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 NOPR

Attachments: EPA Summary Walnuts CA CUE 2014 Final.docx; EO12866MeBrCUE2060-

AS44NPRM040615.docx; EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 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 Final.docx; EPA Summary Tree 

Nurseries CA CUE 2014 Final.docx; EPA Summary Vegetables FL MI CUE 2014 Final.docx

Chad, 

Please see the attached documents for the interagency 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 on the EPA draft proposed rule titled, “Protection of Stratospheric 

Ozone: The 2016 Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout 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 Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1 of 29 

 6560-50-P 

EO12866MeBrCUE2060-AS44NPRM040615.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 Critical Use Exemption from the 

Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing uses that 

qualify for the critical use exemption and the amount of methyl bromide that may be 

produced or imported for those uses for the 2016 control 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 instructions 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 Protocol the CUEs 

for 2017, then it would seem that including the 2017 control period 

in this rulemaking action would be a good idea. What 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 events. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2 of 29 

• Phone: (202) 566-1742 

• U.S. Mail: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369, EPA Docket 

Center - Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369. EPA's 

policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change 

and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 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 your comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.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 Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, 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. Electronic 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 visit the EPA Docket Center homepage 

at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will 

be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 

and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this 

proposed rule, contact Jeremy Arling by telephone at (202) 343-9055, or by e-mail at 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Stratospheric Protection Division, Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch 

(6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20460. You may also 

visit the methyl bromide section of the Ozone Depletion website of EPA’s Stratospheric 

Protection Division at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr for further 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 Cite, 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 topics. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) restrictions on the consumption, 

production, and use of methyl bromide (a Class I, Group VI controlled substance) for 

critical uses during calendar year 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide 

consumption (consumption is defined under section 601 of the CAA as production plus 

imports minus exports) and production were phased out on January 1, 2005, apart from 

allowable exemptions, such as the critical use and the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) 

exemptions. With this action, EPA is proposing and seeking comment on the uses that 

will qualify for the critical use exemption as well as specific amounts of methyl bromide 

that may be produced and imported for proposed critical uses for 2016. 

I. General Information 

 Entities and categories of entities potentially regulated by this proposed action 

include producers, importers, and exporters of methyl bromide; applicators and 

distributors of methyl bromide; and users of methyl bromide that applied for the 2016 

critical use exemption including growers of vegetable crops, ornamentals, fruits, and 

nursery stock, and owners of stored food commodities. This list is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this proposed action. To determine whether your facility, company, 

business, or organization could be regulated by this proposed action, you should carefully 

examine the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. If you have questions 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5 of 29 

regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in 

the preceding section. 

B. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? 

1. Confidential Business Information. Do not submit confidential business information 

(CBI) to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as 

CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or 

section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

your requested changes. 

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

used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6 of 29 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

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

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

threats. 

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

II. What Is Methyl Bromide?

 Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas which is used as a broadspectrum pesticide and is controlled under the CAA as a Class I ozone-depleting 

substance (ODS). Methyl bromide was once widely used as a fumigant to control a 

variety of pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, pathogens, and nematodes. Information 

on methyl bromide can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr. 

 Methyl bromide is also regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and other statutes and regulatory authority, as 

well as by States under their own statutes and regulatory authority. Under FIFRA, methyl 

bromide is a restricted use pesticide. Restricted use pesticides are subject to Federal and 

State requirements governing their sale, distribution, and use. Nothing in this proposed 

rule implementing Title VI of the Clean Air Act is intended to derogate from provisions 

in any other Federal, State, or local laws or regulations governing actions including, but 

not limited to, the sale, distribution, transfer, and use of methyl bromide. Entities affected 

by this proposal must comply with FIFRA and other pertinent statutory and regulatory 

requirements for pesticides (including, but not limited to, requirements pertaining to 

restricted use pesticides) when producing, importing, exporting, acquiring, selling, 

distributing, transferring, or using methyl bromide. The provisions in this proposed action 

Commented [A4]: EPA is allowing CA to use methyl bromide, 

but not Florida or Georgia so it is not clear how this 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 does 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 Cite, 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 from the phaseout of methyl bromide. 

III. What Is the Background to the Phaseout Regulations for Ozone-Depleting 

Substances?

 The regulatory requirements of the stratospheric ozone protection program that 

limit production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances are in 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart A. The regulatory program was originally published in the Federal Register on 

August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing and subsequent 

ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

(Montreal Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is the international agreement aimed at 

reducing and eliminating the production and consumption of stratospheric ozonedepleting substances. The United States was one of the original signatories to the 1987 

Montreal Protocol, and the United States ratified the Protocol in 1988. Congress then 

enacted, and President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 1990), which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United 

States could satisfy its obligations under the Protocol. EPA issued regulations to 

implement this legislation and has since amended the regulations as needed. 

 Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting substance in 

1992 through the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol. The Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol (Parties) agreed that each developed country’s level of methyl bromide 

production and consumption in 1991 should be the baseline for establishing a freeze on 

the level of methyl bromide production and consumption for developed countries. EPA 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, 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 substance. This rule froze U.S. 

production and consumption at the 1991 baseline level of 25,528,270 kilograms, and set 

forth the percentage of baseline allowances for methyl bromide granted to companies in 

each control period (each calendar year) until 2001, when the complete phaseout would 

occur. This phaseout date was established in response to a petition filed in 1991 under 

sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of the CAAA of 1990, requesting that EPA list methyl 

bromide as a Class I substance and phase out its production and consumption. This date 

was consistent with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990, which, for newly listed Class I 

ozone-depleting substances provides that “no extension [of the phaseout schedule in 

section 604] under this subsection may extend the date for termination of production of 

any class I substance to a date more than 7 years after January 1 of the year after the year 

in which the substance is added to the list of class I substances.” 

 At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties (MOP) in 1995, the Parties agreed to 

adjustments to the methyl bromide control measures and agreed to reduction steps and a 

2010 phaseout date for developed countries with exemptions permitted for critical uses. 

At that time, the United States continued to have a 2001 phaseout date in accordance with 

section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990. At the Ninth MOP in 1997, the Parties agreed to 

further adjustments to the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide in developed countries, 

with reduction steps leading to a 2005 phaseout. The Parties also established a phaseout 

date of 2015 for 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

9 of 29 

IV. What Is the Legal Authority for Exempting the Production and Import of 

Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses Authorized by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol?

 In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the Clean Air Act to prohibit the 

termination of production of methyl bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to require EPA to 

align the U.S. phaseout of methyl bromide with the schedule specified under the Protocol, 

and to authorize EPA to provide certain exemptions. These amendments were contained 

in Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 1998) and were codified in section 604 

of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that specifically addresses the critical use 

exemption appears at section 604(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. 7671c(d)(6). EPA revised the phaseout 

schedule for methyl bromide production and consumption in a rulemaking on November 

28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), which allowed for the reduction in methyl bromide consumption 

specified under the Protocol and extended the phaseout to 2005 while creating a 

placeholder for critical use exemptions. 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 critical use exemption, set forth a list of 

approved critical uses for 2005, and specified the amount of methyl bromide that could 

be supplied in 2005 from stocks and new production or import to meet the needs of 

approved critical uses. EPA subsequently published rules applying the critical use 

exemption framework for each of the annual control periods from 2006 to 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

10 of 29 

In accordance with Article 2H(5) of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties have issued 

several Decisions pertaining to the critical use exemption. These include Decisions IX/6 

and Ex. I/4, which set forth criteria for review of critical uses. The status of Decisions is 

addressed in NRDC v. EPA, (464 F.3d 1, D.C. Cir. 2006) and in EPA’s “Supplemental 

Brief for the Respondent,” filed in NRDC v. EPA and available in the docket for this 

proposed action. In this proposed rule on critical uses for 2016, EPA is [proposing to 

honor] [honoring] commitments made by the United States in the Montreal Protocol 

context. 

Under authority of section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, EPA is now proposing the uses 

that will qualify as approved critical uses for 2016, 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 the critical use exemption 

provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1997, the Parties established the criteria 

for an exemption in Decision IX/6. In that Decision, the Parties agreed that “a use of 

methyl bromide should qualify as ‘critical’ only if the nominating Party determines that: 

(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that 

use would result in a significant market disruption; and (ii) There are no technically and 

economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable 

from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and 

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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

11 of 29 

circumstances of the nomination.” EPA promulgated these 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 permitted only if a variety of conditions have 

been met, including that all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken 

to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide, that research 

programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes, and that methyl 

bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked 

or recycled methyl bromide. 

 EPA requested critical use exemption applications for 2016 through a Federal 

Register notice published on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32646). Applicants submitted data on 

their use of methyl bromide, the technical and economic feasibility of using alternatives, 

ongoing research programs into the use of alternatives in their sector, and efforts to 

minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. 

 EPA reviews the data submitted by applicants, as well as data from governmental 

and academic sources, to establish whether there are technically and economically 

feasible alternatives available for a particular use of methyl bromide, and whether there 

would be a significant market disruption if no exemption were available. In addition, an 

interagency workgroup reviews other parameters of the exemption applications such as 

dosage and emissions minimization techniques and applicants’ research or transition 

plans. As required in section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each exemption period, EPA 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

12 of 29 

consults with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).1 This assessment 

process culminates in the development of the U.S. critical use nomination (CUN). 

Annually since 2003, the U.S. Department of State has submitted a CUN to the United 

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone Secretariat. The Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel (TEAP), which are advisory bodies to Parties to the Montreal Protocol, review each 

Party’s CUN and make recommendations to the Parties on the nominations. The Parties 

then take Decisions on critical use exemptions for particular Parties, including how much 

methyl bromide may be supplied for the exempted critical uses. EPA then provides an 

opportunity for public comment on the amounts and specific uses of methyl bromide that 

the agency is proposing to exempt. 

 On January 22, 2014, the United States submitted the twelfth Nomination for a 

Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America to the 

Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination contained the request for 2016 critical uses. 

In March 2014, MBTOC sent questions to the United States concerning technical and 

economic issues in the 2016 nomination. The United States transmitted responses to 

MBTOC in March 2014. In May 2014, the MBTOC provided their interim 

recommendations on the U.S. nomination in the May TEAP Interim Report. These 

documents, together with reports by the advisory bodies noted above, are in the public 

 

1

 See CAA section 604(d)(6): “To the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol, the Administrator, after 

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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

13 of 29 

docket for this rulemaking. The proposed critical uses and amounts authorized in this rule 

reflect the analyses contained in those documents. 

B. How Does This Proposed Rule Relate to Previous Critical Use Exemption Rules? 

 The December 23, 2004, Framework Rule established the framework for the 

critical use exemption program in the United States, including definitions, prohibitions, 

trading provisions, and recordkeeping and reporting obligations. The preamble to the 

Framework Rule included EPA’s determinations on key issues for the critical use 

exemption program. 

 Since publishing the Framework Rule, EPA has annually promulgated regulations 

to exempt specific quantities of production and import of methyl bromide and to indicate 

which uses meet the criteria for the exemption program for that year. 

This proposed action continues the approach established in the 2013 Rule (78 FR 

43797, July 22, 2013) for determining the amounts of Critical Use Allowances (CUAs) to 

be allocated for critical uses. A CUA is the privilege granted through 40 CFR part 82 to 

produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) of methyl bromide for an approved critical use during 

the specified control period. A control period is a calendar year. See 40 CFR 82.3. Each 

year’s allowances expire at the end of that control period and, as explained in the 

Framework Rule, are not bankable from one year to the next. 

C. Proposed Critical Uses 

 In Decision XXVI/6, taken in November 2014, the Parties to the Protocol agreed 

“[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categories 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? If it includes the 

quantities, suggest including next to the categories list below. 

Commented [A11R10]: Response: Easier to follow a 

discussion of critical uses in this section and critical 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

14 of 29 

applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2015 and 2016 set forth in table 

B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses ....” 

The following uses are those set forth in table A of the annex to Decision 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. nomination that assess data submitted by 

applicants to the CUE program. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to remove the food processing uses that were 

listed as critical uses for 2014. The California Date Commission as well as all users under 

the food processing use (rice millers, pet food manufacturing facilities, and members of 

the North American Millers’ Association) did not submit CUE applications for 2016 and 

therefore were not included in the 2016 U.S. nomination to the Parties of the Montreal 

Protocol. 

EPA is also proposing to remove the remaining commodity uses (walnuts, dried 

plums, figs, and raisins). These sectors applied for 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 applications for 2016. These sectors are: 

Michigan cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato growers; Florida eggplant, pepper, 

strawberry, and tomato growers; the California Association of Nursery and Garden 

Centers; California stone fruit, table and raisin grape, 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, critical 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 declining? 

Commented [A13R12]: Comment 1: Reproduce proposed 

(amended) table here? Or at least indicate amounts?

Response: Easier to follow a discussion of critical uses in this 

section and critical use amounts in the next section. The sentence 

should say “uses” and not “amounts.” See edit. 

Comment 2: Might also be helpful to identify critical uses, critical 

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 declining? 

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 proposed amendments 

to the table of critical uses and users? 

Deleted: EPA is proposing to amend appendix L to subpart A to 

reflect the lists of approved critical uses authorized 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

15 of 29 

ornamental growers in California and Florida; and the U.S. Golf Course Superintendents 

Association. EPA conducted a thorough technical assessment of each application and 

considered the effects that the loss of methyl bromide would have for each agricultural 

sector, and whether significant market disruption would occur as a result. As a result of 

this technical review, EPA in consultation with the USDA and the Department of State 

determined that these users did not meet the critical 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 dated March 28, 2014. For each of these 

uses, EPA found that there are technically and economically feasible alternatives to 

methyl bromide. EPA requests comment on the technical assessment of the applications 

found in the docket to this rule and the determination 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 docket) and information regarding any 

changes to the registration (including cancellations 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 feasibility of an alternative and could thus 

cause EPA to modify the analysis that underpins EPA’s determination as to which uses 

and what amounts of methyl bromide qualify for the CUE. 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 with EPA and 

USDA determined...” 

Commented [A18]: Please include a discussion concerning how 

the agency arrived at this conclusion that there are technically and 

economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. 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 contained in the 

docket and reference to future nominations. 

Commented [A20]: Suggest deleting or stating the challenges 

associated with changing; however, the agency should 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

16 of 29 

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts 

Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/6 lists critical uses and amounts agreed to 

by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2016. The maximum amount of new 

production and import for U.S. critical uses in 2016, specified in Table B of the annex to 

Decision XXVI/6, is 234.78 MT, minus available stocks. This figure is equivalent to less 

than 1 percent of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline of 25,528 MT. 

EPA is proposing to determine the level of new production and import according 

to the framework and as modified by the 2013 Rule. Under this approach, the amount of 

new production for each control period would equal the total amount 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 detail below. Applying this approach, 

EPA is proposing to allocate allowances to exempt 234,780 kg (234.78 MT) of new 

production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2016. 

 Available Stocks: For 2016 the Parties indicated that the United States should use 

“available stocks,” but did not indicate a minimum amount expected to be taken from 

stocks. Consistent with EPA’s past practice, EPA is considering what amount, if any, of 

the existing stocks may be available to critical users during 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 Decisions that the level of existing 

stocks may differ from the level of available stocks. Decision XXVI/6 states that 

Commented [A22]: Does this mean the uses have to be satisfied 

from available stocks first? Below, there is a proposal to? 

Commented [A23R22]: Response: That is correct, which is 

why the rule analyzes whether/ and to what extent there 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 provided previously. 

Commented [A25R24]: Response: EPA rule. This is the 

second reference to the rule. Added the FR cite where 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 alongside the ton 

number in the previous paragraph.... “is 234.78 MT (234,780 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 on whether 

there’s legal authority under CAA/obligation under MP to regulate 

the use of any MeBr stockpiled by end users (golf courses, 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 not 

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 users 

have stockpiled. 

Comment 3: Regarding existing stockpiles, what is EPA’s view on 

whether there’s legal authority under CAA/obligation under MP to 

regulate the use of any MeBr stockpiled by end users (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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

17 of 29 

“production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted 

only if methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing 

stocks....” In addition, the Decision states that “parties operating under critical-use 

exemptions should take into account the extent to which methyl bromide is available in 

sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks....” Earlier Decisions also refer to the 

use of “quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be 

available.” Thus, it is clear that individual Parties may determine their level of available 

stocks. Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA does not require EPA to adjust the amount of new 

production and import to reflect the availability of stocks; however, as explained in 

previous rulemakings, making such an adjustment is a reasonable exercise of EPA’s 

discretion under this provision. 

 In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013), EPA established an 

approach that considered whether a percentage of the existing inventory was available. In 

that rule, EPA took comment on whether 0% or 5% of the existing stocks was available. 

The final rule found that 0% was available for critical use in 2013 for a number of 

reasons including: a pattern of significant underestimation of inventory drawdown; the 

increasing concentration of critical users in California while inventory remained 

distributed nationwide; and the recognition that the agency cannot compel distributors to 

sell inventory to critical users. For further discussion, please see the 2013 CUE Rule (78 

FR 43802). 

EPA believes these circumstances remain true for 2016. 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 “available stocks.” In 

determining how much production and consumption should be 

permitted, EPA takes into account the portion of “existing 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 Cite, 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 methyl bromide in the hands of end users 

are not included in calculating existing stocks. Second, while stocks remain distributed 

nationally, the only pre-plant critical use permitted 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 inventory in California to be 

drawn down in 2015. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find 0% of the existing inventory available 

for use in 2016. EPA specifically invites comment on whether between 0% and 5% of 

existing inventory will be available to critical users in 2016, taking into consideration the 

FIFRA labeling changes, the recent history of inventory 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 authorized uses, and the quantity 

and location of stocks. Existing stocks, as of December 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 the 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 produced, imported, exported, or sold 

to end-users under the critical use exemption in a control period must be reported to EPA 

the following year. EPA uses these reports to calculate 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 the 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 that could be used 

for critical uses. EPA built this into the framework and continued 

this through the 2012 rule as the “critical stock allocation.” 

However, subsequent decisions by the Parties did not cap the 

amount of stocks that could be used for critical uses 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

19 of 29 

over from that year’s CUE and reduces next year’s total allocation by that amount. 

Carryover material (which is produced using critical use allowances) is not included in 

EPA’s definition of existing inventory (which applies to pre-2005 material) because this 

would lead to a double-counting of carryover amounts. 

EPA anticipates that all critical use methyl bromide that companies reported to be 

produced or imported in 2014 will be sold to end users for that year. EPA bases this 

assumption on the fact that there has been no carryover 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 previous 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 bromide are available in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. 

Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers data on the availability of alternatives that 

it receives following submission of each nomination to UNEP. In previous rules EPA has 

reduced the total CUE amount when a new alternative has been registered and increased 

the new production amount when an alternative is withdrawn, but not above the amount 

permitted by the Parties. Neither circumstance has occurred since the nomination was 

submitted for 2016. 

EPA is not proposing to make any other modifications to CUE amounts to 

account for availability of alternatives. Rates of transition to alternatives have already 

been applied for permitted 2016 critical use amounts through the nomination and 

authorization process. EPA will consider new data received during the comment period 

Deleted: . EPA 

Deleted: deducts an amount equivalent to this “carryover” from 

the total level of allowable new production and import in the year 

following the year of the data reportnext allocation rule. So for 

example, the amount of carryover from 2014 is factored into the 

determination allocation for 2016. 

Commented [A39]: Could EPA explain this more easily by 

saying something like, “any excess MeBr left from any given year’s 

CUE is “carried over,” and EPA reduces the next year’s CUE 

request by this amount.” 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 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 MeBr left from 

any given year’s CUE is “carried over,” and EPA reduces 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 when [something 

happened?]? 

Response: No, the terms “inventory” and “stocks” only refer to pre2005 material, when the phaseout occurred. Carryover does not get 

added to the inventory or stocks. 

Comment: Would be helpful if EPA included the actual numbers 

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 in 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

20 of 29 

and continues to gather information about methyl bromide alternatives through the CUE 

application process, and by other means. EPA also continues to support research and 

adoption of methyl bromide alternatives, and to request information about the economic 

and technical feasibility of all existing and potential alternatives. 

 Allocation Amounts: EPA is proposing to allocate critical use allowances for new 

production or import of methyl bromide equivalent to 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, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl 

bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the present decision....” This 

is similar to language in prior Decisions authorizing critical uses. These Decisions call on 

Parties to endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis. 

The proposed Framework Rule contained several options for allocating critical 

use allowances, including a sector-by-sector approach. The agency evaluated various 

options based on their economic, environmental, and practical effects. After receiving 

comments, EPA determined in the final Framework Rule that a lump-sum, or universal, 

allocation, modified to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-harvest uses, was the 

most efficient and least burdensome approach that would achieve the desired 

environmental results, and that a sector-by-sector approach would pose significant 

administrative and practical difficulties. 

For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the 2009 CUE rule (74 FR 19894), 

and because of the limited number of permitted uses, the agency believes that under the 

Deleted: to the four companies that hold baseline allowances,

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 Cite, 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 to using flexibility in the 

Protocol's existing mechanisms as an avenue to address changes in national circumstance 

that affect the transition to alternatives. EPA welcomes comments and any new 

information on specific emergency situations that may necessitate the use of methyl 

bromide, consistent with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol, and which could be 

difficult to address using current tools and authorities.]

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 extent 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 use 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 alternatives under the circumstance of the 

nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide where technically 

and economically feasible; the development of research and transition plans; and the 

requests in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that Parties consider and implement 

MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on 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 Decisions 

(introduced on pp. 10-11 and 13 above), and then summarize 

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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

22 of 29 

critical uses of methyl bromide and include information 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 basis for determining that the uses listed 

in this proposed rule meet the criteria of the critical use exemption.

The agency has previously provided its interpretation of the criterion in Decision 

IX/6, paragraph (1)(a)(i) regarding the presence of significant market disruption in the 

absence of an exemption. EPA refers readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE rule (71 

FR 5989, February 6, 2006) as well as to the memo in the docket titled “Development of 

2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States 

of America” for further elaboration. As explained in those documents, EPA’s 

interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking at potential effects 

on both demand and supply for a commodity, evaluating potential losses at both an 

individual level and at an aggregate level, and evaluating potential losses in both relative 

and absolute terms. 

 The United States has also considered the adoption of alternatives and research 

into methyl bromide alternatives in the development of the National Management 

Strategy submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in December 2005 and updated in October 

2009. The National Management Strategy addresses all of the aims specified in Decision 

Ex. I/4, paragraph 3 to the extent feasible and is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

F. Emissions Minimization 

Deleted: in paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 

Deleted: and 

Deleted: ¶

The remaining considerations are addressed in the nomination 

documents including: the lack of available technically and 

economically feasible alternatives under the circumstance of the 

nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl 

bromide where technically and economically feasible; the 

development of research and transition plans; and the requests in 

Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that Parties consider and 

implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on actions a 

Party may take to reduce the critical uses of methyl bromide and 

include information on the methodology they use to determine 

economic feasibility.

Deleted: Some of these criteria are evaluated in other documents. 

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 Cite, 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 techniques that promote environmental 

protection, whenever technically and economically feasible. EPA developed a 

comprehensive strategy for risk mitigation through the 2009 Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED)2

 for methyl bromide, available in the docket to this rulemaking, which is 

implemented through restrictions on how methyl bromide products can be used. This 

approach means that methyl bromide labels require that treated sites be tarped. 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 bromide 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 National Institute for Food and 

Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) to promote emissions reduction techniques. The federal 

government has invested substantial resources into developing and implementing best 

practices for methyl bromide use, including emissions reduction practices. The 

Cooperative Extension System, which receives some support from USDA-NIFA, 

provides locally appropriate and project-focused outreach education regarding methyl 

bromide transition best practices. Additional information on USDA research on 

alternatives and emissions reduction can be found at: 

 

2

 Additional information on risk mitigation measures for soil fumigants is available at 

http://epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/ 

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 Cite, 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 every effort to minimize 

overall emissions of methyl bromide. EPA also encourages researchers and users who are 

using techniques to minimize emissions of methyl bromide to inform EPA of their 

experiences and to provide information on such techniques with their critical use 

applications. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at 

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 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 OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the 

existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0482. The application, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements have already 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

25 of 29 

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the 

impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An 

agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves 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 action would confer a benefit to users of 

methyl bromide. We have therefore concluded that this 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 between the national government and the 

states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

 This action does not have tribal implications as specified 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 growers while GA 

and FL growers were not given exemptions. For the manufacturers 

that were granted CUEs, are they restricted to using methyl bromide 

in just California or could they also use it in other states where they 

may operate? 

Commented [A50R49]: Response: This rule allows the 

production and use of methyl bromide according to which applicants 

applied, were included in the U.S. nomination, and authorized by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Applicants are regional trade 

associations not States, so this rule does not impose 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 Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

26 of 29 

governments nor does it impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety 

Risks 

 This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not 

believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained 

in the Regulatory Impacts Analysis and Benefits Analysis found in the docket. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

or Use 

 This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 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 standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it affects 

the level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations without having 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 
*** Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. 

Subject to Further Policy Review. Draft, Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

27 of 29 

population, including any minority or low-income population. Any ozone depletion that 

results from this action will impact all affected populations equally because ozone 

depletion is a global environmental problem with environmental and human effects that 

are, in general, equally distributed across geographical regions in the United States.

Populations that work or live near fields or other application sites may benefit from the 

reduced amount of methyl bromide applied, as compared to amounts allowed under 

previous critical use exemption rules.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

 Environmental protection, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, 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 critical use allowances. 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2016 Critical 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 poor 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 Cite, 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 controlled substance exclusively for the 

Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendix L to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend subpart A by revising appendix L to read as follows: 

APPENDIX L TO SUBPART A OF PART 82 – APPROVED CRITICAL USES 

AND LIMITING CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR THOSE USES FOR THE 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 Cite, 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 – Dried 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 to 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 Criteria have been met. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document describes the analysis and information needed by the United States government 

to support a critical use nomination under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting 

Substances. This is not meant to be a complete analysis 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 through 5 have been met: 

1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commercialize, and register alternatives and that active 

research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes 

how the applicant or sector has been rigorously testing the currently available control methods 

(chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet registered chemical controls to replace methyl 

bromide. The applicant 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 significant market disruption. 

• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe how 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 suitable 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) must include relevant, empirical, summarized, and verifiable data 

to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives do not effectively control the target pests. 

Assertions of technical or economic infeasibility are not sufficient. 

4. All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize emissions and use of 

MeBr. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence to show a transition to lower rates, fewer 

fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each facility. 

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 to 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 supplemental heat cannot be used to increase the 

efficacy of SF 

• After 12 years, the applicant should demonstrate that efforts have been made to prevent reinfestation in storage or ability to use something other than MeBr 

• Partial budget analysis by industry should be provided 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 tests 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 evidence 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 relatively long periods of time without 

impacting industry. 

• Insufficient evidence to estimate number of facilities 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 prevention. 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 expensive. Since that time more of the industry has 

transitioned, and no market disruption has occurred. 

• Works well on post-embryonic life stages; matches MeBr 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 need to rush fumigation of commodities in 

storage 

Phosphine (PH3) 

• Needs more time than MeBr or SF;; needs much less gas than MeBr 

• Fumigation cost is less than MeBr 

• Some stored product pests may be resistant 

• Stored commodities can accommodate longer fumigation 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 ft3 and commodity must be heated to 100°F 

Economic Impact (Losses) 

• The data provided did not demonstrate an economic impact (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 nomination nor testing methods to exclude 

pests from re-infesting the product. 

• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruption. 

• 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. 

.

References1: 

2012 MBAO, Orlando, Florida, November 6-8, 2013. Presentations 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/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. Monitoring 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 without summary or explanation. 
EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 Final Page 4 

Emekci, Mevlut (55) 2010. The efficacy of sulfuryl 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, 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®. Presentation at 2008 MBAO, Nov. 11-14, 

2008, Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2008/125Hosoda.pdf 

Liu, Yong-Biao. 2011. Potential of oxygenated phosphine fumigation for postharvest pest 

control. Presentation at the 2011 Annual International 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. Presentation 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 at 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 

Stored-Product Pests of Dried Fruits. USDA/ARS, San Joaquin 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 fumigant 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: 
EPA Summary Dried Fruit CA 2014 Final Page 5 

Several websites linked to California Most Useful Postharvest Information. Available at: 

http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Most_Useful_Postharvest_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, raisin and table grape (0013) 

Almond Hullers and Processors Association—Almond (0043) 

California Walnut Commission & Walnut Marketing Board—Walnut (0029) 

NOMINATION STATUS 

The United States government has not nominated this sector because the application lacks 

verifiable evidence to demonstrate to the Parties to 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 Criteria have been met. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document describes the analysis and information needed by the United States government 

to support a critical use nomination under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting 

Substances. This is not meant to be a complete analysis 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 through 5 have been met: 

1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commercialize, and register alternatives and that 

active research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and 

summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rigorously testing the currently 

available control methods (chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet registered 

chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The applicant 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 significant market disruption. 

• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe how 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 suitable 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) must include relevant, empirical, 

summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives 

do not effectively control the target pests. Assertions of technical or economic 

infeasibility are not sufficient. 

4. All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize emissions and 

use of MeBr. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence to 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 have 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 restrictions on use of 1,3-D. 

2. Regarding clay soils, we do not have data to support a case for a nomination for the 

asserted critical impacts without MB where nematodes are present in clay soils. For 

example, while an applicant cited McKenry and Kretsch (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 primarily sandy soils and did not discuss 

any methods of nematode control. Some limited published materials that have examined 

nematode control in clay soils (e.g., McKenry et al., 2003—MBAO, 

http://mbao.org/2003/036%20mckenrymnewchiselshanksmbao8-29-03.pdf) indicated 

that there are management strategies that can be used. A strong, well-documented case 

presented to MBTOC will be required for a successful critical use nomination. 

3. We did not receive supporting data to demonstrate VOC regulatory restrictions on all of 

the alternative fumigants as stated by the applicant. 

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 application 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 Armillaria 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 impacts where alternative methods are used. 

Satellite photographs that were presented (McKenry, 2013--

http://www.mbao.org/2013/Presentations/PP%205/McKenry.pdf) showing the effect of 

MB in an orchard with Armillaria does not provide rigorous support for a nomination. 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

1. Description and supporting information addressing the following: 

i. The available data show that alternatives to methyl bromide are available and 

effective. 

ii. Numerous field trials indicate alternatives to methyl bromide are effective, therefore, 

there would not appear to be substantial losses from transitioning to the alternatives. 

iii. When the alternatives are as effective as methyl bromide, the economic returns with 

alternatives are at least as high as with methyl bromide—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 economic return and higher yields 

with 1,3-D/chloropicrin compared to MB. For example, 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 most 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) strip 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 alternatives are estimated to be at least 

as high as with MB. Although the available research does not substantiate yield 

losses with the alternatives, if yields with alternatives were lower, the losses could 

be large. 

EPA CONCLUSION

• It was not possible to determine a critical need for MB for orchard replant based on lack 

of feasible alternatives or market disruption. 

• Criteria 1. Did not demonstrate through a robust research program that alternatives were 

not effective under the circumstances of the nomination. 

o Armillaria is said to be a problem but no research has been conducted with the 

alternatives. 

• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruption would occur. 

• Criteria 3. Did not demonstrate that alternatives are not technically and economically 

feasible. 

o In spite of assertions of impacts from township caps on 1,3-D, applicants did 

not identify areas or townships that are affected by 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 the most prevalent problem, 

Prunus replant disease, alternative practices are effective. 

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 yields were reported with 

1,3-D/chloropicrin compared to MB. 

o No data have been submitted substantiating losses experienced due to 

Armillaria rot with the best registered alternative methods compared to methyl 

bromide. It was not possible, therefore, to put forward 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 from 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 to 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 Criteria have been met. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document describes the analysis and information needed by the United States government 

to support a critical use nomination under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting 

Substances. This is not meant to be a complete analysis 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 through 5 have been met: 

1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commercialize, and register alternatives and that 

active research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and 

summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rigorously testing the currently 

available control methods (chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet registered 

chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The applicant 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 significant market disruption. 

• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe how 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 suitable 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) must include relevant, empirical, 

summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives 

do not effectively control the target pests. Assertions of technical or economic 

infeasibility are not sufficient. 

4. All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize emissions and 

use of MeBr. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence to 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 have made to obtain stocks from 

suppliers or distributors within the United States. 

EPA ANALYSIS 

• The applicant did not provide data to demonstrate that all of the alternatives did not work. 

See list below. 

• No one alternative is deemed to be effective for all pest problems but a review of multiple year data 

indicates that the alternatives provide equal or superior control to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. 

Synopsis of Alternatives (different combinations of these alternatives may be needed for each 

user)

1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), Chloropicrin, and Metam sodium/potassium are all 

registered for ornamentals 

• Research results not provided to demonstrate that these fumigants used alone or in 

combination are not technically feasible.

1,3-dichloropropene (Telone) plus Chloropicrin 

• Research demonstrates excellent results. High rates 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. Gladiolus - 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:chloropicrin.

• Suitable for use in areas without karst topography.

Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) plus Chloropicrin (Paladin TM) Not registered in CA. 

• Research demonstrates effective pest control (Rosskopf et al 2012). Yields equal to 

MeBr:Pic but Fusarium control not as effective. 

• Nematode control equal to MeBr:Pic in FL (Kokalis-Burelle 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 alternatives 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 issues.

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. Ornamental 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 organic program. 

Herbicides 

• The applicant has stated that weed control is a necessary part of any pest management 

program. Multiple herbicides are registered in California (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) and this application did not provide data 

showing the alternatives were not technically feasible. 

EPA CONCLUSION: 

• Ornamentals in California and Florida 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 nomination. 

• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruption 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 from stocks for this use. 

REFERENCES 

Gerik, J.S., S.R. Dangi, H. Ajwa. 2012a. Calla lily production with methyl bromide alternatives 

Year 2. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Conference. 

Gerik, J.S., S.R. Dangi, H. Ajwa. 2012b. Technology Transfer Methods for Adoption of Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives in California Cut Flower and Bulb 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, 2012. 

Jhala, A.J., S. Gao, J.S. Gerik, R. Qin and B. D Hanson. 2012 Effects of surface treatments and 

application shanks on nematode, pathogen and weed control 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. Alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode 

control in ornamental crops. Methyl Bromide Alternatives 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 Conference. 

Rosskopf, E.N. 2013. Provided four studies on fumigants and herbicides for use on tomato. 

Email of Dec. 9, 2013 

Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, E. and O. Nissen, B. Hartman, E. Skvarch, R. McSorley, 

T.J. Swaford, S. Brooks, K. Register, C. Owens. Evaluation of currently available 

alternatives to methyl bromide for ornamental crop production in Florida. Available 

online at http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/082RosskopfAAWP.pdf 

Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, R. McSorley and E. Skvarch. Revised August 2012. 

Optimizing Alternative Fumigant Applications for Ornamental 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. Norcini . Revised 2013 Preemergence 

Herbicides for Use in Ornamentals Univ. of FL Publication 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 Management 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 to 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 Criteria have been met. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document describes the analysis and information needed by the United States government 

to support a critical use nomination under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting 

Substances. This is not meant to be a complete analysis 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 through 5 have been met: 

1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commercialize, and register alternatives and that 

active research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and 

summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rigorously testing the currently 

available control methods (chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet registered 

chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The applicant 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 significant market disruption. 

• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe how 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 suitable 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) must include relevant, empirical, 

summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives 

do not effectively control the target pests. Assertions of technical or economic 

infeasibility are not sufficient. 

4. All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize emissions and 

use of MeBr. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence to 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 have made to obtain stocks from 

suppliers or distributors within the United States. 

EPA ANALYSIS: 

• No data were provided documenting technical failures attributable to the use of various 

registered alternatives resulting in unacceptable pest managment or substantial losses 

• No data were provided documenting a critical need to provide a “rescue treatment” with 

MeBr 

• No data were provided documenting economic losses or market disruption attributable to 

alternative fumigant use 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

• The alternatives cost less (economic feasibility) and this application did not provide data 

showing the alternatives were not technically feasible. 

• Several alternatives are available and provide equal 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 on failures of alternatives or market 

disruption due to the use or lack of efficacy of alternatives. 

• 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 disruption 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 from 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 (0062), 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 to 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 Criteria have been met. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document describes the analysis and information needed by the United States government 

to support a critical use nomination under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting 

Substances. This is not meant to be a complete analysis 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 through 5 have been met: 

1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commercialize, and register alternatives and that 

active research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and 

summarizes how the applicant or sector has been rigorously testing the currently 

available control methods (chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet registered 

chemical controls to replace methyl bromide. The applicant 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 significant market disruption. 

• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe how 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 suitable 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) must include relevant, empirical, 

summarized, and verifiable data to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives 

do not effectively control the target pests. Assertions of technical or economic 

infeasibility are not sufficient. 

4. All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize emissions and 

use of MeBr. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence to 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 have made to obtain stocks from 

suppliers or distributors within the United States. 

EPA ANALYSIS: 

• No data were provided documenting technical failures attributable to the use of various 

registered alternatives resulting in unacceptable pest managment or substantial losses. 

o Fumigants such as 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), Chloropicrin, and Metam 

sodium/potassium as well as Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) plus chloropicrin 

(Paladin TM) are all registered for vegetable production. 

o The non-fumigant option of Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation (ASD) is also suitable 

under certain conditions. 

• No data were provided for Florida documenting a critical 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 economic losses or market disruption 

attributable to alternative fumigant use 

Synopsis of Alternatives (different combinations of these alternatives may be needed for each 

user)

1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), Chloropicrin, Dimethyl Disulfide (Paladin TM) and Metam 

sodium/potassium are all registered 

• Research results not provided to demonstrate that these fumigants used alone or in 

combination are not technically feasible.

Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation (ASD) 

• Research in other regions of the US and the world show good results, but ASD needs 

more testing in the soil/climate conditions of these specific regions (FL and MI). 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

• The alternatives cost less (economic feasibility) and this application did not provide data 

showing the alternatives were not technically feasible. 

• Several alternatives are available and provide equal or superior control to methyl bromide 

plus chloropicrin. 

EPA CONCLUSION: 

• For Florida based on available information it was not possible to identify a critical need 

for MeBr for a “rescue treatment” for vegetables based on failures of alternatives or 

market disruption due to the use or lack of efficacy of alternatives. 

• For Michigan based on available information it was not possible to identify a critical need 

for MeBr for early season applications for vegetables based on failures of alternatives or 

market disruption due to the use or lack of efficacy of alternatives. 

• Criteria 1. Both Florida and Michigan have conducted research on the registered 

alternatives. 

• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruption 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 from stocks for this use. 
EPA Summary Walnuts CA CUE 2014 Final Page 1 

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for 2016 – Walnuts 

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 to 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 Criteria have been met. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document describes the analysis and information needed by the United States government 

to support a critical use nomination under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting 

Substances. This is not meant to be a complete analysis 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 through 5 have been met: 

1. Appropriate effort is made to evaluate, commercialize, and register alternatives and that active 

research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide a research plan that clearly describes and summarizes 

how the applicant or sector has been rigorously testing the currently available control methods 

(chemical or non-chemical), or other not yet registered chemical controls to replace methyl 

bromide. The applicant 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 significant market disruption. 

• Explanation - The applicant must clearly describe how 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 suitable 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) must include relevant, empirical, summarized, and verifiable data 

to demonstrate that over multiple years the alternatives do not effectively control the target pests. 

Assertions of technical or economic infeasibility are not sufficient. 

4. All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize emissions and use of 

MeBr. 

• Explanation - The applicant must provide evidence to show a transition to lower rates, fewer 

fumigations, or better sealing techniques by each facility. 

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 to 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 recent data on the specifics of this nomination are 

provided. 

• Research program did not provide current data on tests with all of the alternatives under 

conditions of the request, and no evidence was provided to demonstrate current work to 

exclude pests from re-infesting the commodity. 

• Insufficient evidence to estimate number of facilities 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 warehouse/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 key pests. Low temperature data demonstrate lack 

of performance on pest eggs (esp. dried fruit beetle ); but storage/harvest temperatures not 

provided. Also variable results in studies. 

• It remains unclear why walnuts in storage must be fumigated 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 conditions 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 MBr 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 & material cost) similar or less than MBr 

• No need to rush fumigation of commodities in storage 

Phosphine (PH3) 

• 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 harvest; but for storage is an option 

• Stored commodities should not require a rapid turn-around time 

• Cheaper than MBr, but to accommodate through-put, more 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 ft3, 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 impact (economic feasibility) when 

using the alternatives. 

• Complete economic information has not been provided. 

EPA CONCLUSION: 

• Walnuts 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 nomination nor testing methods to exclude 

pests from re-infesting the product. 

• Criteria 2. Did not demonstrate a market disruption. 

• 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. 

References1: 

2012 MBAO, Orlando, Florida, November 6-8, 2013. Presentations 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/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. Monitoring 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. 

Emekci, Mevlut (55) 2010. The efficacy of sulfuryl 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 without 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®. Presentation at 2008 MBAO, Nov. 11-14, 2008, 

Orlando, Fl. Available at: http://mbao.org/2008/125Hosoda.pdf 

Liu, Yong-Biao. 2011. Potential of oxygenated phosphine fumigation for postharvest pest control. 

Presentation at the 2011 Annual International 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. Presentation 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 at 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 Joaquin 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 fumigant 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 Postharvest Information. Available at: 

http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Most_Useful_Postharvest_Websites/

Agriculture Handbook Number 66. Available at: http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/contents.html