number s and requested comment on the values. Response: Will update with latest data when available. Commented [A41]: What does “end users for that year” mean? Will be sold and used in that year? Also note that tense is off as this is coming out i n 2015. Commented [A42R41]: Response: This paragraph will be updated when the latest data are available.

Commented [A43]: Does the agency actually apply rates of transition to alternatives? Or is it just that the 2016 critical use amounts reflect the possible use of alternatives? Please clarify the meaning of this sentence. Commented [A44R43]: Response: Yes*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

20 of 29 and continues to gather information about methyl br omide alternatives through the CUE application process, and by other means. EPA also c ontinues to support research and adoption of methyl bromide alternatives, and to req uest information about the economic and technical feasibility of all existing and poten tial alternatives. Allocation Amounts: EPA is proposing to allocate c ritical use allowances for new production or import of methyl bromide equivalent t o 234,780 kg to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Albemarle Corporation, ICL–IP America, and TriCal, Inc in proportion to their respective baselines. Paragraph 3 of Decision XXVI/6 states that “parties shall endeavour to license, permit, author ize or allocate quantities of methyl bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of t he annex to the present decision....” This is similar to language in prior Decisions authorizi ng critical uses. These Decisions call on Parties to endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis. The proposed Framework Rule contained several optio ns for allocating critical use allowances, including a sector-by-sector approa ch. The agency evaluated various options based on their economic, environmental, and practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA determined in the final Framework Rul e that a lump-sum, or universal, allocation, modified to include distinct caps for p re-plant and post-harvest uses, was the most efficient and least burdensome approach that w ould achieve the desired environmental results, and that a sector-by-sector approach would pose significant administrative and practical difficulties. For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the 20 09 CUE rule (74 FR 19894), and because of the limited number of permitted uses , the agency believes that under the Deleted: to the four companies that hold baseline allowance s, Commented [A45]: Perhaps specify the companies here, or at least cite table on pp. 27-28?*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

21 of 29 approach adopted in the Framework Rule, the actual critical use will closely follow the sector breakout listed in the Parties’ decisions. [Emergency Use: The U.S. government is committed t o using flexibility in the Protocol's existing mechanisms as an avenue to addr ess changes in national circumstance that affect the transition to alternatives. EPA we lcomes comments and any new information on specific emergency situations that m ay necessitate the use of methyl bromide, consistent with the requirements of the Mo ntreal Protocol, and which could be difficult to address using current tools and author ities.] E. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4 Decision XXVI/6 calls on Parties to apply the criteria in Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 and the conditions set forth in Decision Ex. I/4 (to the ex tent applicable) to exempted critical uses for the 2016 control period. The following section provides references to sections of this preamble and other documents where EPA considers the criteria of those two Decisions. Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 contains the critical us e criteria which are summarized in Section II.A of the preamble. The nomination documents detail how each proposed critical use meets the criteria in Decision IX/6 , paragraph 1 including: the lack of available technically and economically feasible alt ernatives under the circumstance of the nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions o f methyl bromide where technically and economically feasible; the development of resea rch and transition plans; and the requests in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 tha t Parties consider and implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on actions a Party may take to reduce the Commented [A46]: Response: Discuss.
Commented [A47]: This section is difficult to follow; perhaps re-summarize the conditions imposed by the two Deci sions (introduced on pp. 10-11 and 13 above), and then su mmarize preexisting interpretation(s) of those conditions?

Deleted: and the criteria in Decision IX/6 paragraph 1

Deleted: CUNs

Deleted: paragraph 1 of Deleted: ,*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

22 of 29 critical uses of methyl bromide and include informa tion on the methodology they use to determine economic feasibility. A discussion of the agency’s application of the critical use criteria to the proposed critical uses for 2016 appears in Sections II.A., II.C. , and II.D. of this preamble. EPA solicits comments on the technical and economic bas is for determining that the uses listed in this proposed rule meet the criteria of the crit ical use exemption. The agency has previously provided its interpretati on of the criterion in Decision IX/6 , paragraph (1)(a)(i) regarding the presence of sign ificant market disruption in the absence of an exemption. EPA refers readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE rule (71 FR 5989, February 6, 2006) as well as to the memo i n the docket titled “Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Me thyl Bromide for the United States of America” for further elaboration. As explained in those documents, EPA’s interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking at potential effects on both demand and supply for a commodity, evaluati ng potential losses at both an individual level and at an aggregate level, and eva luating potential losses in both relative and absolute terms. The United States has also considered the adoption of alternatives and researc h into methyl bromide alternatives in the development of the National Management Strategy submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in Dece mber 2005 and updated in October 2009. The National Management Strategy addresses al l of the aims specified in Decision
Ex. I/4 , paragraph 3 to the extent feasible and is availabl e in the docket for this rulemaking. F. Emissions Minimization Deleted: in paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 Deleted: and

Deleted: ¶ The remaining considerations are addressed in the n omination documents including: the lack of available technica lly and economically feasible alternatives under the circum stance of the nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions o f methyl bromide where technically and economically feasible ; the development of research and transition plans; and t he requests in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that Parties co nsider and implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on actions a Party may take to reduce the critical uses of methy l bromide and include information on the methodology they use to determine economic feasibility. Deleted: Some of these criteria are evaluated in other docum ents. Deleted: (see Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(b)(iii)) Deleted: ,*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

23 of 29 Previous Decisions of the Parties have stated that critical users shall employ emissions minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other tec hniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically f easible. EPA developed a comprehensive strategy for risk mitigation through the 2009 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) 2 for methyl bromide, available in the docket to thi s rulemaking, which is implemented through restrictions on how methyl brom ide products can be used. This approach means that methyl bromide labels require t hat treated sites be tarped. The RED also incorporated incentives for applicators to use high-barrier tarps, such as virtually impermeable film, by allowing smaller buffer zones around those sites. In addition to minimizing emissions, use of high-barrier tarps has the benefit of providing pest control at lower application rates. The amount of methyl br omide nominated by the United States reflects the lower application rates necessary when using high-barrier tarps

. d EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and the Na tional Institute for Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) to promote emissions reduct ion techniques. The federal government has invested substantial resources into developing and implementing best practices for methyl bromide use, including emissio ns reduction practices. The Cooperative Extension System, which receives some s upport from USDA-NIFA, provides locally appropriate and project-focused ou treach education regarding methyl bromide transition best practices. Additional infor mation on USDA research on alternatives and emissions reduction can be found a t:

2 Additional information on risk mitigation measures for soil fumigants is available at http://epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumig ants/ Deleted: , where such tarps are allowe Commented [A48]: Are they disallowed in some jurisdictions, or is use just infeasible in some areas?*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

24 of 29 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 eve ry effort to minimize overall emissions of methyl bromide. EPA also encou rages researchers and users who are using techniques to minimize emissions of methyl br omide to inform EPA of their experiences and to provide information on such tech niques with their critical use applications. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Exe cutive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-execu tive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and R eview and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action was deemed to raise novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to O MB recommendations have been documented in the docket. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose any new information col lection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information co llection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control n umber 2060-0482. The application, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements have alre ady been established under previous critical use exemption rulemakings. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

25 of 29 I certify that this action will not have a signific ant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse econom ic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a sign ificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule re lieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. Since this rule would allow the use of methyl bromide for approved critical uses after the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this ac tion would confer a benefit to users of methyl bromide. We have therefore concluded that th is action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 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 b etween the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and respons ibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordina tion with Indian Tribal
Governments This action does not have tribal implications as s pecified in Executive Order 13175. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal Commented [A49]: Does the rule limit in which states the CUE applies? The CUE for strawberries is just for CA g rowers while GA and FL growers were not given exemptions. For the manufacturers that were granted CUEs, are they restricted to usin g methyl bromide in just California or could they also use it in oth er states where they may operate? Commented [A50R49]: Response: This rule allows the production and use of methyl bromide according to w hich applicants applied, were included in the U.S. nomination, and authorized by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Applicants are re gional trade associations not States, so this rule does not impo se any duties or responsibilities on State governments.*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

26 of 29 governments nor does it impose any enforceable duti es on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not a pply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children fr om Environmental Health and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 1304 5 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, an d because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks ad dressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s he alth and risk assessments are contained in the Regulatory Impacts Analysis and Benefits Ana lysis found in the docket. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantl y Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,
or Use This action is not a “significant energy action” b ecause it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribut ion or use of energy. This action does not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor does it regulate any manner of energy use. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This rulemaking does not involve technical standar ds. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Addres s Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations EPA believes this action will not have disproportio nately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low- income populations, because it affects the level of environmental protection equally for a ll affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human healt h or environmental effects on any*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

27 of 29 population, including any minority or low-income po pulation. Any ozone depletion that results from this action will impact all affected p opulations equally because ozone depletion is a global environmental problem with en vironmental and human effects that are, in general, equally distributed across geograp hical regions in the United States. Populations that work or live near fields or other application sites may benefit from the reduced amount of methyl bromide applied, as compar ed to amounts allowed under previous critical use exemption rules.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Exports, Impo rts, Ozone depletion.

Dated:

Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 82- PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q. 2. Amend § 82.8 by revising the table in paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances and critic al use allowances

. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2016 Critica l Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide (Page 27 of 28)

Commented [A51]: Wouldn’t it impact those who work outdoors more than others and disproportionately po or and minority (agricultural workers)? Commented [A52R51]: Response: [Discuss]*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

28 of 29 * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * *
Company 2016 Critical use allowances for pre-plant uses* (kilograms) 2016 Critical use allowances for post-harvest uses* (kilograms) Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company 140,707 1,969
Albemarle Corp. 57,862 810 ICL-IP America 31,976 447 TriCal, Inc. 996 14 Total 231,540 3,240

* For production or import of Class I, Group VI con trolled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendi x L to this subpart.
* * * * * 3. Amend subpart A by revising appendix L to read a s follows: APPENDIX L TO SUBPART A OF PART 82 – APPROVED CRITI CAL USES AND LIMITING CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE USES FOR THE 2016 CONTROL PERIOD

Column A Column B Column C
Approved Critical Uses Approved Critical User, 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 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 POST-HARVEST USES*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Ci te, Quote, or Release During Review ***

29 of 29 Dry Cured Pork Products Members of the National Country Ham

Association and the American Association of Meat Processors, Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina), and Gwaltney of Smithfield Inc. Red legged ham beetle infestation Cheese/ham skipper infestation Dermestid beetle infestation Ham mite infestation

## EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 Final Page 1 

## Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for 2016 – Dr ied Fruit DATE: March 21, 2014 APPLICANTS CUE 0015 – CA Dried Plum Board 

## NOMINATION STATUS The United States government has not nominated this sector because the application lacks verifiable evidence to demonstrate to the Parties t o the Montreal Protocol that this use meets the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6. The applicant did not provide relevant, empirical, summarized data to demonstrate that the Montreal Protocol Crit eria have been met. INTRODUCTION This document describes the analysis and informatio n needed by the United States government to support a critical use nomination under the Mont real Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. This is not meant to be a complete ana lysis or full list of issues but is designed to help guide discussions. MONTREAL PROTOCOL CRITERIA, Decision IX/6 (1997) - Use of methyl bromide for a specific use is critical only if criteria 1 throu gh 5 have been met: 1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commerciali ze, and register alternatives and that active research programs are in place to develop and deplo y alternatives.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rigorously tes ting the currently available control methods (chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet regist ered chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The applicant must provide a list of alte rnatives that will be tested in the next year. 2. The lack of availability of MeBr would lead to a si gnificant market disruption.
• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe h ow the loss of methyl bromide will impact this sector or individual users and the type and ex tent of those impacts. 3. There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives 

## that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitab le to the crops and circumstances of the nomination

. • Explanation - The applicant must provide supporting data/evidence to describe any negative impacts when each of the alternatives are used alon e or in combination. The supporting evidence (both technical and economic) must include relevant , empirical, summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alterna tives do not effectively control the target pests. Assertions of technical or economic infeasibility a re not sufficient. 4. All technically and economically feasible steps hav e been taken to minimize emissions and use of MeBr.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence t o show a transition to lower rates, fewer fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each f acility. 5. Methyl bromide is not available from stocks
• Explanation - The applicant must state if they have access to stocks (methyl bromide produced before 2005) and describe attempts they have made t o obtain stocks from suppliers or distributors within the United States.

## EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 Final Page 2



## MBTOC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (February 2013)

• Data should be provided to demonstrate that supplem ental heat cannot be used to increase the efficacy of SF
• After 12 years, the applicant should demonstrate th at efforts have been made to prevent reinfestation in storage or ability to use something other than MeBr
• Partial budget analysis by industry should be provi ded to allow an economic analysis to be conducted 

## EPA ANALYSIS:
• Dried fruit (dried plums, figs, raisins, and dates) in storage did not demonstrate a critical need.
• Research program did not provide current data on te sts with all of the alternatives under conditions of the request, no evidence was provided to demonstrate current work to exclude pests from re-infesting the commodity, and no evide nce was provided to demonstrate that supplemental heat cannot be used.

• 

## Industry has mostly converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no data relevant to market disruption were provided. Time is not critical in storage therefore, sulfuryl fluoride/ phosphine can be held on the commodity for relative ly long periods of time without impacting industry.

• Insufficient evidence to estimate number of facilit ies with high pest pressure
• Insufficient evidence to estimate loss of commodity due to pests
• Stored product pests are not active at temperatures near/below 55°F; in fact, USDA recommends storage at 55°F or below for insect & pathogen prev ention. No evidence provided that fumigation at these temperatures is critical.
• Data indicate SF effective against key pests. Low temperature data demonstrate lack of performance on pest eggs (esp. dried fruit beetle); but storage/harvest temperatures not provided so low temperature claims cannot be verified; evidence of significant pest pressure not provided. 

## Synopsis of Alternatives Sulfuryl Fluoride (SF)
• Industry reported to MBTOC (Fall 2010) that over 90 % of industry had transitioned to SF, because MeBr was either unavailable or too expensiv e. Since that time more of the industry has transitioned, and no market disruption has occurred

. • Works well on post-embryonic life stages; matches M eBr at higher temperatures; egg kill reduced at lower temperatures, esp. for dried fruit beetle; extended exposure time can significantly reduce concentration
• Chemical cost is less than MeBr with overall cost ( activities & material cost) similar or less than MeBr
• SF may take longer than MeBr but no substantiated n eed to rush fumigation of commodities in storage Phosphine (PH 3 

### )
• Needs more time than MeBr or SF;; needs much less g as than MeBr
• Fumigation cost is less than MeBr
• Some stored product pests may be resistant


## • Stored commodities can accommodate longer fumigatio n time Propylene Oxide
• Very effective on insect eggs
• More expensive

## EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 Final Page 3

• Regulatory constraints: maximum volume is 10,000 ft 3 

### and commodity must be heated to 100°F 

## Economic Impact (Losses)
• The data provided did not demonstrate an economic i mpact (economic feasibility) when using the alternatives.
• Complete economic information has not been provided

. EPA CONCLUSION:
• Dried fruit (dried plums, figs, raisins, and dates) in storage did not demonstrate a critical need.
• Criteria 1. Did not demonstrate a robust research plan through testing of all the alternatives under the circumstances of the nominat ion nor testing methods to exclude pests from re-infesting the product.
• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruptio n. • Criteria 3. Did not demonstrate that alternatives are not technically and economically feasible.
• Criteria 4. Did not demonstrate that all attempts have been made to reduce emissions.
• Criteria 5. Did not demonstrate that attempts have been made to obtain methyl bromide from stocks.

. References 1 

## : 2012 MBAO, Orlando, Florida, November 6-8, 2013. P resentations available at: http://mbao.org/

. Johnson, Judy (37) - High Temperature CO2 Treatments for inshell walnut s Walse, Spencer (52) - Postharvest Fumigation Research at USDA-ARS. In addition, the following were used: Stored Product Protection. 2012. Eds: DW Hagstrum, TW Phillips, and G Cuperus. K-State Research and Extension. http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/S156.pdf Several Chapters including but limited to: Burks, CS, and JA Johnson. Biology, behavior, and ecology of stored fruit and nut insects. Chapter 3, p 21-31. Arthur, FH and B Subramanyam. Chemical Control in Stored Products. Chapter 9, p. 95-100. Barakat, D. A., D. Klementz, and C. Reichmuth, 2009. Response of Eggs of Corcyra cephalonica towards Sulfuryl Fluoride . Presentation at 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/061Reichmuth.pdf

. Burks, Charles S. and L.P.S. Kuenen. 2011. Monito ring Indianmeal moth in the presence of mating disruption. Presentation at the 2011 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, San Diego, CA, Oct 31-Nov 2, 2011. Available at: http://mbao.org/2011/59Burks.pdf

.

1 

### Application contained abstracts from 2012 MBAO wit hout summary or explanation.

## EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 Final Page 4



## Emekci, Mevlut (55) 2010. The efficacy of sulfury l fluoride against egg stage of the dried fruit beetle. Presentation at 2010 MBAO, Nov. 1-5, 2010, Orlando , Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2010/55Emeki.pdf

. Ferizli, Guray (56) 2010. Does sulfuryl fluoride and heat combination overcome the egg weakness of almond moth? Presentation at 2010 MBAO, Nov. 1-5, 2010, Orland o, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2010/56Ferizli.pdf

. Hosoda, Ed. 2009. California ProFume Update, 2009 . Presentation at 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/069Hosada.pdf

. Hosoda, Ed. 2008. Eco2Fume® and VaporPH3OS®. Pre sentation at 2008 MBAO, Nov. 11-14, 2008, Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2 008/125Hosoda.pdf Liu, Yong-Biao. 2011. Potential of oxygenated phos phine fumigation for postharvest pest control. Presentation at the 2011 Annual Internati onal Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, San Diego, CA, Oct 31-Nov 2, 2011. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2011/53Liu.pdf

. Muhareb, Jeannette. 2009. Evaluation of Combining Sulfuryl Fluoride, Propylene Oxide & CO2 for Stored Product Insect Control. Presentatio n at 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/064Muhareb.pdf

. Russo, C., Green, R.D. & Howitt, R.E. “Estimation of Supply and Demand Elasticities of California Commodities”. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis, Working Paper No. 08-001, June 2008. Walse, S. 2011. Postharvest Fumigation Research a t USDA-ARS-SJVASC. Presentation at 2011 MBAO, Oct.31-Nov 2, 2011, San Diego, CA. Avai lable online at: http://mbao.org/2011/68Walse.pdf Walse, Spencer, J.G. Leesch, and S. Tebbets. 2009. Ovicidal Efficacy of Sulfuryl Fluoride to Stored-Product Pests of Dried Fruits. USDA/ARS, Sa n Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center, Parlier, CA 93648. Presentation a t 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2 009/060Walse.pdf. Williams, Robert. 2009. Control of Carob Moth ( Ectomyelosis ceratonia ) in Fresh Dates Fumigated with ProFume®. Presentation at 2009 MBAO , Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/063Williams.pdf

. Williams, R. and E. Thoms. 2008. ProFume® gas fum igant update: post-harvest commercial acceptance and performance in North America. Prese ntation at 2008 MBAO, Nov. 11- 14, 2008, Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2008/084Thoms.pdf Websites:

## EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 Final Page 5



## Several websites linked to California Most Useful P ostharvest Information. Available at: http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Most_Useful_Postharv est_Websites/ Agriculture Handbook Number 66. Available at: http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/contents.html

## EPA Summary Orchard Replant CA CUE 2014 Final Page 1

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for 2016 Use— California Orchard Replant DATE : March 21, 2014 APPLICANTS: California Grape & Tree Fruit League—Stone fruit, r aisin and table grape (0013) Almond Hullers and Processors Association—Almond (0 043) California Walnut Commission & Walnut Marketing Boa rd—Walnut (0029) NOMINATION STATUS The United States government has not nominated this sector because the application lacks verifiable evidence to demonstrate to the Parties t o the Montreal Protocol that this use meets the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6. The applicant did not provide relevant, empirical, summarized data to demonstrate that the Montreal Protocol Crit eria have been met. INTRODUCTION This document describes the analysis and informatio n needed by the United States government to support a critical use nomination under the Mont real Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. This is not meant to be a complete ana lysis or full list of issues but is designed to help guide discussions. MONTREAL PROTOCOL CRITERIA, Decision IX/6 (1997) - Use of methyl bromide for a specific use is critical only if criteria 1 throu gh 5 have been met: 1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commerciali ze, and register alternatives and that active research programs are in place to develop an d deploy alternatives.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rig orously testing the currently available control methods (chemical or non-chemical ), or other not yet registered chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The a pplicant must provide a list of alternatives that will be tested in the next year. 2. The lack of availability of MeBr would lead to a si gnificant market disruption.
• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe h ow the loss of methyl bromide will impact this sector or individual users and the type and extent of those impacts. 3. There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitab le to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide supporting data/evidence to describe any negative impacts when each of the alternatives are used alone or in combination. The supporting evidence (both technical and economic) m ust include relevant, empirical, summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives do not effectively control the target pests. Asser tions of technical or economic infeasibility are not sufficient. 4. All technically and economically feasible steps hav e been taken to minimize emissions and use of MeBr.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence t o show a transition to lower rates, fewer fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each facility.

## EPA Summary Orchard Replant CA CUE 2014 Final Page 2

5. Methyl bromide is not available from stocks
• Explanation - The applicant must state if they have access to stocks (methyl bromide produced before 2005) and describe attempts they ha ve made to obtain stocks from suppliers or distributors within the United States.

EPA ANALYSIS 1. No information was submitted nor was there specific acres identified for this sector detailing any replant sites affected by township re strictions on use of 1,3-D. 2. Regarding clay soils, we do not have data to suppor t a case for a nomination for the asserted critical impacts without MB where nematode s are present in clay soils. For example, while an applicant cited McKenry and Krets ch (1987) as support of the extent of nematode incidence, the paper does not indicate a critical need for MB. That paper provided survey information on nematodes in primari ly sandy soils and did not discuss any methods of nematode control. Some limited publ ished materials that have examined nematode control in clay soils (e.g., McKenry et al ., 2003—MBAO, http://mbao.org/2003/036%20mckenrymnewchiselshanksm bao8-29-03.pdf ) indicated that there are management strategies that can be us ed. A strong, well-documented case presented to MBTOC will be required for a successfu l critical use nomination. 3. We did not receive supporting data to demonstrate V OC regulatory restrictions on all of the alternative fumigants as stated by the applican t. 4. We do not have data to support a nomination for the critical need for use in individual holes treated with MB (1 or 2 per acre) to replace trees in existing orchards. In order to present a successful nomination to MBTOC, the fact that there are registered products (e.g., chloropicrin and 1,3-D) labeled for applicat ion to individual holes requires data showing losses that occurred with the use of these registered alternatives and that they are neither effective nor feasible. 5. We do not have data substantiating losses caused by Armillaria to support a nomination of the critical need for MB. We recognize that Arm illaria rot is a difficult disease and that MB has been a treatment to manage Armillaria. However, to present a nomination it is necessary to have specific data identifying impa cts where alternative methods are used. Satellite photographs that were presented (McKenry, 2013-- http://www.mbao.org/2013/Presentations/PP%205/McKen ry.pdf ) showing the effect of MB in an orchard with Armillaria does not provide r igorous support for a nomination.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 1. Description and supporting information addressing t he following: i. The available data show that alternatives to methyl bromide are available and effective. ii. Numerous field trials indicate alternatives to meth yl bromide are effective, therefore, there would not appear to be substantial losses fro m transitioning to the alternatives. iii. When the alternatives are as effective as methyl br omide, the economic returns with alternatives are at least as high as with methyl br omide—this is because the alternatives are less expensive than methyl bromide

.

## EPA Summary Orchard Replant CA CUE 2014 Final Page 3

iv. Research from 2011 MBAO indicates significant econo mic return and higher yields with 1,3-D/chloropicrin compared to MB. For exampl e, for almond “The ranking from most efficient to least efficient by fumigant is the same for the strip, strip plus tarp, and broadcast treatments with Telone II the m ost efficient and Methyl Bromide the least efficient for each category of treatments .” In peaches, highest income and greatest yield was from 1,3-D/pic (Telone C35) stri p treatment (Klonsky, 2011; http://mbao.org/2011/Proceedings/23KlonskyK.pdf )
v. If yields with 1,3-D and chloropicrin are equal to those with MB, then the present value of the returns to the orchard with these alte rnatives are estimated to be at least as high as with MB. Although the available researc h does not substantiate yield losses with the alternatives, if yields with altern atives were lower, the losses could be large.

EPA CONCLUSION

• It was not possible to determine a critical need fo r MB for orchard replant based on lack of feasible alternatives or market disruption.
• Criteria 1. Did not demonstrate through a robust r esearch program that alternatives were not effective under the circumstances of the nomina tion. o Armillaria is said to be a problem but no research has been conducted with the alternatives.
• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruptio n would occur.
• Criteria 3. Did not demonstrate that alternatives are not technically and economically feasible. o In spite of assertions of impacts from township cap s on 1,3-D, applicants did not identify areas or townships that are affected b y restrictions on 1,3-D use. o No data were submitted to support that there are no alternatives for managing pathogenic nematodes in clay soils or that economic impacts are caused by these nematodes when alternatives are used. For th e most prevalent problem, Prunus replant disease, alternative practices are e ffective. o Registered alternatives are labeled for individual- hole treatments. No data were provided showing impacts experienced with the use of alternatives. o The economic returns with alternatives are at least as high as with MB—this is because the alternatives are less expensive than methyl bromide. For example, significant economic returns and higher yi elds were reported with 1,3-D/chloropicrin compared to MB. o No data have been submitted substantiating losses e xperienced due to Armillaria rot with the best registered alternative methods compared to methyl bromide. It was not possible, therefore, to put fo rward the nomination based on this use
• Criteria 4. Did not demonstrate that all attempts have been made to reduce emissions.
• Criteria 5. Methyl bromide may not be available fr om stocks for this use.

## EPA Summary Ornamentals Ca Fl CUE 2014 Final Page 1 Summary of the US EPA Analysis of the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for 2015 and 2016 - Ornamentals DATE March 21, 2014 APPLICANTS CUE 0018 California Cut Flower Commission CUE 0078 Florida Cut Flower NOMINATION STATUS The United States government has not nominated this sector because the application lacks verifiable evidence to demonstrate to the Parties t o the Montreal Protocol that this use meets the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6. The applicant did not provide relevant, empirical, summarized data to demonstrate that the Montreal Protocol Crit eria have been met. INTRODUCTION This document describes the analysis and informatio n needed by the United States government to support a critical use nomination under the Mont real Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. This is not meant to be a complete ana lysis or full list of issues but is designed to help guide discussions. MONTREAL PROTOCOL CRITERIA, Decision IX/6 (1997) - Use of methyl bromide for a specific use is critical only if criteria 1 throu gh 5 have been met: 1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commerciali ze, and register alternatives and that active research programs are in place to develop an d deploy alternatives.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rig orously testing the currently available control methods (chemical or non-chemical ), or other not yet registered chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The a pplicant must provide a list of alternatives that will be tested in the next year. 2. The lack of availability of MeBr would lead to a si gnificant market disruption.
• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe h ow the loss of methyl bromide will impact this sector or individual users and the type and extent of those impacts. 3. There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitab le to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide supporting data/evidence to describe any negative impacts when each of the alternatives are used alone or in combination. The supporting evidence (both technical and economic) m ust include relevant, empirical, summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives do not effectively control the target pests. Asser tions of technical or economic infeasibility are not sufficient. 4. All technically and economically feasible steps hav e been taken to minimize emissions and use of MeBr.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence t o show a transition to lower rates, fewer fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each facility. 5. Methyl bromide is not available from stocks

## EPA Summary Ornamentals Ca Fl CUE 2014 Final Page 2

• Explanation - The applicant must state if they have access to stocks (methyl bromide produced before 2005) and describe attempts they ha ve made to obtain stocks from suppliers or distributors within the United States.

EPA ANALYSIS
• The applicant did not provide data to demonstrate t hat all of the alternatives did not work. See list below.
• No one alternative is deemed to be effective for al l pest problems but a review of multiple year data indicates that the alternatives provide equal or su perior control to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. 

## Synopsis of Alternatives (different combinations of these alternatives may b e needed for each user) 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), Chloropicrin, and Met am sodium/potassium are all registered for ornamentals
• Research results not provided to demonstrate that t hese fumigants used alone or in combination are not technically feasible. 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone) plus Chloropicrin
• Research demonstrates excellent results. High rate s of 1,3-D alone under VIF can provide pathogen and weed control equal to MeBr:Pic (Jhala 2012). PicChlor 60 calla lily yields and pathogen control equivalent to MeBr :Pic (Gerik 2012b).
• Economic analysis indicates that for CA calla lilly and ranunculus there was not loss as a percent of gross revenue. For FL there was no loss data provided. Price of alternative is lower than MeBr:chloropicrin.
• Suitable for use in areas without karst topography. 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone) plus Chloropicrin plus Metam sodium (e.g. In-Line plus Vapam, In-Line followed by kPam)
• Research demonstrates excellent results.
• Calla lilies stand not impacted by pathogens but Pythium control better than Fusarium control. Inline was more effective than PicChlor and the addition of KPam improved disease control (Gerik 2012a) Weed, pathogen, and ranunculus bulb yield better with the alternatives than MeBr:Pic when drip applied. Glad iolus - most alternatives equivalent to MeBr:Pic for yield and Fusarium. (Gerik 2012b).
• Economic analyses indicates there was no loss as a percent of gross revenue for CA or FL.
• Price of this mixture is lower than MeBr:chloropicr in.
• Suitable for use in areas without karst topography. Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) plus Chloropicrin (Paladi n TM) Not registered in CA.
• Research demonstrates effective pest control (Rossk opf et al 2012). Yields equal to MeBr:Pic but Fusarium control not as effective.
• Nematode control equal to MeBr:Pic in FL (Kokalis-B urelle 2012). Gladiolus - DMDS equivalent to MeBr:Pic for yield and Fusarium control. (Gerik 2012b)
• Insufficient multiple year data to conduct economic analysis but low yield loss should lead to a low economic impact. Price of alternativ es is lower than MeBr:chloropicrin.
• Not registered in CA.

## EPA Summary Ornamentals Ca Fl CUE 2014 Final Page 3

• Can be used in areas of karst topography.
• Requires TIF type plastic tarps because of odor iss ues. Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation (ASD)
• Research demonstrates good results, more pests and pathogens still to be tested. Nematode and weed control equal to MeBr:Pic in FL ( Kokalis-Burelle 2012).
• Only preliminary data available for CA or FL. Orna mental yield equal to MeBr:Pic in FL (Kokalis-Burelle 2012). Insufficient multiple year data to conduct economic analysis but low yield loss should lead to a low economic impact

. • No regulatory constraints - could be part of an org anic program. Herbicides
• The applicant has stated that weed control is a nec essary part of any pest management program. Multiple herbicides are registered in Cal ifornia (Wilen and Elmore 2009) and Florida (Stamps et al 2013) but no summarized data was provided to demonstrate that they are not feasible.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
• The alternatives cost less (economic feasibility) a nd this application did not provide data showing the alternatives were not technically feasi ble. EPA CONCLUSION:
• Ornamentals in California and Florida did not demon strate a critical need.
• Criteria 1. Did not demonstrate a robust research plan through testing of all the alternatives under the circumstances of the nominat ion.
• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruptio n would occur.
• Criteria 3. Did not demonstrate that alternatives are not technically and economically feasible.
• Criteria 4. Did not demonstrate that all attempts have been made to reduce emissions.
• Criteria 5. Methyl bromide may not be available fr om stocks for this use. REFERENCES Gerik, J.S., S.R. Dangi, H. Ajwa. 2012a. Calla li ly production with methyl bromide alternatives Year 2. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Confe rence. Gerik, J.S., S.R. Dangi, H. Ajwa. 2012b. Technolo gy Transfer Methods for Adoption of Methyl Bromide Alternatives in California Cut Flower and B ulb Crops. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Conference. Holzinger, J. 2012. Letter stating methyl bromide is critical for flower production in Florida. Email sent from Erin Rosskopf of USDA on Dec. 10, 2 012. Jhala, A.J., S. Gao, J.S. Gerik, R. Qin and B. D Ha nson. 2012 Effects of surface treatments and application shanks on nematode, pathogen and weed c ontrol with 1,3-dichloropropene. Pest Manag Sci 2012; 68: 225–230

## EPA Summary Ornamentals Ca Fl CUE 2014 Final Page 4

Kokalis-Burelle, N. and E. N. Rosskopf. 2012. Alt ernatives to methyl bromide for nematode control in ornamental crops. Methyl Bromide Altern atives Outreach Conference. Rainbolt, C.M. B.D. Hanson, S.A. Fennimore, and J.S . Gerik. 2010. Steam disinfestation as a methyl bromide alternative in California cut flower nurseries. Reference cited by applicant. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Co nference. Rosskopf, E.N. 2013. Provided four studies on fum igants and herbicides for use on tomato. Email of Dec. 9, 2013 Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, E. and O. Nisse n, B. Hartman, E. Skvarch, R. McSorley, T.J. Swaford, S. Brooks, K. Register, C. Owens. E valuation of currently available alternatives to methyl bromide for ornamental crop production in Florida. Available online at http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/082Rossk opfAAWP.pdf Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, R. McSorley an d E. Skvarch. Revised August 2012. Optimizing Alternative Fumigant Applications for Or namental Production in Florida. Univ. of Florida Publication Publication #ENY-901. Accessed online on Jan. 28, 2014 at https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in818 Stamps, R.H., H.M. Savage, D.K. Rock, and J.G. Nor cini . Revised 2013 Preemergence Herbicides for Use in Ornamentals Univ. of FL Publ ication Publication #OH-94. Accessed online on Feb. 11, 2014 at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wg058 Wilen, C.A. and C.L. Elmore. 2009. UC IPM Pest Ma nagement Guidelines: Floriculture and Ornamental Nurseries UC ANR Publication 3392, Weeds . Accessed online on Feb. 11, 2014 at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r280700211.html

## EPA Summary Strawberry FL CUE 2014 Final Page 1

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for 2016 Use— Florida Strawberry DATE : March 21, 2014 APPLICANT: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (0053) NOMINATION STATUS The United States government has not nominated this sector because the application lacks verifiable evidence to demonstrate to the Parties t o the Montreal Protocol that this use meets the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6. The applicant did not provide relevant, empirical, summarized data to demonstrate that the Montreal Protocol Crit eria have been met. INTRODUCTION This document describes the analysis and informatio n needed by the United States government to support a critical use nomination under the Mont real Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. This is not meant to be a complete ana lysis or full list of issues but is designed to help guide discussions. MONTREAL PROTOCOL CRITERIA, Decision IX/6 (1997) - Use of methyl bromide for a specific use is critical only if criteria 1 throu gh 5 have been met: 1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commerciali ze, and register alternatives and that active research programs are in place to develop an d deploy alternatives.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rig orously testing the currently available control methods (chemical or non-chemical ), or other not yet registered chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The a pplicant must provide a list of alternatives that will be tested in the next year. 2. The lack of availability of MeBr would lead to a si gnificant market disruption.
• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe h ow the loss of methyl bromide will impact this sector or individual users and the type and extent of those impacts. 3. There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitab le to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide supporting data/evidence to describe any negative impacts when each of the alternatives are used alone or in combination. The supporting evidence (both technical and economic) m ust include relevant, empirical, summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives do not effectively control the target pests. Asser tions of technical or economic infeasibility are not sufficient. 4. All technically and economically feasible steps hav e been taken to minimize emissions and use of MeBr.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence t o show a transition to lower rates, fewer fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each facility. 5. Methyl bromide is not available from stocks

## EPA Summary Strawberry FL CUE 2014 Final Page 2

• Explanation - The applicant must state if they have access to stocks (methyl bromide produced before 2005) and describe attempts they ha ve made to obtain stocks from suppliers or distributors within the United States.

EPA ANALYSIS:
• No data were provided documenting technical failure s attributable to the use of various registered alternatives resulting in unacceptable p est managment or substantial losses
• No data were provided documenting a critical need t o provide a “rescue treatment” with MeBr
• No data were provided documenting economic losses o r market disruption attributable to alternative fumigant use ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
• The alternatives cost less (economic feasibility) a nd this application did not provide data showing the alternatives were not technically feasi ble.
• Several alternatives are available and provide equa l or superior control to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. EPA CONCLUSION:
• Based on available information it was not possible to identify a critical need for MeBr for a “rescue treatment” for Florida strawberry based o n failures of alternatives or market disruption due to the use or lack of efficacy of al ternatives.
• Criteria 1. While the Florida strawberry industry has an ongoing research program, there are no convincing studies that support the critical need for a rescue treatment.
• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruptio n would occur.
• Criteria 3. Did not demonstrate that alternatives are not technically and economically feasible.
• Criteria 4. Did not demonstrate that all attempts have been made to reduce emissions.
• Criteria 5. Methyl bromide may not be available fr om stocks for this use.

## EPA Summary Vegetables FL MI CUE 2014 Final Page 1

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for 2016 Use— Florida and Michigan Vegetables DATE : March 21, 2014 APPLICANT: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Assoc.: Eggplant (0071) , Pepper (0054), and Tomato (0067-0070) Michigan Vegetable: Cucurbits (0005), Eggplant (006 2), Pepper (0061), Tomato (0004) NOMINATION STATUS The United States government has not nominated this sector because the application lacks verifiable evidence to demonstrate to the Parties t o the Montreal Protocol that this use meets the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6. The applicant did not provide relevant, empirical, summarized data to demonstrate that the Montreal Protocol Crit eria have been met. INTRODUCTION This document describes the analysis and informatio n needed by the United States government to support a critical use nomination under the Mont real Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. This is not meant to be a complete ana lysis or full list of issues but is designed to help guide discussions. MONTREAL PROTOCOL CRITERIA, Decision IX/6 (1997) - Use of methyl bromide for a specific use is critical only if criteria 1 throu gh 5 have been met: 1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commerciali ze, and register alternatives and that active research programs are in place to develop an d deploy alternatives.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rig orously testing the currently available control methods (chemical or non-chemical ), or other not yet registered chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The a pplicant must provide a list of alternatives that will be tested in the next year. 2. The lack of availability of MeBr would lead to a si gnificant market disruption.
• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe h ow the loss of methyl bromide will impact this sector or individual users and the type and extent of those impacts. 3. There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitab le to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide supporting data/evidence to describe any negative impacts when each of the alternatives are used alone or in combination. The supporting evidence (both technical and economic) m ust include relevant, empirical, summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives do not effectively control the target pests. Asser tions of technical or economic infeasibility are not sufficient. 4. All technically and economically feasible steps hav e been taken to minimize emissions and use of MeBr.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence t o show a transition to lower rates, fewer fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each facility. 5. Methyl bromide is not available from stocks

## EPA Summary Vegetables FL MI CUE 2014 Final Page 2

• Explanation - The applicant must state if they have access to stocks (methyl bromide produced before 2005) and describe attempts they ha ve made to obtain stocks from suppliers or distributors within the United States.

EPA ANALYSIS:
• No data were provided documenting technical failure s attributable to the use of various registered alternatives resulting in unacceptable p est managment or substantial losses. o Fumigants such as 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), Chl oropicrin, and Metam sodium/potassium as well as Dimethyl Disulfide (DMD S) plus chloropicrin (Paladin TM) are all registered for vegetable produc tion. o The non-fumigant option of Anaerobic Soil Disinfest ation (ASD) is also suitable under certain conditions.
• No data were provided for Florida documenting a cri tical need to provide a “rescue treatment” with MeBr , or to support an estimate of the extent of acreage that would need a "rescue treatment".
• No data were provided for Michigan documenting econ omic losses or market disruption attributable to alternative fumigant use Synopsis of Alternatives (different combinations of these alternatives may b e needed for each user) 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), Chloropicrin, Dimethy l Disulfide (Paladin TM) and Metam sodium/potassium are all registered
• Research results not provided to demonstrate that t hese fumigants used alone or in combination are not technically feasible. Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation (ASD)
• Research in other regions of the US and the world s how good results, but ASD needs more testing in the soil/climate conditions of thes e specific regions (FL and MI).

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
• The alternatives cost less (economic feasibility) a nd this application did not provide data showing the alternatives were not technically feasi ble.
• Several alternatives are available and provide equa l or superior control to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. EPA CONCLUSION:
• For Florida based on available information it was n ot possible to identify a critical need for MeBr for a “rescue treatment” for vegetables ba sed on failures of alternatives or market disruption due to the use or lack of efficac y of alternatives.
• For Michigan based on available information it was not possible to identify a critical need for MeBr for early season applications for vegetabl es based on failures of alternatives or market disruption due to the use or lack of efficac y of alternatives.
• Criteria 1. Both Florida and Michigan have conduct ed research on the registered alternatives.
• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruptio n would occur.

## EPA Summary Vegetables FL MI CUE 2014 Final Page 3

• Criteria 3. Did not demonstrate that alternatives are not technically and economically feasible.
• Criteria 4. Did not demonstrate that all attempts have been made to reduce emissions.
• Criteria 5. Methyl bromide may not be available fr om stocks for this use.

### EPA Summary Walnuts CA CUE 2014 

## Final Page 1 

## Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for 2016 – Wa lnuts DATE: March 21, 2014 APPLICANTS CUE 0030 – CA Walnut Commission


## NOMINATION STATUS The United States government has not nominated this sector because the application lacks verifiable evidence to demonstrate to the Parties t o the Montreal Protocol that this use meets the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6. The applicant did not provide relevant, empirical, summarized data to demonstrate that the Montreal Protocol Crit eria have been met. INTRODUCTION This document describes the analysis and informatio n needed by the United States government to support a critical use nomination under the Mont real Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. This is not meant to be a complete ana lysis or full list of issues but is designed to help guide discussions. MONTREAL PROTOCOL CRITERIA, Decision IX/6 (1997) - Use of methyl bromide for a specific use is critical only if criteria 1 throu gh 5 have been met: 1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commerciali ze, and register alternatives and that active research programs are in place to develop and deplo y alternatives.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rigorously tes ting the currently available control methods (chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet regist ered chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The applicant must provide a list of alte rnatives that will be tested in the next year. 2. The lack of availability of MeBr would lead to a si gnificant market disruption.
• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe h ow the loss of methyl bromide will impact this sector or individual users and the type and ex tent of those impacts. 3. There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives 

## that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitab le to the crops and circumstances of the nomination

. • Explanation - The applicant must provide supporting data/evidence to describe any negative impacts when each of the alternatives are used alon e or in combination. The supporting evidence (both technical and economic) must include relevant , empirical, summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alterna tives do not effectively control the target pests. Assertions of technical or economic infeasibility a re not sufficient. 4. All technically and economically feasible steps hav e been taken to minimize emissions and use of MeBr.
• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence t o show a transition to lower rates, fewer fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each f acility. 5. Methyl bromide is not available from stocks
• Explanation - The applicant must state if they have access to stocks (methyl bromide produced before 2005) and describe attempts they have made t o obtain stocks from suppliers or distributors within the United States.

### EPA Summary Walnuts CA CUE 2014 

## Final Page 2



## EPA ANALYSIS:
• Walnuts did not demonstrate a critical need.

• Although reporting active research funding, no rece nt data on the specifics of this nomination are provided.


## • Research program did not provide current data on te sts with all of the alternatives under conditions of the request, and no evidence was prov ided to demonstrate current work to exclude pests from re-infesting the commodity.

• Insufficient evidence to estimate number of facilit ies with high pest pressure
• Insufficient evidence to estimate loss of commodity due to pests
• Walnut Applicants supplied ambient low temperatures during winters of 2007 & 2008; however it is the temperature of the commodity within the ware house/commodity that is needed.
• Stored product pests are not active at temperatures near 55°F; in fact, USDA recommends storage at 55°F or below for insect & pathogen prevention. No evidence that fumigation at these temperatures is critical.
• Data indicate sulfuryl fluoride effective against k ey pests. Low temperature data demonstrate lack of performance on pest eggs (esp. dried fruit beetl e ); but storage/harvest temperatures not provided. Also variable results in studies.
• It remains unclear why walnuts in storage must be f umigated in 24 hours.
• After 6 years, no data provided to demonstrate that lengthening time of fumigations for sulfuryl fluoride would not control eggs under the condition s of this nomination.
• Emissions reductions not provided. 

## OTHER CONSTRAINTS

• Industry reported to MBTOC (Fall 2010) that over 90 % of industry had transitioned to SF, because MBr was either unavailable or too expensive . Since that time more of the industry has transitioned, and no market disruption has occurred

. 

## Synopsis of Alternatives Sulfuryl Fluoride (SF)
• Works well on post-embryonic life stages; matches M Br at higher temperatures; egg kill reduced at lower temperatures, esp. for dried fruit beetle; extended exposure time can significantly reduce concentration
• No significant cost difference (activities & materi al cost) similar or less than MBr
• No need to rush fumigation of commodities in storag e Phosphine (PH 3 

### )
• Needs more time than MBr or SF; some stored product pests resistant; needs much less gas than MBr
• Because of time constraint not an option at peak ha rvest; but for storage is an option
• Stored commodities should not require a rapid turn- around time
• Cheaper than MBr, but to accommodate through-put, m ore fumigation chambers required (10- 15x more)
• No regulatory constraints Propylene Oxide
• Very effective on insect eggs
• More expensive
• Regulatory constraints: maximum volume is 10,000 ft 3 

### , commodity must be heated to 100°F

### EPA Summary Walnuts CA CUE 2014 

## Final Page 3



## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
• The data provided did not demonstrate an economic i mpact (economic feasibility) when using the alternatives.
• Complete economic information has not been provided

. EPA CONCLUSION:
• Walnuts in storage did not demonstrate a critical n eed.
• Criteria 1. Did not demonstrate a robust research plan through testing of all the alternatives under the circumstances of the nominat ion nor testing methods to exclude pests from re-infesting the product.
• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruptio n. • Criteria 3. Did not demonstrate that alternatives are not technically and economically feasible.
• Criteria 4. Did not demonstrate that all attempts have been made to reduce emissions.
• Criteria 5. Did not demonstrate that attempts have been made to obtain methyl bromide from stocks. References 1 

## : 2012 MBAO, Orlando, Florida, November 6-8, 2013. P resentations available at: http://mbao.org/

. Johnson, Judy (37) - High Temperature CO2 Treatments for inshell walnuts Walse, Spencer (52) - Postharvest Fumigation Research at USDA-ARS. In addition, the following were used: Stored Product Protection. 2012. Eds: DW Hagstrum, TW Phillips, and G Cuperus. K-State Research and Extension. http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/p ubs/S156.pdf Several Chapters including but limited to: Burks, CS, and JA Johnson. Biology, behavior, and ecology of stored fruit and nut insects. Chapter 3, p 21-31. Arthur, FH and B Subramanyam. Chemical Control in Stored Products. Chapter 9, p. 95-100. Barakat, D. A., D. Klementz, and C. Reichmuth, 2009 . Response of Eggs of Corcyra cephalonica towards Sulfuryl Fluoride. Presentation at 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/061Reichmuth.pdf. Burks, Charles S. and L.P.S. Kuenen. 2011. Monito ring Indianmeal moth in the presence of mating disruption. Presentation at the 2011 Annual Intern ational Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, San Diego, CA, Oct 31-Nov 2, 2011. Available at: 

## http://mbao.org/2011/59Burks.pdf

. Emekci, Mevlut (55) 2010. The efficacy of sulfury l fluoride against egg stage of the dried fruit beetle. Presentation at 2010 MBAO, Nov. 1-5, 2010, Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2010/55Emeki.pdf

.

1 

### Application contained abstracts from 2012 MBAO wit hout summary or explanation. References collected by EPA.

### EPA Summary Walnuts CA CUE 2014 

## Final Page 4

Ferizli, Guray (56) 2010. Does sulfuryl fluoride and heat combination overcome the egg weakness of almond moth? Presentation at 2010 MBAO, Nov. 1-5, 2010, Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2010/56Ferizli.pdf

. Hosoda, Ed. 2009. California ProFume Update, 2009 . Presentation at 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/069Hosada.pdf

. Hosoda, Ed. 2008. Eco2Fume® and VaporPH3OS®. Pre sentation at 2008 MBAO, Nov. 11-14, 2008, Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2008/12 5Hosoda.pdf Liu, Yong-Biao. 2011. Potential of oxygenated phos phine fumigation for postharvest pest control. Presentation at the 2011 Annual International Resea rch Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, San Diego, CA, Oct 31-Nov 2, 2011. A vailable online at: http://mbao.org/2011/53Liu.pdf

. Muhareb, Jeannette. 2009. Evaluation of Combining Sulfuryl Fluoride, Propylene Oxide & CO2 for Stored Product Insect Control. Presentation at 200 9 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/064Muhareb.pdf

. Russo, C., Green, R.D. & Howitt, R.E. “Estimation of Supply and Demand Elasticities of California Commodities”. Department of Agricultural and Resour ce Economics University of California, Davis, Working Paper No. 08-001, June 2008. Walse, S. 2011. Postharvest Fumigation Research a t USDA-ARS-SJVASC. Presentation at 2011 MBAO, Oct.31-Nov 2, 2011, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2011/68Walse.pdf Walse, Spencer, J.G. Leesch, and S. Tebbets. 2009. Ovicidal Efficacy of Sulfuryl Fluoride to StoredProduct Pests of Dried Fruits. USDA/ARS, San Joaqu in Valley Agricultural Sciences Center, Parlier, CA 93648. Presentation at 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/060Walse.pdf. Williams, Robert. 2009. Control of Carob Moth ( Ectomyelosis ceratonia ) in Fresh Dates Fumigated with ProFume® . Presentation at 2009 MBAO, Nov. 10-12, 2009, San Diego, CA. Available online at: http://mbao.org/2009/063Williams.pdf

. Williams, R. and E. Thoms. 2008. ProFume® gas fum igant update: post-harvest commercial acceptance and performance in North America. Presentation at 2008 MBAO, Nov. 11-14, 2008, Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2008/084Thoms.pdf 

## Websites: Several websites linked to California Most Useful P ostharvest Information. Available at: http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Most_Useful_Postharv est_Websites/ Agriculture Handbook Number 66. Available at: http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/contents.html