Rule: Air Pollution Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources: Methyl Bromide 2007 Critical Use Exemption From Phaseout

Thursday,
December 14, 2006
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The
2007 Critical Use Exemption From the
Phaseout of Methyl Bromide; Final Rule
pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES3
VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:53 Dec 13, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14DER3.SGM 14DER3
75386 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Public Reading Room address is EPA/ grants an exemption from the phaseout
AGENCY DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 of methyl bromide.
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
Table of Contents
40 CFR Part 82 DC.
I. General Information
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0538; FRL–8257–2] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Regulated Entities
Marta Montoro, Office of Atmospheric II. What Is the Background to the Phaseout
RIN 2060–AN54
Programs, Stratospheric Protection Regulations for Ozone-Depleting
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The Division, Mail Code 6205J, Substances?
2007 Critical Use Exemption From the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 III. What Is Methyl Bromide?
Phaseout of Methyl Bromide Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, IV. What Is the Legal Authority for
DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343– Exempting the Production and Import of
AGENCY: Environmental Protection 9321; fax number (202) 343–2338; e- Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses
Agency (EPA). mail address: montoro.marta@epa.gov. Authorized by the Parties to the
ACTION: Final rule. Montreal Protocol?
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
V. What Is the Critical Use Exemption
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing an
rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) Process?
exemption to the phaseout of methyl restrictions on the consumption, A. Background of the Process
bromide to meet the needs of 2007 production, and use of methyl bromide B. How Does This Final Rulemaking Relate
critical uses. Specifically, EPA is (a class I, Group VI controlled to Previous Critical Use Exemption
authorizing uses that will qualify for the substance) for critical uses during Rulemakings?
calendar year 2007. Under the CAA, C. Critical Uses and Adjustments to Critical
2007 critical use exemption and the
methyl bromide consumption Use Amounts
amount of methyl bromide that may be D. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex.
(consumption is defined under the CAA
produced, imported, or supplied from I/4
as production plus imports minus
inventory for those uses in 2007. EPA is E. Emissions Minimization
exports) and production was phased out
taking action under the authority of the F. Critical Use Allowance Allocations
on January 1, 2005 apart from allowable
Clean Air Act to reflect recent G. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations
exemptions, namely the critical use
consensus Decisions taken by the and Inventory of Methyl Bromide
exemption and the quarantine and VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on
preshipment exemption. With this A. Executive Order No. 12866: Regulatory
Substances that Deplete the Ozone
action, EPA is authorizing the uses that Planning and Review
Layer (Protocol) at the 17th Meeting of will qualify for the 2007 critical use
the Parties (MOP). B. Paperwork Reduction Act
exemption as well as specific amounts C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DATES: This final rule is effective on of methyl bromide that may be D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
December 14, 2006. produced, imported, or made available E. Executive Order No. 13132: Federalism
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a from stocks for critical uses in 2007. F. Executive Order No. 13175: Consultation
docket for this action identified under Section 553(d) of the Administrative and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter Governments
0538. All documents in the docket are 5, generally provides that rules may not G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov take effect earlier than 30 days after they of Children From Environmental Health
site. Although listed in the index, some are published in the Federal Register. and Safety Risks
information is not publicly available, EPA is issuing this final rule under H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
e.g., CBI or other information whose section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act,
Distribution, or Use
disclosure is restricted by statute. which states: ‘‘The provisions of section I. National Technology Transfer and
Certain other material, such as 553 through 557 * * * of Title 5 shall Advancement Act
copyrighted material, is not placed on not, except as expressly provided in this J. Congressional Review Act
the Internet and will be publicly section, apply to actions to which this
available only in hard copy form. subsection applies.’’ CAA section I. General Information
Publicly available docket materials are 307(d)(1). Thus, section 553(d) of the A. Regulated Entities
available only through APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. To nevertheless acting consistently with Entities potentially regulated by this
obtain copies of materials in hard copy, the policies underlying APA section action are those associated with the
please call the EPA Docket Center at 553(d) in making this rule effective on production, import, export, sale,
(202) 564–1744 between the hours of December 14, 2006. APA section 553(d) application, and use of methyl bromide
8:30am–4:30pm E.S.T., Monday–Friday, provides an exception for any action covered by an approved critical use
excluding legal holidays, to schedule an that grants or recognizes an exemption exemption. Potentially regulated
appointment. The EPA Docket Center’s or relieves a restriction. This final rule categories and entities include:
Category Examples of regulated entities
Industry ................ Producers, Importers and Exporters of methyl bromide; Applicators, Distributors of methyl bromide; Users of methyl bro-
mide, e.g., farmers of vegetable crops, fruits and seedlings; and owners of stored food commodities and structures such
as grain mills and processors, agricultural researchers.
The above table is not intended to be could potentially be regulated by this regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide action. To determine whether your 82, subpart A. If you have questions
for readers regarding entities likely to be facility, company, business, or regarding the applicability of this action
regulated by this action. This table lists organization is regulated by this action, to a particular entity, consult the person
the types of entities that EPA is aware you should carefully examine the
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75387
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER interim final rule and with a final rule when the complete phaseout would
INFORMATION CONTACT section. on January 2, 2003 (68 FR 238). occur. This phaseout date was
Information on methyl bromide can be established in response to a petition
II. What Is the Background to the
found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr filed in 1991 under sections 602(c)(3)
Phaseout Regulations for Ozone-
and http://www.unep.org/ozone or by and 606(b) of the CAAA of 1990,
Depleting Substances?
contacting the Stratospheric Ozone requesting that EPA list methyl bromide
The current regulatory requirements Hotline at 1–800–296–1996. as a class I substance and phase out its
of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Because it is a pesticide, methyl production and consumption. This date
Program that limit production and bromide is also regulated by EPA under was consistent with section 602(d) of
consumption of ozone-depleting the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and the CAAA of 1990, which for newly
substances can be found at 40 CFR part Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and other listed class I ozone-depleting substances
82, subpart A. The regulatory program statutes and regulatory authority, as provides that ‘‘no extension [of the
was originally published in the Federal well as by States under their own phaseout schedule in section 604] under
Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR statutes and regulatory authority. Under this subsection may extend the date for
30566), in response to the 1987 signing FIFRA, methyl bromide is a restricted termination of production of any class I
and subsequent ratification of the use pesticide and therefore subject to substance to a date more than 7 years
Montreal Protocol on Substances that certain Federal and State requirements after January 1 of the year after the year
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). The governing its sale, distribution, and use. in which the substance is added to the
Protocol is the international agreement Nothing in this final rule implementing list of class I substances.’’ EPA based its
aimed at reducing and eliminating the the Clean Air Act is intended to action on scientific assessments and
production and consumption of derogate from provisions in any other actions by the Parties to the Montreal
stratospheric ozone depleting Federal, State, or local laws or Protocol to freeze the level of methyl
substances. The U.S. was one of the regulations governing actions including, bromide production and consumption
original signatories to the 1987 Montreal but not limited to, the sale, distribution, for industrialized countries at the 1992
Protocol and the U.S. ratified the transfer, and use of methyl bromide. All Meeting of the Parties in Copenhagen.
Protocol on April 12, 1988. Congress entities that would be affected by At their 1995 meeting, the Parties
then enacted, and President George provisions of this final rule must made adjustments to the methyl
H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean continue to comply with FIFRA and bromide control measures and agreed to
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of other pertinent statutory and regulatory reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout
1990) which included Title VI on requirements for pesticides (including, date for industrialized countries with
Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified but not limited to, requirements exemptions permitted for critical uses.
as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, pertaining to restricted use pesticides) At that time, the U.S. continued to have
to ensure that the United States could when importing, exporting, acquiring, a 2001 phaseout date in accordance
satisfy its obligations under the selling, distributing, transferring, or with the CAAA of 1990 language. At
Protocol. EPA issued new regulations to using methyl bromide for critical uses. their 1997 meeting, the Parties agreed to
implement this legislation and has made The regulations in this action are further adjustments to the phaseout
several amendments to the regulations intended only to implement the CAA schedule for methyl bromide in
since that time. restrictions on the production, industrialized countries, with reduction
III. What Is Methyl Bromide? consumption and use of methyl bromide steps leading to a 2005 phaseout for
for critical uses exempted from the industrialized countries. The controls
Methyl bromide is an odorless, phaseout of methyl bromide. on methyl bromide appear in Article 2H
colorless, toxic gas which is used as a of the Protocol. Critical use exemptions
broad-spectrum pesticide and is IV. What Is the Legal Authority for
are addressed in Article 2H(5), which
controlled under the CAA as a class I Exempting the Production and Import
provides that the 2005 methyl bromide
ozone-depleting substance (ODS). of Methyl Bromide for Critical Uses
phaseout shall not apply ‘‘to the extent
Methyl bromide is used in the U.S. and Authorized by the Parties to the
the Parties decide to permit the level of
throughout the world as a fumigant to Montreal Protocol?
production or consumption that is
control a wide variety of pests such as Methyl bromide was added to the necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them
insects, weeds, rodents, pathogens, and Protocol as an ozone-depleting to be critical uses.’’
nematodes. Additional characteristics substance in 1992 through the In October 1998, the U.S. Congress
and details about the uses of methyl Copenhagen Amendment to the amended the CAA to prohibit the
bromide can be found in the proposed Protocol. The Parties agreed that each termination of production of methyl
rule on the phaseout schedule for industrialized country’s level of methyl bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to
methyl bromide published in the bromide production and consumption require EPA to bring the U.S. phaseout
Federal Register on March 18, 1993 (58 in 1991 should be the baseline for of methyl bromide in line with the
FR 15014) and the final rule published establishing a freeze in the level of schedule specified under the Protocol,
in the Federal Register on December 10, methyl bromide production and and to authorize EPA to provide
1993 (58 FR 65018). consumption for industrialized exemptions for critical uses. These
The phaseout schedule for methyl countries. EPA published a final rule in amendments were contained in Section
bromide production and consumption the Federal Register on December 10, 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated
was revised in a direct final rulemaking 1993 (58 FR 65018), listing methyl and Emergency Supplemental
on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), bromide as a class I, Group VI Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105–277,
which allowed for the phased reduction controlled substance, freezing U.S. October 21, 1998) and were codified in
in methyl bromide consumption and production and consumption at this Section 604 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
extended the phaseout to 2005. The 1991 level, and, in 40 CFR 82.7, setting 7671c. The amendment that specifically
revised phaseout schedule was again forth the percentage of baseline addresses the critical use exemption
amended to allow for an exemption for allowances for methyl bromide granted appears at Section 604(d)(6), 42 U.S.C.
quarantine and preshipment purposes to companies in each control period 7671c(d)(6). Section 604(d)(6) provides
on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37751) with an (each calendar year) until the year 2001, that ‘‘[t]o the extent consistent with the
Montreal Protocol, the Administrator, United States in the Montreal Protocol exemption were available. In addition,
after notice and the opportunity for context. EPA reviews other parameters of the
public comment, and after consultation exemption applications such as dosage
V. What Is the Critical Use Exemption
with other departments or and emissions minimization techniques
Process?
instrumentalities of the Federal and applicants’ research or transition
Government having regulatory authority A. Background of the Process plans. This assessment process
related to methyl bromide, including the Starting in 2002, EPA began notifying culminates with the development of a
Secretary of Agriculture, may exempt applicants of the process for obtaining a document referred to as the ‘‘Critical
the production, importation, and critical use exemption to the methyl Use Nomination’’ or CUN. The CUN is
consumption of methyl bromide for bromide phaseout. On May 10, 2002, the submitted annually by the U.S.
critical uses.’’ More generally, Section Agency published its first notice in the Department of State to the United
614(b) provides that Title VI of the Nations Environment Programme
Federal Register (67 FR 31798)
CAAA of 1990 ‘‘shall be construed, (UNEP)’s Ozone Secretariat. The CUNs
announcing the availability of the
interpreted, and applied as a of various countries are subsequently
application for a critical use exemption
supplement to the terms and conditions reviewed by the Methyl Bromide
and the deadline for submission of the
of the Montreal Protocol.’’ Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)
On November 28, 2000, EPA issued requisite data. Applicants were
informed that they may apply as and the Technical and Economic
regulations to amend the phaseout Assessment Panel (TEAP), which are
schedule for methyl bromide and extend individuals or as part of a group of users
(a ‘‘consortium’’) who face the same independent advisory bodies to Parties
the complete phaseout of production to the Montreal Protocol. These bodies
and consumption to 2005 (65 FR 70795). limiting critical conditions (i.e. specific
conditions that establish a critical need make recommendations to the Parties on
On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), the nominations. The Parties then take
EPA published a final rule (the for methyl bromide). EPA has repeated
this process annually since then. The a Decision to authorize a critical use
‘‘Framework Rule’’) in the Federal exemption for a particular country. The
Register that established the framework critical use exemption is designed to
permit production and import of methyl Decision also identifies how much
for the critical use exemption; set forth methyl bromide may be supplied for the
a list of approved critical uses for 2005; bromide for uses that do not have
technically and economically feasible exempted critical uses. Finally, for each
and specified the amount of methyl exemption period, EPA provides an
bromide that could be supplied in 2005 alternatives.
The criteria for the exemption opportunity for comment on the
from pre-phaseout inventory and new amounts of methyl bromide that the
production or import to meet the needs initially appeared in Decision IX/6 of
the Parties to the Protocol. In that Agency has determined to be necessary
of approved critical uses. EPA then for critical uses and the uses that the
published a second final rule that added Decision, the Parties agreed that ‘‘a use
of methyl bromide should qualify as Agency has determined meet the criteria
additional uses to the exemption of the critical use exemption.
program for 2005 and allocated ’critical’ only if the nominating Party
determines that: (i) The specific use is For more information on the domestic
additional critical stock allowances (70
critical because the lack of availability review process and methodology
FR 73604). EPA published a final rule
of methyl bromide for that use would employed by the Office of Pesticide
on February 6, 2006 to exempt
result in a significant market disruption; Programs, please refer to a detailed
production and import of methyl
bromide for 2006 critical uses and to and (ii) there are no technically and memo titled ‘‘Development of 2003
indicate which uses met the criteria for economically feasible alternatives or Nomination for a Critical Use
the exemption program for that year (71 substitutes available to the user that are Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the
FR 5985). A Technical Correction acceptable from the standpoint of United States of America’’ available on
amending the critical use allowances environment and public health and are the docket for this rulemaking. While
was published on April 28, 2006 (71 FR suitable to the crops and circumstances the particulars of the data continue to
25077). With this action, under of the nomination.’’ These criteria are evolve and clerical matters are further
authority of section 604(d)(6) of the reflected in EPA’s definition of ‘‘critical streamlined, the technical review itself
CAA, EPA is listing the uses that will use’’ at 40 CFR 82.3. has remained the same since the
qualify as approved critical uses in 2007 In response to the yearly requests for inception of the program.
and the amount of methyl bromide critical use exemption applications On January 31, 2005, the U.S.
required to satisfy those uses. published in the Federal Register, Government submitted the third U.S.
This action reflects Decision XVII/9, applicants have provided data on the Nomination for a Critical Use
taken at the Parties’ Seventeenth technical and economic feasibility of Exemption for Methyl Bromide to
Meeting in December 2005. In using alternatives to methyl bromide. UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. This
accordance with Article 2H(5), the Applicants further submit data on their nomination contained the request for
Parties have issued several Decisions use of methyl bromide, on research 2007 critical uses. On March 16 and 18,
pertaining to the critical use exemption. programs into the use of alternatives to 2005, and June 10 and 13, 2005, MBTOC
These include Decisions IX/6 and methyl bromide, and on efforts to sent questions to the U.S. Government
Ex. I/4, which set forth criteria for minimize use and emissions of methyl concerning technical and economic
review of proposed critical uses. The bromide. issues in the nomination. The U.S.
status of Decisions is addressed in the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs Government transmitted responses to
recent D.C. Circuit opinion, NRDC v. reviews the data submitted by these requests for clarification on April
EPA., D.C. Cir. No. 04–1438 (August 29, applicants, as well as data from 8, 2005 and August 18, 2005. These
2006), 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22074, and governmental and academic sources, to documents, together with reports by the
in EPA’s ‘‘Supplemental Brief for the establish whether there are technically advisory bodies noted above, can be
Respondent,’’ filed in NRDC v. EPA and and economically feasible alternatives accessed in the docket for this
available on Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– available for a particular use of methyl rulemaking. The determination in this
2005–0538. In this final rule, EPA is bromide and whether there would be final rule reflects the analysis contained
honoring commitments made by the significant market disruption if no in those documents.
EPA received one comment critical use exemption rulemakings. at the individual level, e.g., on a per-
requesting it not exempt any methyl With respect to the comments on the acre basis. We then extrapolate to the
bromide for critical uses. The CAA operational framework, EPA has already aggregate loss by multiplying this loss
allows the Agency to create an addressed similar points in the by the number of acres affected, using
exemption for critical uses from the Response to Comments document for crop budgets and other relevant
production and consumption phaseout the Framework Rule, accessible on information. EPA balances the two
of methyl bromide. Although the Act Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0538. measures to determine whether impacts
does not require EPA to establish an EPA received three comments are significant. For example, if the loss
exemption, EPA believes the lack of concerning the term significant market of methyl bromide in Michigan for
suitable alternatives for the uses listed disruption, as described in Decision IX/ vegetable production results in high
as approved critical uses in this 6. One commenter requested a proper prices in the upper Midwest, EPA may
rulemaking warrants the continuation of definition of the term, in addition to the determine that it constitutes a
the exemption process begun in 2005. terms ‘‘technical feasibility’’ and significant market disruption, even if
The history of ozone protection ‘‘economic feasibility.’’ Another producers and consumers in the rest of
programs has been the transition of commenter stated that the proposal the country are unaffected.
industries away from production, lacked a market disruption finding and The other key dimension is absolute
import, and use of ozone-depleting that EPA did not provide support for its versus relative impacts. The loss of a
substances to alternatives. In some claims of market disruption. The other single processing plant may not seem
instances a successful transition was commenter noted that the critical use significant. However, if there are only
possible within the allotted time. In exemption application for the Florida three such plants, the loss of one could
other instances, additional time has Golf Course Superintendents still result in significant market
been required to allow for the Association was rejected because of a disruption. EPA relies on detailed crop
development and market penetration of failure to demonstrate that the loss of budgets and other sources of
alternatives. In fact, more than ten years methyl bromide would result in information for data on production
after the phaseout of significant market disruption, and costs, gross revenues, and other
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the U.S. believes the term is undefined by EPA. measures.
Government is still exempting the These comments are addressed in the
C. Critical Uses and Adjustments to
production of CFCs for essential uses in separate response to comments
Critical Use Amounts
metered dose inhalers. In the instance of document, available on the docket for
critical uses where suitable alternatives this action. A description of EPA’s In Decision XVII/9, taken in December
are not yet available for all uses, EPA application of this concept is available 2005, the Parties to the Protocol agreed
believes it would be inconsistent with in the memo titled ‘‘Development of the as follows: ‘‘for the agreed critical-use
the history and the goals of the ozone 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use categories for 2007, set forth in table C
protection program not to allow for a Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the to the annex to the present decision for
safety valve in accordance with the United States of America,’’ on Docket each Party, to permit, subject to the
provisions of both international and Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0017, EPA– conditions set forth in the present
domestic law. HQ–OAR–2004–0506, EPA–HQ–OAR– decision and decision Ex.I/4, the levels
2005–0122, and EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– of production and consumption for 2007
B. How Does This Final Rulemaking set forth in table D of the annex to the
0538. One commenter stated that a
Relate to Previous Critical Use present decision which are necessary to
‘‘significant market disruption’’ refers to
Exemption Rulemakings? satisfy critical uses * * *’’
‘‘a decrease or delay in supply or an
The December 23, 2004 Framework increase in price of a commodity The following uses are those set forth
Rule (69 FR 76982) established the bulk produced with methyl bromide.’’ EPA in table C of the annex to Decision XVII/
of the framework for the critical use views this as one possible type of 9: cucurbits; dry commodities/structures
exemption in the U.S. including trading market disruption. As stated in the cocoa beans; dried fruit and nuts;
provisions and recordkeeping and memo available on EPA–HQ–OAR– NPMA dry commodities/structures
reporting obligations. In this action, 2004–0506, ‘‘markets are partially (processed foods, herbs & spices, dried
EPA is not changing the framework of defined by the interaction between milk and cheese processing facilities);
the exemption program but rather is supply and demand, which determines dry cure pork products (building and
establishing a list of approved critical the price and quantity of a good traded product); eggplant (field); forest nursery
uses for 2007 and is issuing allowances in a market. EPA’s position is that a seedlings; mills and processors; nursery
that will determine the amount of disruption to either side of a market, stock-fruit trees, raspberries, roses;
methyl bromide available for those uses demand or supply, would result in orchard replant; ornamentals; peppers
consistent with the Framework Rule. market disruption.’’ For example, if the (field); strawberry fruit (field);
In the proposed rulemaking, loss of methyl bromide in strawberry strawberry runners; tomato (field) and
published on July 6, 2006 (71 FR production resulted in significant turf grass. When added together, the
38325), EPA sought comment on the production decreases, followed by an agreed critical-use levels for 2007 total
proposed critical use exemptions for the increase in the price of strawberries— 6,749,060 kilograms, which is
2007 calendar year. No major changes to and, depending on the price elasticity of equivalent to 26.4% of the U.S. 1991
the operational framework were strawberries, potential loss of grower methyl bromide consumption baseline
proposed. Some commenters, however, income—EPA could determine that it of 25,528,000 kilograms. However, the
requested that EPA re-examine constituted a significant market maximum amount of allowable new
significant portions of the operational disruption. production or import as set forth in
framework identified in the December In determining whether a change in table D of Decision XVII/9 is 5,149,060
23, 2004 Framework Rule. In this action, supply or demand is significant, EPA kilograms, which is equivalent to 20%
EPA is only addressing comments considers several dimensions of which of the 1991 methyl bromide
within the scope of the proposal, but two are key: (1) Individual versus consumption baseline. The difference
may consider additional suggestions aggregate and (2) absolute versus between allowable new production or
pertaining to other areas in future relative. EPA typically evaluates losses import and the total critical use amount
will be made up from pre-phaseout described in the 2008 CUN. In The Agency sought comments on the
inventory. EPA further discusses the particular, the Agency sought comment ability of certain end-users, such as
breakout between new production or on the ability of certain end users, such dried fruit and nut processors, to use
import and stocks in section V.G. of this as dried fruit and nut processors, to use sulfuryl fluoride given the progress
preamble. sulfuryl fluoride given the progress made by importing countries in
EPA is establishing the following made by importing countries in establishing and approving tolerance
reductions to the amount of newly establishing and approving tolerance levels for the use of sulfuryl fluoride.
produced or imported methyl bromide levels for the use of sulfuryl fluoride. A One commenter responded by noting
authorized in Decision XVII/9 to satisfy copy of the 2008 analysis is available in that Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)
critical uses: the rulemaking docket for comment. have been established in Japan, Canada,
(a) Reductions to accommodate EPA received 26 comments on the the European Union, and the U.S. The
uptake of sulfuryl fluoride in 2007; availability of sulfuryl fluoride. Nine commenter also noted that sulfuryl
(b) Reductions to account for unused commenters stated that EPA’s transition fluoride is registered in eight nations.
critical use methyl bromide at the end estimates of 12%–18% were not Three other commenters noted that
of 2005; justified and were premature, and five there were few or no tolerances for
(c) Reductions to accommodate sulfuryl fluoride.
commenters contended that the
increased allocation of critical stock One commenter suggested EPA poll
proposed reduction had no factual basis.
allowances (CSAs). industries that have the opportunity to
Eleven commenters objected to EPA’s Four commenters cited the Motion of
Stay of Effectiveness of Sulfuryl use sulfuryl fluoride to identify those
proposed reductions and stated that able to transition. On August 23, 2006,
EPA should grant the full amount of Fluoride Tolerances, described in the
Request For Stay of Tolerances notice EPA issued letters to a sample of
new production allowed by the Parties fumigation and flour milling operations
to the Montreal Protocol in Decision published in the Federal Register on
July 5, 2006 (71 FR 38125). The under Section 114 of the CAA in order
XVII/9. However, another commenter to obtain better data on sulfuryl fluoride
stated that new production and import commenters also cited concerns with
the regulatory status of sulfuryl fluoride. transition estimates. However, the data
should be decreased further to account received from the Section 114 responses
for large inventory. The comments on One commenter noted that data
collection on the efficacy of sulfuryl did not result in significantly
EPA’s proposed reductions are comparable data points and therefore
addressed in the subsequent section of fluoride is just beginning this year and
EPA is making no additional sulfuryl
this preamble, and the comments on will continue over the next three years.
fluoride reductions at this time.
inventory are addressed in Section F. This commenter requested that EPA not
However, EPA may use the data
In the 2006 CUE Rule (71 FR 5985), make any additional reductions in
obtained from the Section 114 responses
EPA allocated less methyl bromide for methyl bromide allocations until
in future rulemakings and in
critical uses than was authorized by the sulfuryl fluoride and other alternatives
conjunction with information that EPA
Parties, in order to account for the have been more thoroughly studied.
may receive in the future.
recent registration of sulfuryl fluoride. One commenter stated that sulfuryl After considering the comments
The Agency based those reductions on fluoride is not meeting expectations as received, in this final rule, EPA is
the data contained in the 2008 CUN, an alternative and another questioned reducing the amount of newly produced
which was submitted to the Ozone the viability of sulfuryl fluoride as a or imported critical use methyl bromide
Secretariat in January 2006. The 2008 commercial use. Another commenter by 53,703 kilograms to reflect the
CUN is available in the docket for the provided supporting documents, continuing transition to sulfuryl
July 6, 2006 proposed rule. The available on the docket for this action, fluoride. The July 6, 2006 proposed rule
nomination indicated that sulfuryl explaining why sulfuryl fluoride uptake sought to reduce the amount of newly
fluoride is registered to control the has not kept pace with EPA’s transition produced or imported methyl bromide
relevant pests in all post-harvest sectors estimates. Similar comments expressed by 68,170 kilograms. However, one post-
except for cheese and dry cured ham concerns relating to the safety, efficacy, harvest sub-sector had been double-
use categories and that between 12 and/or trade limitations associated with counted in the original post-harvest
percent and 18 percent of the industry, sulfuryl fluoride. calculations. EPA has placed the revised
depending on the use category, could In contrast, eight commenters stated spreadsheet demonstrating the revised
feasibly transition to this alternative that sulfuryl fluoride is a satisfactory calculation on the docket. Responses to
each year. This analysis still represents alternative to methyl bromide because specific comments appear in the
the best available data on the transition of its excellent results in application, separate Response To Comment
to sulfuryl fluoride including factors pest population control, and aeration document, available on the docket for
such as potential obstacles in the export timing, among other reasons, and this rulemaking.
of treated commodities. The report of supported the use of sulfuryl fluoride in As described in the December 23,
the Methyl Bromide Technical Options post-harvest applications. Two 2004 Framework Rule (69 FR 76997),
Committee (MBTOC) indicated that the commenters noted that sulfuryl fluoride EPA is deducting the amount of unused
MBTOC did not make any reductions in could replace all methyl bromide in the methyl bromide from the total number
these use categories for the uptake of post-harvest sector by December 31, of allowances issued for the control
sulfuryl fluoride in 2007 because the 2007. One commenter noted that period following the control period
United States Government indicated sulfuryl fluoride provides pest control at immediately after the control period
that it would do so in its domestic all life stages and does not deplete the when the methyl bromide was unused
allocation procedures. Therefore, EPA is ozone layer. The commenter provided for critical uses. For example, all
reducing the total volume of critical use nineteen supporting documents. unused methyl bromide that was
methyl bromide by 53,703 kilograms to Another commenter stated that the produced or imported under the critical
reflect the continuing transition to market penetration of sulfuryl fluoride use exemption in 2005 was reported to
sulfuryl fluoride. The July 6, 2006 is inhibited by the continued EPA in 2006 and would be reduced
proposed rule sought comment on the availability of methyl bromide through from the total allowable levels of new
transition rates for sulfuryl fluoride the critical use exemption process. production/import in 2007. EPA’s July
6, 2006 proposed rule proposed to researchers to purchase stocks of methyl further reductions to the volumes of pre-
reduce the total level of new production bromide. plant methyl bromide based on the label
and import for critical uses by 443,000 EPA received three comments stating change. A more detailed explanation of
kilograms to reflect the total level of that research amounts should come this matter appears in the responses to
unused material available at the end of from new production amounts because the MBTOC, available in the docket for
2005. As described in the Framework such research is critical to the long-term this rulemaking. A copy of the label
Rule, after applying this reduction to the acceptance of alternatives, and allowing amendment is available in the docket as
total volumes of allowable new new production for this use will well. EPA received one comment on the
production or import, EPA allocates facilitate the transition to non-ozone- karst label restriction, which is
prorated critical use allowances (CUAs) depleting substances. addressed in the Response to Comments
to each company based on their 1991 EPA’s allocation for the 2007 control document for this action.
baseline market share in the period is consistent with the above With this final rule, EPA is amending
corresponding proposal. Decision. To account for research Columns B and C of Appendix L to 40
EPA received fourteen comments amounts, in this final rule EPA is CFR Part 82, Subpart A to reflect the
objecting to EPA’s proposal to reduce reducing the amount of methyl bromide agreed critical-use categories identified
the level of new production and import available for new production and import in Decision XVII/9 for the 2007 control
for critical uses by 443,000 kilograms to by 21,702 kilograms but notes that use period (calendar year). The Agency is
reflect the total level of unused material of methyl bromide for research purposes amending the table of critical uses
at the end of 2005. The commenters will facilitate the transition to based, in part, on the technical analysis
contend that the unused amount alternatives. In response to Decision contained in the 2007 U.S. nomination
described in the proposal was largely XVII/9, EPA continues to encourage that assesses data submitted by
attributed to the delay in finalizing the methyl bromide suppliers to sell applicants to the critical use exemption
2005 supplemental rule and that inventory to researchers and encourages program as well as public and
stakeholders should not be penalized. researchers to purchase inventory. proprietary data on the use of methyl
EPA notes that the accumulation of Additional discussion can be found in bromide and its alternatives. EPA
inventory is not allowed under the Section V.F of this final rule. sought comment on the aforementioned
critical use exemption program, and that Lastly, the Agency proposed to analysis and, in particular, any
the unused amount consists of material allocate critical stock allowances (CSAs) information regarding changes to the
that was produced but was never sold for 2007 critical uses in an amount registration or use of alternatives that
to critical users. The 2005 supplemental equal to either 6.2% or 7.5% of baseline. may have transpired after the 2007 U.S.
rule only authorized an additional The Agency is allocating CSAs equal to nomination was written. Such
610,655 kilograms of pre-phaseout 7.5% of baseline in this final rule. In information has the potential to alter the
inventory to be made available for section V.G. of this preamble, the technical or economic feasibility of an
critical uses (70 FR 73604) and did not Agency describes the reasons for this alternative and could thus cause EPA to
authorize additional new production or action. Having chosen the larger CSA modify the analysis that underpins
import for the 2005 calendar year. Thus, amount, the Agency is making a EPA’s determination as to which uses
the 2005 supplemental rule did not corresponding reduction in the amount and what amounts of methyl bromide
affect the carryover amount. Therefore, of new production and import under the qualify for the critical use exemption.
to account for carryover of inventory, exemption program. EPA did not receive any comments
EPA is reducing the level of new On February 6, 2006, EPA amended regarding changes to the registration of
production and import for critical uses the label for 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) an alternative, but did receive five
by 443,000 kilograms as proposed. regarding karst restrictions. Copies of comments stating that it is inappropriate
Decision XVII/9, paragraph 7, the amended labels are available in the for EPA to revisit the technical analysis
‘‘request[s] Parties to endeavor to use docket for this action. The previous contained in the 2007 nomination at
stocks, where available, to meet any label states ‘‘Do not apply in areas this time because the Parties have
demand for methyl bromide for the overlying karst geology’’ whereas the already authorized critical use amounts
purposes of research and development.’’ new label states ‘‘Do not apply this for the 2007 calendar year. While EPA
EPA then proposed to reduce the total product within 100 feet of karst is not revising the technical analysis at
supply of new production and import topographical features.’’ The new label this time due to the lack of new
for critical uses by an amount language is more instructive on the use information regarding the registration or
equivalent to the total amount of 1,3-D in areas with karst topography, use of alternatives, EPA will continue to
authorized for research purposes, which while still protecting the environment, consider such information in future
is 21,702 kilograms. The calculations than the previous label language. EPA’s rulemakings. Based on the information
used by the Agency for the research assessment of the amount of methyl described above, EPA is determining
adjustment are available for public bromide that may be displaced by the that the uses in Table I: Approved
comment in the docket for this action. use of 1,3-D over karst areas in the 2007 Critical Uses, with the limiting critical
Further, EPA encouraged methyl technical analysis was already based on conditions specified, qualify to obtain
bromide suppliers to sell pre-phaseout the revised label language now in place. and use critical use methyl bromide in
inventory to researchers and encouraged Therefore, EPA did not propose to make 2007.
TABLE I.—APPROVED CRITICAL USES

Column A Column B Column C
Approved Critical Approved Critical User and Location of Limiting Critical Conditions that either exist, or that the approved critical user
Uses. Use. reasonably expects could arise without methyl bromide fumigation:
TABLE I.—APPROVED CRITICAL USES—Continued

PRE-PLANT USES
Cucurbits .................. (a) Michigan growers ............................ Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation.
Moderate to severe disease infestation.
A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
(b) Southeastern U.S. limited to grow- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
ing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Moderate to severe root knot nematodes.
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vir- A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
ginia.
(c) Georgia growers .............................. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
Moderate to severe root knot nematodes.
Eggplant ................... (a) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Moderate to severe nematodes.
Restrictions on alternatives due to karst geology.
(b) Georgia growers .............................. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rot.
Moderate to severe southern blight infestation.
(c) Michigan growers ............................. Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation.
Forest Nursery Seed- (a) Members of the Southern Forest Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
lings. Nursery Management Cooperative Moderate to severe disease infestation.
limited to growing locations in Ala-
bama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Caro-
lina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Ten-
nessee, Texas, and Virginia.
(b) International Paper and its subsidi- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
aries limited to growing locations in Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Texas.
(c) Public (government-owned) seed- Moderate to severe weed infestation including purple and yellow nutsedge in-
ling nurseries in Illinois, Indiana, festation.
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation.
Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Moderate to severe nematodes.
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
(d) Weyerhaeuser Company and its Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
subsidiaries limited to growing loca- Moderate to severe disease infestation.
tions in Alabama, Arkansas, North Moderate to severe nematodes and worms.
Carolina, and South Carolina.
(e) Weyerhaeuser Company and its Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge infestation.
subsidiaries limited to growing loca- Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
tions in Oregon and Washington.
(f) Michigan growers ............................. Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation.
Moderate to severe nutsedge infestation.
(g) Michigan herbaceous perennials Moderate to severe nematodes.
growers. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge and other weed infestation.
Orchard Nursery (a) Members of the Western Raspberry Moderate to severe nematode infestation.
Seedlings. Nursery Consortium limited to grow- Presence of medium to heavy clay soils.
ing locations in California and Wash- Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township lim-
ington (Driscoll’s Raspberries and its on use of this alternative have been reached.
their contract growers in California A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
and Washington).
(b) Members of the California Associa- Moderate to severe nematode infestation.
tion of Nurserymen—Deciduous Fruit Presence of medium to heavy clay soils.

and Nut Tree Growers. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township lim-
its on use of this alternative have been reached.

(c) California rose nurseries .................. Moderate to severe nematode infestation.

Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township lim-
Strawberry Nurseries (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
(b) Maryland, North Carolina, and Ten- Moderate to severe black root rot.
nessee growers. Moderate to severe root-knot nematodes.
Moderate to severe yellow and purple nutsedge infestation.
Orchard Replant ....... (a) California stone fruit growers .......... Moderate to severe nematodes.
Replanted (non-virgin) orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease.
Presence of medium to heavy soils.
(b) California table and raisin grape Moderate to severe nematodes.
Medium to heavy soils.
its for this alternative have been reached.
(c) California wine grape growers ......... Moderate to severe nematodes.
(d) California walnut growers ................ Moderate to severe nematodes.
(e) California almond growers ............... Moderate to severe nematodes.
Ornamentals ............. (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(b) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe weed infestation.
Karst topography.
Peppers .................... (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(b) Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Lou- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
isiana, North Carolina, South Caro- Moderate to severe nematodes.
lina, Tennessee, and Virginia grow- Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rots.
ers. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower’s field the size
of 100 acres or less.

(c) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Karst topography.
(d) Georgia growers .............................. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Moderate to severe nematodes, or moderate to severe pythium root and collar
rots.
Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or root rot.
(e) Michigan growers ............................ Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
Strawberry Fruit ........ (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot.
Time to transition to an alternative.
(b) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge.
Carolina geranium or cut-leaf evening primrose infestation.
Karst topography and to a lesser extent a need for methyl bromide for re-
search purposes.
(c) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illi- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge.
nois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Moderate to severe nematodes.
New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Moderate to severe black root and crown rot.
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vir- Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower’s field the size
ginia growers. of 100 acres or less.
Tomatoes ................. (a) Michigan growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Moderate to severe fungal pathogen infestation.
(b) Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Geor- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
gia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Carolina, South Carolina, Ten- Moderate to severe nematodes.
nessee, and Virginia growers. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower’s field the size
Karst topography.
Turfgrass .................. (a) U.S. turfgrass sod nursery pro- Production of industry certified pure sod.
ducers who are members of Moderate to severe bermudagrass.
Turfgrass Producers International Moderate to severe nutsedge.
(TPI). Moderate to severe white grub infestation.
Control of off-type perennial grass infestation.
POST-HARVEST USES
Food Processing ...... (a) Rice millers in all locations in the Moderate to severe infestation of beetles, weevils or moths.
U.S. who are members of the USA Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
Rice Millers Association. bromide.
Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity.
(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in Moderate to severe infestation of beetles, moths, or cockroaches.
the U.S. who are active members of Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
the Pet Food Institute (For this rule- bromide.
making, ‘‘pet food’’ refers to domestic Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity.
dog and cat food). Time to transition to an alternative.
(c) Kraft Foods in the U.S ..................... Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
bromide.
(d) Members of the North American Moderate to severe beetle infestation.
Millers’ Association in the U.S. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
bromide.

(e) Members of the National Pest Man- Moderate to severe beetle or moth infestation.
agement Association treating cocoa Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
beans in storage and associated bromide.
spaces and equipment and proc- Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity.
essed food, cheese, dried milk, Time to transition to an alternative.
herbs, and spices and spaces and
equipment in associated processing
facilities.
Commodity Storage (a) California entities storing walnuts, Rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market window, such as during
beans, dried plums, figs, raisins, the holiday season, rapid fumigation is required when a buyer provides short
dates (in Riverside county only), and (2 working days or less) notification for a purchase or there is a short period
pistachios in California. after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for
using alternatives.
Dry Cured Pork (a) Members of the National Country Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation.
Products. Ham Association. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation.
Moderate to severe dermested beetle infestation.
Ham mite infestation.
(b) Members of the American Associa- Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation.
tion of Meat Processors. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation.
(c) Nahunta Pork Center (North Caro- Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation.
lina). Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation.
EPA received five comments on the that karst restriction be removed from factor to consider when evaluating this
proposed critical uses for 2007. Four the final rule and that the U.S. alternative. As per the critical use
commenters noted that the Southern Government conduct a post-harvest requirements, EPA will continue to
Forest Nursery Management evaluation of the regulatory impact of consider heat a non-chemical
Cooperative was not listed in the way the 1,3-D label change. However, as alternative, as non-chemical alternative
the consortium had been in previous stated above, EPA’s analysis already information is requested in the
allocation rules, although the member took the change in the label language application. EPA also notes the sulfuryl
states were described. In response, EPA into account when conducting the 2007 fluoride is not registered on beans in
agrees with the commenters and is analysis, and EPA is not making further California. Additional information on
adding ‘‘Southern Forest Nursery reductions in this area. For responses to the limiting critical conditions is in the
Management Cooperative’’ to column B the remaining pre-plant comments on corresponding Response to Comments
under ‘‘Approved Critical Users’’ for the limiting critical conditions, please see document for this action.
Forest Nursery Seedling sector. the corresponding Response to EPA is finalizing the proposed
However, EPA is not adding the State of Comments document in the docket for changes amending the table in 40 CFR
Kentucky to the consortium description this action. part 82, subpart A, Appendix L, as
in Column B at this time, which was EPA received two comments stating reflected above. Specifically, EPA is
requested by the commenters, as the that some post-harvest limiting critical adding one reference to column B and
corresponding exemption application conditions are no longer relevant and deleting seven references. EPA is adding
filed did not list Kentucky as a should be removed. One commenter cheese processing facilities to NPMA
consortium member. One other also notes that sulfuryl fluoride has dry commodities to reflect the
commenter requested that the language superseded phosphine and heat as the authorization of this use in Decision
describing the National Pest preferred alternative in post-harvest use XVII/9 and removing Idaho, Kansas,
Management Association be changed to categories. The conditions that the Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, and
‘‘Members of the National Pest commenter requested be removed are: Washington from the approved public
Management Association treating cocoa • Older structures that cannot be nursery locations in the Forest Nursery
beans in storage and associated spaces properly sealed Sector because a 2007 application for
and equipment and processed food, • Presence of sensitive electronic these locations was not submitted.
cheese, dried milk, herbs and spices and equipment subject to corrosivity The categories listed in Table I above
spaces and equipment in associated • Rapid fumigation have been designated critical uses for
processing facilities.’’ EPA has • Time to transition to an alternative 2007 in Decision XVII/9 of the Parties.
incorporated this revised language However, EPA believes these limiting The amount of methyl bromide
describing the National Pest critical conditions are appropriate under approved for research purposes is
Management Association because it certain circumstances. For example, included in the amount of methyl
clarifies that commodities will be EPA notes that phosphine is a registered bromide approved by the Parties for the
fumigated as part of space fumigations, alternative and therefore will continue commodities for which ‘‘research’’ is
as indicated in the application. to consider phosphine when conducting indicated as a limiting critical condition
EPA received one set of comments on future analyses of the post-harvest in the table above. However, consistent
the pre-plant limiting critical sector, and the presence of electronic with the approach taken in the 2006
conditions. The commenter requested equipment subject to corrosivity is a CUE Rule, the Agency is not setting
aside a specific quantity of methyl recommendations, where feasible, on minimization techniques, as stated
bromide to be associated with research reductions in the critical use of methyl above, and notes that the critical use
activities. Methyl bromide is needed for bromide and in paragraph 6 for Parties exemption application contains an
research purposes including that submit CUNs to include emission reduction worksheet.
experiments that require methyl information on the methodology they One commenter suggested that EPA
bromide as a standard control treatment use to determine economic feasibility facilitate improvements by
with which to compare the trial are all addressed in the nomination communicating beneficial alternatives
alternatives’ results. EPA is permitting documents. and publicizing research in a timely
the following sectors to use critical use Some of these criteria are evaluated in manner. EPA agrees with the
methyl bromide for research purposes: other documents as well. For example, commenter and will examine ways to
cucurbits, dried fruit and nuts, nursery the U.S. has further considered matters improve this communication in the
stock, strawberry nurseries, turfgrass, regarding the adoption of alternatives future.
eggplant, peppers, strawberry fruit, and research into methyl bromide Another commenter asserted that a
tomatoes, and orchard replant. In their alternatives, criterion (1)(b)(iii) in phaseout of methyl bromide will not
applications to EPA, these sectors Decision IX/6, in the development of the contribute to a reduction in ozone
identified research programs that National Management Strategy depletion, and cited the 2002 World
require the use of methyl bromide. submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in Meteorological Organization’s Scientific
December 2005 and in on-going Assessment of Ozone Depletion.
D. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and consultations with industry. The However, the recently published
Ex. I/4 National Management Strategy Executive Summary of the Scientific
Paragraphs 2 and 5 of Decision XVII/ addresses all of the aims specified in Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006
9 request Parties to ensure that the Decision Ex.I/4(3) to the extent feasible contains the following paragraphs that
conditions or criteria listed in Decisions and is available in the docket for this refute the commenter’s conclusions:
Ex. I/4 and IX/6, paragraph 1, are rulemaking. ‘‘Both the recently observed decline
applied to exempted critical uses for the and the 20th Century increase inferred
2007 control period. A discussion of the E. Emissions Minimization for atmospheric methyl bromide were
Agency’s application of the criteria in EPA notes for the regulated larger than expected. Although
paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in community the reference to emission industrial emissions of methyl bromide
sections V.A. and V.C. of this preamble. minimization techniques in paragraph 6 were thought to account for 20% (range
In section V.C. of the original proposal, of Decision XVII/9, which states that 10–40%) of atmospheric methyl
the Agency solicited comments from the Parties shall request critical users to bromide during 1992–1998 (i.e., before
public on the technical basis for employ ‘‘emission minimization production was reduced), observed
determining that the uses listed in this techniques such as virtually concentrations are consistent with this
proposed rule meet the criteria of the impermeable films, barrier film fraction having been 30% (range 20–
critical use exemption. The CUNs detail technologies, deep shank injection and/ 40%). This suggests that fumigation-
how each proposed critical use meets or other techniques that promote related emissions could have a stronger
the criteria listed in paragraph 1 of environmental protection, whenever influence on atmospheric methyl
Decision IX/6, apart from the criterion technically and economically feasible.’’ bromide mixing ratios than estimated in
located at (b)(ii), as well as the criteria In addition, EPA understands that past Assessments, though uncertainties
in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision Ex. I/ research is being conducted on the in the variability of natural emission
4. EPA has addressed these comments potential to reduce rates and emissions rates and loss, and in the magnitude of
in the Response to Comments using newly available high-barrier films methyl bromide banked in recent years,
document, available on the docket for and that these studies show promising limit our understanding of this
this final rule. results. Users of methyl bromide should sensitivity.
The criterion in Decision IX/ make every effort to decrease overall ‘‘The percentage reduction in
6(1)(b)(ii), which refers to the use of emissions of methyl bromide by integrated equivalent effective
available stocks of methyl bromide, is implementing measures such as the stratospheric chlorine for methyl
addressed in sections V.G. of this ones listed above, to the extent bromide in Column A is larger than
preamble. The Agency has previously consistent with state and local laws and previously reported. This is because of
provided its interpretation of the regulations. The Agency encouraged the upward revision of the fraction of
criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(a)(i) researchers and users who are anthropogenic emissions relative to total
regarding the presence of significant successfully utilizing such techniques to methyl bromide emissions, as well as
market disruption in the absence of an inform EPA of their experiences as part upward revision in the ozone-depletion
exemption, and EPA refers readers to of their comments on the July 6, 2006 effectiveness of bromine atoms
the 2006 CUE final rule (71 FR 5989) as proposed rule and to provide such compared with chlorine atoms
well as to the memo on the docket on information with their critical use mentioned earlier.
the CUE process, in addition to Section applications. In addition, the Agency ‘‘If critical-use methyl bromide
V.A above, for further elaboration. welcomed comments on the exemptions continue indefinitely at the
The remaining considerations, implementation of emission 2006 level compared to a cessation of
including the lack of available minimization techniques and whether these exemptions in 2010 or 2015,
technically and economically feasible and how further emission and use midlatitude integrated equivalent
alternatives under the circumstance of minimization could be achieved. effective stratospheric chlorine would
the nomination, efforts to minimize use EPA received five comments on increase by 4.7% or 4.0%, respectively.’’
and emissions of methyl bromide where emissions minimization. Two Another commenter notes that the
technically and economically feasible, commenters stated that EPA should main barrier to adoption of emissions
the development of research and continue to encourage emissions controls is the lack of commercial
transition plans, and the requests in minimization without mandating incentives for industry to use emissions
Decision Ex. I/4(5) that Parties consider emissions control technology. EPA control technology for pre-plant, post-
and implement MBTOC strongly encourages emissions harvest, or QPS applications. EPA
believes that by reducing supply discussed in section V.G. of the end of the range was 1,621,702
through the phaseout will provide an preamble to the Framework Rule (69 FR kilograms but should have been
incentive for use minimization and 76982). expressed as 1,600,000 kilograms,
therefore limit emissions. Other points In the July 6, 2006 proposed rule, EPA which equals 6.2% of baseline. As noted
discussed by this commenter can be proposed that the amount to come from in Section V.C above, the authorized
found in the corresponding Response to pre-phaseout inventory be either 6.2% research amount of 21,702 kilograms
Comments document for this action. of baseline (which is the difference will be deducted from the amount of
The Executive Summary is available on between the agreed U.S. critical use newly produced or imported methyl
the docket for this action, and the full level and the amount of allowable new bromide in response to Decision XVII/
report will be released in December production and import) or 7.5% of 9. These adjustments do not affect the
2006. baseline. However, in the proposed rule, calculation of the critical use
both the high and low end of the allowances. The calculation spreadsheet
F. Critical Use Allowance Allocations
proposed ranges included an additional is available on Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
Each critical use allowance (CUA) is amount that had been adjusted to OAR–2005–0538. The total critical use
equivalent to 1 kg of critical use methyl account for the proposed reduced exemption amount for 2007 is 6,230,655
bromide. These allowances expire at the research amount of 21,702 kilograms. As kilograms (24.4% of baseline) with
end of the control period and, as a result, the proposed high end of the 4,316,055 kilograms (16.9% of baseline)
explained in the Framework Rule, are CSA range amounted to 1,936,302 of critical use allowances (CUAs)
not bankable from one year to the next. kilograms, or 7.6% of baseline. available from new production or
This allocation of pre-plant and post- However, EPA is finalizing the CSA import and the remaining amount,
harvest CUAs to the entities listed amount so that the CSAs reflect exactly 1,914,600 kilograms (7.5% of baseline),
below is subject to the trading 7.5% of baseline, or 1,914,600 available through CSAs. Therefore, the
provisions at 40 CFR 82.12, which are kilograms. Similarly, the proposed low CUAs are allocated as follows:
TABLE II.—ALLOCATION OF CRITICAL USE ALLOWANCES

2007 Critical 2007 Critical
use use
allowances for allowances for
Company pre-plant post-harvest
uses* uses*
(kilograms) (kilograms)
Great Lakes Chemical Corp .................................................................................................................................... 2,401,699 221,167

Albemarle Corp ........................................................................................................................................................ 987,633 90,949
Ameribrom, Inc ........................................................................................................................................................ 545,787 50,260
TriCal, Inc ................................................................................................................................................................ 16,994 1,565
Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,952,114 363,941

* 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 40 CFR Part 82.
Paragraph four of Decision XVII/9 universal, allocation, modified to allocations, divided into pre-plant and
states ‘‘that Parties shall endeavor to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-harvest sectors, the actual critical
license, permit, authorize, or allocate post-harvest uses, was the most efficient use will closely follow the sector
quantities of critical use methyl bromide and least burdensome approach that breakout listed by the TEAP. These
as listed in tables A and C of the annex would achieve the desired issues were addressed in the previous
to the present decision.’’ This is similar environmental results, and that a sector- rule and EPA is not aware of any factors
to language in Decisions Ex. I/3(4) and specific approach would pose that would alter the analysis performed
Ex. II/1(4) regarding 2005 and 2006 significant administrative and practical during the development of the
critical uses, respectively. The language difficulties. Although the approach Framework Rule. EPA did not propose
from these Decisions calls on Parties to adopted in the Framework Rule does to change the approach adopted in the
endeavor to allocate critical use methyl not directly allocate allowances to each Framework Rule for the allocation of
bromide on a sector basis. category of use, the Agency anticipates CUAs but, in an endeavor to address
In establishing the critical use that reliance on market mechanisms Decision XVII/9(4), EPA considered
exemption program, the Agency will achieve similar results indirectly. additional comment on the Agency’s
endeavored to allocate directly on a The TEAP recommendations are based allocation of CUAs in the two groupings
sector-by-sector basis by analyzing and on data submitted by the U.S. which in (pre-plant and post-harvest) that the
proposing this option among others in turn are based on recent historic use Agency has employed in the past. A
the August 2004 proposed Framework data in the current methyl bromide summary of the options analysis
Rule (69 FR 52366). EPA solicited market. In other words, the TEAP conducted by EPA is available in the
comment on both universal and sector- recommendations agreed to by the docket for this rulemaking.
based allocation of critical use Parties are based on current use and the EPA received six comments on the
allowances. The Agency evaluated the current use patterns take place in a allocation approach. Five commenters
various options based on their market where all pre-plant and post- believe the current two-group approach
economic, environmental and practical harvest methyl bromide uses compete is preferable and should be maintained
effects. After receiving comments, EPA for a lump sum supply of critical use by EPA because it is consistent with the
determined in the final Framework Rule material. Therefore, the Agency believes way the market currently operates. One
(69 FR 76989) that a lump-sum, or that under a system of universal commenter stated that the allocations
should be made directly to each sector, changes would be made to those stated that ‘‘Parties shall take into
as requested by the Parties, and noted provisions. account * * * stocks of controlled
that other countries have established In the February 6, 2006 final rule that substances * * * such that no more
use-specific allocation systems. The determined the amount to come from than a one-year operational supply is
commenter also stated that the ‘‘lump inventory during the 2006 control maintained by that manufacturer.’’ This
sum’’ approach delays the transition to period, EPA stated that ‘‘bearing in Decision refers to another exemption
alternatives but requested that if EPA mind the United States’ ‘renewed program, one that is analogous but
does not adopt a use-specific approach, commitment’ as stated in Decision structured differently from the CUE, and
that the current allocation system be Ex II/1, and its experience with the 2005 operating for different applications and
maintained. In response, EPA agrees critical use nomination,’’ EPA would circumstances. EPA sought comment on
with the majority of the commenters exercise its discretion to reduce whether, in the critical use exemption
and intends to continue differentiating production/import and authorize an context, it would be appropriate to
between ‘‘pre-plant’’ and ‘‘post-harvest’’ additional amount from inventory (71 adjust the level of new production and
uses as defined in the Framework Rule FR 5998). For the 2006 control period, import with the goal of maintaining a
(69 FR 76982) for the 2007 control EPA authorized 1,136,008 kilograms stockpile of some specified duration and
period. (5% of baseline) to be supplied from how many months of inventory of
pre-phaseout methyl bromide methyl bromide would be appropriate to
G. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations inventories. EPA noted that ‘‘continued maintain non-disruptive management of
and Inventory of Methyl Bromide drawdown of inventory for critical uses this chemical in the supply chain for
As discussed above and in the at the level authorized in the purposes of determining availability as
December 23, 2004 Framework Rule, an Framework Rule for 2005’’ (i.e., 5% of inventories are reduced over time.
approved critical user may obtain access baseline) was an appropriate means, for EPA proposed to allocate critical
to exempted production/import of the 2006 control period, ‘‘of continuing stock allowances (CSAs) to the entities
methyl bromide and to limited the commitment previously made, in listed below in Table III for the control
inventories of pre-phaseout methyl light of our understanding of current period of 2007 in the range of between
bromide, the combination of which inventory and our analysis of the 6.2% of baseline and 7.5% of baseline.
constitute the supply of ‘‘critical use current needs of users.’’ In addition, EPA is employing the same
methyl bromide’’ intended to meet the EPA responded to stakeholder concerns methodology and baselines for
needs of agreed critical uses. that taking 5% of baseline from allocating CSAs as in previous critical
inventory in 2006 and 6.2% in 2007 use rulemakings (69 FR 76982). The
In developing this action, the Agency
would result in shortages. EPA reported Agency sought comment on the amount
noted that Decision XVII/9 (para. 5)
that the Agency ‘‘has re-examined the of critical use methyl bromide to come
contains the following language: ‘‘that
available inventory data and has from inventory.
each Party which has an agreed critical EPA received fourteen comments
projected multiple scenarios concerning
use renews its commitment to ensure expressing concern about the increased
levels of consumption of existing
that the criteria in paragraph 1 of reliance on inventory. These
inventory. Based on these efforts, EPA
decision IX/6 are applied when commenters stated that the proposed
believes that critical users will continue
licensing, permitting or authorizing increase in the amount of methyl
to be able to meet their needs
critical use of methyl bromide and that throughout 2006 and 2007 through the bromide to come from inventory is
such procedures take into account anticipated combination of new beyond the level approved by the
available stocks of banked or recycled production and import and inventory Parties and that an adequate emergency
methyl bromide.’’ This language is drawdown’’ (71 FR 6000). inventory must be maintained. Several
similar to language in Decision XVI/2 After EPA published the 2006 final commenters stated that increased
authorizing 2006 critical uses. Language rule, it received data on holdings of pre- reliance on inventory puts critical users
calling on Parties to address stocks also 2005 stocks from methyl bromide in jeopardy and noted the possibility of
appears in Decision Ex. I/3, which suppliers as part of routine reporting increased competition for this inventory
authorized 2005 critical uses. under the CUE program. This data with non-critical users. Commenters
In the Framework Rule, which enabled EPA to track and project also noted the reduction in inventory
established the architecture of the inventory drawdown. For 2007, EPA reserves since 2002.
critical use exemption program and set proposed that the amount to come from Two commenters stated that
out the exempted levels of critical use stocks be either 6.2% of baseline (which inventory should only be for critical use
for 2005, EPA interpreted paragraph 5 of is the difference between the agreed needs and that existing inventory is
Decision Ex. I/3 ‘‘as meaning that the U.S. critical use level and the amount of sufficient to cover both proposed
U.S. should not authorize critical use allowable new production and import) amounts of CSAs.
exemptions without including or 7.5% of baseline. Both amounts are EPA received 15 comments on the
provisions addressing drawdown from larger than the amount of CSAs in the proportion of critical use methyl
stocks for critical uses’’ (69 FR 76987). preceding year of the exemption bromide that would come from pre-
The Framework Rule established program and take into account phaseout inventories (allocated as
provisions governing the sale of pre- Decisions of the Parties including CSAs) and the proportion of new
phaseout inventories for critical uses, Decision XVII/9(5). EPA also sought production or import (allocated as
including the concept of CSAs and a comment on whether some other CUAs). Fourteen commenters were
prohibition on sale of pre-phaseout number in this range would be concerned with the option under which
inventories for critical uses in excess of appropriate. a greater amount of critical use material
the amount of CSAs held by the seller. EPA also noted in the proposed rule would come from the pre-phaseout
In addition, EPA noted that inventories that an alternative means of addressing inventory than the minimum amount
were further taken into account through stocks appeared in a recent Federal specified in Decision XVII/9 by the
the trading provisions that allow critical Register notice relating to the essential Parties to the Protocol. Five of these
use allowances to be converted into use exemption program (71 FR 18264). commenters stated that the increased
CSAs. Under this action, no significant In that context, the relevant Decision reliance on the pre-phaseout inventory
‘‘puts critical use sectors in jeopardy’’ the aggregate end-of-year inventory drawdown for critical uses is feasible.
because it was being proposed at a time follows resolution of the two court cases The aggregate inventory data as of
when this inventory is decreasing. One blocking disclosure of a smaller December 31, 2005, indicate that pre-
commenter supported the concept of aggregate and an EPA determination phaseout inventory amounts to 39% of
applying a ‘‘strategic reserve’’ approach that the larger aggregates are not entitled baseline and therefore EPA does not
to the critical use exemption program in to confidential treatment. EPA notes anticipate a shortage during 2007.
order to mitigate a potential failure at that some of the inventory available at However, EPA notes that the pre-
the single methyl bromide production the end of 2004 was exported to meet phaseout inventory is decreasing over
facility in the U.S. and to support Article 5 countries’ basic domestic time and if the Agency is informed of a
unforeseen demand increases. One needs during 2005, and some of this severe inventory shortage, it may
commenter stated that EPA inventory was exported to meet a non- consider various options including, but
underestimated the amount of methyl Article 5 country’s critical use needs in not limited to, promulgating a final
bromide needed to respond in the event 2005. The inventory has decreased version of the petition process proposed
of an emergency, stating that at least a significantly over the three years that on October 27, 2005 (70 FR 62030),
nine-month supply would be needed to EPA has collected data. The average taking into account comments received
bring a currently closed methyl bromide annual drawdown of the inventory has on that proposal; proposing a different
factory back online as opposed to EPA’s been approximately 12% of baseline. administrative mechanism to serve the
100-day estimate. Six commenters said EPA believes the finalized CSAs for same purpose; or authorizing
that the strategic inventory should at a 2007 are appropriate given the U.S.’s conversion of a limited number of CSAs
minimum equal one year of the critical commitment to the Montreal Protocol to CUAs through a rulemaking, bearing
use need. Three commenters noted that and the history of Decisions of the in mind the upper limit on U.S.
the one-year stockpile should be a Parties to the Montreal Protocol. In the production/import for critical uses.
minimum standard because the time Decisions for the 2005 control period, EPA appreciates the comments
period is based on the standard used in the Parties authorized a total of 7.5% of received to date on the appropriate level
the ‘‘essential use program’’ for CFCs the 1991 baseline for critical uses in the of inventory and intends to continue
and unlike alternatives to other ozone U.S. beyond the allowable level of new exploring the issue in future
depleting substances, alternatives to production, which was 30% of baseline. rulemakings. EPA notes that the Parties
methyl bromide are not universally While those Decisions have no direct have not taken a decision on an
effective in all geographic locations, application to other control periods, appropriate amount of inventory for
even on the same crop, because of the they do provide some indication that reserve. Nor has EPA reached any
large number of variables involved. Two the drawdown in this final rule is conclusion regarding what amount
commenters suggested a 24-month reasonable under the Montreal Protocol. might be appropriate. Given this
stockpile to maintain non-disruptive In addition, Decision XVII/9, which uncertainty, and the continuing decline
management in the methyl bromide directly addresses critical uses for 2007, in inventory levels, EPA is exercising
supply chain. In contrast with concerns states: ‘‘each Party which has an agreed caution in this year’s CSA allocation.
from commenters about taking too much critical use renews its commitment to EPA will consider various approaches to
of the 2007 authorized amount from pre- ensure that the criteria in paragraph 1 of this issue in the future based on the data
phaseout inventory, which they claim decision IX/6 are applied when received during this notice and
would leave too little in the necessary licensing, permitting or authorizing comment rulemaking process and other
strategic reserve, EPA received two critical use of methyl bromide and that information obtained by the Agency.
comments that said although reliance on such procedures taken into account While EPA believes that 7.5% is an
stocks in the proposed rule is increased available stocks of banked or recycled appropriate amount for 2007, the
from previous years, the amount methyl bromide.’’ Decision XVII/9 Agency will revisit whether this is the
remains too low. These two commenters authorizes a critical use exemption level appropriate figure to use in future
believed that EPA should preferentially for the U.S. that is equivalent to 26.4% allocation rules taking into account the
use the existing stockpiles to support of baseline, and states that the U.S. may feasibility of such drawdowns and other
CUEs and not allow any new production produce or import at a level equivalent relevant factors and data presented to
or importation unless the stocks are not to 20.2% of baseline. It also states that the Agency.
sufficient to meet critical needs. the difference between the two levels Two commenters stated that stocks
EPA believes that allocating CSAs at may be made up ‘‘by using quantities of should be only for critical use needs,
a level of 7.5% of baseline (1,914,600 methyl bromide from stocks that the and that therefore access to pre-
kg) is a reasonable drawdown from pre- Party has recognized to be available.’’ phaseout methyl bromide stocks should
phaseout inventory for critical uses, Therefore, EPA proposed that the total be denied to non-critical users and
recognizing that some amount of methyl number of CSAs would be at least 6.2% restricted for critical users to prevent
bromide must remain in the supply of baseline. EPA is exercising its ‘‘double dipping,’’ as per the Montreal
chain. This level accounts for past discretion in setting the total number of Protocol and Decisions. EPA does not
practice in CSA allocations, the range CSAs at 7.5% of baseline, or 1,914,600 believe the language in the Protocol or
contained in the proposed rule, and kilograms. The Agency believes that subsequent Decisions of the Parties
Decision XVII/9, especially given the using an amount of pre-phaseout indicates that inventory should be
U.S. role as one of the world’s largest inventory greater than the amount that reserved for critical users, nor did EPA
suppliers to meet global methyl bromide appears on the face of the Decision, request comment on this issue. EPA
needs. when feasible, is an appropriate means addressed similar comments in its
Since publication of the proposal for of implementing the continuing U.S. Response to Comments for the
2007 methyl bromide critical use commitment as reflected in Decision Framework Rule, which is included in
exemptions (71 FR 38325) EPA released XVII/9. More specifically, EPA has the docket for this action. EPA believes
information on the pre-phaseout selected 7.5% for 2007 because of the that some sectors have relied on pre-
aggregate inventory at the end of 2003, Parties’ earlier agreement to this number phaseout inventories of methyl bromide
2004 and 2005, which is available on and because, under the current to test, and perform commercial trials
the docket for this action. The release of circumstances, this level of inventory on, alternatives to methyl bromide
instead of pursuing critical use Several companies that receive very Bromide Allocation in the U.S., and a
exemptions. This is an appropriate small amounts of CSAs from EPA have Regulatory Impact Analysis was also
strategy that is consistent with the contacted the Agency and requested that prepared. A copy of the analysis is
Protocol. The inventory is assisting both they be permitted to permanently retire available in the docket for this action
critical use sectors and non-critical use their allowances. Some companies and the analysis is briefly summarized
sectors during this period of transition receive as few as 3 allowances which here.
in the U.S. to methyl bromide allow the holder to sell up to 3 The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA)
alternatives that are verifiably feasible kilograms of methyl bromide to critical provided an analysis of the costs of
from a technical and economic uses. Due to the small allocation and regulating the distribution of critical use
standpoint. The inventory has also because they typically do not sell exemption (CUE) methyl bromide
helped the world’s methyl bromide critical use methyl bromide, they find allocated to the United States by the
supply chain make the transition to the the allocation of CSAs, and associated Parties to the Montreal Protocol. The
post-phaseout controls without record-keeping and reporting analysis presented the impacts
interruptions to the amount available for requirements, to be unduly burdensome. associated with the proposed continued
export to Article 5 countries and In response to this concern, EPA use of methyl bromide through the
without interruptions to the shipments proposed to allow CSA holders, on a implementation of the CUE process
of CUE material to other CUE countries. voluntary basis, to permanently under two allocation options (each with
relinquish their allowances through two allocation methods) and briefly
EPA continues to consider the use of analyzes a third auction option, and
pre-phaseout inventories and will written notification to EPA. Such
companies would not receive CSA compared these results to a complete
revisit the issue again. In addition, EPA phaseout in 2005. The sections provide
received a set of late comments on the allocations and would be excluded from
future allocations. All allowances a brief overview on the background of
proposed rule, after the Parties took the methyl bromide phaseout and the
Decisions at the 18th Meeting held forfeited by companies through the
written notification process would be regulated community, a description of
October 30–November 3, 2006. The the baseline phaseout analysis and a
comments describe issues related to reallocated to the remaining companies
on a pro-rata basis. However, during the comparison to the allocation analysis
accelerated inventory drawdown and used for this report, an overview of the
access to inventories by critical and comment period, EPA did not receive
any notification from CSA holders allocation options, and a description of
non-critical users, stating that only the costs and overall cost savings to
critical users should have inventory wishing to relinquish their allowances.
Therefore, the CSA holders listed in the industry participants for the two
access. While these comments arrived options.
too late for consideration in this July 6, 2006 proposal will continue to be
rulemaking, EPA has noted these CSA holders during the 2007 calendar B. Paperwork Reduction Act
comments and may explore the merits year, but EPA may extend the option of This action does not impose an
of the particular points raised by the relinquishing allowances in future information collection burden under the
commenter. These issues were rulemakings. provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
discussed in depth at the 18th Meeting In sections V.F. and V.G. of the
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
of the Parties as well and the Agency preamble of the proposed rule, EPA
recordkeeping and reporting
intends to consider the concerns raised sought comment on the amount of requirements included in this action are
by meeting participants. critical use methyl bromide to come already included in an existing
from stocks compared to new information collection burden and this
TABLE III.—ALLOCATION OF CRITICAL production and import. EPA addressed action does not make any changes that
these comments in Sections V.C and V.F would affect the burden. However, the
STOCK ALLOWANCES above but will continue to consider Office of Management and Budget
other approaches in the future. (OMB) has previously approved the
Company Company
VI. Statutory and Executive Order information collection requirements
Albemarle .................. Industrial Fumigation Reviews contained in the existing regulations, 40
Company. CFR part 82, under the provisions of the
Ameribrom, Inc .......... J.C. Ehrlich Co. A. Executive Order No. 12866: Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
Bill Clark Pest Con- Pacific Ag. Regulatory Planning and Review 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
trol, Inc. Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 control number 2060–0564, EPA ICR
Blair Soil Fumigation Pest Fog Sales Corp.
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this number 2179.03. A copy of the OMB
Burnside Services, Prosource One.
Inc.
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory approved ICR may be obtained from
Cardinal Professional Reddick Fumigants. action’’ because it raises novel or legal Susan Auby, Collection Strategies
Products. policy issues arising out of legal Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Carolina Eastern, Inc Royster-Clark, Inc. mandates, the President’s priorities, or Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania
Degesch America, Inc Southern State Coop- the principles set forth in the Executive Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
erative, Inc. Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this calling (202) 566–1672. A copy may also
Dodson Bros ............. Trical Inc. action to the Office of Management and be downloaded off the internet at
Great Lakes Chem- Trident Agricultural Budget (OMB) for review under EO http://www.regulations.gov.
ical Corp. Products. 12866 and any changes made in Burden means the total time, effort, or
Harvey Fertilizer & UAP Southeast (NC). response to OMB recommendations financial resources expended by persons
Gas. have been documented in the docket for to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
Helena Chemical Co UAP Southeast (SC). this action. or provide information to or for a
Hendrix & Dail ........... Univar.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis Federal agency. This includes the time
Hy Yield Bromine ...... Vanguard Fumigation of the potential costs and benefits needed to review instructions; develop,
Co.
Western Fumigation.
associated with the CUE process. This acquire, install, and utilize technology
analysis is contained in the document and systems for the purposes of
Total—1,914,600 kilograms. titled ‘‘Economic Analysis for Methyl collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 organizations, and small governmental
maintaining information, and disclosing CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. jurisdictions.
and providing information; adjust the For purposes of assessing the impacts
existing ways to comply with any C. Regulatory Flexibility Act of today’s rule on small entities, small
previously applicable instructions and The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) entity is defined as: (1) A small business
requirements; train personnel to be able generally requires an agency to prepare that is identified by the North American
to respond to a collection of a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Industry Classification System (NAICS)
information; search data sources; Code in the Table below; (2) a small
rule subject to notice and comment
complete and review the collection of governmental jurisdiction that is a
rulemaking requirements under the
information; and transmit or otherwise government of a city, county, town,
Administrative Procedure Act or any
disclose the information. school district or special district with a
An agency may not conduct or other statute unless the agency certifies population of less than 50,000; and (3)
sponsor, and a person is not required to that the rule will not have a significant a small organization that is any not-for-
respond to a collection of information economic impact on a substantial profit enterprise which is independently
unless it displays a currently valid OMB number of small entities. Small entities owned and operated and is not
control number. The OMB control include small businesses, small dominant in its field.
NAICS Small
business size
standard (in
Category NAICS code SIC code number of em-
ployees or mil-
lions of dollars)
Agricultural Production ............................ 1112—Vegetable and Melon farming. ... 0171—Berry Crops. $0.75 million.
1113—Fruit and Nut Tree Farming. ...... 0172—Grapes.
1114—Greenhouse, Nursery, and Flori- 0173—Tree Nuts.
culture Production. 0175—Deciduous Tree Fruits (except
apple orchards and farms)..
0181—Ornamental Floriculture and $6 million.
Nursery products.
0831—Forest Nurseries and Gathering
of Forest Products.
Storage Uses ........................................... 115114—Post-harvest crop activities 4221—Farm Product Warehousing and $21.5 million.
(except Cotton Ginning). Storage.
493110—General Warehousing and 4225—General Warehousing and Stor-
Storage. age.
493130—Farm product Warehousing
Storage.
Distributors and Applicators .................... 115112—Soil Preparation, Planting, and 0721—Crop Planting, Cultivation, and $6 million.
Cultivating. Protection.
Producers and Importers ......................... 325320—Pesticide and Other Agricul- 2879—Pesticides and Agricultural 500 employees.
tural Chemical Manufacturing. Chemicals, NEC.
Agricultural producers of minor crops businesses based on the above approved critical uses after the phaseout
and entities that store agricultural description. date of January 1, 2005, this is a de-
commodities are categories of affected After considering the economic regulatory action which will confer a
entities that contain small entities. This impacts of today’s final rule on small benefit to users of methyl bromide. EPA
rule will only affect entities that applied entities, EPA certifies that this action believes that the estimated de-regulatory
to EPA for a de-regulatory exemption. In will not have a significant economic value for users of methyl bromide is
most cases, EPA received aggregated impact on a substantial number of small between $20 million and $30 million
requests for exemptions from industry entities. In determining whether a rule annually. We have therefore concluded
consortia. On the exemption has a significant economic impact on a that today’s final rule will relieve
application, EPA asked consortia to substantial number of small entities, the regulatory burden for all affected small
describe the number and size impact of concern is any significant entities.
distribution of entities their application adverse economic impact on small
covered. EPA estimated that 3,218 entities, since the primary purpose of D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
entities petitioned EPA for an the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
exemption for the 2005 control period. identify and address regulatory Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
EPA received requests from a alternatives ‘‘which minimize any Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
comparable number of entities for the significant economic impact of the rule 104–4, establishes requirements for
2006 and 2007 control periods. Since on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Federal agencies to assess the effects of
many applicants did not provide Thus, an agency may certify that a rule their regulatory actions on State, local,
information on the distribution of sizes will not have a significant economic and tribal governments and the private
of entities covered in their applications, impact on a substantial number of small sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA estimated that, based on the above entities if the rule relieves regulatory EPA generally must prepare a written
definition, between one-fourth and one- burden, or otherwise has a positive statement, including a cost-benefit
third of the entities may be small economic effect on all of the small analysis, for proposed and final rules
businesses. In addition, other categories entities subject to the rule. Since this
of affected entities do not contain small final rule exempts methyl bromide for
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may power and responsibilities among the H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions
result in expenditures to State, local, various levels of government.’’ That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, This final rule does not have Distribution, or Use
or to the private sector, of $100 million federalism implications. It will not have
or more in any one year. Before substantial direct effects on the States, This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
promulgating an EPA rule for which a on the relationship between the national action’’ as defined in Executive Order
written statement is needed, section 205 government and the States, or on the 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to distribution of power and That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
identify and consider a reasonable responsibilities among the various Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
number of regulatory alternatives and levels of government, as specified in 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to
adopt the least costly, most cost- Executive Order 13132. This final rule have a significant adverse effect on the
effective or least burdensome alternative is expected to primarily affect supply, distribution, or use of energy.
that achieves the objectives of the rule. producers, suppliers, importers, This final rule does not pertain to any
The provisions of section 205 do not exporters, and users of methyl bromide. segment of the energy production
apply when they are inconsistent with Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not economy nor does it regulate any
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 apply to this rule. manner of energy use. Further, we have
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other concluded that this rule is not likely to
than the least costly, most cost-effective F. Executive Order No. 13175: have any adverse energy effects.
or least burdensome alternative if the Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments I. National Technology Transfer and
Administrator publishes with the final Advancement Act
rule an explanation why that alternative Executive Order 13175, entitled
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with As noted in the proposed rule,
any regulatory requirements that may Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Section 12(d) of the National
significantly or uniquely affect small 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA Technology Transfer and Advancement
governments, including tribal to develop an accountable process to Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
governments, it must have developed ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
under section 203 of the UMRA a small tribal officials in the development of directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
government agency plan. The plan must regulatory policies that have tribal standards in its regulatory activities
provide for notifying potentially implications.’’ This final rule does not unless to do so would be inconsistent
affected small governments, enabling have tribal implications, as specified in with applicable law or otherwise
officials of affected small governments Executive Order 13175. This final rule impractical. Voluntary consensus
to have meaningful and timely input in does not impose any enforceable duties standards are technical standards (e.g.,
the development of EPA regulatory on communities of Indian tribal materials specifications, test methods,
proposals with significant Federal governments. Thus, Executive Order sampling procedures, and business
intergovernmental mandates, and 13175 does not apply to this rule. practices) that are developed or adopted
informing, educating, and advising by voluntary consensus standards
small governments on compliance with G. Executive Order No. 13045: bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
the regulatory requirements. Protection of Children From provide Congress, through OMB,
This final rule contains no Federal Environmental Health and Safety Risks explanations when the Agency decides
mandates (under the regulatory not to use available and applicable
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental health voluntary consensus standards. This
State, local, or tribal governments or the action does not involve technical
private sector. This action is Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: standards. Therefore, EPA did not
deregulatory and does not impose any
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically consider the use of any voluntary
new requirements on any entities. Thus,
significant’’ as defined under Executive consensus standards.
this final rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of Order 12866, and (2) concerns an J. Congressional Review Act
the UMRA. Further, EPA has environmental health or safety risk that
determined that this rule contains no EPA has reason to believe may have a The Congressional Review Act, 5
regulatory requirements that might disproportionate effect on children. If U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
significantly or uniquely affect small the regulatory action meets both criteria, Business Regulatory Enforcement
governments. the Agency must evaluate the Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
environmental health or safety effects of that before a rule may take effect, the
E. Executive Order No. 13132: the planned rule on children, and agency promulgating the rule must
Federalism explain why the planned regulation is submit a rule report, which includes a
Executive Order 13132, entitled preferable to other potentially effective copy of the rule, to each House of the
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, and reasonably feasible alternatives Congress and to the Comptroller General
1999), requires EPA to develop an considered by the Agency. of the United States. EPA will submit a
accountable process to ensure EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 report containing this rule and other
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State as applying only to those regulatory required information to the U.S. Senate,
and local officials in the development of actions that are based on health or safety the U.S. House of Representatives, and
regulatory policies that have federalism risks, such that the analysis required the Comptroller General of the United
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have under section 5–501 of the Order has States prior to publication of the rule in
federalism implications’’ is defined in the potential to influence the regulation. the Federal Register. A Major rule
the Executive Order to include This final rule is not subject to cannot take effect until 60 days after it
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Executive Order 13045 because it does is published in the Federal Register.
effects on the States, on the relationship not establish an environmental standard This action not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
between the national government and intended to mitigate health or safety defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
the States, or on the distribution of risks. will be effective December 14, 2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 PART 82—PROTECTION OF ■ 2. Section 82.8 is amended by revising
Environmental protection, Ozone STRATOSPHERIC OZONE the table in paragraph (c)(1) and
depletion, Chemicals, Exports, Imports. paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
■ 1. The authority citation for part 82
Dated: December 11, 2006. § 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances
continues to read as follows: and critical use allowances.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– * * * * *
7671q. (c) * * *
■ For the reasons stated in the preamble,
40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows: (1) * * *
2007 Critical 2007 Critical

use use
allowances for allowances for
Company pre-plant post-harvest
uses* uses*
(kilograms) (kilograms)
Great Lakes Chemical Corp .................................................................................................................................... 2,401,699 221,167

Albemarle Corp ........................................................................................................................................................ 987,633 90,949
Ameribrom, Inc ........................................................................................................................................................ 545,787 50,260
TriCal, Inc ................................................................................................................................................................ 16,994 1,565
Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,952,114 363,941

*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.
(2) Allocated critical stock allowances Company Company Company Company

granted for specified control period. The
following companies are allocated Burnside Services, Prosource One. Hendrix & Dail ........... Univar.
critical stock allowances for 2007 on a Inc. Hy Yield Bromine ...... Vanguard Fumigation
pro-rata basis in relation to the Cardinal Professional Reddick Fumigants. Co.
inventory held by each. Products. Western Fumigation.
Carolina Eastern, Inc. Royster-Clark, Inc.
Total—1,914,600 kilograms.
Company Company Degesch America, Inc Southern State Coop-
erative, Inc. ■ 3. Appendix L to part 82, subpart A
Albemarle .................. Industrial Fumigation Dodson Bros ............. Trical Inc. is revised to read as follows:
Company. Great Lakes Chem- Trident Agricultural
Ameribrom, Inc .......... J.C. Ehrlich Co. ical Corp. Products. Appendix L to Part 82 Subpart A—
Bill Clark Pest Con- Pacific Ag. Harvey Fertilizer & UAP Southeast (NC). Approved Critical Uses and Limiting
trol, Inc. Gas. Critical Conditions for Those Uses for
Blair Soil Fumigation Pest Fog Sales Corp. Helena Chemical Co. UAP Southeast (SC). the 2007 Control Period
Approved Critical Approved Critical User and Location of Limiting Critical Conditions that either exist, or that the approved critical user
Uses. Use. reasonably expects could arise without methyl bromide fumigation:
PRE-PLANT USES
Cucurbits .................. (a) Michigan growers ............................ Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation.
(b) Southeastern U.S. limited to grow- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
ing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Moderate to severe root knot nematodes.
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vir- A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
ginia.
(c) Georgia growers .............................. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Moderate to severe root knot nematodes.
Eggplant ................... (a) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
(b) Georgia growers .............................. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rot.

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation.
(c) Michigan growers ............................. Moderate to severe soilborne fungal disease infestation.
Forest Nursery Seed- (a) Members of the Southern Forest Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
lings. Nursery Management Cooperative Moderate to severe disease infestation.
limited to growing locations in Ala-
bama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Caro-
lina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Ten-
nessee, Texas, and Virginia.
(b) International Paper and its subsidi- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
aries limited to growing locations in Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Texas.
(c) Public (government-owned) seed- Moderate to severe weed infestation including purple and yellow nutsedge in-
ling nurseries in Illinois, Indiana, festation.
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation.
Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Moderate to severe nematodes.
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
(d) Weyerhaeuser Company and its Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
subsidiaries limited to growing loca- Moderate to severe disease infestation.
tions in Alabama, Arkansas, North Moderate to severe nematodes and worms.
Carolina, and South Carolina.
(e) Weyerhaeuser Company and its Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge infestation.
subsidiaries limited to growing loca- Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
tions in Oregon and Washington.
(f) Michigan growers ............................. Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation.
Moderate to severe nutsedge infestation.
(g) Michigan herbaceous perennials Moderate to severe nematodes.
Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge and other weed infestation.
Orchard Nursery (a) Members of the Western Raspberry Moderate to severe nematode infestation
Seedlings. Nursery Consortium limited to grow- Presence of medium to heavy clay soils.
ing locations in California and Wash- Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township lim-
ington (Driscoll’s Raspberries and its on use of this alternative have been reached.
their contract growers in California A need for methyl bromide for research purposes.
and Washington).
(b) Members of the California Associa- Moderate to severe nematode infestation.
tion of Nurserymen—Deciduous Fruit Presence of medium to heavy clay soils.
and Nut Tree Growers. Prohibition on use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local township lim-
(c) California rose nurseries .................. Moderate to severe nematode infestation.
Strawberry Nurseries (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(b) Maryland, North Carolina, and Ten- Moderate to severe black root rot.
nessee growers. Moderate to severe root-knot nematodes.
Moderate to severe yellow and purple nutsedge infestation.
Orchard Replant ....... (a) California stone fruit growers .......... Moderate to severe nematodes.
Presence of medium to heavy soils.
(b) California table and raisin grape Moderate to severe nematodes.

(c) California wine grape growers ......... Moderate to severe nematodes.

(d) California walnut growers ................ Moderate to severe nematodes.
(e) California almond growers ............... Moderate to severe nematodes.
Ornamentals ............. (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
(b) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe weed infestation.
Karst topography.
Peppers .................... (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
A prohibition on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene products because local town-
ship limits for this alternative have been reached.
(b) Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Lou- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
isiana, North Carolina, South Caro- Moderate to severe nematodes.
lina, Tennessee, and Virginia grow- Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rots.
ers. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower’s field the size
(c) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Karst topography.
(d) Georgia growers .............................. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
Moderate to severe nematodes, or moderate to severe pythium root and collar
rots.
Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or root rot.
(e) Michigan growers ............................ Moderate to severe fungal disease infestation.
Strawberry Fruit ........ (a) California growers ............................ Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot.
(b) Florida growers ................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge.
Carolina geranium or cut-leaf evening primrose infestation.
Karst topography and to a lesser extent a need for methyl bromide for re-
search purposes.
(c) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illi- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge.
nois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Moderate to severe nematodes.

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Moderate to severe black root and crown rot.
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vir- Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower’s field the size
ginia growers. of 100 acres or less.
Tomatoes ................. (a) Michigan growers ............................ Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Moderate to severe fungal pathogen infestation.
(b) Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Geor- Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation.
gia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Moderate to severe disease infestation.
Carolina, South Carolina, Ten- Moderate to severe nematodes.
nessee, and Virginia growers. Presence of an occupied structure within 100 feet of a grower’s field the size
Karst topography.
Turfgrass .................. (a) U.S. turfgrass sod nursery pro- Production of industry certified pure sod.
ducers who are members of Moderate to severe bermudagrass.
Turfgrass Producers International Moderate to severe nutsedge.
(TPI). Moderate to severe white grub infestation.
Control of off-type perennial grass infestation.
POST-HARVEST USES
Food Processing ...... (a) Rice millers in all locations in the Moderate to severe infestation of beetles, weevils, or moths.
U.S. who are members of the USA Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
Rice Millers Association. bromide.
(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in Moderate to severe infestation of beetles, moths, or cockroaches.
the U.S. who are active members of Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
the Pet Food Institute (For this final bromide.
rule, ‘‘pet food’’ refers to domestic Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity.
dog and cat food). Time to transition to an alternative.
(c) Kraft Foods in the U.S ..................... Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
bromide.
(d) Members of the North American Moderate to severe beetle infestation.
Millers’ Association in the U.S. Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
bromide.
(e) Members of the National Pest Man- Moderate to severe beetle or moth infestation.
agement Association treating cocoa Older structures that can not be properly sealed to use an alternative to methyl
beans in storage and associated bromide.
spaces and equipment and proc- Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosivity.
essed food, cheese, dried milk, Time to transition to an alternative.
herbs, and spices and spaces and
equipment in associated processing
facilities.
Commodity Storage (a) California entities storing walnuts, Rapid fumigation is required to meet a critical market window, such as during
beans, dried plums, figs, raisins, the holiday season, rapid fumigation is required when a buyer provides short
dates (in Riverside county only), and (2 working days or less) notification for a purchase or there is a short period
pistachios in California. after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for
using alternatives.
Dry Cured Pork (a) Members of the National Country Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation.
Products. Ham Association. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation.
(b) Members of the American Associa- Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation.
tion of Meat Processors. Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation.
(c) Nahunta Pork Center (North Caro- Moderate to severe red legged ham beetle infestation.
lina). Moderate to severe cheese/ham skipper infestation.
[FR Doc. E6–21399 Filed 12–13–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Rule: Air Pollution Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources: Methyl Bromide 2007 Critical Use Exemption From Phaseout

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rule: Air Pollution Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources: Methyl Bromide 2007 Critical Use Exemption From Phaseout

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thursday,

December 14, 2006

Category Examples of regulated entities

TABLE I.—APPROVED CRITICAL USES

TABLE I.—APPROVED CRITICAL USES—Continued

tion of Nurserymen—Deciduous Fruit Presence of medium to heavy clay soils.

TABLE I.—APPROVED CRITICAL USES—Continued

(c) California rose nurseries .................. Moderate to severe nematode infestation.

TABLE I.—APPROVED CRITICAL USES—Continued

TABLE I.—APPROVED CRITICAL USES—Continued

TABLE II.—ALLOCATION OF CRITICAL USE ALLOWANCES

Great Lakes Chemical Corp .................................................................................................................................... 2,401,699 221,167

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,952,114 363,941

2007 Critical 2007 Critical

Great Lakes Chemical Corp .................................................................................................................................... 2,401,699 221,167

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,952,114 363,941

(2) Allocated critical stock allowances Company Company Company Company

Column A Column B Column C

Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root rot.

Column A Column B Column C

its for this alternative have been reached.

Column A Column B Column C

(c) California wine grape growers ......... Moderate to severe nematodes.

nois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Moderate to severe nematodes.

Column A Column B Column C

[FR Doc. E6–21399 Filed 12–13–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Вам также может понравиться