[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44302-44312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17595]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0065; FRL-9911-99-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR80


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2014 and 2015 Critical Use 
Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorizing uses 
that qualify for the critical use exemption and the amount of methyl 
bromide that may be produced or imported for those uses for both the 
2014 and 2015 control periods. EPA is taking 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-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Meetings of the Parties. 
EPA is also amending the regulatory framework to remove provisions 
related to sale of pre-phaseout inventory for critical uses.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0065. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 is publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 
and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this 
rule, contact Jeremy Arling by telephone at (202) 343-9055, or by email 
at [email protected] or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Stratospheric Program 
Implementation Branch (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. You may also visit the methyl bromide section of 
the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division 
at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr for further information about the methyl 
bromide critical use exemption, other Stratospheric Ozone Protection 
regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and related topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) 
restrictions on the consumption, production, and use of methyl bromide 
(a Class I, Group VI controlled substance) for critical uses during 
calendar years 2014 and 2015. Under the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide 
consumption (consumption is defined under section 601 of the CAA as 
production plus imports minus exports) and production were phased out 
on January 1, 2005, apart from allowable exemptions, such as the 
critical use and the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemptions. With 
this action, EPA is authorizing uses that qualify for the critical use 
exemption as well as specific amounts of methyl bromide that may be 
produced and imported for those uses for the 2014 and 2015 control 
periods.
    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 
Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier 
than 30 days after they

[[Page 44303]]

are published in the Federal Register. EPA is issuing this final rule 
under section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which states that the 
provisions of section 553 through 557 of Title 5 shall not, except as 
expressly provided in section 307, apply to actions to which section 
307(d)(1) applies. Thus, section 553(d) of the APA does not apply to 
this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting consistently with the policies 
underlying APA section 553(d) in making this rule effective on July 31, 
2014. APA section 553(d) allows an effective date less than 30 days 
after publication for a rule that ``that grants or recognizes an 
exemption or relieves a restriction.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Since 
today's action can be considered to either grant an exemption for 
limited critical uses during 2014 and 2015 from the general prohibition 
on production or import of methyl bromide after the phaseout date of 
January 1, 2005, or relieve a restriction that would otherwise prevent 
production or import of methyl bromide or sale of pre-phaseout 
inventory for critical uses, EPA is making this action effective 
immediately upon publication.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What is the critical use Eeemption process?
    A. Background of the Process
    B. How Does This Rule Relate to Previous Critical Use Exemption 
Rules?
    C. Critical Uses
    D. Critical Use Amounts
    E. Amending the Critical Stock Allowance Framework
    F. Emergency Uses
    G. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4
    H. Emissions Minimization
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

    Entities and categories of entities potentially regulated by this 
action include producers, importers, and exporters of methyl bromide; 
applicators and distributors of methyl bromide; and users of methyl 
bromide that applied for the 2014 and 2015 critical use exemption 
including growers of vegetable crops, fruits, and nursery stock, and 
owners of stored food commodities and structures such as grain mills 
and processors. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, 
business, or organization could be regulated by this action, you should 
carefully examine the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, 
subpart A. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding section.

II. What is the critical use exemption process?

A. Background of the Process

    Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol established the critical use 
exemption provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1997, the 
Parties established the criteria for an exemption in Decision IX/6. In 
that Decision, the Parties agreed that ``a use of methyl bromide should 
qualify as `critical' only if the nominating Party determines that: (i) 
The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl 
bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; 
and (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible 
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable 
from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the 
crops and circumstances of the nomination.'' EPA promulgated these 
criteria in the definition of ``critical use'' at 40 CFR 82.3. In 
addition, 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 through Federal 
Register notices published on June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34700) (for the 2014 
control period) and on May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29341) (for the 2015 control 
period). Applicants submitted data on their use of methyl bromide, the 
technical and economic feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing 
research programs into the use of alternatives in their sector, and 
efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide.
    EPA reviews the data submitted by applicants, as well as data from 
governmental and academic sources, to establish whether there are 
technically and economically feasible alternatives available for a 
particular use of methyl bromide, and whether there would be a 
significant market disruption if no exemption were available. In 
addition, an interagency workgroup reviews other parameters of the 
exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization 
techniques and applicants' research or transition plans. As required in 
section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each exemption period, EPA consults 
with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 31, 2012, the United States submitted the tenth 
Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the 
United States of America to the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This 
nomination contained the request for 2014 critical uses. In February 
2012, MBTOC sent questions

[[Page 44304]]

to the United States concerning technical and economic issues in the 
2014 nomination. The United States transmitted responses to MBTOC in 
March, 2012. In May 2012, the MBTOC provided their interim 
recommendations on the U.S. nomination in the May TEAP Progress Report. 
In that report, MBTOC posed questions about the U.S. nominations for 
dried fruit, dried cured ham, and strawberries. The United States 
responded to those questions in August 2012. These documents, together 
with reports by the advisory bodies noted above, are in the public 
docket for this rulemaking. The critical uses and amounts authorized in 
this rule reflect the analyses contained in those documents.
    On January 24, 2013, the United States submitted the eleventh 
Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the 
United States of America to the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This 
nomination contained the request for 2015 critical uses. In February 
and March 2013, MBTOC sent questions to the United States concerning 
technical and economic issues in the 2015 nomination. The United States 
transmitted responses to MBTOC in March, 2013. In May 2013, the MBTOC 
provided its interim recommendations on the U.S. nomination in the May 
TEAP Progress Report and posed additional questions about the U.S. 
nominations. The United States responded to those questions in August 
2013. These documents, together with reports by the advisory bodies 
noted above, are in the public docket for this rulemaking. The critical 
uses and amounts authorized in this rule reflect the analyses contained 
in those documents.

B. How does this rule relate to previous critical use exemption rules?

    The December 23, 2004, Framework Rule established the framework for 
the critical use exemption program in the United States, including 
definitions, prohibitions, trading provisions, and recordkeeping and 
reporting obligations. The preamble to the Framework Rule included 
EPA's determinations on key issues for the critical use exemption 
program.
    Since publishing the Framework Rule, EPA has annually promulgated 
regulations to exempt specific quantities of production and import of 
methyl bromide, to determine the amounts that may be supplied from pre-
phaseout inventory, and to indicate which uses meet the criteria for 
the exemption program for that year. See 71 FR 5985 (February 6, 2006), 
71 FR 75386 (December 14, 2006), 72 FR 74118 (December 28, 2007), 74 FR 
19878 (April 30, 2009), 75 FR 23167 (May 3, 2010), 76 FR 60737 
(September 30, 2011), 77 FR 29218 (May 17, 2012), and 78 FR 43797 (July 
22, 2013).
    Unlike in previous years, this rule authorizes critical uses for 
both 2014 and 2015. EPA proposed to do so to expedite the issuance of 
2015 allowances. EPA has received repeated comments to previous CUE 
rules that a failure to issue allowances in a timely fashion places 
manufacturers and distributors, who need to plan for the upcoming 
growing season, in a difficult position. For 2013, the final rule was 
not effective until July 22, 2013, and EPA recognized that this late 
date could cause difficulties for growers as well as manufacturers and 
distributors. EPA received one comment supporting the promulgation of 
CUE rules on a two-year basis. While the commenter urges EPA issue 
future CUE rules on a two-year basis, the agency is not able to commit 
to doing so in future and notes that combining two control periods in 
one rule may result in CUAs being issued for the first control period 
later than stakeholders would prefer. Given the timing of action by the 
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on critical uses, EPA is unlikely to 
be able to add a second control period to a rule without affecting the 
rule's schedule.
    This action continues the approach established in the 2013 rule for 
determining the amounts of Critical Use Allowances (CUAs) to be 
allocated for critical uses. A CUA is the privilege granted through 40 
CFR part 82 to produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) of methyl bromide for 
an approved critical use during the specified control period. A control 
period is a calendar year. See 40 CFR 82.3. The two control periods at 
issue in this rule are 2014 and 2015. Each year's allowances expire at 
the end of that control period and, as explained in the Framework Rule, 
are not bankable from one year to the next.
    The 2013 Rule also removed from the regulatory framework the 
restriction that limits the sale of inventory for critical uses through 
allocations of Critical Stock Allowances (CSA). A CSA was the right 
granted through 40 CFR part 82 to sell 1 kg of methyl bromide from 
inventory produced or imported prior to the January 1, 2005, phaseout 
date for an approved critical use during the specified control period. 
Under the framework, the sale of pre-phaseout inventories for critical 
uses in excess of the amount of CSAs held by the seller was prohibited. 
As discussed in the 2013 Rule, EPA removed the requirement for CSAs 
because the restriction was less relevant as few critical uses remained 
and because changes in labeling would make remaining inventory 
practically inaccessible. This rule removes all of the remaining 
provisions in 40 CFR part 82 related to critical stock allowances.

C. Critical Uses

    In Decision XXIV/5, taken in November 2012, the Parties to the 
Protocol agreed ``[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categories 
for 2014 set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision for 
each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision 
and in Decision Ex. I/4 to the extent that those conditions are 
applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2014 set forth 
in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to 
satisfy critical uses. . . .'' The following uses are those set forth 
in table A of the annex to Decision XXIV/5 for the United States:
     Commodities
     Mills and food processing structures
     Cured pork
     Strawberry--field
    In Decision XXV/4, taken in October 2013, the Parties to the 
Protocol agreed ``[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categories 
for 2015 set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision for 
each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision 
and in Decision Ex. I/4 to the extent that those conditions are 
applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2015 set forth 
in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to 
satisfy critical uses. . . .'' The following uses are those set forth 
in table A of the annex to Decision XXV/4 for the United States:
     Cured pork
     Strawberry--field
    EPA is modifying the table of critical uses and critical users in 
40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix L based on the amounts permitted in 
Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/4 and the technical analyses contained 
in the 2014 and 2015 U.S. nominations that assess data submitted by 
applicants to the CUE program.
    EPA sought comment on the technical analyses contained in the U.S. 
nominations (available for public review in the docket) and information 
regarding any changes to the registration (including cancellations or 
registrations), use, or efficacy of alternatives that have occurred 
after the nominations were submitted. EPA did not receive comments on 
the technical analyses. EPA did receive comments

[[Page 44305]]

related to alternatives, which are discussed in the next section of the 
preamble. 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 is finalizing the lists of approved critical uses and approved 
critical users as proposed. For 2014, EPA is removing Georgia growers 
of cucurbits, eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes. These groups did not 
submit applications for 2014 and therefore were not included in the 
2014 U.S. nomination. EPA is removing sectors or users that applied for 
a critical use in 2014 but that the United States did not nominate for 
2014. EPA conducted a thorough technical assessment of each application 
and considered the effects that the loss of methyl bromide would have 
for each agricultural sector, and whether significant market disruption 
would occur as a result. As a result of this technical review, the 
United States Government (USG) determined that certain sectors or users 
did not meet the critical use criteria in Decision IX/6 and the United 
States therefore did not include them in the 2014 Critical Use 
Nomination. EPA notified these sectors of their status by letters dated 
February 7, 2012. These sectors are orchard replant for California wine 
grape growers and Florida growers of eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes. 
For each of these uses, EPA found that there are technically and 
economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide.
    Some sectors that were not included in the 2014 Critical Use 
Nomination submitted supplemental applications for 2014. These sectors 
are: the California Association of Nursery and Garden Centers; 
California stone fruit, table and raisin grape, walnut, and almond 
growers; ornamental growers in California and Florida; California 
strawberry nurseries; stored walnuts; and the U.S. Golf Course 
Superintendents Association. In addition, some sectors that were not on 
the list of critical uses for 2013 submitted applications for 2014. 
These sectors are: California sweet potato growers, Florida strawberry 
growers, Mardel melon growers, Virginia tomato growers, and Turfgrass 
Producers International. These sectors were not nominated for 2014. The 
USG came to a decision that the sectors not nominated for 2014 had not 
provided rigorous and convincing evidence that they meet the criteria 
laid out in Decision IX/6, and further that no new problem or large 
yield/quality loss had been demonstrated that warranted seeking a 
supplemental exemption from the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
    For 2015 EPA is removing California wine grape growers and Florida 
growers of eggplants, peppers, tomatoes, and strawberries. These groups 
did not submit applications for 2015 and therefore were not included in 
the 2015 U.S. nomination. EPA is also removing sectors or users that 
applied for a critical use in 2015 but that the United States did not 
nominate for 2015. As described above EPA conducted a thorough 
technical assessment of each application and the USG determined that 
certain sectors or users did not meet the critical use criteria. EPA 
notified these sectors of their status by letters dated March 26, 2013. 
These sectors are rice millers, pet food manufacturing facilities, 
members of the North American Millers Association, and California 
entities storing walnuts, dried plums, figs, and raisins. For each of 
these uses, EPA found that there are technically and economically 
feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. In addition, EPA is removing 
entities storing dates as a critical use for 2015. While the United 
States nominated this sector for 2015, MBTOC did not recommend that 
this sector be a critical use in 2015 and the Parties did not permit 
this use.
    EPA has received supplemental applications for 2015 from sectors 
that the United States did not nominate for 2015. These sectors are: 
Michigan cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato growers; Florida 
eggplant, pepper, tomato, and strawberry growers; the California 
Association of Nursery and Garden Centers; California stone fruit, 
table and raisin grape, walnut, and almond growers; ornamental growers 
in California and Florida; the U.S. Golf Course Superintendents 
Association; and stored walnuts, dried plums, figs, and raisins in 
California. For those sectors the USG came to a decision that the 
sectors not nominated have not provided rigorous and convincing 
evidence that they meet the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6, and 
further that no new problem or large yield/quality loss had been 
demonstrated that warranted seeking a supplemental exemption from the 
Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
    Finally, EPA is adding information to Column B of appendix L to 
clarify which critical uses are approved for which control periods. As 
stated in previous rules, the ``local township limits prohibiting 1,3-
dichloropropene'' are prohibitions on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene 
products in cases where local township limits on use of this 
alternative have been reached. In addition, ``pet food'' under 
subsection B of Food Processing refers to food for domesticated dogs 
and cats. Finally, ``rapid fumigation'' for commodities refers to 
instances in which a buyer provides short (two working days or fewer) 
notification for a purchase or there is a short period after harvest in 
which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using 
alternatives.

D. Critical Use Amounts

    Table A of the annex to Decision XXIV/5 lists critical uses and 
amounts agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2014. The 
maximum amount of new production and import for U.S. critical uses in 
2014, specified in Table B of Decision XXIV/5, is 442,337 kg, minus 
available stocks. This figure is equivalent to 1.7% of the U.S. 1991 
methyl bromide consumption baseline of 25,528,270 kg.
    Similarly, Table A of the annex to Decision XXV/4 lists critical 
uses and amounts agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 
2015. The maximum amount of new production and import for U.S. critical 
uses in 2015, specified in Table B of Decision XXV/4, is 376,900 kg, 
minus available stocks. This figure is equivalent to 1.5% of the U.S. 
1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline.
    EPA proposed to determine the level of new production and import 
for 2014 and 2015 according to the framework and as modified by the 
2013 Rule. EPA is using this approach for the final rule. Under this 
approach, the amount of new production for each control period equals 
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. As established in the 2013 Rule, EPA is not allocating critical 
stock allowances. Applying this approach, EPA is allocating allowances 
to exempt 442,337 kg of new production and import of methyl bromide for 
critical uses in 2014 and 376,900 kg of new production and import for 
2015. This is the same amount as the Agency proposed.
    EPA received three comments related to the proposed amount of 
allowances. One comment stated that there should be no exemptions for 
methyl bromide as it was banned in 2005. While the

[[Page 44306]]

commenter is correct that the phaseout occurred in 2005, the Montreal 
Protocol and the Clean Air Act provide exemptions for critical uses. 
EPA is taking 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-Fourth and 
Twenty-Fifth Meetings of the Parties.
    A second commenter stated that it is appropriate for EPA to reduce 
the new production/import allocation to reflect the adoption of methyl 
bromide alternatives, including specifically dimethyl disulfide. A 
third commenter supported the proposal to allocate the full amount 
permitted by the Parties but stated that EPA should allocate more than 
the amount requested in the CUN to the extent that the nominations were 
reduced based on the availability of chloropicrin and iodomethane. EPA 
responds to these comments later in this section under ``Uptake of 
Alternatives.''
    In the past, EPA has also made reductions to the CUA amount to 
account for the amount specifically permitted for research, on the 
assumption that research amounts would come from inventory. One 
commenter stated that EPA failed to account for research use of methyl 
bromide in the proposed rule and should return to the previously 
established policy and allocate a separate research purpose allocation. 
EPA responds that the 2014 and 2015 CUNs did not include, and the 
Parties did not permit, a separate amount for research, as had been 
done in prior years. As discussed in more detail in the 2011 CUE final 
rule (76 FR 60736, 60743, September 30, 2011), EPA views research as 
part of the nomination for each individual critical use. Therefore, EPA 
is not making any adjustments for research.
    Available Stocks: For 2014 and 2015 the Parties indicated that the 
United States should use ``available stocks,'' but did not indicate a 
minimum amount expected to be taken from stocks. Consistent with EPA's 
past practice, EPA considered what amount, if any, of the existing 
stocks may be available to critical users during 2014 and 2015. When 
EPA issued the proposed rule, the latest data reported to EPA was from 
December 31, 2012 and showed there were 627,066 kg of existing stocks. 
New data as of December 31, 2013, show that existing stocks declined to 
356,561 kg.
    The Parties to the Protocol recognized in their Decisions that the 
level of existing stocks may differ from the level of available stocks. 
Both Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/4 state that ``production and 
consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted 
only if methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and 
quality from existing stocks. . . .'' In addition, the Decisions 
recognize that ``parties operating under critical-use exemptions should 
take into account the extent to which methyl bromide is available in 
sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks. . . .'' Earlier 
Decisions also refer to the use of ``quantities of methyl bromide from 
stocks that the Party has recognized to be available.'' Thus, it is 
clear that individual Parties may determine their level of available 
stocks. Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA does not require EPA to adjust the 
amount of new production and import to reflect the availability of 
stocks; however, as explained in previous rulemakings, making such an 
adjustment is a reasonable exercise of EPA's discretion under this 
provision.
    In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013), EPA established 
an approach that considered whether a percentage of the existing 
inventory was available. In that rule, EPA took comment on whether 0% 
or 5% of the existing stocks was available. The final rule found that 
0% was available to be allocated for critical use in 2013 for a number 
of reasons including: a pattern of significant underestimation of 
inventory drawdown; the increasing concentration of critical users in 
California while inventory remained distributed nationwide; and the 
recognition that the agency cannot compel distributors to sell 
inventory to critical users. For further discussion, please see the 
2013 CUE Rule. EPA believes these circumstances remain true for 2014 
and 2015 and proposed to find 0% of the existing inventory available 
for 2014 and 2015.
    EPA received one comment supporting EPA's determination that 0% of 
the existing stocks are available for the reasons stated in the 
proposed rule. The commenter also noted that the manner in which stocks 
are distributed, to existing customers within their geographic areas, 
further supports a finding that no stocks are available.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, last year EPA removed the 
restriction that critical stock allowances be expended to sell 
inventory to critical uses. EPA was unable to calculate the effect this 
change may have on the remaining inventory and noted that it may be 
difficult to assess the impact of this change simply from updated 
inventory data given it went into effect in the middle of the 2013 
control period. EPA solicited comments on whether, and how, to draw 
inferences as to the availability of stocks for critical uses based on 
inventory figures as of December 31, 2013. EPA did not receive any 
comments on how to interpret new stocks data in light of the change in 
policy about CSAs. Therefore, EPA is maintaining its proposed approach 
and finding that 0% of the existing stocks are available for use by 
critical users in 2014 and 2015.
    Carryover Material: The Parties in paragraph 9 of Decision XXIV/5 
``urge parties operating under critical-use exemptions to put in place 
effective systems to discourage the accumulation of methyl bromide 
produced under the exemptions[.]'' EPA regulations prohibit methyl 
bromide produced or imported after January 1, 2005, under the critical 
use exemption from being added to the existing pre-2005 inventory. 
Quantities of methyl bromide produced, imported, exported, or sold to 
end-users under the critical use exemption in a control period must be 
reported to EPA the following year. EPA uses these reports to calculate 
the amount of methyl bromide produced or imported under the critical 
use exemption, but not exported or sold to end-users in that year. EPA 
deducts an amount equivalent to this ``carryover'' from the total level 
of allowable new production and import in the year following the year 
of the data report. So for example, the amount of carryover from 2012 
is factored into the determination for 2014. Carryover material (which 
is produced using critical use allowances) is not included in EPA's 
definition of existing inventory (which applies to pre-2005 material) 
because this would lead to a double-counting of carryover amounts.
    All critical use methyl bromide that companies reported to be 
produced or imported in 2012 was sold to end users. 759 MT of critical 
use methyl bromide was produced or imported in 2012. Slightly more than 
the amount produced or imported was actually sold to end-users. This 
additional amount was from distributors selling material that was 
carried over from the prior control period. Therefore, EPA proposed to 
apply a carryover deduction of 0 kg to the new production amount for 
2014, 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.
    Production, import, and sales data for 2013 was not reported to EPA 
by the time of the proposed rule so EPA assumed 0 kg of carryover. New 
data reported to EPA show that 562 MT of critical use methyl bromide 
was produced or imported in 2013. Again, slightly more than the amount 
produced

[[Page 44307]]

or imported was actually sold to end-users. Therefore, EPA is applying 
a carryover deduction of 0 kg to the new production amount for 2014 and 
2015.
    All U.S. Accounting Frameworks for critical use methyl bromide, 
including the one for 2013, 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. One comment stated that the allocation 
amounts should not impede the continued adoption and use of methyl 
bromide alternatives. EPA believes that considering the uptake of 
alternatives encourages the adoption of alternatives.
    EPA received one comment that dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) is 
registered in twenty-seven states and that EPA should reduce the new 
production/import allocation to reflect the success that growers in 
many parts of the country have had in transitioning to alternatives, 
including DMDS. EPA also received one comment supporting the proposal 
not to make reductions to the allocation due to DMDS as it is not 
registered in California. That commenter stated that even if California 
were to register DMDS, growers would transition cautiously to ensure it 
works for their circumstances.
    EPA responds that there has been no change in the registration 
status of DMDS in California, the only state with a pre-plant CUE for 
2014 or 2015. Because DMDS is not available in California it would not 
be appropriate to reduce the allocation amounts. EPA also does not 
believe that the progress Florida strawberry growers have made in 
transitioning to alternatives means, as one commenter suggests, that 
the EPA should reduce the allocation amounts. EPA recognizes that 
strawberry growers are successfully transitioning to alternatives, and 
the CUE allocation for strawberries has been declining as that 
transition has occurred. EPA considered the transition made to date, 
and the ability of California strawberry growers to further transition, 
when developing the nomination. Transition rates for alternatives have 
already been applied for permitted critical use amounts through the 
nomination and decision process.
    One commenter also stated that EPA should allocate more than the 
amount requested in the CUN to the extent that the nominations were 
reduced based on the availability of chloropicrin and iodomethane. The 
commenter states that the removal of iodomethane from the U.S. market 
has increased demand for methyl bromide. In addition, the proposed 
restrictions on the use of chloropicrin in California will increase the 
need for methyl bromide in that state. EPA responds that the CUNs for 
2014 and 2015 did not consider iodomethane as an available alternative 
because it had already been removed from the market by the time the 
nominations were submitted. Therefore, EPA does not believe it is 
appropriate to increase the critical use allocations based on the lack 
of availability of iodomethane.
    The proposed rule requested comment on whether proposed control 
measures from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation on the 
use of chloropicrin could affect the 2015 control period. EPA did not 
adjust the allocations for 2014 or 2015 because the changes were only 
proposed. One commenter stated that EPA should increase the allocation 
for 2015 above the proposed amount because the need for methyl bromide 
will increase if California imposes new restrictions. As EPA stated in 
the proposed rule, EPA views the determination of the total allocation, 
up to the amount permitted by the Parties, as an appropriate exercise 
of discretion. The agency will not increase the quantities allocated 
beyond those permitted by the Parties, but may exercise its discretion 
to allocate less. In addition, the critical use exemption program has 
historically only relied on final actions when determining the 
availability of alternatives. Since EPA proposed to allocate the full 
amount permitted by the Parties and California's proposed measures are 
not final, EPA is not increasing the allocation.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not take into 
account the proposed tolerance revocation of sulfuryl fluoride. As EPA 
has stated in prior rules, the allocation rule is based on the current 
status of alternatives. Therefore, EPA has not based the allocation 
amounts for 2014 or 2015 on any anticipated impacts of that proposal on 
methyl bromide use.
    EPA is not making any other modifications to CUE amounts to account 
for availability of alternatives. Rates of transition to alternatives 
have already been applied for permitted 2014 and 2015 critical use 
amounts through the nomination and decision process.
    Allocation Amounts: EPA is allocating to the four companies that 
hold baseline allowances in proportion to their respective critical use 
allowances for new production or import of methyl bromide equivalent to 
442,337 kg in 2014 and 376,900 kg in 2015. Paragraph 3 of Decision 
XXIV/5 and paragraph 5 of Decision XXV/4 state that ``parties shall 
endeavor to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl 
bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the 
present decision. . . .'' This is similar to language in prior 
Decisions authorizing critical uses. These Decisions call on Parties to 
endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis. The 
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 approach adopted in the 
Framework Rule, the actual critical use will closely follow the sector 
breakout listed in the Parties' decisions.

E. Amending the Critical Stock Allowance Framework

    The 2013 Rule removed the provisions at Sec.  82.4(p)(ii) and (iii) 
requiring the use of critical stock allowances for sales of inventory 
to critical users. In addition, EPA made some necessary conforming 
changes to 40 CFR part 82, which follow from removing those 
restrictions. As a result of the changes in the 2013 CUE Rule, there 
are no restrictions under the Clean Air Act on the sale of pre-phaseout 
material to critical users.
    EPA took comment in the proposed rule on removing all of the 
remaining references to critical stock allowances in 40 CFR part 82. 
EPA believes these provisions are no longer necessary if the agency is 
not allocating separate critical stock allowances. EPA received one 
comment in support of removing those provisions, as it would avoid 
confusion in the future. EPA is finalizing the rule as proposed. 
Specifically, EPA is removing the definitions of ``critical stock 
allowance,'' ``critical stock allowance holder,'' and ``unexpended

[[Page 44308]]

critical stock allowance'' from Sec.  82.3. EPA is removing provisions 
related to the intercompany transfer of critical stock allowances at 
Sec.  82.12(a) \2\ and the exchange of critical use allowances for 
critical stock allowances at Sec.  82.12(e). EPA is also removing the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to critical stock 
allowances in Sec.  82.13(f)(3) and (g)(4). EPA notes that the agency 
is maintaining the requirement to annually report remaining pre-
phaseout inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This provision allows any critical stock allowance holder 
(``transferor'') to transfer critical stock allowances to any 
critical stock allowance holder or any methyl bromide producer, 
importer, distributor, or third party applicator (``transferee'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Emergency Uses

    In 2013 EPA held discussions with USDA and the Department of State 
on tools that could potentially address immediate and unforeseen needs 
for methyl bromide including whether emergency situations may arise 
that warrant the use of methyl bromide consistent with the treaty, 
recognizing that emergency uses are not intended as a replacement for 
CUE uses. In August, EPA held a stakeholder meeting to present, among 
other things, the findings of those discussions and noted that the 
three agencies had not yet identified any specific situations that 
could not be addressed by current mechanisms. The mechanisms discussed 
include, among others: The continuing critical use exemption process, 
including the supplemental application process which allows for a 
second opportunity to review applications from growers with a critical 
need; the pre-phaseout inventory (if remaining); the emergency use 
exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA; and ongoing targeted research and 
outreach to develop and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. The 
U.S. government is committed to using flexibility in the Protocol's 
existing mechanisms as an avenue to address changes in national 
circumstances that affect the transition to alternatives.
    EPA solicited comments 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. EPA received one comment which discussed 
``hand-held probe'' treatments for outbreaks of Oak Root Fungus 
(Armillaria) in fruit and nut orchards. The commenter states that the 
use is limited in scope, methyl bromide is the only treatment proven to 
have long term efficacy, and the treatment is critical to the viability 
of infested orchards. The commenter stated that as a threshold matter, 
there must be clear and objective criteria to establish the existence 
of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. In addition the 
process to meet a particular emergency must be efficient so as to 
enable all stakeholders to meet the need before the emergency has 
caused significant damage.
    Clear and objective criteria would be required to establish the 
existence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. 
Decision IX/7 states that the Secretariat and the TEAP will evaluate 
the use according to the critical use criteria in IX/6. Therefore, at a 
minimum, any potential emergency use must also be able to qualify as a 
critical use. The example of Armillaria raised by the commenter was 
also included in an application for a critical use exemption in 2016. 
The U.S. Government did not include this as part of the 2016 U.S. 
Nomination because the application did not provide data to demonstrate 
either the efficacy of methyl bromide or that the alternatives are not 
effective. Nor did it include data showing that the loss of methyl 
bromide would create a significant market disruption. EPA will continue 
in interactions with stakeholders and other agencies to receive 
information on understanding emergency situations that may necessitate 
the use of methyl bromide.

G. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4

    Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/4 call on Parties to apply the 
conditions set forth in Decision Ex. I/4 (to the extent applicable) and 
the criteria in Decision IX/6 paragraph 1 to exempted critical uses for 
the 2014 and 2015 control periods. A discussion of the agency's 
application of the criteria in paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in 
sections II.A., and II.C. of this preamble. EPA solicited comments on 
the technical and economic basis for determining that the uses listed 
in this rule meet the criteria of the critical use exemption. The CUNs 
detail how each critical use meets the criteria in paragraph 1 of 
Decision IX/6, apart from the criterion located at paragraph (b)(ii), 
as well as the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision Ex. I/4.
    The criterion in Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(b)(ii), which refers 
to the use of available stocks of methyl bromide, is addressed in 
section II.D. of this preamble. The agency has previously provided its 
interpretation of the criterion in Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(a)(i) 
regarding the presence of significant market disruption in the absence 
of an exemption. EPA refers readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE 
rule (71 FR 5989, February 6, 2006) as well as to the memo in the 
docket titled ``Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use 
Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America'' for 
further elaboration. As explained in those documents, EPA's 
interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking 
at potential effects on both demand and supply for a commodity, 
evaluating potential losses at both an individual level and at an 
aggregate level, and evaluating potential losses in both relative and 
absolute terms.
    The remaining considerations are addressed in the nomination 
documents including: the lack of available technically and economically 
feasible alternatives under the circumstance of the nomination; efforts 
to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide where technically and 
economically feasible; the development of research and transition 
plans; and the requests in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that 
Parties consider and implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, 
on 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.
    Some of these criteria are evaluated in other documents. The United 
States has considered the adoption of alternatives and research into 
methyl bromide alternatives (see Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(b)(iii)) 
in the development of the National Management Strategy submitted to the 
Ozone Secretariat in December 2005, updated in October 2009. The 
National Management Strategy addresses all of the aims specified in 
Decision Ex. I/4 paragraph 3 to the extent feasible and is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    There continues to be a need for methyl bromide in order to conduct 
the research required by Decision IX/6. A common example is an outdoor 
field experiment that requires methyl bromide as a standard control 
treatment with which to compare the trial alternatives' results. As 
discussed in the preamble to the 2010 CUE rule (75 FR 23179, May 3, 
2010), research is a key element of the critical use process. Research 
on the crops shown in the table in Appendix L to subpart A remains a 
critical use of methyl bromide. While researchers may continue to use 
newly produced material for field, post-harvest, and emission 
minimization studies requiring the use of methyl bromide, EPA 
encourages researchers to use pre-

[[Page 44309]]

phaseout inventory. EPA also encourages distributors to make inventory 
available to researchers, to promote the continuing effort to assist 
growers to transition critical use crops to alternatives.

H. Emissions Minimization

    Previous Decisions of the Parties have stated that critical users 
shall employ emission minimization techniques such as virtually 
impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/
or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever 
technically and economically feasible. EPA developed a comprehensive 
strategy for risk mitigation through the 2009 Reregistration 
Eligibility Decision (RED) \3\ 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, except for 
California orchard replant where EPA instead requires deep (18 inches 
or greater) shank applications. The RED also incorporated incentives 
for applicators to use high-barrier tarps, such as virtually 
impermeable film, by allowing smaller buffer zones around those sites. 
In addition to minimizing emissions, use of high-barrier tarps has the 
benefit of providing pest control at lower application rates. The 
amount of methyl bromide nominated by the United States reflects the 
lower application rates necessary when using high-barrier tarps, where 
such tarps are allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additional information on risk mitigation measures for soil 
fumigants is available at http://epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture--
Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and the National Institute for 
Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) to promote emission reduction 
techniques. The federal government has invested substantial resources 
into developing and implementing best practices for methyl bromide use, 
including emission reduction practices. The Cooperative Extension 
System, which receives some support from USDA-NIFA provides locally 
appropriate and project-focused outreach education regarding methyl 
bromide transition best practices. Additional information on USDA 
research on alternatives and emissions reduction can be found at: 
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=308 and 
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/methylbromideicgp.cfm.
    Users of methyl bromide should continue to make every effort to 
minimize overall emissions of methyl bromide. EPA also encourages 
researchers and users who are using 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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this final rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it was 
deemed to raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA 
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011) and any changes made in response to interagency recommendations 
have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The application, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements have already 
been established under previous critical use exemption rulemakings. 
This rule does remove requirements related to the recordkeeping and 
reporting of critical stock allowances which would decrease the 
information collection burden. The Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0482. The OMB control numbers for 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of 
this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations 
at 13 CFR 121.201 (see Table below); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NAICS Small
                                                          business size
                                                          standard (in
           Category                   NAICS code            number of
                                                          employees or
                                                           millions of
                                                            dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural production.......  1112--Vegetable and     $0.75 million.
                                 Melon farming.
                                1113--Fruit and Nut
                                 Tree Farming.
                                1114--Greenhouse,
                                 Nursery, and
                                 Floriculture
                                 Production.
Storage Uses..................  115114--Postharvest     $7 million.
                                 Crop activities
                                 (except Cotton
                                 Ginning).
                                311211--Flour Milling.  500 employees.
                                311212--Rice Milling..  500 employees.
                                493110--General         $25.5 million.
                                 Warehousing and
                                 Storage.
                                493130--Farm Product    $25.5 million.
                                 Warehousing and
                                 Storage.
Distributors and Applicators..  115112--Soil            $7 million.
                                 Preparation, Planting
                                 and Cultivating.

[[Page 44310]]

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

    Agricultural producers of minor crops and entities that store 
agricultural commodities are categories of affected entities that 
contain small entities. This rule only affects entities that applied to 
EPA for an exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide. In most cases, 
EPA received aggregated requests for exemptions from industry 
consortia. On the exemption application, EPA asked consortia to 
describe the number and size distribution of entities their application 
covered. EPA estimated that 3,218 entities petitioned EPA for an 
exemption for the 2005 control period. EPA revised this estimate in 
2011 down to 1,800 end users of critical use methyl bromide. EPA 
believes that the number continues to decline as growers cease applying 
for the critical use exemption. Since many applicants did not provide 
information on the distribution of sizes of entities covered in their 
applications, EPA estimated that, based on the above definition, 
between one-fourth and one-third of the entities may be small 
businesses. In addition, other categories of affected entities do not 
contain small businesses based on the above description.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' (5 U.S.C. 
603-604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves a regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Since 
this rule allows the use of methyl bromide for approved critical uses 
after the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this action confers a 
benefit to users of methyl bromide. EPA estimates in the Regulatory 
Impact Assessment found in the docket to this rule that the reduced 
costs resulting from the de-regulatory creation of the exemption are 
approximately $22 million to $31 million on an annual basis (using a 3% 
or 7% discount rate respectively). We have therefore concluded that 
this rule would relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. Instead, this action provides 
an exemption for the manufacture and use of a phased out compound and 
would not impose any new requirements on any entities. Therefore, this 
action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 
UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule is expected to affect 
producers, suppliers, importers, and exporters and users of methyl 
bromide. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In 
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to 
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicited comment on this action from State and local 
officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule does 
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments nor does it impose any enforceable duties on communities of 
Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 
to this action. EPA specifically solicited additional comment on this 
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health 
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate 
risk to children. This rule affects the level of environmental 
protection equally for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule does 
not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor does it 
regulate any manner of energy use. Therefore, we have concluded that 
this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,

[[Page 44311]]

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations, because it affects the level of environmental 
protection equally for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. Any ozone depletion that results from this rule will impact 
all affected populations equally because ozone depletion is a global 
environmental problem with environmental and human effects that are, in 
general, equally distributed across geographical regions in the United 
States. 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.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective July 31, 2014.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Ozone 
depletion.

    Dated: July 18, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended 
as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.


Sec.  82.3  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  82.3 by removing the definitions of ``Critical stock 
allowance (CSA)'', ``Critical stock allowance (CSA) holder'', and 
``Unexpended critical stock allowance (CSA)''.

0
3. Amend Sec.  82.8 by revising the table in paragraph (c)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  82.8  Grant of essential use allowances and critical use 
allowances.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2014 Critical   2014 Critical   2015 Critical   2015 Critical
                                                  use allowances  use allowances  use allowances  use allowances
                     Company                       for pre-plant     for post-     for pre-plant     for post-
                                                       uses*       harvest uses*       uses*       harvest uses*
                                                    (kilograms)     (kilograms)     (kilograms)     (kilograms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company...         252,236          16,572         227,073           1,969
Albemarle Corp..................................         103,725           6,815          93,378             810
ICL-IP America..................................          57,321           3,766          51,602             447
TriCal, Inc.....................................           1,785             117           1,607              14
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         415,067          27,270         373,660           3,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For production or import of Class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-
  Harvest uses specified in appendix L to this subpart for the appropriate control period.

* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  82.12 by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and 
removing paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  82.12  Transfers of allowances for class I controlled substances.

    (a) Inter-company transfers. (1) Until January 1, 1996, for all 
class I controlled substances, except for Group VI, and until January 
1, 2005, for Group VI, any person (``transferor'') may transfer to any 
other person (``transferee'') any amount of the transferor's 
consumption allowances or production allowances, and effective January 
1, 1995, for all class I controlled substances any person 
(``transferor'') may transfer to any other person (``transferee'') any 
amount of the transferor's Article 5 allowances. After January 1, 2002, 
any essential-use allowance holder (including those persons that hold 
essential-use allowances issued by a Party other than the United 
States) (``transferor'') may transfer essential-use allowances for CFCs 
to a metered dose inhaler company solely for the manufacture of 
essential MDIs. After January 1, 2005, any critical use allowance 
holder (``transferor'') may transfer critical use allowances to any 
other person (``transferee'').
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  82.13 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f)(3)(iv) and (g)(4)(vii); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (bb)(2)(iv) and (cc)(2)(iv).
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 44312]]

Sec.  82.13  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for class I 
controlled substances.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) The producer's total of expended and unexpended production 
allowances, consumption allowances, Article 5 allowances, critical use 
allowances (pre-plant), critical use allowances (post-harvest), and 
amount of essential-use allowances and destruction and transformation 
credits conferred at the end of that quarter;
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vii) The importer's total sum of expended and unexpended 
consumption allowances by chemical as of the end of that quarter and 
the total sum of expended and unexpended critical use allowances (pre-
plant) and unexpended critical use allowances (post-harvest);
* * * * *

0
6. Amend subpart A by revising appendix L to read as follows:

Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82--Approved Critical Uses and Limiting 
Critical Conditions for Those Uses for the 2014 and 2015 Control 
Periods

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Column A                  Column B              Column C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved Critical Uses......  Approved Critical     Limiting Critical
                               User, Location of     Conditions that
                               Use, and Control      exist, or that the
                               Period.               approved critical
                                                     user reasonably
                                                     expects could arise
                                                     without methyl
                                                     bromide fumigation.
PRE-PLANT USES:
    Strawberry Fruit........  California growers.   Moderate to severe
                               Control periods       black root rot or
                               2014 and 2015.        crown rot.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Local township
                                                     limits prohibiting
                                                     1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene.
POST-HARVEST USES:
    Food Processing.........  (a) Rice millers in   Moderate to severe
                               the U.S. who are      beetle, weevil, or
                               members of the USA    moth infestation.
                               Rice Millers'        Presence of
                               Association.          sensitive
                               Control period 2014.  electronic
                                                     equipment subject
                                                     to corrosion.
                              (b) Pet food          Moderate to severe
                               manufacturing         beetle, moth, or
                               facilities in the     cockroach
                               U.S. who are          infestation.
                               members of the Pet   Presence of
                               Food Institute.       sensitive
                               Control period 2014.  electronic
                                                     equipment subject
                                                     to corrosion.
                              (c) Members of the    Moderate to severe
                               North American        beetle infestation.
                               Millers'             Presence of
                               Association in the    sensitive
                               U.S. Control period   electronic
                               2014.                 equipment subject
                                                     to corrosion.
    Commodities.............  California entities   Rapid fumigation
                               storing walnuts,      required to meet a
                               dried plums, figs,    critical market
                               raisins, and dates    window, such as
                               (in Riverside         during the holiday
                               county only) in       season.
                               California. Control
                               period 2014.
    Dry Cured Pork Products.  Members of the        Red legged ham
                               National Country      beetle infestation.
                               Ham Association and  Cheese/ham skipper
                               the American          infestation.
                               Association of Meat  Dermestid beetle
                               Processors, Nahunta   infestation.
                               Pork Center (North   Ham mite
                               Carolina), and        infestation.
                               Gwaltney of
                               Smithfield Inc.
                               Control periods
                               2014 and 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-17595 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P