[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44302-44312]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17595]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorizing uses
that qualify for the critical use exemption and the amount of methyl
bromide that may be produced or imported for those uses for both the
2014 and 2015 control periods. EPA is taking this action under the
authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect consensus decisions of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer at the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Meetings of the Parties.
EPA is also amending the regulatory framework to remove provisions
related to sale of pre-phaseout inventory for critical uses.

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

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0065. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

I. General Information

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

II. What is the critical use exemption process?

A. Background of the Process

    Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol established the critical use
exemption provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1997, the
Parties established the criteria for an exemption in Decision IX/6. In
that Decision, the Parties agreed that ``a use of methyl bromide should
qualify as `critical' only if the nominating Party determines that: (i)
The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl
bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption;
and (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable
from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the
crops and circumstances of the nomination.'' EPA promulgated these
criteria in the definition of ``critical use'' at 40 CFR 82.3. In
addition, Decision IX/6 provides that production and consumption, if
any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if a
variety of conditions have been met, including that all technically and
economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical
use and any associated emission of methyl bromide, that research
programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and
substitutes, and that methyl bromide is not available in sufficient
quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl
bromide.
    EPA requested critical use exemption applications through Federal
Register notices published on June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34700) (for the 2014
control period) and on May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29341) (for the 2015 control
period). Applicants submitted data on their use of methyl bromide, the
technical and economic feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing
research programs into the use of alternatives in their sector, and
efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide.
    EPA reviews the data submitted by applicants, as well as data from
governmental and academic sources, to establish whether there are
technically and economically feasible alternatives available for a
particular use of methyl bromide, and whether there would be a
significant market disruption if no exemption were available. In
addition, an interagency workgroup reviews other parameters of the
exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization
techniques and applicants' research or transition plans. As required in
section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each exemption period, EPA consults
with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).\1\ This
assessment process culminates in the development of the U.S. critical
use nomination (CUN). Annually since 2003, the U.S. Department of State
has submitted a CUN to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Ozone Secretariat. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
(MBTOC) and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), which
are advisory bodies to Parties to the Montreal Protocol, review each
Party's CUN and make recommendations to the Parties on the nominations.
The Parties then take Decisions on critical use exemptions for
particular Parties, including how much methyl bromide may be supplied
for the exempted critical uses. EPA then provides an opportunity for
public comment on the amounts and specific uses of methyl bromide that
the agency is proposing to exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See CAA section 604(d)(6): ``To the extent consistent with
the Montreal Protocol, the Administrator, after notice and the
opportunity for public comment, and after consultation with other
departments or instrumentalities of the Federal Government having
regulatory authority related to methyl bromide, including the
Secretary of Agriculture, may exempt the production, importation,
and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

C. Critical Uses

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

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

D. Critical Use Amounts

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

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

or imported was actually sold to end-users. Therefore, EPA is applying
a carryover deduction of 0 kg to the new production amount for 2014 and
2015.
    All U.S. Accounting Frameworks for critical use methyl bromide,
including the one for 2013, are available in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
    Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers data on the availability of
alternatives that it receives following submission of each nomination
to UNEP. In previous rules EPA has reduced the total CUE amount when a
new alternative has been registered and increased the new production
amount when an alternative is withdrawn, but not above the amount
permitted by the Parties. One comment stated that the allocation
amounts should not impede the continued adoption and use of methyl
bromide alternatives. EPA believes that considering the uptake of
alternatives encourages the adoption of alternatives.
    EPA received one comment that dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) is
registered in twenty-seven states and that EPA should reduce the new
production/import allocation to reflect the success that growers in
many parts of the country have had in transitioning to alternatives,
including DMDS. EPA also received one comment supporting the proposal
not to make reductions to the allocation due to DMDS as it is not
registered in California. That commenter stated that even if California
were to register DMDS, growers would transition cautiously to ensure it
works for their circumstances.
    EPA responds that there has been no change in the registration
status of DMDS in California, the only state with a pre-plant CUE for
2014 or 2015. Because DMDS is not available in California it would not
be appropriate to reduce the allocation amounts. EPA also does not
believe that the progress Florida strawberry growers have made in
transitioning to alternatives means, as one commenter suggests, that
the EPA should reduce the allocation amounts. EPA recognizes that
strawberry growers are successfully transitioning to alternatives, and
the CUE allocation for strawberries has been declining as that
transition has occurred. EPA considered the transition made to date,
and the ability of California strawberry growers to further transition,
when developing the nomination. Transition rates for alternatives have
already been applied for permitted critical use amounts through the
nomination and decision process.
    One commenter also stated that EPA should allocate more than the
amount requested in the CUN to the extent that the nominations were
reduced based on the availability of chloropicrin and iodomethane. The
commenter states that the removal of iodomethane from the U.S. market
has increased demand for methyl bromide. In addition, the proposed
restrictions on the use of chloropicrin in California will increase the
need for methyl bromide in that state. EPA responds that the CUNs for
2014 and 2015 did not consider iodomethane as an available alternative
because it had already been removed from the market by the time the
nominations were submitted. Therefore, EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to increase the critical use allocations based on the lack
of availability of iodomethane.
    The proposed rule requested comment on whether proposed control
measures from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation on the
use of chloropicrin could affect the 2015 control period. EPA did not
adjust the allocations for 2014 or 2015 because the changes were only
proposed. One commenter stated that EPA should increase the allocation
for 2015 above the proposed amount because the need for methyl bromide
will increase if California imposes new restrictions. As EPA stated in
the proposed rule, EPA views the determination of the total allocation,
up to the amount permitted by the Parties, as an appropriate exercise
of discretion. The agency will not increase the quantities allocated
beyond those permitted by the Parties, but may exercise its discretion
to allocate less. In addition, the critical use exemption program has
historically only relied on final actions when determining the
availability of alternatives. Since EPA proposed to allocate the full
amount permitted by the Parties and California's proposed measures are
not final, EPA is not increasing the allocation.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not take into
account the proposed tolerance revocation of sulfuryl fluoride. As EPA
has stated in prior rules, the allocation rule is based on the current
status of alternatives. Therefore, EPA has not based the allocation
amounts for 2014 or 2015 on any anticipated impacts of that proposal on
methyl bromide use.
    EPA is not making any other modifications to CUE amounts to account
for availability of alternatives. Rates of transition to alternatives
have already been applied for permitted 2014 and 2015 critical use
amounts through the nomination and decision process.
    Allocation Amounts: EPA is allocating to the four companies that
hold baseline allowances in proportion to their respective critical use
allowances for new production or import of methyl bromide equivalent to
442,337 kg in 2014 and 376,900 kg in 2015. Paragraph 3 of Decision
XXIV/5 and paragraph 5 of Decision XXV/4 state that ``parties shall
endeavor to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl
bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the
present decision. . . .'' This is similar to language in prior
Decisions authorizing critical uses. These Decisions call on Parties to
endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis. The
proposed Framework Rule contained several options for allocating
critical use allowances, including a sector-by-sector approach. The
agency evaluated various options based on their economic,
environmental, and practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA
determined in the final Framework Rule that a lump-sum, or universal,
allocation, modified to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-
harvest uses, was the most efficient and least burdensome approach that
would achieve the desired environmental results, and that a sector-by-
sector approach would pose significant administrative and practical
difficulties. For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the 2009 CUE
rule (74 FR 19894), and because of the limited number of permitted
uses, the agency believes that under the approach adopted in the
Framework Rule, the actual critical use will closely follow the sector
breakout listed in the Parties' decisions.

E. Amending the Critical Stock Allowance Framework

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

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

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

F. Emergency Uses

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

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

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

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

H. Emissions Minimization

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

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

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

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

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

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

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

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

Sec.  82.3  [Amended]

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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