to meet global methyl bromide needs. EPA also believes the methodology
used to make this estimate is consistent with the relevant Decisions of
the Parties, including Decision IX/6, and the Clean Air Act. EPA has
determined that the approach finalized in this action is the most
efficient and reasonable way to balance the goals of satisfying
critical needs for methyl bromide and also facilitating the transition
to ozone-safe alternatives. Finally, as discussed above and in the
Response to Comments document, EPA considered all of the comments
received and did not find a specific reason to change its proposed
refined approach for calculating the amount of available stocks.
3. Adjusting New Production and Import Amounts To Account for Available
Stocks
    In developing this action, EPA proposed to refine its allocation
approach to account for the amount of stocks available for critical
uses in 2008, and each year thereafter as appropriate and feasible. EPA
proposed to allocate critical stock allowances (CSAs) in 2008 in an
amount equal to the quantity of pre-phaseout inventory ``available''
for critical uses in 2008, as estimated by EPA using the formula
described above. In the proposed rule, EPA calculated that there would
be 1,715,438 kg of available inventory in 2008. Therefore, EPA proposed
to allow the sale of 1,715,438 kg from existing stocks for critical
uses in 2008 by allocating an equivalent number of CSAs. As in past
years, EPA proposed to adjust the critical use allowance (CUA) amounts
accordingly, so that the total number of CUAs and CSAs is not greater
than the total critical use amount authorized by the Parties. In the
proposed rule, EPA noted that to account for carryover amounts of
methyl bromide, amounts for research purposes or other appropriate
reasons, including updated information on alternatives, EPA may
allocate a total number of CUAs and CSAs that is less than the total
critical use amount authorized by the Parties for 2008. EPA also
proposed a method for adjusting new production and import to account
for the amount of available stocks in future years if the amount of
available stocks is less than the amount of stocks the Parties
authorize for critical uses for the year in question. EPA sought
comments on its proposed approach for adjusting new production and
import amounts to account for the amount of stocks available for
critical uses.
    EPA received six comments that expressed concern about the proposed
level of CSAs for 2008. The commenters noted that the proposed amount
of methyl bromide to come from pre-phaseout inventory is greater than
the amount agreed to by the Parties in Decision XVIII/13. The proposed
rule and Section V.D.1. of this preamble explain that in previous years
EPA has determined that more critical use methyl bromide should come
from stocks than the minimum levels agreed to by the Parties, and that
EPA understands those actions to be in compliance with the Montreal
Protocol, and within the Agency's authority established in Section
604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the inclusion of a SCF in
EPA's determination of the amount of available stocks should relieve
some of the commenters' concerns.
    MBIP commented that EPA's proposal to use pre-phaseout inventory
for critical uses jeopardizes the U.S.'s ability to address a
catastrophic supply disruption. The proposed rule and Section V.D.2. of
this preamble explain that by including a SCF in its calculation of
available stocks, EPA is allowing for the maintenance of a supply
buffer that could help to satisfy critical needs in the event of an
emergency, such as a major supply disruption.
    The Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (FFVA) stated that EPA
should develop and make available to CUE holders a timely and accurate
accounting system for use during the control period for both new
production and CSAs. The commenter contended that this accounting
system would be important as stockpiles decrease and would allow the
Agency flexibility to shift from CSAs to new production during the
control period if necessary. The commenter stated that without this
flexibility the Agency should authorize the total quantity approved for
the 2008 control period as new production with the understanding that
the portion of material not used as a result of the use of pre-phaseout
stocks during 2008 would be deducted from future authorizations. If EPA
understands correctly, the commenter is concerned that at some point
existing stocks will not be able to satisfy all of the CSAs issued by
EPA for a given control period, and that if this happens during a
control period, EPA should convert CSAs to CUAs. The Agency believes
that the proposed approach for determining CUA and CSA amounts, which
accounts for the amount of available stocks, is a major step towards
decreasing the probability that EPA would issue more CSAs than existing
stocks are able to satisfy in a given control period. Currently, EPA
collects annual data about critical sales of new production and pre-
phaseout inventory. EPA agrees with the commenter that collecting this
data more often, quarterly for example, could have certain benefits
related to monitoring pre-phaseout inventory information. As the
commenter stated, more timely data could help EPA determine more
rapidly if it would be appropriate to allow the conversion of some CSAs
to CUAs. However, by increasing the frequency of reporting, the
commenter's proposal would impose a substantial administrative burden
upon the regulated community, especially upon small distributors.
Considering the approach that EPA is finalizing in this rule, which
should decrease the likelihood of impractically large CSA allocations,
the Agency does not believe the benefits of the commenter's proposal
would justify the additional costs it would impose.
    In this rule, EPA is adopting the proposed approach for adjusting
allowable new production and import levels to account for the amount of
available stocks. As discussed above, this approach is consistent with
the relevant Decisions of the Parties, especially Table D of the Annex
to Decision XIX/9, which for 2009 explicitly authorizes for the United
States a certain amount of new production and import ``minus available
stocks.'' After considering all of the comments received, EPA believes
that

this is the most reasonable, efficient, and transparent way for the
Agency to continue to facilitate responsible management of pre-phaseout
inventory. Therefore, with this action the Agency is allowing 1,729,689
kg of methyl bromide to be supplied from pre-phaseout inventory for
critical uses in 2008 by issuing an equivalent number of CSAs, and
adjusting the amount of CUAs accordingly.
    To clarify, the critical use amounts authorized by the Parties in
Decision XVIII/13 for 2008 total 5,355,946 kg. However, the maximum
amount of authorized new production or import as set forth in Table D
of the Annex to Decision XVIII/13 is 4,595,040 kg. This means that
while the Parties require only 760,906 kg of stockpile consumption if
the entire U.S. allotment is utilized, EPA is allowing 1,729,689 kg of
2008 critical use needs to be met from pre-phaseout inventory. Thus, to
account for the amount of available stocks, EPA is allocating 968,783
kg of extra pre-phaseout inventory consumption for critical uses in
2008. As in past years, EPA proposed to adjust the amount of CUAs
accordingly, so that the sum of CUAs and CSAs is not greater than the
total amount authorized by the Parties. After accounting for the
additional reductions discussed below for unused critical use methyl
bromide at the end of 2006, increased uptake of sulfuryl fluoride for
post-harvest cocoa bean fumigation in 2008, transition to the recently
registered fumigant iodomethane, and reductions to encourage research
amounts to be supplied from pre-phaseout inventory, EPA is allowing
3,083,763 kg of new production and import for critical uses in 2008.
    In developing this action, EPA proposed to adjust new production
and import to account for the amount of available stocks in future
years if the amount of available stocks is less than the amount of
stocks the Parties authorize for critical uses for the year in question
(72 FR 48969). EPA did not receive any comments on how it proposed to
account for available stocks if the amount of available stocks is less
than the amount of stocks the Parties authorize for critical uses for
the year in question. If that scenario arises, EPA may adopt the
approach it described in the proposed rule after a notice and comment
rulemaking process. EPA estimates that there will be sufficient pre-
phaseout inventory at the beginning of the 2009 control period to
satisfy the amount of 2009 inventory drawdown (300,000 kg) for critical
uses authorized by the Parties in Decision XIX/19.
4. Treatment of Carryover Material
    As described in the December 23, 2004, Framework Rule (69 FR
76997), EPA is not permitting entities to build stocks of methyl
bromide produced or imported after January 1, 2005, under the critical
use exemption. Under current regulations, quantities of methyl bromide
produced, imported, exported, or sold to end-users under the critical
use exemption in a calendar year must be reported to EPA the following
year. These reporting requirements appear at Sec. Sec.  82.13(f)(3),
82.13(g)(4), 82.13(h)(1), 82.13(bb)(2), and 82.13(cc)(2). EPA uses the
reported information to calculate the amount of methyl bromide that was
produced or imported under the critical use exemption, but not exported
or sold to end-users in that year. An amount equivalent to this
``carryover,'' whether pre-plant or post-harvest, is then deducted from
the total level of allowable new production and import in the year
following the year of the data report. For example, the amount of
carryover from 2005, which was reported in 2006, was deducted from the
allowable amount of production or import for critical uses in 2007. In
developing this action, EPA proposed to treat carryover the same way
for 2008.
    As discussed in Section V.D.2., carryover critical use material is
not included in EPA's definition of existing stocks as it applies to
the proposed formula for determining the amount of available stocks.
EPA is not including carryover amounts as part of existing stocks,
because doing so could lead to a double-counting of carryover amounts,
and thus a double reduction of CUAs. The definition of existing stocks
specifically refers to pre-phaseout inventory, not material produced or
imported under the critical use exemption.
    In developing this action, EPA explained that in February 2007 the
Agency, received reports about critical use methyl bromide production,
imports, exports, sales and/or inventory holdings in 2006 under the
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13. The information reported to EPA indicated
that 6,923,926 kg of critical use methyl bromide was acquired through
production or import in 2006, and 6,384,493 kg of critical use methyl
bromide was exported or sold to end-users in 2006. EPA proposed to
calculate the amount of carryover at the end of 2006 with the method
used in column L of the U.S. Accounting Framework for critical uses of
methyl bromide. The Agency calculated that the carryover amount at the
end of 2006 was 539,433 kg, which was the difference between the
reported amount of critical use methyl bromide acquired (i.e. produced
or imported) in 2006 and the reported amount used (i.e. sold to end
users in 2006) (6,923,926 kg-6,384,493 kg = 539,433 kg). On March 16,
2007, in the 2006 U.S. Accounting Framework for critical uses of methyl
bromide, which is available on the docket for this action, the Agency
officially reported 539 metric tons of carryover from 2006 to the UNEP
Ozone Secretariat.
    In the proposed rule, EPA brought attention to a petition submitted
by Chemtura that proposed changes to: (1) The Agency's established
method for calculating carryover; (2) the distribution of subsequent
CUA reductions; and (3) the existing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. The Agency made Chemtura's petition available on the
public docket, and specifically sought detailed comments on Chemtura's
proposals. EPA asked that comments suggesting alternative methods for
calculating the amount of carryover material at the end of each year be
detailed and comprehensive; address what changes would be needed to the
reporting requirements; and discuss the degree of administrative burden
that alternative methods might impose. The Agency also sought comment
on ways to improve the completeness of data reporting by affected
companies. EPA emphasized that the process for calculating the amount
of carryover CUE material each year relies on data regarding sales to
end users as reported to EPA by distributors and applicators. The
Agency specifically requested comment on whether requiring producers,
importers, and distributors to report the names of distributors and
third-party applicators to which they have sold critical-use methyl
bromide would result in more complete reporting, and whether this would
justify the additional burden of such requirements.
    Chemtura's petition asserted that ``EPA must adjust its methodology
for calculating carry over.'' EPA disagrees for two fundamental
reasons: the Agency's established methodology is a simple and accurate
way to calculate the carryover amount each year; and adjusting the
established method could create international confusion about U.S.
reporting, which could jeopardize international authorizations of new
production to satisfy the critical needs of U.S. agriculture. EPA
expands on these points below.
    Six commenters supported Chemtura's request that EPA revise its
carryover calculation procedures to consider a broader range of
information

sources when determining the carryover amount from a given control
period. The commenters suggested that EPA calculate the carryover as
the sum of all critical use methyl bromide that companies report as
being held in inventory. In its comments, Chemtura recognizes that this
approach would not fully address the problem of incomplete reporting,
and suggests that a conservative margin for error could be achieved by
calculating the average carryover for all reported sales and applying
the average to any remaining unreported volume. If EPA understands
correctly, the commenters are requesting an ``inventory approach'' to
calculate the carryover amount, in which EPA would calculate carryover
as the sum of critical use methyl bromide inventory reported in section
2.6 of the annual Sales of Critical Use Methyl Bromide to End Users
Reports (``sales reports''), a sample of which is posted on the docket
for this rulemaking. EPA understands that the commenter believes the
inventory method would result in a lower carryover amount and would be
more accurate. However, EPA does not believe the inventory method would
be as accurate as the established ``sales method'' that the Agency uses
to report carryover amounts internationally.
    For 2006, the inventory method would rely on data reported in
section 2.6 of the annual sales report forms. In collaboration with
major methyl bromide producers and distributors, the reporting forms
were updated and posted on EPA's Web site in 2006. EPA posted
instructional materials online with the updated forms, and held
compliance assistance meetings to teach stakeholders how to use the new
forms, including a session at the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach
(MBAO) conference in Orlando in November 2006 and a similar session at
the MBAO conference in San Diego in October 2007. If the sales reports
are completely and accurately filled out, section 2.6 is calculated
with information from sections 2.4A, 2.4B, 2.2, and 2.5. For companies
that hold critical use methyl bromide for other companies, the
information reported in section 2.7 is an important cross-check of the
information reported in section 2.6. However, EPA reviewed the data in
sections 2.4 through 2.7 of the 2006 sales reports, and found several
instances of blank, incomplete or apparently misreported information in
those sections. EPA made efforts to contact distributors that filed
reports with significant inconsistencies, and many of the reports were
subsequently corrected. However, some of the data points remain blank
or questionable. On the other hand, there were far fewer instances of
blank or apparent misreporting in section 2.2 of the sales report,
which lists sales to end users by critical use sector. Most
importantly, all instances of blank or apparently misreported sales in
section 2.2 were corrected after EPA staff contacted the corresponding
reporting entities. Given EPA's concerns about the data in sections 2.4
through 2.7 and the Agency's reservations about changing the carryover
calculation method, EPA has decided to retain the proposed approach in
this final rule.
    Six commenters asserted that the critical use material calculated
as carryover for 2006 is actually unaccounted sales rather than
inventory held at the end of the year, and contend that EPA has
evidence that this is the case. As discussed further below, the
commenters claimed to have evidence that 2006 sales remain unreported,
but did not produce official sales reports to support their claim.
    MBIP stated that EPA should have been aware of underreporting of
critical use sales and that EPA's data set for calculating the
carryover set was deficient. MBIP claimed that information it received
in response to its Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) request of May
2007 clearly showed that some companies filed reports in 2005 and not
in 2006. Nonetheless, MBIP contended, EPA had mistakenly assumed that
100 percent of the unreported sales of critical use methyl bromide are
held in inventory. In response, EPA points out that it made every
reasonable effort to contact entities that reported in 2005 and not
2006. Although EPA contacted these entities, some of them still have
not reported 2006 sales for critical uses. Whether every entity that
sold critical use methyl bromide in 2005 did so in 2006 remains an open
question. EPA has made it clear to MBIP that it would consider late
submissions of official sales reports from 2006, but MBIP has been
unable to produce suitable evidence of the unreported sales that they
insist took place during 2006. With this final rule EPA is making a
final determination of the 2006 carryover amount.
    At the public hearing for this action, Ameribrom Inc. said that 80
percent of the 539 metric tons (MT) that EPA calculated as carryover is
actually methyl bromide that was sold to critical users but not
reported. The commenter also said that many small distributors do not
understand the reporting requirements, and some are incapable of
complying with them. The commenter did not provide specific, verifiable
information to support the claim that 80 percent of the carryover is
actually unreported sales. Therefore, EPA will not change its proposed
approach as a result of Ameribrom's claims. The Agency is concerned
with Ameribrom's statement that some small distributors did not file
required reports. EPA continues to educate stakeholders about critical
use exemption reporting requirements through outreach programs. For
example, EPA posts instructional material on its Web site, holds
informational sessions about reporting at the annual Methyl Bromide
Alternatives Outreach Conference, and provides staff contacts to assist
with reporting requirements. Most recently, EPA provided a letter
template to members of MBIP, including Ameribrom, that explains the
importance of full reporting, provides information about how to acquire
official reporting forms, and a contact person to answer questions. EPA
encouraged MBIP's members to customize the letter and send it to all of
their customers.
    MBIP stated that an independent auditor found that approximately 20
methyl bromide suppliers failed to provide EPA with sales reports,
which accounted for approximately 80 percent of the calculated
carryover. However, MBIP did not provide the names of these suppliers,
so EPA could not confirm the veracity of MBIP's claim. Thus, as EPA
explains above, the Agency is unwilling to revise its methodology for
determining the previously calculated 2006 carryover amount, which was
reported internationally on March 16, 2007. EPA has taken a number of
steps to work with MBIP and other stakeholders to encourage full
reporting. Full reporting is in everyone's interest, and the Agency
will continue to work with industry in outreach and educational
programs toward that end.
    Chemtura asserted that many of the companies that routinely filed
required reports were the entities most likely to be holding critical
use methyl bromide inventory--manufacturers and distributors, and that
that EPA's contention that ``carryover increased while allocations and
stocks have plummeted'' is not credible. Similarly, EPA MBIP commented
that it performed an audit that revealed that non-reporting entities
were mostly smaller entities that were unlikely to hold any inventory.
Six commenters requested that EPA rigorously enforce compliance with
the supplier reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13. EPA received
comments from Chemtura and MBIP that stated

that the proposed rule's explanation of how the carryover is calculated
is the first such explanation given by EPA in any CUE rule promulgated
to date. MBIP stated that this was their first opportunity to comment
on EPA's method of calculation. EPA received a comment from Chemtura
that expressed the view that EPA lacks authority to reduce the 2008 CUE
amount based on carryover from a previous year. EPA responds to all of
these comments in the Response to Comment document available on the
docket for this action.
    In this final rule, EPA is not adjusting the established
methodology for calculating the amount of carryover critical use methyl
bromide, because doing so could create international confusion about
U.S. reporting, which could jeopardize international authorizations of
new production to satisfy the critical needs of U.S. agriculture. The
United States has important commitments to report information about
methyl bromide for critical uses. In December 2004 the Parties agreed
to Decision XVI/6, which adopted an accounting framework for critical
uses of methyl bromide. Each Party with critical needs submits an
accounting framework annually. The U.S. submitted its first Accounting
Framework for 2005 critical uses on May 19, 2006. The U.S. subsequently
revised the accounting framework agreed to by the Parties slightly
because the amount of pre-phaseout inventory was being treated as
confidential.
    For 2005 and 2006, EPA calculated the carryover amount using the
method described in the proposed rule, and reported the result
internationally in the U.S. Accounting Framework for critical uses of
methyl bromide. The Parties expect EPA to reduce new production, when
appropriate, by the amount of carryover CUE material. A post-hoc
revision of the methodology for the U.S. Accounting Framework could
create international confusion, and, as discussed in this preamble,
there is not a compelling reason to change EPA's method at this time.
Therefore, EPA has determined that any revision of the previously
reported 2006 carryover amount must be based upon new data, not a new
method for manipulating old data.
    In this final rule, EPA is continuing its practice of not
permitting entities to build stocks of methyl bromide produced or
imported after January 1, 2005, under the critical use exemption. In
the proposed rule, EPA explained that the Agency received official
sales reports under the requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 showing that
6,923,926 kg of critical use methyl bromide was acquired through
production or import in 2006. The proposed rule stated that the
information reported to EPA also indicated that 6,384,493 kg of
critical use methyl bromide was sold to end-users in 2006. EPA
calculated that the carryover amount at the end of 2006 was 539,433 kg,
which is the difference between the amount acquired and the amount
sold, and proposed to reduce 2008 CUA allocations accordingly. However,
EPA received five official 2006 sales reports after the submission
deadline, which was 45 days after December 31, 2006. The late sales
reports were not counted in the proposed rule, or the 2006 U.S.
Accounting Framework. These late reports show that an additional 40,199
kg of critical use methyl bromide was sold to end users in 2006. As a
result, EPA's official records now show that 6,424,692 kg of methyl
bromide was sold to end users in 2006. Therefore, in accordance with
EPA's proposed method for calculating carryover amounts, EPA calculates
that the 2006 carryover amount was 499,234 kg of critical use methyl
bromide. This amount was calculated as follows: 6,923,926 kg--6,424,692
kg = 499,234 kg. To account for carryover of critical use methyl
bromide, EPA is reducing the level of new production and import for
critical uses by 499,234 kg.
a. Reporting Requirements To Calculate Carryover Amounts
    In developing this action, EPA specifically requested comment on
whether requiring producers, importers, and distributors to report the
names of distributors and third-party applicators to which they have
sold critical-use methyl bromide would provide valuable information to
EPA, and encourage complete reporting of sales to end-user data. EPA
sought comment on whether this would justify the additional burden of
such requirements (72 FR 48970).
    EPA received six comments that supported a petition submitted by
Chemtura to augment the current reporting and recordkeeping process to
prevent underreporting of methyl bromide use. The commenters proposed
that EPA modify its reporting system in a manner that would allow the
Agency to identify non-reporting companies and the amount of critical
use sales attributable to each company. EPA could achieve this, the
commenters asserted, by requiring each entity in the supply chain--from
the manufacturer to the company that sells to the end user--to report
the name of the entity that purchased the critical use methyl bromide
and how much material it purchased.
    EPA does not agree that it should require information that would
allow the Agency to quantify the amount of critical use sales
attributable to each non-reporting company. Instead of imposing
additional burden on entities that do report in order to obtain
information about non-reporters, a more straightforward and practical
approach is to encourage full reporting. EPA, though, believes it would
be beneficial to acquire the names of all distributors and third-party
applicators with critical use exemption reporting requirements under 40
CFR 82.13. Collecting the names of these entities will facilitate
Agency follow-up with non-reporters, allowing collection of necessary
information in a more targeted manner than collecting detailed
information from all entities. In early 2008 EPA will use its
information gathering authority under section 114 of the Clean Air Act
to ask all entities that sell critical use methyl bromide to report the
names of all non-end user entities (i.e. producers, importers,
distributors and third-party applicators) to which they sold critical
use methyl bromide during the 2007 control period.
    Chemtura commented that EPA's reliance on full and accurate
reporting by the regulated community is unreasonable, because the
existing reporting system does not provide EPA with any way to verify
whether all entities that should file reports have done so. NRDC
commented that EPA should require producers, importers, distributors
and third-party applicators to report the names of distributors and
third-party applicators to which they have sold any methyl bromide,
including pre-2005 stocks, in order to get accurate data to track
amounts sold for all purposes (including non-critical uses). The
commenter stated that the costs of such reporting would be minimal and
would be justified by the benefits of better tracking of CAA and
Protocol compliance. EPA responds to these comments in the Response to
Comment document available on the docket for this action.
b. Apportionment of Carryover Reductions Among Producers
    In previous CUE rules, EPA used the approach described in the
Framework Rule for applying reductions in CUA amounts equal to the
amount of carryover CUE material from a previous year. EPA's practice
to date has been to apply this reduction to the total volumes of
allowable new production or import, and then to pro-rate CUA
allocations to each company based on its 1991 baseline market share. In

developing this action, EPA proposed to use the same approach for 2008.
    In the proposed rule, EPA explained that Chemtura's petition
recommended alternative methods for apportioning carryover reductions
among CUA holders. EPA encouraged interested parties to comment on the
recommendations in Chemtura's petition and provide any additional
suggestions regarding the apportionment of carryover among companies.
    Chemtura's petition requested that EPA apportion carryover amounts
proportional to the producers' responsibility for the carryover
originating in their own supply chain. The petition further stated that
EPA's process for apportioning carryover reductions among producers is
arbitrary, capricious, unfair, and perpetuates poor stewardship. In its
comments Chemtura acknowledged that EPA does not currently collect
information that would allow the Agency to reduce CUAs on the basis of
carryover originating in each producer's supply chain. As discussed
below in more detail, EPA believes that acquiring credible data of this
nature would impose extra burden on the regulated community without
producing any discernible environmental benefit. The extra reporting
that Chemtura proposed could redistribute the proportional allocation
of CUAs among producers, but it would not affect the overall amount of
critical use methyl bromide available to critical users, and therefore,
would not help EPA achieve the primary goal of the critical use
exemption program: to satisfy critical needs for methyl bromide. A
better solution that does not impose extra burden on the regulated
community is to continue to strengthen outreach and educational
programs that facilitate full reporting under existing requirements.
    Chemtura commented that CUE reductions to account for carryover are
distributed among the four methyl bromide producers based on a
proportional basis according to their 1991 consumption baselines. The
commenter stated that an equal allocation of the carryover would be
fairer and that using the 1991 data is now inconsistent with the
available supply chain information and would maximize future
distortions in the critical use market. EPA notes that Chemtura has not
objected to EPA's framework for distributing CUAs to producers based on
their 1991 market share, under which Chemtura receives over 60 percent
of the new production allowances each year. The Proposed Framework Rule
stated that, ``Allocating CUAs based on each company's 1991 baseline
allowances (on a pro-rata basis) is a better reflection of market share
than simply dividing the number of allowances by the total number of
entities, and would be less burdensome than conducting a detailed
historical market share analysis on a [sic] an annual basis. Using the
1991 historic baseline method for distributing CUAs is consistent with
how EPA has allocated methyl bromide production and consumption
allowances for the past decade under the methyl bromide phaseout'' (69
FR 52376). EPA believes the arguments in the Proposed Framework Rule
still apply. Using the 1991 market shares, which have become the
company-specific baselines for CUA allocations, provides the best
available estimation of how much carryover is attributable to each
company's supply chain. A more detailed method of estimation would
involve additional burden for respondents.
    Chemtura's petition recommended a ``fault-based'' system for
allocating CUA reductions to account for carryover amounts. Chemtura
stated that in order to support the fault-based carryover allocation
process, EPA could modify the reporting requirements established at 40
CFR 82.13 to require that importers, producers, distributors, and
third-party applicators list the producer of any critical use methyl
bromide they acquired during the year. In its comments, Chemtura
asserted that, ``Identifying the producer of origin for any given sale
or distributor should be a simple task, as each of the four producers
supplies downstream customers with methyl bromide products under
different pesticide registrations, labels, and product names. Thus,
regardless of how many intermediary distributors a methyl bromide
product may have passed through before reaching the end user, that
entity can identify the producer by a review of the label or sales
invoice.''
    Whether or not producer of origin reporting would be a ``simple
task,'' it would add to the regulatory burden currently borne by
entities in the distribution chain. Preliminary estimates, using as a
guideline EPA's previous estimates under Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
requirements, a guideline, suggest that the burden imposed by producer
of origin reporting could require 150 respondent hours per year,
depending on how much EPA follow-up is necessary to perform standard
data quality assurance procedures. EPA does not believe the ``fault-
based'' system, or the extra reporting burden it requires, would
provide any discernible environmental benefit, or help to satisfy
critical needs for methyl bromide. Therefore, while the Agency may
continue to analyze Chemtura's proposed reporting additions as part of
the renewal process for its information collection request (ICR) under
PRA, in this final rule the Agency is not implementing Chemtura's
``fault-based'' system or the additional reporting that it would
require.
    Chemtura's petition asserted that, ``The opt-out system proposed
[in the petition] provides an appropriate method for apportioning
carryover penalties.'' Chemtura's proposed ``opt-out'' system would
allow producers to voluntarily submit supply chain data in exchange for
EPA's removal of the individual producer from the ``default penalty
pool.'' In its comments on the proposed rule, Chemtura asserted that
Ameribrom had acknowledged responsibility for the majority of the 2008
carryover. Chemtura also commented that ``EPA has received ample notice
of the flaws in the framework.'' Chemtura further commented that any
material that stays in the distribution system past the end of a
control period should be considered part of the SCF rather than
carryover, and that no carryover should be subtracted from CUEs in 2008
and beyond. EPA responds to these comments in the Response to Comment
document available on the docket for this rulemaking.
    In this action, EPA is reducing the total level of new production
and import--i.e., the total number of CUAs issued--for 2008 by 499,234
kg to reflect the total level of carryover material available at the
end of 2006. EPA will continue to consider the level of available
stocks, and may consider adjusting carryover policies, through a notice
and comment rulemaking process, if available stocks become very scarce.
However, considering the current amount of available pre-phaseout
inventory, in this action it is best to maintain the existing framework
for responding to carryover.
5. Amounts for Research Purposes
    Decision XVII/9(7) ``request[ed] Parties to endeavor to use stocks,
where available, to meet any demand for methyl bromide for the purposes
of research and development.'' Consistent with that Decision, in the
2007 CUE Rule, EPA reduced the amount of new production and import by
21,702 kilograms, which was the amount needed for research, and
encouraged methyl bromide suppliers to sell inventory to researchers
and encouraged researchers to purchase inventory.

    Decision XVIII/15(1) authorized ``the production and consumption of
[methyl bromide] necessary to satisfy laboratory and analytical
critical uses.'' Paragraph 2 of that decision stated that methyl
bromide produced under the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses
may be used as a reference or standard; in laboratory toxicology
studies; to compare the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives
inside a laboratory; and as a laboratory agent which is destroyed in a
chemical reaction in the manner of feedstock. In a separate notice-and-
comment rulemaking titled the ``Global Essential Laboratory and
Analytical Use Exemption,'' EPA is implementing the exemption
authorized in Decision XVIII/15 (72 FR 52332). More information about
that rulemaking process is available on the docket for that rule (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0384).
    In the proposed CUE rule for 2008, EPA stated that there continues
to be a need for methyl bromide for research purposes that do not meet
the criteria for laboratory and analytical uses, as defined in Decision
XVIII/15. 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. In the proposed rule, EPA listed the
critical use sectors that were approved by the Parties to use methyl
bromide for research purposes in 2008 in Section V.C. and with the
phrase ``research purposes'' listed in their limiting critical
conditions in Table I of this preamble.
    In developing this action, EPA proposed to allow sale of 15,491 kg
of existing stocks for research purposes in 2008 to account for the
amount authorized for those purposes. EPA proposed to allow the sale of
methyl bromide from stocks for exempted research purposes by expending
CSAs. An explanation of what amounts of methyl bromide and of what
sectors qualify for research purposes can be found in Section V.C. of
this preamble. The Agency proposed to continue to encourage methyl
bromide suppliers to sell pre-phaseout inventory to researchers and to
encourage researchers to purchase pre-phaseout inventory for research
purposes. EPA sought comment on its proposal to issue CSAs for sale of
pre-phaseout methyl bromide for exempted research purposes.
    MBIP objected to EPA's proposal to issue CSAs for sale of pre-
phaseout inventory for exempted research purposes. The commenter stated
that existing stocks of pre-2005 inventory are too low to warrant
further drawdown for research purposes and that new production should
be increased by 15,491 kilograms to account for research needs. The
Agency disagrees, and proposed a detailed analysis of the amount of
available stocks, explained further in Section V.D.2. of this preamble,
which found more than 1,700,000 kg of pre-phaseout inventory available
for critical uses. Therefore, EPA is reducing new production by 15,491
kg, and encouraging researchers to procure methyl bromide from pre-
phaseout inventory.
6. Methyl Bromide Alternatives
    In the 2006 CUE Rule (71 FR 5985), EPA allocated less methyl
bromide for critical uses than was authorized by the Parties in order
to account for the recent Federal registration of sulfuryl fluoride.
The allocation reductions in that rule reflected transition rates that
were included for the first time in the 2007 U.S. CUN. In the 2007 CUE
Rule, EPA explained why a similar reduction was made in that rule:
``The report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)
indicated that the MBTOC did not make any reductions in these [post-
harvest] use categories for the uptake of sulfuryl fluoride in 2007
because the United States Government indicated that it would do so in
its domestic allocation procedures. Therefore, EPA is reducing the
total volume of critical use methyl bromide by 53,703 kilograms to
reflect the continuing transition to sulfuryl fluoride'' (75 FR 75390).
    In developing today's action, EPA referenced preliminary results of
a study by Dr. Brian D. Adam of Oklahoma State University, which the
Agency is making available on the public docket for this rulemaking.
The proposed rule stated that Dr. Adam's study indicates that the cost
of post-harvest cocoa fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride is not
substantially greater than the cost of using methyl bromide for that
fumigation. The proposed rule explained that in response to the study
results, the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) withdrew its
nomination request for critical use methyl bromide for 2009 cocoa
fumigations, and informed EPA that it does not intend to seek critical
use methyl bromide for 2010 cocoa fumigations. EPA reiterated NPMA's
stated need for some critical use methyl bromide for cocoa in 2008 as
the sector transitions to sulfuryl fluoride, and explained the
situation further. EPA sought comment on how much of the 53,188 kg of
critical use methyl bromide approved by the Parties for cocoa for 2008
should be allowed by the Agency. EPA asked that comments on this topic
recommend specific amounts of critical use methyl bromide for cocoa in
2008, and provide detailed justifications for their recommendations.
    EPA received a comment from NPMA that recognized that the Oklahoma
State University study showed that the cost of using sulfuryl fluoride
to treat post-harvest cocoa was not substantially greater than the cost
of using methyl bromide. However, NPMA's comment stated that smaller
companies in the industry needed time to transition to sulfuryl
fluoride. This transition includes the completion of a manufacturer's
stewardship program as well as customer education about non-methyl
bromide treatment. Additionally, while most states in which cocoa is
processed have a special 24(C) label to allow for higher Concentration
and Time (CT) dosage allocations for use of sulfuryl fluoride on cocoa,
New York has not approved this label. Therefore, NPMA requested that at
least 75 percent of the 53,188 kg of critical use methyl bromide
approved by the Parties be allocated for 2008. NPMA stated that its
application for 2009 had been withdrawn, as the transition to sulfuryl
fluoride should be complete by that time.
    In their 2008 CUE application, NPMA requested 79,950 kg for 2008
critical uses. In developing the 2008 critical use nomination, the USG
reduced NPMA's original request to account for growth, because EPA's
framework does not allow critical users to increase their critical need
based on expansion of their operations (FR 69 76996). USG also reduced
NPMA's request to account for a reduction in the use rate of methyl
bromide from 24 kg/1,000 m\3\ to 20 kg/ 1,000 m\3\. USG made a further
reduction to account for a transition rate of 16.8% per year to
sulfuryl fluoride. After accounting for these factors, USG nominated a
total of 53,255 kg for cocoa bean fumigation in 2008, and the Parties
approved 53,188 kg in Decision XVIII/13. In light of new information
about the economic feasibility of sulfuryl fluoride for post-harvest
cocoa fumigation, in this action EPA is approving less critical use
methyl bromide for cocoa fumigation than the Parties authorized.
    The Agency appreciates that NPMA voluntarily came forward and
agreed to a more rapid transition to methyl bromide alternatives for
cocoa fumigation. With this final rule, EPA is approving 39,891 kg of
critical use methyl bromide for this sector, or 75 percent of the
amount agreed to by the Parties in Dec. XVIIII/13. Therefore, EPA is
reducing the total amount authorized for 2008 critical uses by 13,297
kg to account for increased

uptake of sulfuryl fluoride for cocoa fumigation.
    NRDC stated that EPA recently approved the use of iodomethane
(methyl iodide) for field uses, which will reduce the need for methyl
bromide CUE allocations. The commenter stated that iodomethane is a
drop-in substitute for methyl bromide and that while it is more costly
per kilogram, less of it is require to achieve the same efficacy. The
commenter also stated that while iodomethane poses direct toxicity
issues, the toxicity issues associated with methyl bromide are worse.
    Chemtura requested that EPA assess the technical and economic
feasibility of iodomethane for no fewer than two years before factoring
its availability into future CUE decisions. The commenter stated that
the controversial nature of the registration combined with the
proximity of the registration to the close of the comment period on the
CUE rule provided reason to delay considering this alternative when
allocating CUEs. The commenter also noted that iodomethane was not yet
registered in California because of safety questions and that there was
anecdotal evidence of efficacy problems with the chemical. The
commenter stated that at least two growing seasons are necessary to
review and assess viability.
    In the proposed rule EPA sought ``information regarding changes to
the registration or use of alternatives that may have transpired after
the 2008 U.S. nomination was written.'' The Agency stated that, ``Such
information has the potential to alter * * *. EPA's determination as to
which uses and what amounts of methyl bromide qualify for the critical
use exemption.'' In this final rule, EPA is following through with that
statement, and reducing pre-plant critical use amounts to account for
new information about the uptake of iodomethane.
    After considering new information about iodomethane, EPA estimates
that in 2008 iodomethane will be a technically and economically
feasible alternative for a limited amount of pre-plant applications.
Iodomethane has been registered at the federal level for the period of
October 1, 2007 to October 1, 2008 for the following crops: Strawberry,
Pepper, Tomato, Ornamentals, Nurseries, Trees and Vines. The pesticide
registration process in the U.S. involves multiple layers of regulatory
review, and State registrations are required before a pesticide can be
applied. As of December 11, 2007, the last day that EPA could
reasonably consider information for this rulemaking, iodomethane had
been registered in the following states that are included in Column B
of Table I as locations that qualify to use pre-plant critical use
methyl bromide for certain uses in 2008: Georgia, Michigan, Missouri,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Virginia.
Therefore, EPA expects that iodomethane will be a legal fumigant option
in 2008 for some growers that qualify for critical use methyl bromide.
    To estimate the amount of iodomethane that will be a technically
and economically feasible methyl bromide alternative in 2008, EPA
considered a number of factors. The Agency considered that iodomethane
is currently registered for 10 of 12 months during 2008, that
iodomethane is expected to cost more than methyl bromide, and that
there are restrictions on the use of iodomethane such as the imposition
of buffers, that do not apply to methyl bromide use. The Agency's
analysis, described in a memo on the docket for this action, estimates
that iodomethane can feasibly replace 14,472 kg of methyl bromide in
2008. Therefore, in this action EPA is reducing the total amount of
pre-plant critical use methyl bromide in 2008 by 14,472 kg to account
for the uptake of iodomethane in 2008.
    Besides the issues regarding post-harvest cocoa fumigation, and the
newly registered pre-plant fumigant iodomethane, EPA is not making any
additional reductions in critical use allowances to account for the
uptake of alternatives. In developing this action, the Agency explained
that in the 2008 CUN that USG applied transition rates for all critical
use sectors. The MBTOC report of September 2006 included reductions in
its recommendations for critical use categories based on the transition
rates in the 2008 CUN. MBTOC's recommendations were then considered in
the Parties' 2008 authorization amounts, as listed in Decision XVIII/
13. Therefore, EPA explained that transition rates, which account for
the uptake of alternatives, have already been applied for authorized
2008 critical use amounts. Furthermore, the Agency stated that the 2009
CUN, which represented the most recent analysis and the best available
data for methyl bromide alternatives, did not conclude that transition
rates should be increased for 2008. In developing this action, EPA
sought comment on its proposal not to make further reductions in 2008
to account for the uptake of methyl bromide alternatives.
    FSS stated that post harvest application requests by NPMA, Pet Food
Institute, and Rice Millers are for applications for which methyl
bromide is not necessary. FSS and Dow stated that methyl bromide
allocations for these applications should therefore be significantly
reduced or eliminated. Dow stated that nearly half of the 220 flour
mills in the U.S. are fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride. Dow also stated
that the transition rates for alternatives used by EPA may apply to
farm applications, but Dow claimed these transition rates are too low
for structural applications. Additionally, Dow and FSS asserted that
sulfuryl fluoride has proved successful even after multiple
applications with no return to methyl bromide, and that fumigation
failures can happen with all materials, including methyl bromide. The
Agency responds to these comments in a separate Response to Comments
document available on the docket for this action.
    MBIP noted that some fumigation companies need more time to
transition to sulfuryl fluoride, including the purchase of new
equipment and training in its use. Specifically, MBIP argued that
allowing CUEs for cocoa in 2008 would enable a smoother transition to
sulfuryl fluoride and would help to guarantee methyl bromide
availability to guard against unforeseen problems with the transition.
    EPA received extensive comments from Dow objecting to EPA's
assessment of the label restriction on 1,3-D product use near karst
topographical features in Florida. EPA responds to these comments in
detail in the Response to Comments document available on the docket for
this action.
    As discussed above, in this action, EPA is reducing the proposed
critical use amount for post-harvest cocoa fumigation by 13,297 kg. EPA
is also reducing the proposed critical use amount for pre-plant
fumigation by 14,472 kg to account for new information about the
fumigant iodomethane. EPA is not reducing any of the other proposed
critical use amounts for 2008 to account for the transition to
alternatives, because uptake of alternatives was already considered in
the 2008 U.S. CUN, adopted by MBTOC, and reflected in the 2008 CUE
authorization amounts that EPA is finalizing with this action. The most
recent information that EPA received does not support further
reductions.

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

    Paragraphs 2 and 6 of Decision XVIII/13 requested Parties to ensure
that the conditions or criteria listed in Decisions Ex. I/4 and IX/6,
paragraph 1, are applied to exempted critical uses for the

2008 control period. A discussion of the Agency's application of the
criteria in paragraph one of Decision IX/6 appears in sections V.A.,
V.C., V.D., and V.G. of this preamble. The CUNs detail how each
proposed critical use meets the criteria listed in paragraph 1 of
Decision IX/6, apart from the criterion located at (b)(ii), as well as
the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision Ex. I/4.
    The criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(b)(ii), which referred to the use
of available stocks of methyl bromide, is addressed in sections V.D.,
V.F., and V.G. of this preamble. The Agency has previously provided its
interpretation of the criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(a)(i) regarding the
presence of significant market disruption in the absence of an
exemption, and EPA refers readers to the 2006 CUE final rule (71 FR
5989) as well as to the memo on the docket titled ``Development of 2003
Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the
United States of America'' for further elaboration.
    The remaining considerations, 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(5) that Parties consider and implement MBTOC
recommendations, where feasible, on reductions in the critical use of
methyl bromide and in paragraph 6 for Parties that submit critical use
nominations to include information on the methodology they use to
determine economic feasibility, are all addressed in the nomination
documents.
    Some of these criteria were evaluated in other documents as well.
For example, the U.S. considered matters regarding the adoption of
alternatives and research into methyl bromide alternatives, criterion
(1)(b)(iii) in Decision IX/6, in the development of the National
Management Strategy (NMS) submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in
December 2005 and in on-going consultations with industry. The NMS
addresses all of the aims specified in Decision Ex. I/4(3) to the
extent feasible and is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

F. Emissions Minimization

    In the proposed rule, EPA noted for the regulated community the
reference to emission minimization techniques in paragraph 8 of
Decision XVIII/13, which stated that Parties shall request critical
users to 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 understands that research
is being conducted on the potential to reduce rates and emissions using
newly available high-barrier films and that these studies show
promising results. Users of methyl bromide should make every effort to
minimize overall emissions of methyl bromide by using measures such as
the ones listed above, to the extent consistent with State and local
laws and regulations. In the proposed rule, the Agency encouraged
researchers and users who are successfully utilizing such techniques to
inform EPA of their experiences as part of their comments and to
provide such information with their critical use applications. In
addition, the Agency welcomed comments on the implementation of
emissions minimization techniques and whether and how further emissions
minimization could be achieved.
    At the public hearing for this action the CSC expressed its opinion
that EPA should create a regulatory incentive for emissions reduction.
NRDC commented that the most effective way to achieve further emission
minimization is to require the use of emissions minimization techniques
such as virtually impermeable films (VIF), barrier films, and deep
shank injection. NRDC noted that these techniques offer the concurrent
benefit of reducing the amount of methyl bromide needed for
fumigations. EPA believes that reducing supply through the phaseout
provides incentives for use minimization and therefore limits
emissions. Other points discussed by this commenter can be found in the
Response to Comments document on the docket for this action.
    At the public hearing for this action, West Coast Tomato stated
that VIF keeps methyl bromide in the soil longer where it is
metabolized rather than escaping into the atmosphere. The commenter
suggested that methyl bromide that is used in this way should not be
decreased since it is not reaching the ozone layer. EPA has not fully
reviewed the research that the commenter is referring to. In compiling
annual critical use nominations, USG considers the feasibility of VIF,
and other less permeable tarps, because the use of these technologies
can reduce required dosage rates and the critical need for methyl
bromide to treat certain crops. The commenter may be proposing a
different type of exemption for methyl bromide use that does not result
in emissions to the stratosphere, but this would require a change in
the Montreal Protocol, which is outside the scope of the present
rulemaking. Until EPA fully reviews the research that the commenter
refers to, it would be inappropriate for the Agency to respond further.

G. Critical Use Allowance Allocations

    A critical use allowance (CUA) is a privilege granted by EPA, using
its authority under Section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act, that
enables the holder to produce or import one kilogram of methyl bromide
for an approved critical use during the specified control period. These
allowances expire at the end of the control period and, as explained in
the Framework Rule, are not bankable from one year to the next. The
allocation of 2008 pre-plant and post-harvest CUAs to the entities
listed below is subject to the trading provisions at 40 CFR 82.12,
which are discussed in section V.G. of the preamble to the Framework
Rule (69 FR 76982).
    In the August 27, 2007, proposed rule, EPA proposed to allow
limited amounts of new production or import of methyl bromide for
critical uses for 2008 up to the amount of 3,101,076 kg (12.2% of
baseline) as shown in Table II below. EPA sought comment on the total
levels of exempted new production or import for pre-plant and post-
harvest critical uses in 2008. For the reasons discussed in Section
V.D. of this preamble, EPA is adjusting the proposed CUA amounts to
account for late sales reports that decrease the calculated 2006
carryover amount and to account for the uptake of alternatives.
Therefore, the total critical use exemption amount for 2008 is
4,813,452 kg (18.9% of baseline), with 3,083,763 kg (12.1% of baseline)
of critical use allowances allowing new production or import, and the
remaining amount, 1,729,689 kg (6.8% of baseline), available through
critical stock allowances (CSAs) that allow critical users to access
pre-phaseout methyl bromide. EPA is continuing to calculate company-
specific CUA allocations on the basis of the 1991 baseline consumption
share of the companies listed in Table II. The updated calculation
spreadsheet is available on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-1016.
Therefore, the CUAs are allocated as follows:

                                Table II.--Allocation of Critical Use Allowances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008 Critical use
                                                                   2008 Critical use       allowances for post-
                            Company                               allowances for pre-         harvest uses*
                                                                plant uses* (kilograms)        (kilograms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp.................................................                1,687,407                  186,595
Albemarle Corp................................................                  693,900                   76,732
Ameribrom, Inc................................................                  383,464                   42,404
TriCal, Inc...................................................                   11,940                    1,320
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................                2,776,711                 307,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substances exclusively for the pre-plant or post-
  harvest uses specified in Appendix L to this subpart.

    Paragraph five of Decision XVIII/13 states ``that Parties shall
endeavor to license, permit, authorize, or allocate quantities of
critical use methyl bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to
the present decision.'' This is similar to language in Decisions Ex. I/
3(4), Ex. II/1(4) and VII/9(4) regarding 2005, 2006, and 2007 critical
uses, respectively. The language from these Decisions called on Parties
to endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis.
    In establishing the critical use exemption program, the Agency
endeavored to allocate directly on a sector-by-sector basis by
analyzing and proposing this option among others in the August 2004
Framework Rule notice (69 FR 52366). EPA solicited comment on both
universal and sector-based allocation of critical use allowances. The
Agency evaluated the various options based on their economic,
environmental, and practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA
determined in the final Framework Rule (69 FR 76989) 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-specific approach would pose significant
administrative and practical difficulties. Although the approach
adopted in the Framework Rule does not directly allocate allowances to
each category of use, the Agency anticipates that reliance on market
mechanisms will achieve similar results indirectly. The TEAP
recommendations were based on data submitted by the U.S. which in turn
were based on recent historic use data in the current methyl bromide
market. In other words, the TEAP recommendations agreed to by the
Parties were based on current use and the current use patterns take
place in a market where all pre-plant and post-harvest methyl bromide
uses compete for a lump sum supply of critical use material. Therefore,
the Agency believes that under a system of universal allocations,
divided into pre-plant and post-harvest sectors, the actual critical
use will closely follow the sector breakout listed by the TEAP. These
issues were addressed in the Framework Rule and EPA is not aware of any
factors that would alter the analysis performed during the development
of previous CUE allocation rules. A summary of the options analysis
conducted by EPA is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In developing this action, EPA did not propose to change the
approach adopted in the Framework Rule for the allocation of CUAs but,
in an effort to address Decision XVIII/13(5), EPA sought additional
comment on the Agency's allocation of CUAs in the two groupings (pre-
plant and post-harvest) that the Agency has employed in the past. NPMA
and Chemtura commented that the universal system is working well and
believe the concept of the pre-plant/post-harvest allocations is simple
and easy for stakeholders to understand. The commenters also noted that
the system has not disrupted the supply chain and has been easy for
distributors to implement, and discouraged the Agency from switching to
a sector-by-sector allocation system.
    FFVA and a representative of the walnut, prune and fig industry
commented that the geographical distribution of methyl bromide has
created shortfalls resulting in the inability of individual growers to
access or afford material to fumigate their fields in accordance with
their production schedules. FFVA indicated that this was particularly
noticeable during the 2005 and 2006 fall fumigation periods. The other
commenter stated that the universal system has not worked well for the
above reasons, but believes that a sector-by-sector allocation system
would be equally flawed due to insufficient allocations in certain
sectors and unequal holdings of pre-phaseout inventory.
    CSC stated that EPA should explore a hybrid between a regional and
a lump-sum allocation system. Specifically, the commenter suggested
that EPA consider creating several large regional areas (such as the
EPA regions) that combine all of the sectors within each region to
create a regional lump-sum. The commenter further stated that the
methyl bromide users who most frequently face difficulty obtaining
methyl bromide are small, minority growers. The commenter argued that
the allocation of methyl bromide creates a harm that is
disproportionately distributed. The commenter's primary concern does
not appear to be human health and environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations. Instead, the commenter appears to believe that
EPA's current allocation system causes economic harm for these
populations, because they have difficulty satisfying their critical
needs for methyl bromide.
    This final rule creates an exemption to the phaseout of methyl
bromide. The overall impact of this action is deregulatory, and has an
economic benefit for growers with critical needs for methyl bromide.
EPA responds further to this comment in the Response to Comment
document for this action.
    EPA agrees with the comments that supported the existing allocation
system. EPA considered sector-specific, and other allocation approaches
in the proposed Framework Rule, and decided that the existing universal
allocation system with pre-plant and post-harvest allowances was the
most effective and least burdensome system. The Framework Rule did not
establish a regional approach, as one commenter suggested. EPA may
consider such an approach for future CUE rules. EPA does not believe it
would be appropriate to finalize such an approach without giving other
interested parties an opportunity for comment. EPA responds to these
comments further in the

Response to Comments document available on the docket for this action.

H. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations and the Confidentiality of
Information About the Aggregate Methyl Bromide Inventory

    Each critical stock allowance (CSA) is equivalent to one kilogram
of critical use methyl bromide. These allowances expire at the end of
the control period and, as explained in the Framework Rule, are not
bankable from one year to the next (69 FR 76990). CSAs are not used to
produce or import methyl bromide but are rights that enable the holder
to sell pre-phaseout inventories of methyl bromide for use in approved
critical uses. A CSA is expended when the entity selling methyl bromide
sells the material, or fumigation services with the material, to an
approved critical user who certifies that the material is for an
approved critical use. Thus, the movement of pre-phaseout inventories
or methyl bromide along the supply chain does not require expenditure
of a CSA.
    In developing this action, EPA proposed to allocate critical stock
allowances (CSAs) to the entities listed below in Table III for the
2008 control period in the amount of 1,715,438 kg (6.8% of U.S. 1991
baseline). EPA's proposal was based on the proposed approach for
accounting for available stocks of methyl bromide, which is described
in Section V.D. of this preamble. For the reasons discussed in Section
V.D., in this action EPA is allocating 1,729,689 kg of CSAs to the
entities listed in Table III below. The amounts are apportioned to each
entity in proportion to inventory held by each on January 1, 2007.
    In 2006, the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia upheld EPA's treatment of company-specific methyl bromide
inventory information as confidential. NRDC v. Leavitt, 2006 WL 667327
(D.D.C. March 14, 2006). EPA's allocation of CSAs is based on each
company's proportionate share of the aggregate inventory. Therefore,
the documentation regarding company-specific allocation of CSAs is in
the confidential portion of the rulemaking docket and the individual
CSA allocations are not listed in the table below. EPA will inform the
listed companies of their CSA allocations in a letter following
publication of the final rule.
    In developing this action, EPA explained that several companies
that receive small amounts of CSAs from EPA have contacted the Agency
and requested that they be permitted to permanently relinquish their
allowances. Due to the small CSA allocation and because they typically
do not sell critical use methyl bromide, they find the allocation of
CSAs, and associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements, to be
unduly burdensome. In response to this concern, in the proposed 2007
CUE rule EPA proposed to allow CSA holders, on a voluntary basis, to
permanently relinquish their allowances through written notification to
the Agency. EPA received no adverse comments. However, no CSA holders
contacted EPA to take advantage of that voluntary opportunity. In the
2008 proposed rule EPA again gave CSA holders the opportunity, on a
voluntary basis, to permanently relinquish their allowances through
written notification to the Agency. EPA explained that companies
voluntarily relinquishing their allowances would not receive CSA
allocations and would be excluded from future allocations, and that all
allowances forfeited by companies would be reallocated to the remaining
companies on a pro-rata basis.
    Seven companies contacted EPA during the comment period for this
action and volunteered to relinquish their CSAs. The companies that
contacted the Agency were: Blair Soil Fumigation, Dodson Brothers,
Carolina Eastern Inc., Harvey Fertilizer & Gas, J.C. Ehrlich Co.,
Southern States Cooperative Inc., and Vanguard Fumigation Co. With this
final rule, EPA is honoring their requests and removing these seven
companies from Table III below. Additionally, EPA will not issue CSAs
to these seven companies in future control periods. EPA has reallocated
their CSAs to the remaining companies on a pro-rata basis.

           Table III.--Allocation of Critical Stock Allowances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle.
Ameribrom, Inc.
Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc.
Burnside Services, Inc.
Cardinal Professional Products.
Chemtura Corp.
Degesch America, Inc.
Helena Chemical Co.
Hendrix & Dail.
Hy Yield Bromine.
Industrial Fumigation Company.
Pacific Ag.
Pest Fog Sales Corp.
Prosource One.
Reddick Fumigants.
Royster-Clark, Inc.
Trical Inc.
Trident Agricultural Products.
UAP Southeast (NC).
UAP Southeast (SC).
Univar.
Western Fumigation.

    Total--1,729,689 kilograms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Stocks of Methyl Bromide

    As discussed above and in the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule, an
approved critical user may obtain access to exempted production and
import of methyl bromide and to limited inventories of pre-phaseout
methyl bromide, the combination of which constitute the supply of
``critical use methyl bromide'' intended to meet the needs of agreed
critical uses. The Framework Rule established provisions governing the
sale of pre-phaseout inventories for critical uses, including the
concept of CSAs and a prohibition on the sale of pre-phaseout
inventories for critical uses in excess of the amount of CSAs held by
the seller. The Framework Rule also established trading provisions that
allow critical use allowances (CUAs) to be converted into CSAs. Under
this action, no significant changes are being made to those provisions.
    NRDC commented that EPA should dedicate all pre-phaseout stocks of
methyl bromide to CUEs. The Agency notes that it has responded to
similar comments in the Final Framework Rule (69 FR 76988), the Final
2007 CUE Rule (71 FR 75400), and in response to NRDC's late submission
of supplemental comments on the Proposed 2007 CUE Rule. EPA is not
revisiting this issue in this rulemaking.
    The proposed rule explained in detail how EPA acquired information
about pre-phaseout inventory for 2003 and after, and how EPA had
applied its regulations on treatment of information claimed as
confidential. In the proposed rule, EPA noted that it did not receive
any objections to releasing the aggregate stocks information for
calendar year 2006. To simplify the process of releasing future
aggregate stocks information, EPA proposed to release the aggregate of
methyl bromide stockpile information reported to the Agency under the
reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 for the end of 2007, and each
year thereafter. For the reasons given in a letter that EPA sent on
April 23, 2007, which is available in the docket, to all entities which
had reported holding pre-phaseout inventory at the end of 2003, 2004,
2005, or 2006, this aggregate information is clearly not entitled to

confidential treatment. EPA proposed to release the aggregate of this
stockpile data in future years without first notifying entities by
letter, as EPA has done in the past two years. EPA sought comment on
this proposal. In the proposed rule, the Agency stated that if it did
not receive any comments opposing its proposal, the aggregate of methyl
bromide stockpile data collected under the reporting requirements at 40
CFR 82.13 would not be treated as confidential information and could be
released in future without additional notice to the competitors.
    In its comments MBIP did not object to EPA's proposal to release
aggregate stockpile data in future years at this time. MBIP stated that
they reserve the right to object in the future should the number of
competitors in the industry dwindle to two or fewer in order to protect
confidentiality. Therefore, because EPA received no comments objecting
to its proposal at the present time, for as long as there are a
sufficient number of competitors in the industry, the aggregate of
methyl bromide stockpile data collected under the reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 will not be treated as confidential
information and may be released in future without further notice.
However, if the number of competitors in the industry were to decline
appreciably, EPA would revisit the question of whether the aggregate is
entitled to treatment as confidential information and would not release
the aggregate without notice.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action,'' because it raises
novel or legal policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not impose any additional information
collection burden. 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 2060-0564, and EPA ICR
number 2179.03. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-
1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 action on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business that is identified by the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code in the 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                  SIC code           number of employees or
                                                                                millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural production..........  1112--Vegetable and Melon  0171--Berry Crops........  $0.75 million.
                                    farming.                  0172--Grapes.............
                                   1113--Fruit and Nut Tree   0173--Tree Nuts..........
                                    Farming.                  0175--Deciduous Tree
                                   1114--Greenhouse,           Fruits (except apple
                                    Nursery, and               orchards and farms).
                                    Floriculture Production.  0179--Fruit and Tree
                                                               Nuts, NEC.
                                                              0181--Ornamental
                                                               Floriculture and Nursery
                                                               Products.
                                                              0831--Forest Nurseries
                                                               and Gathering of Forest
                                                               Products.

Storage Uses.....................  115114--Postharvest Crop   2041--Flour and Other      $6.5 million.
                                    activities (except         Grain Mill Products.      500 employees.
                                    Cotton Ginning).          2044--Rice Milling.......  $23.5 million.
                                   311211--Flour Milling....  4221--Farm Product
                                   311212--Rice Milling.....   Warehousing and Storage.
                                   493110--General            4225--General Warehousing
                                    Warehousing and Storage.   and Storage.
                                   493130--Farm Product
                                    Warehousing and Storage.
Distributors and Applicators.....  115112--Soil Preparation,  0721--Crop Planting,       $6.5 million.
                                    Planting and Cultivating.  Cultivation, and
                                                               Protection.
Producers and Importers..........  325320--Pesticide and      2879--Pesticides and       500 employees.
                                    Other Agricultural         Agricultural Chemicals,
                                    Chemical Manufacturing.    NEC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agricultural producers of minor crops and entities that store
agricultural commodities are categories of affected entities that
contain small entities. This action will only affect entities that
applied to EPA for a de-regulatory exemption. 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 submitted critical use applications,
either individually or as members of consortia, for a critical use
exemption for the 2005 control period. EPA received requests from a
comparable number of entities for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 control
periods. 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 final rule on small
entities, EPA certifies 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 exempts methyl bromide for approved critical uses after the
phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this is a de-regulatory action which
will confer a benefit to users of methyl bromide. EPA believes the
estimated de-regulatory value for users of methyl bromide is between
$20 million and $30 million annually. We have therefore concluded that
this final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This action is deregulatory and does
not impose any new requirements on any entities. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Further, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
The phrase ``policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in
the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This final rule 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 final rule is expected to
primarily affect producers, suppliers, importers and exporters and
users of methyl bromide. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. The final rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ''Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This final 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 final rule
does not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor
does it regulate any manner of energy use. Therefore, EPA has concluded
that this final 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, section 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. The 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 is not
considering 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 final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it affects the
level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. Any stratospheric ozone depletion that results from
this final 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 U.S.

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 December 28, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 82

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

    Dated: December 19, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
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.

0
2. Section 82.8 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (c)(1)
and paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008 Critical use
                                                                   2008 Critical use       allowances for post-
                            Company                               allowances for pre-         harvest uses*
                                                                plant uses* (kilograms)        (kilograms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp.................................................                1,687,407                  186,595
Albemarle Corp................................................                  693,900                   76,732
Ameribrom, Inc................................................                  383,464                   42,404
TriCal, Inc...................................................                   11,940                    1,320
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................                2,776,711                 307,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*For production or import of class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the pre-plant or post-
  harvest uses specified in Appendix L of this subpart.

    (2) Allocated critical stock allowances granted for specified
control period. The following companies are allocated critical stock
allowances for 2008 on a pro-rata basis in relation to the inventory
held by each.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle.
Ameribrom, Inc.
Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc.
Burnside Services, Inc.
Cardinal Professional Products.
Chemtura Corp.
Degesch America, Inc.
Helena Chemical Co.
Hendrix & Dail.
Hy Yield Bromine.
Industrial Fumigation Company.
Pacific Ag.
Pest Fog Sales Corp.
Prosource One.
Reddick Fumigants.
Royster-Clark, Inc.
Trical Inc.
Trident Agricultural Products.
UAP Southeast (NC).
UAP Southeast (SC).
Univar.
Western Fumigation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total--1,729,689 kilograms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Appendix L to Subpart A is revised to read as follows:

Appendix L to Part 82 Subpart A--Approved Critical Uses and Limiting
Critical Conditions for Those Uses for the 2008 Control Period

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Column A                  Column B              Column C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Limiting critical
                                                       conditions that
                                                      either exist, or
                                Approved critical     that the approved
   Approved critical uses     user and location of      critical user
                                       use           reasonably expects
                                                     could arise without
                                                       methyl bromide
                                                         fumigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Plant Uses:
    Cucurbits...............  (a) Michigan growers  Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (b) Southeastern      Moderate to severe
                               U.S. limited to       yellow or purple
                               growing locations     nutsedge
                               in Alabama,           infestation.
                               Louisiana,           Moderate to severe
                               Mississippi, North    soilborne disease
                               Carolina, South       infestation.
                               Carolina,            Moderate to severe
                               Tennessee, and        root knot nematode
                               Virginia.             infestation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (c) Georgia growers.  Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     root knot nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
    Eggplant................  (a) Florida growers.  Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Restrictions on
                                                     alternatives due to
                                                     karst topographical
                                                     features and soils
                                                     not supporting
                                                     seepage irrigation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.

                              (b) Georgia growers.  Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     pythium collar,
                                                     crown and root rot.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     southern blight
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Restrictions on
                                                     alternatives due to
                                                     karst topographical
                                                     features.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (c) Michigan growers  Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
    Forest Nursery Seedlings  (a) Growers in        Moderate to severe
                               Alabama, Arkansas,    yellow or purple
                               Georgia, Louisiana,   nutsedge
                               Mississippi, North    infestation.
                               Carolina, Oklahoma,  Moderate to severe
                               South Carolina,       soilborne disease
                               Tennessee, Texas,     infestation.
                               and Virginia.        Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                              (b) International     Moderate to severe
                               Paper and its         yellow or purple
                               subsidiaries          nutsedge
                               limited to growing    infestation.
                               locations in         Moderate to severe
                               Alabama, Arkansas,    soilborne disease
                               Georgia, South        infestation.
                               Carolina, and Texas.
                              (c) Public            Moderate to severe
                               (government-owned)    weed infestation
                               seedling nurseries    including purple
                               in Illinois,          and yellow nutsedge
                               Indiana, Kentucky,    infestation.
                               Maryland, Missouri,  Moderate to severe
                               New Jersey, Ohio,     Canada thistle
                               Pennsylvania, West    infestation.
                               Virginia, and        Moderate to severe
                               Wisconsin.            nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                              (d) Weyerhaeuser      Moderate to severe
                               Company and its       yellow or purple
                               subsidiaries          nutsedge
                               limited to growing    infestation.
                               locations in         Moderate to severe
                               Alabama, Arkansas,    soilborne disease
                               North Carolina, and   infestation.
                               South Carolina.      Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode or worm
                                                     infestation.
                              (e) Weyerhaeuser      Moderate to severe
                               Company and its       yellow nutsedge
                               subsidiaries          infestation.
                               limited to growing   Moderate to severe
                               locations in Oregon   soilborne disease
                               and Washington.       infestation.
                              (f) Michigan growers  Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     Canada thistle
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
    Orchard Nursery           (a) Members of the    Moderate to severe
     Seedlings.                Western Raspberry     nematode
                               Nursery Consortium    infestation.
                               limited to growing   Presence of medium
                               locations in          to heavy clay
                               Washington.           soils.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits on use of
                                                     this alternative
                                                     have been reached.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (b) Members of the    Moderate to severe
                               California            nematode
                               Association of        infestation.
                               Nursery and Garden   Presence of medium
                               Centers               to heavy clay
                               representing          soils.
                               Deciduous Tree       Prohibition on use
                               Fruit Growers.        of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits on use of
                                                     this alternative
                                                     have been reached.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (c) California rose   Moderate to severe
                               nurseries.            nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits on use of
                                                     this alternative
                                                     have been reached.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.

    Strawberry Nurseries....  (a) California        Moderate to severe
                               growers.              soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (b) North Carolina    Moderate to severe
                               and Tennessee         black root rot.
                               growers.             Moderate to severe
                                                     root-knot nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow and purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
    Orchard Replant.........  (a) California stone  Moderate to severe
                               fruit growers.        nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Replanted (non-
                                                     virgin) orchard
                                                     soils to prevent
                                                     orchard replant
                                                     disease.
                                                    Presence of medium
                                                     to heavy soils.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits on use of
                                                     this alternative
                                                     have been reached.
                              (b) California table  Moderate to severe
                               and raisin grape      nematode
                               growers.              infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Replanted (non-
                                                     virgin) orchard
                                                     soils to prevent
                                                     orchard replant
                                                     disease.
                                                    Medium to heavy
                                                     soils.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits for this
                                                     alternative have
                                                     been reached.
                              (c) California wine   Moderate to severe
                               grape growers.        nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Replanted (non-
                                                     virgin) orchard
                                                     soils to prevent
                                                     orchard replant
                                                     disease.
                                                    Medium to heavy
                                                     soils.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits for this
                                                     alternative have
                                                     been reached.
                              (d) California        Moderate to severe
                               walnut growers.       nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Replanted (non-
                                                     virgin) orchard
                                                     soils to prevent
                                                     orchard replant
                                                     disease.
                                                    Medium to heavy
                                                     soils.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits for this
                                                     alternative have
                                                     been reached.
                              (e) California        Moderate to severe
                               almond growers.       nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Replanted (non-
                                                     virgin) orchard
                                                     soils to prevent
                                                     orchard replant
                                                     disease.
                                                    Medium to heavy
                                                     soils.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits for this
                                                     alternative have
                                                     been reached.
    Ornamentals.............  (a) California        Moderate to severe
                               growers.              soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits for this
                                                     alternative have
                                                     been reached.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.

                              (b) Florida growers.  Moderate to severe
                                                     weed infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Restrictions on
                                                     alternatives due to
                                                     karst topographical
                                                     features and soils
                                                     not supporting
                                                     seepage irrigation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (c) Michigan          Moderate to severe
                               herbaceous            nematode
                               perennials growers.   infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow nutsedge and
                                                     other weed
                                                     infestation.
    Peppers.................  (a) Alabama,          Moderate to severe
                               Arkansas, Kentucky,   yellow or purple
                               Louisiana,            nutsedge
                               Mississippi, North    infestation
                               Carolina, South      Moderate to severe
                               Carolina,             nematode
                               Tennessee, and        infestation.
                               Virginia growers.    Moderate to severe
                                                     pythium root,
                                                     collar, crown and
                                                     root rots.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (b) Florida growers.  Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Restrictions on
                                                     alternatives due to
                                                     karst topographical
                                                     features and soils
                                                     not supporting
                                                     seepage irrigation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (c) Georgia growers.  Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation, or
                                                     moderate to severe
                                                     pythium root and
                                                     collar rots.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     southern blight
                                                     infestation, crown
                                                     or root rot.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (d) Michigan growers  Moderate to severe
                                                     soilborne disease
                                                     infestation.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
    Strawberry Fruit........  (a) California        Moderate to severe
                               growers.              black root rot or
                                                     crown rot.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe
                                                     nematode
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Prohibition on use
                                                     of 1,3-
                                                     dichloropropene
                                                     products because
                                                     local township
                                                     limits for this
                                                     alternative have
                                                     been reached.
                                                    Time to transition
                                                     to an alternative.
                                                    A need for methyl
                                                     bromide for
                                                     research purposes.
                              (b) Florida growers.  Moderate to severe
                                                     yellow or purple
                                                     nutsedge
                                                     infestation.
                                                    Moderate to severe