Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0316
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-05-24T04:00Z

1
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
(
ICR)

OMB­
83
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STRATOSPHERIC
OZONE
PROTECTION
A.
JUSTIFICATION
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
a)
Title:
Protection
of
Stratospheric
Ozone:
Request
for
Applications
for
Critical
Use
Exemption
from
the
Phaseout
of
Methyl
Bromide
(
Renewal)

OMB
Number:
2060­
0482
EPA
Number:
2031.02
b)
Short
Characterization:

With
this
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR),
EPA's
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
(
OAR)
is
seeking
to
renew
the
existing
ICR
in
place
for
requesting
applications
for
critical
use
exemptions
of
methyl
bromide
beyond
the
phaseout
date
of
January
1,
2005
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
Specifically,
this
ICR
allows
OAR
to
collect
critical
use
exemption
(
CUE)
applications
from
regulated
entities
on
an
annual
basis.
Notices
published
in
the
Federal
Register
invite
applications
requesting
critical
use
exemptions
from
the
phaseout
of
methyl
bromide.
Entities
applying
for
these
exemptions
are
asked
to
submit
to
EPA
applications
with
necessary
data
to
evaluate
the
need
for
a
critical
use
exemption.
This
information
collected
is
conducted
to
meet
U.
S.
obligations
under
the
Article
2H
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
(
Protocol)
and
to
implement
section
604
(
d)(
6)
of
the
CAA,
added
by
Section
764
of
the
1999
Omnibus
Consolidated
and
Emergency
Supplemental
Appropriations
Act
(
Public
Law
No.
105­
277;
October
21,
1998).
Since
2002,
entities
have
applied
to
EPA
for
a
critical
use
exemption
that
would
allow
for
the
continued
production
and
import
of
methyl
bromide
after
the
phaseout
in
January
2005.
These
exemptions
are
for
consumption
only
in
those
agricultural
sectors
that
have
demonstrated
that
there
are
no
technically
or
economically
feasible
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide.
The
applications
are
rigorously
assessed
and
analyzed
by
EPA
staff,
including
experts
from
the
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides,
and
Toxic
Substances.
On
an
annual
basis,
EPA
uses
the
data
submitted
by
end
users
to
create
a
nomination
of
critical
uses
which
is
submitted
to
the
Protocol's
Ozone
Secretariat
for
review
by
an
international
panel
of
experts.
The
uses
authorized
internationally
by
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
will
be
made
available
in
the
U.
S.
on
an
annual
basis.

2.
Need
For,
and
Use
Of,
the
Collection
2
a)
Authority
for
the
Collection
This
information
collection
is
authorized
under
Section
114
of
the
CAA,
as
relevant
to
Section
604
(
d)(
6),
added
by
Section
764
of
the
1999
Omnibus
Consolidated
and
Emergency
Supplemental
Appropriations
Act
(
Public
Law
No.
105­
277;
October
21,
1998).
Because
this
action
involves
controlled
use
of
a
pesticide,
EPA's
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances
is
collaborating
in
the
exemption
application
process.
The
regulation
of
pesticides
is
conducted
under
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA),
as
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA).

b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
reported
applications
will
enable
EPA
to:

1)
Maintain
consistency
with
the
Protocol
by
supporting
critical
use
nominations
to
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol,
in
accordance
with
paragraph
2
of
Decision
IX/
6
of
the
Protocol;
2)
Ensure
that
critical
use
exemptions
comply
with
Section
604(
d)(
6),
as
added
to
the
CAA
in
1998;
3)
Provide
EPA
with
necessary
data
to
evaluate
the
technical
and
economic
feasibility
of
methyl
bromide
alternatives
in
the
circumstance
of
the
specific
use,
as
presented
in
an
application
for
a
critical
use
exemption;

3.
Nonduplication,
Consultation,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
a)
Nonduplication
All
the
information
requested
from
respondents
under
this
ICR
is
authorized
by
statute
(
CAA
Section
114
and
604
(
d)(
6)
and
is
not
available
from
other
sources
because
it
is
proprietary
or
sensitive
information,
specific
to
the
agricultural
consortia
applying
for
a
CUE.

b)
Consultations
EPA
has
held
consultations
in
regard
to
the
procedure
and
requirements
of
critical
use
exemptions
in
the
forms
of
stakeholder
meetings,
which
were
first
held
during
February
and
March
2001.
Users
and
producers
of
methyl
bromide
offered
their
feedback
on
how
best
to
create
and
implement
the
application
process
while
receiving
clarification
from
EPA
to
their
questions
and
concerns.
EPA
has
held
numerous
stakeholder
meetings
since
2001,
remains
open
to
receiving
comments
from
stakeholders,
and
continues
to
meet
with
stakeholder
groups
as
requested
to
discuss
the
methyl
bromide
critical
use
exemption
process.

c)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
3
The
timeline
for
critical
use
applications
coincides
with
the
critical
use
nomination
process
established
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol.
Any
deviation
from
that
timeline
would
result
in
a
forfeiture
from
inclusion
in
the
U.
S.
nomination
package
and
subsequent
consideration
by
the
Parties.

d)
General
Guidelines
This
rule
does
not
exceed
any
of
the
OMB
guidelines
e)
Confidentiality
EPA
informs
respondents
that
they
may
assert
claims
of
business
confidentiality
for
any
of
the
information
they
submit.
Information
claimed
confidential
will
be
treated
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
for
handling
information
claimed
as
confidential
under
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
b,
and
will
be
disclosed
only
if
EPA
determines
that
the
information
is
not
entitled
to
confidential
treatment.
If
no
claim
of
confidentiality
is
asserted
when
the
information
is
received
by
EPA,
it
may
be
made
available
to
the
public
without
further
notice
to
the
respondents
(
40
CFR
2.203).

f)
Sensitive
Questions
This
section
is
not
applicable
because
this
ICR
does
not
involve
matters
of
a
sensitive
nature
(
i.
e.,
matters
concerning
sexual
behavior
or
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
etc.)

4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
Respondents
may
include
growers
who
use
methyl
bromide,
applicators
of
methyl
bromide,
fumigators
who
use
methyl
bromide,
companies
associated
with
the
storage
of
commodities
that
are
fumigated
with
methyl
bromide,
and
organizations/
consortiums/
associations
of
methyl
bromide
users.
The
appropriate
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
and
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
for
entities
that
may
be
involved
in
the
application
process
are:
4
TABLE
I:
NAICS
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REGULATED
ENTITIES
Category
NAICS
code
SIC
code
Agricultural
production
Milling
Uses
Warehousing
and
Storage
Uses
Distributors
and
Applicators,
Producers
and
Importers
1112­
Vegetable
and
Melon
farming
1113­
Fruit
and
Nut
Tree
Farming
1114­
Greenhouse,
Nursery,
and
Floriculture
Production
11142­
Nursery
and
Floriculture
Production
111421­
Nursery
and
Tree
Production
111422­
Floriculture
Production
1119­
Other
Crop
Farming
115112­
Soil
Preparation,
Planting,
and
Cultivating
115114­
Postharvest
Crop
activities
(
except
Cotton
Ginning)
311211­
Flour
Milling
311212­
Rice
Milling
493110­
General
Warehousing
and
Storage
493130­
Farm
Product
Warehousing
and
Storage
424910­
Farm
Supplies
Merchant
Wholesalers
325310­
Pesticide
and
Other
Agricultural
Chemical
Manufacturing
0171­
Berry
Crops
0172­
Grapes
0173­
Tree
Nuts
0175­
Deciduous
Tree
Fruits
(
except
apple
orchards
and
farms)
0179­
Fruit
and
Tree
Nuts,
NEC
0181­
Ornamental
Floriculture
and
Nursery
Products
0831­
Forest
Nurseries
and
Gathering
of
Forest
Products
0711­
Soil
Preparation
Services
0721­
Crop
Planting,
Cultivating,
and
Protecting
0723­
Crop
Preparation
Service
for
Market,
Except
Cotton
Ginning
0831­
Forest
Nurseries
and
Gathering
of
Forest
Products
2041­
Flour
and
Other
Grain
Mill
Products
2044­
Rice
Milling
4221­
Farm
Product
Warehousing
and
Storage
4225­
General
Warehousing
and
Storage
2879­
Pesticides
and
Agricultural
Chemicals,
NEC
5
Consortiums,
Associations
54170­
Research
and
Development
in
the
Physical,
Engineering,
and
Life
Sciences
8134­
Civic
and
Social
Organizations
8139­
Business,
Professional,
Labor,
Political,
and
Similar
Organizations
8731,
8733­
R&
D
in
the
physical,
engineering,
and
life
sciences
8641­
Civic,
Social,
and
Fraternal
Organizations
(
except
condominium
and
homeowner
associations)
8611­
Business
Associations
8699­
Membership
Organizations,
NEC
(
farm
business
organizations)
8621­
Professional
Membership
Organizations
b)
Information
Requested
i)
Data
Items
The
Agency
is
currently
considering
options
associated
with
this
information
collection,
including
the
format
of
the
application
and
the
specific
information
that
will
be
necessary
to
make
meaningful
determinations.
The
following
information
encompasses
any
information
that
will
be
requested
from
those
entities
seeking
a
critical
use
exemption,
and
includes
applications
for
both
pre­
plant
and
post­
harvest
sectors:

 
Identity
of
contact
person(
s).
Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
person
who
submits
the
application
will
be
considered
the
contact
person
for
all
matters
relating
to
the
critical
use
exemption.
Requests
must
identify
by
name
and
telephone
number
one
or
more
qualified
experts
who
may
be
contacted
in
case
any
questions
arise
concerning
the
application.

 
Description
of
the
proposed
use.
The
applications
shall
provide
information
on
the
proposed
use
(
crop/
pest
combination),
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
to
be
used,
the
location
of
use,
the
method
of
application
and
any
other
use
information
requested
by
the
Administrator.

 
Description
of
past
use.
The
applications
shall
provide
information
on
past
use
(
crop/
pest
combination),
acreage,
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
used,
the
method
of
application
and
other
historical
use
data
requested
by
the
Administrator.
6
 
Consideration
of
alternatives
(
Technical).
The
applicant
must
demonstrate
what
steps
have
been,
and
will
be,
taken
to
find
and
implement
alternatives.
The
applicant
must
also
provide
an
explanation
of,
and
data
relating
to,
the
technical
feasibility
of
currently
available
alternatives
for
their
proposed
use
and
any
other
information
required
by
the
Administrator
to
determine
whether
technically
feasible
alternatives
are
available
for
the
proposed
use.

 
Consideration
of
alternatives
(
Economic).
To
determine
whether
an
applicant's
proposed
use
has
economically
feasible
alternatives,
EPA
will
request
information
on
historical
revenue
and
available
economic
measures,
such
as
operating
costs.

 
Additional
information.
Additional
information
required
of
applicants
may
include,
but
is
not
limited
to,
agricultural
statistics,
fumigation
conditions
and
timeline,
research
proposals
and
funding
levels,
and
transition
plans.

5.
The
Information
Collected
 
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
a)
Agency
Activities
Applications
for
critical
use
exemptions
will
be
submitted
to
EPA.
Applications
are
currently
received
by
the
Stratospheric
Programs
Implementation
Branch
(
SPIB),
of
the
Stratospheric
Protection
Division
(
SPD)
of
the
Office
of
Atmospheric
Programs
(
OAP).
The
technical
review
of
the
applications
is
conducted
by
the
Biological
and
Economic
Assessment
Division
(
BEAD)
of
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
Each
application
is
reviewed
by
both
a
biologist
and
an
economist,
and
the
applications
are
grouped
according
to
agricultural
sector.
Specifically,
the
review
determines
whether
or
not
there
is
sufficient
information
to
support
the
contention
that
"
no
technically
or
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist"
for
the
specified
methyl
bromide
use.
The
review
also
determines
if
a
lack
of
methyl
bromide
availability
would
cause
a
significant
market
disruption.
These
requirements
for
critical
use
exemptions
were
agreed
to
by
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
at
their
Seventh
Meeting,
and
are
delineated
in
Decision
IX/
6,
as
well
as
Section
604(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).

Once
the
determinations
are
made,
usually
after
additional
consultation
with
the
applicants
if
further
clarification
is
needed,
EPA,
in
consultation
with
the
Secretary
of
Agriculture
and
the
Department
of
State,
will
compile
a
nomination
package
containing
all
uses
to
be
nominated
by
the
U.
S.
as
"
critical."
This
package
will
be
submitted
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
of
the
Protocol,
reviewed
by
advisory
bodies
to
the
Protocol,
and
later
authorized
by
the
Parties
at
their
annual
meeting.

In
order
to
complete
the
process,
EPA
must:

 
Publish
a
Federal
Register
notice
announcing
the
availability
of
applications
 
Collect,
compile,
and
analyze
submitted
applications
7
 
Check
for
any
duplication
and
group
applications
into
sectors
 
Review
applications
for
completeness
 
Inform
applicant
if
application
is
not
complete
 
Review
applications
for
critical
need
for
methyl
bromide
(
e.
g.,
data
supporting
a
finding
that
there
is
no
technically
or
economically
feasible
alternative)
 
Transpose
data
from
the
applications
into
the
required
nomination
format
 
Compile
applications
into
U.
S.
nomination
package
for
submission
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
When
applications
for
methyl
bromide
critical
uses
are
received
by
EPA,
they
will
be
assigned
a
CUE
number
and
tracked
accordingly
in
a
spreadsheet
as
active
submissions
through
the
process,
after
which
applications
will
become
historical
files.

c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
Collection
of
this
information
is
authorized
by
statute.
EPA
believes
the
information
collection
is
required
to
provide
meaningful
relief
for
those
users
of
methyl
bromide
who
do
not
have
technically
or
economically
feasible
alternatives
and
to
implement
Section
604
of
the
CAA
Amendments
of
1998.
Applying
for
the
exemption
is
voluntary;
only
those
entities
that
believe
a
critical
use
exemption
is
warranted
because
they
have
no
technically
or
economically
feasible
alternative
will
submit
an
application.
While
the
exemption
itself
will
relieve
burden
on
affected
entities,
the
burden
on
all
affected
entities
associated
with
applying
for
the
exemption,
and
especially
the
burden
on
small
entities,
has
been
reduced
to
every
extent
possible.
To
reduce
the
burden
on
small
businesses,
EPA
encourages
small
businesses
to
participate
in
and/
or
form
representative
organizations
that
will
serve
to
aid
in
gathering
information
and
completion
of
applications.
Furthermore,
EPA
considered
burden
on
small
business
in
the
regulatory
impact
assessment
of
the
phaseout
schedule
currently
in
place.

d)
Collection
Schedule
EPA
publishes
an
application
request
in
the
Federal
Register
annually
(
in
May)
announcing
the
availability
of
the
pre­
plant
and
post­
harvest
applications.
Entities
have
between
60
and
90
days
from
the
date
of
publication
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
to
submit
an
application.
It
should
be
noted
that
applications
for
exemptions
are
requested
with
three
years
of
anticipation
due
to
the
international
process
and
EPA's
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
procedures.
For
example,
the
first
time
EPA
requested
applications,
in
May
2002,
the
exemptions
were
requested
for
the
2005
calendar
year.
The
applications
requested
in
May
2003
were
for
the
2006
calendar
year,
etc.
Once
applications
are
submitted
to
EPA,
the
following
schedule
takes
place:

 
Applications
due­
August
 
Review
of
applications
and
development
of
U.
S.
nomination
package­
September­
December
 
Inter­
Agency
review
of
nomination
package­
January
 
U.
S.
nomination
submitted
to
Ozone
Secretariat­
January
31
8
 
Advisory
body
review­
February­
June
 
Parties
authorize
critical
uses:
November­
December
 
EPA
publishes
critical
use
exemption
amounts
in
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking­
January­
December
Subsequent
collection
schedules
depend
on
the
timetables
established
by
the
Parties.
In
some
instances
additional
("
Extraordinary")
meetings
have
been
required,
delaying
the
schedule.

6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
Collection
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
basis
of
the
analysis
is
the
identification
of
the
principal
information
needed
to
support
U.
S.
nominations
and
using
the
burden
associated
with
corresponding
reviews
under
FIFRA
as
a
general
guide
for
comparative
purposes.
The
burden
has
been
estimated
by
identifying
the
number
of
times
the
step
will
be
undertaken
and
the
number
of
hours
required
to
complete
each
step.
This
information
is
based
on
yearly
applications;
applications
in
the
first
year
(
for
use
year
2005)
were
somewhat
more
burdensome
than
subsequent
years
because
many
applicants
submitted
voluminous
attachments.
The
first
year's
applications
were
considered
in
the
average
nonetheless.
During
the
third
round
of
applications
(
for
use
year
2007),
EPA
allowed
applicants
to
limit
their
applications
to
new
data
or
study
results,
along
with
some
general
required
information,
if
applicants
had
already
applied
to
EPA
in
the
first
or
second
round.
EPA
allowed
applicants
to
not
re­
submit
studies
and
information
in
order
to
reduce
the
burden.
Applications
accepted
during
2005
may
also
be
slightly
more
burdensome
due
to
the
onset
of
the
official
phaseout
of
methyl
bromide,
as
some
consortia
may
not
have
applied
for
a
critical
use
exemption
prior
to
the
phaseout.

b)
Estimating
Respondent
Cost
To
determine
the
respondent
cost,
EPA
used
an
hourly
industry
wage
rate
of
$
39.86
per
hour.
This
is
the
average
hourly
wage
rate
for
professional
and
specialty
technical
staff
was
derived
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
Employer
Cost
and
Employee
Compensation
Table
2,
Civilian
workers,
March
2005.
Some
activities,
such
as
rule
familiarization,
are
one­
time
activities.

Burden
hours
needed
to
complete
each
application
that
is
forwarded
to
EPA
is
estimated
to
be
50,
with
less
than
100
total
applications
expected.
Estimated
values
for
each
activity
are
shown
in
the
table
below.
The
calculations
below
represent
a
significant
reduction
in
respondent
burden
since
the
initiation
of
the
active
ICR,
2031.01.
Reasons
for
this
reduction
include
minimal
changes
to
the
application
form,
encouragement
of
electronic
submissions,
reduced
requirements
for
repeat
applicants,
frequent
communication
with
stakeholders,
and
three
years
of
implementation.
9
TABLE
II:
RESPONDENT
BURDEN
HOURS
COLLECTION
ACTIVITY
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
RESPONSES
HOURS
PER
RESPONSE
TOTAL
HOURS
Read
CAA
Request
for
applications
100
100
2
200
Process,
compile,
and
review
the
requested
data
for
accuracy
and
appropriateness
100
100
30
3,000
Generate
application
correspondence
(
and
any
followup
information
requested)
100
100
7
700
Store,
file,
or
maintain
the
information
100
100
1
100
Organize
association
100
100
10
1,000
TOTAL
BURDEN
HOURS
100
50
5,000
TABLE
III:
CAPITAL
AND
OPERATING
COSTS
Activity
No
of
Entities
Affected
Estimated
Annual
Cost
per
entity
Total
Estimated
Annual
Cost
TOTAL
CAPITAL
AND
OPERATING
COSTS
0
0
0
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
The
estimated
cost
to
the
Federal
Government
of
the
critical
use
exemption
process
consists
of
two
components.
The
first
is
the
number
of
hours
and
costs
incurred
by
the
Agency
to
complete
the
review
of
each
application.
The
second
component
is
the
costs
for
other
elements
of
the
process
that
are
not
strictly
collection
activities,
but
are
required
for
implementing
the
exemption
program;
this
includes
the
development
of
a
robust
nomination.
The
number
of
applications
submitted
in
2002
was
significantly
less
than
4,500,
and
has
been
less
than
4,500
in
subsequent
years.
No
more
than
75
applications
have
been
received
in
any
given
year,
but
it
is
possible
that
more
users
may
apply
for
10
exemptions
after
the
onset
of
the
official
phaseout,
so
a
total
of
100
responses
was
used
as
the
estimate.
The
primary
reason
behind
the
substantial
decrease
in
applications
received
was
that
prior
to
implementation
of
the
critical
use
exemption
program,
EPA
did
not
know
if
users
would
apply
individually
or
through
their
agricultural
consortia.
The
majority
of
users
have
applied
through
their
consortia,
and
most
consortia
represent
many
growers.

The
hourly
wage
rates
for
EPA
clerical,
technical
and
managerial
staff
were
derived
from
the
2003
OPM
annual
base
pay
table
divided
by
2,080
to
estimate
the
hourly
wage
and
then
multiplied
by
1.6,
the
standard
government
benefits
multiplier.
The
hourly
wage
rates
are
as
follows:
EPA
estimates
an
average
hourly
labor
cost
of
$
65.49
(
GS­
14
level)
for
managerial
costs,
$
47.12
(
GS­
12
level)
for
technical
staff,
and
$
18.03
(
GS­
5
level)
for
clerical
staff
based
on
2003
figures.
While
the
number
of
occurrences
of
each
activity
is
shown
per
application,
EPA
intends
to
continue
grouping
applications
according
to
agricultural
sectors.
Each
hour
of
extramural
(
contractor)
time
is
valued
at
$
80.00
per
hour
including
overhead
and
fringe.

The
calculations
below
are
based
on
combined
OAR/
OPP
experience
implementing
the
CUE
program
over
the
past
three
years.
The
table
represents
a
reduction
to
16,270
hours
from
the
original
45,450
hours
calculated
in
ICR
2031.01.

TABLE
IV­
AGENCY
BURDEN
HOURS
Hours
per
Response
No.
of
Responses
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Extramural
Agency
Hours/
Year
Read
and
review
the
applications
for
completeness;
make
appropriate
amount
of
electronic/
paper
copies
100
0
5
0
10
1,500
Group
applications
100
0
4
0
3
700
Route
application
to
appropriate
scientists/
economists
for
review
100
0
1
0
8
900
Review
information
submitted
for
accuracy
100
0
20
0
3
2,300
Perform:
­
economic
analysis
­
technical
analysis
­
compile
nomination
on
proposed
exemption
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
100
5
70
0
0
7,500
Respond
to
40
(
avg.
10
40
0
3
2,120
11
questions
on
Nomination
from
MBTOC/
TEAP
(
advisory
bodies
to
Parties
to
Protocol)
amount
of
questions
received)

Final
decision
on
proposed
exemptions
20
(
sectors)
30
15
0
0
900
Store,
file,
and
maintain
applications
100
0
3
0
.5
350
TOTAL
45
158
0
27.5
16,270
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
Numbers
of
respondents
were
determined
as
follows.
Data
regarding
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
gathered
by
OPP
and
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
indicate
that
prior
to
the
initial
phasedown
level,
about
30
states
had
users
of
methyl
bromide
on
one
or
more
of
the
roughly
45
crops
on
which
methyl
bromide
is
used.
Based
on
this
data,
in
addition
to
data
from
the
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
and
the
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service,
EPA
believes
that,
before
the
25,
50,
and
70
percent
reductions
in
production
allowances,
there
were
about
4,500
methyl
bromide
users.
EPA
now
believes
that
with
the
onset
of
the
phaseout
(
January
1,
2005)
and
the
critical
use
exemption
process,
that
there
are
about
4,000
methyl
bromide
users.
Because
methyl
bromide
use
data
prior
to
the
phasedown
serves
as
the
basis
of
the
respondent
universe
estimate,
the
estimate
represents
that
upper
end
of
the
possible
number
of
respondents.

Users
whose
circumstances
are
similar
will
continue
to
be
encouraged
to
utilize
grower
and
user
organizations
to
aid
in
completion
of
the
application,
thereby
reducing
both
the
burden
on
applicants
(
particularly
small
businesses)
and
the
Agency.
Based
on
attendance
at
and
feedback
from
stakeholder
meetings
held
between
2001­
2003,
and
on
applications
received
during
2002­
2004,
most
growers
have
sought
the
assistance
of
respective
user
organizations.

While
the
first
year
(
2002,
for
use
year
2005)
of
the
critical
use
exemption
application
process
was
more
burdensome
than
subsequent
years,
the
onset
of
the
100%
phaseout
at
the
beginning
of
the
fourth
year
of
the
application
process
(
2005)
may
result
in
a
slightly
increased
number
of
applications,
as
some
users
may
not
have
applied
during
earlier
rounds.
Since
2002,
EPA
has
received
an
average
of
65
applications
annually.
The
registration
of
additional
alternatives
(
since
2002)
in
the
U.
S.
may
also
result
in
fewer
applications
received.

e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
Tables
The
burden
hours
portion
of
the
respondent
reporting
burden
is
estimated
in
Table
II.
The
estimate
includes
the
time
needed
to
comply
with
EPA's
reporting
requirements,
including
any
information
gathering
that
needs
to
be
completed
for
application
submission.
The
total
annual
labor
cost
burden
is
$
199,300
as
presented
in
Table
V.
12
Table
V­
Respondent
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Number
of
Responses
Hours/
Response
Cost/
Hour
Total
Cost
100
50
$
39.86
$
199,300
ANNUAL
BURDEN:
50
Total
hours
x
100
applications
=
5,000
Hours
ANNUAL
COSTS:
50
Total
hours
x100
applications
x
$
39.86
=
$
199,300
Agency
burden
is
reported
in
Table
II.
This
included
technical
review
of
the
applications
as
well
as
policy
work
related
to
the
creation
of
a
nomination
package
to
be
presented
to
the
Ozone
Secretariat
of
the
Montreal
Protocol.
Total
costs
are
presented
in
Table
VI.

Table
VI­
Agency
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Managerial
Hours
Annual
Total
@
$
65.49
Technical
Hours
Annual
Total
@
$
47.12
Clerical
Hours
Annual
Total
@
18.03
Extramural
Hours
Annual
Total
@
$
80.00
Total
Agency
Hours/
Year
Total
Agency
Costs/
Year
Hours/
Response
45
158
0
27.5
16,270
$
12,592.01
1.
ANNUAL
COSTS:
(
a)
Managerial:
45
x
$
65.49
=
$
2,947.05
(
b)
Technical:
130
x
$
47.12
=
$
7,444.96
(
c)
Clerical
0
(
d)
Extramural:
27.5
x
$
80.00
=
$
2,200
TOTAL:
$
12,592.01
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
EPA
is
re­
formatting
the
critical
use
exemption
applications
to
more
closely
resemble
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
(
MBTOC)
format
for
critical
use
nominations
(
CUNs).
MBTOC
is
an
advisory
body
to
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
and
is
charged
with
reviewing
the
nominations
and
making
recommendations
to
the
Parties.
Since
the
first
round
of
exemptions
began,
MBTOC
has
always
had
many
follow­
up
questions
for
U.
S.
technical
experts.
By
asking
some
of
MBTOC's
more
common
questions
on
the
application,
the
Agency
burden
will
be
reduced
and
less
transposing
will
be
required
in
compiling
the
nomination.
In
order
to
reduce
the
Respondent
Burden,
the
Agency
compiled
a
"
Re­
Application
Information"
document
for
those
applicants
that
have
already
applied
once
to
EPA.
For
applicants
who
have
submitted
earlier
applications
to
EPA,
the
Agency
already
possesses
some
of
the
information
required
in
order
to
compile
the
nomination.
In
these
instances,
EPA
allowed
repeat
applicants
to
only
fill
in
any
new
or
updated
information
in
certain
portions
of
the
application.
13
Other
reasons
for
burden
reduction
include
the
experience
of
the
past
three
years'
implementation,
the
encouragement
of
electronic
submission
of
applications
and
other
data,
and
very
frequent
EPA
communication
with
methyl
bromide
stakeholders.

g)
Burden
Statement
Table
I
presents
the
average
annual
respondent
burden.
For
respondents
affected
by
the
methyl
bromide
critical
use
exemption,
the
reporting
burden,
which
includes
time
for
preparing
and
submitting
applications,
is
estimated
to
be
a
maximum
of
50
hours
per
respondent
per
year.
This
estimate
was
derived
from
relevant
OPP
experience
with
the
FIFRA
exemptions,
as
well
as
consideration
of
critical
use
exemption
application
requirements
between
2002­
2005.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
relevant
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
Number
OAR­
2003­
0017,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
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
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
When
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
Docket
ID
Number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
Number
OAR­
2003­
0017
and
OMB
Control
Number
2060­
0482
in
any
correspondence.

Part
B
of
the
Supporting
Statement
This
part
is
not
applicable
because
no
statistical
methods
were
used
in
collecting
this
information.