a LI Summary of Methyl Bromlde Critical Use Meeting &: nvironmental Protection Agency, Washington DC March 19,2001 In t roductlon s Sue Sfendebach, EPMOAR Sue Stendebach opened the meeting by thanklng everyone for attending second Methyl Bromide Critical Use Meeting. She requested that every participant introduce himlherself and state their affiliation. ( Please refer to the end of this document f ~ o r a list of attendees). [ Amber has the list of attendees1 After introductions, Ms. Skeridebach reminded everyone that the meeting would only last three hours. She then summarlzed the first meeting held on February 16", 2001 that resulted in a discussion of the critical use process and during which some stakeholder concerns were aired an a preltrninary basis. She exphined Mat the purpose of the present rneetlng would be as foo) lows:

to further discuss important issues mentioned during the February I 6Ih meeting; to continue declaratloh and interpretation af stakeholder needs and concerns; and to provide  PA with ideas regarding how to successfully complete the rulemaking. =

Ms. Stendebach stressed the importance of participation In the meeting because without stakeholder input, EPA would not be aware of all stakeholder concerns. She also reminded everyone to state his or her name and aflliatlm prior to making a comment so that information mbld be accurately recorded.

Ms. Stendebach mentioned that the outline for the meeting would be as follows:

* quickly review the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the Clean Air Act, and the timefine for rulemaking as discussed In the last meeting; and pose a variety of questions to stakeholders: some that originated from the last meeting and some that EPA considers to be major issues.

Ms. Stendebach mentioned that David McAlJister and Tracey Heinzman Smith, representhg GLCG, brought slides that they wished to present. Ms. Heinzman Smith responded by stating that she could discuss the information contained in her slides as it fit into the meeting discussion.

Review of Montreal Protocol Provlslans, Clean Air Act Language, and Rulernaklng Tirneilne Amber Moreen, EPNOAR The meeting facilitator, Ms. Amber Moreen, briefly revlewed the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the Clean Air Act, and the proposed  PA rulemaking timetine. She mentioned that the ~ rnellrte displays the need to initiate the rulemaking process quickly and gtves stakeholders an Idea of a potential internationaf review process.

Ms Moreen stressed that  PA would attempt to publish a proposed rule in the fall of 2001 and a final rulemaking by the middle of 2002. She went on to state that once aDplicatians are submitted to the United States government, the following schedule wit! be adhered to:

applications WclUfd need to be revlewed and prepared far nomination to the Parties by January 2003;

* parties Wou) d revbw all nominations from each government and provide EPA with a decision fate In 2003: and users would be notified at the international level in the beginning to middle of 2004.

. .  1  Ms. Moreen noted that another appllcatlon cycle would commence in the middle of 2003, so that an applicant could re apply for a 2005 exemption if thelr use was not granted in the first exemptlon cycle. However, a user would not be notified as to whether or not their use was granted untll2005 due to the lengthiness of the internatlonal process. Therefore, if a user does not apply until 2003, notificatlon would not be received until closer to the phaseout date and thus, the actual planting time.

Ms. Moreen ensured th8t all stakeholder qusstlons regarding this process were answered, and then went on to explain the Decisions of the Montreal Protocol and the language of the Clean Air Act. She pointed out that the last paragraph of the relevant Montreal Protocol Dsclslons Is written such that non Adicle 5 countries ( e. g.. United States, EU, Japan) must individually consider whether applicants have shown that the lack of methyl bromide has led to a slgnlficant market disruption. She stressed that decisions would not be made by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel ( TEAP).

Questions for Stakeholders Please note that this section intends to provide an accurate summary of stakeholder responses. Although it follows the chronology of the meeting, it is not an exact transcrlpt. Responses to most comments and questions were addressed by the meeting facllitator, Ms. Amber Moreen. Other EPA personnel, including Ms. Sue Stendebach and Mr. Paul Horwitz, also offered feedback on several stakeholder comments.

Ms. Moreen initiated the meeting by asking stakeholders about the type of ihformation that would be most helpful regarding a posted list of methyl bromide alternatives. She requested stakeholder input on the following questions regarding the proposed list:

1 The following comments describe the discussioh that ensued as a result of this question.

Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will & Emery, Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert commented on this toplc by stating that in order to streamline the application process and use applicmt and  PA time most effectively, EPA should post a list of acceptable alternatives. According to Mr. Ruck&, the limited time period established for t h e application process necessitates a list of this type because such a list could prevent possible duplicatibns in the application process and could ensure that applicants are aware of all available altematives. He also mentioned that allowing industry to comment on each of the posted alternatives would provlde addltional crediblllty. Response: Ms. Moreen responded by summarizing Mr. Ruckert's comments and asking If he thought that a list of alternatives should include; What information should be included? How would the list be used in conjunction with the application process?

Use; and Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will & Emery, Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert responded by stating that he thought that a list should have posted scientific trials regarding esch alternative to prove the efficacy of each alternative and provide a form of substantiatlon for the proposed alternatlves.

Tracey Heinzmen Smith, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzrnan Smith quoted two concepts from Decision 1x16:

1 Alternatlves adequate for applicant needs.

No technologically and economically feasible alternatives; and . .  2 . Slgnificant market disruption.

She said that appllcants that Use methyl bromide for uses that currently have no adequate alternatives can quickly and hastily apply for an exemption based on the idea that the lack of methyl bromide for a specific end use wlll lead to a significant market disruption. Ms. Heinzman Smith wmrnented that wlthout an initial list of acceptable alternatlves, applicants are uncertain of the baseline they are to evaluate themselves against. She argued that it would be useless to apply for an exemption stating that there are no alternatives for a specific end use and later discover that research has been conducted to show that alternatives do in fact exist. Response: Ms. Moreen responded by inquiring about people's opinions as to how  PA should keep an up to date list of the most current research trlals on alternatives.

The next set of stakeholder comments discussed ideas for how EPA can successfully accomplish this task.

Edward M. Ruckert, McDerrnott, Wi// & Emery, Crop Profection Coalition Mr. Ruck& advised that researchers should report findings of all research and new technologies to EP4 as they occur or are dlscovered.

David McAlkter, GLGC Mr. McAllister noted that the conversation until this point had omitted an important step in the exemption process: after a list of alternatives is developed, this list should serve as one of the inputs for developing a list of critical uses. He proposed a scheme where  PA would present a list of all posslble uses of methyl bromide, and would simultaneously develop a list of alternatives. These lists, used in conjunction. could allow growers and users of methyl bromide to know exactly which uses match up wlth which technically and economically feasible alternatlves, and would therefore act as a critical use list. Future alternatives could then be submitted to add to the list, showing what uses they can replace and proving that they meet all of the criteria for a crltlcal use e% emption. Therefore. Mr. McAllister concluded. it is not necessary to have a list of alternatives that is updated monthly; rather, the list can be updated as alternatives are approved.

Tracey Heinzman Smith, Howrey & Shon Ms Heinzrnan Smith added that this process is analogous to the process for determining viable SNAP substitutes, but is more complicated. As new ODS alternatives are commercialized under SNAP, EPA posts a running list of these alternatives, both by end use and by geographic region. and this list is published In the Federal Register or on a Web site so that people can find out about new alternatives as they become available. For methyl bromide, this llst should be accessible and available to all interested parties, where developers of new substitutes can add their substitute to the list and then provide EPA with relevant information, as opposed to EPA initiatlng the process.

Pete [ last name, AEIiafion] Pete said that informatlon provided for this list must be substantiated and backed up with efficacy data. Response: Ms Moreen responded that researchers should match the list provided by EPA with existing uses to determine which uses do not have alternatives. However, this approach may be too broad from the Parties' standpoint.

Two stakeholders responded to this comment.

Tmcey Heinzman Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith recognized this point and argued that if something currently has no alternative, it should have the first opportunity to be considered critical, Then, it can be determined if the lack of methyl bromide for this end use would cause a significant market disruptton.

 3  Pete [ last name, Affiliation] Pete reiterated his earlier comment regarding the importance of efficacy data and substantiation.

Ms. Moreen responded wlth a question to Mr. Ruckert. She stated that people have Indicated that alternatives can be determined by state, but questioned the manner in which distinctions can then be made between condltlons that differ within a state, such as soil type, weather. and water table. Stated differently, if a list of alternatives Is to be developed on a state by state basts, how are specific crop, soil, and weather circumstances taken into account?

The following remarks were made in an attempt to resolve this question,

Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott. Will B Emery, Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert responded that the llst should be presumptlve, presenting all available tools.

Tracey Heinzrnan Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith reiterated that the term " technically and economically feasible" is extremely broad. She cornmehted that most analyses thus far have focused on technical feasibility, and that the alternatives discussed would be helpful for Users. She also stressed that the Patties must understand that theoretical lab tested alternatives may not be " technicatty and economically feasible'' in the field.

[ Unidentified Stakeholder] An unidentified stakeholder then remarked that growers would end up trying to " prove a negative." In other words, will growers approach the ga~ ernrnent with research attempts that display the efficacy of an alternatlve or will the government make alternative efficacy data available to users? Response: EPA representative, Ms. Stendebach. responded that a list pf alternatives is beihg developed, and hopefully manufacturers and distributbrs of alternatfves will inform EPA if any viable substitutes were neglected from the Ilst.

Ms. Moreen then asked the group if everyone would be comfortable with a list being published on the web. The next two comments discussed the availability of a published list of potential substitutes and were responded to by a facilitator.

David McAllister, GLCC Mr. McAlllster responded by saying that case studies of methyl bromide alternatlves are already provided on EPA's methyl bromide phaseout Web site.

Jack @ ad nwrne, Afiliation] Jack expressed concern on relying solely on efficacy data, statlng that other limitations, such as buffer zones and product combinations, need to be taken into account as well. Response: Ms. Moreen responded that the case studies and other published efficacy data are at least good starting points.

The next stakeholder requested informatioh on this subled from EPA.

[ Unidentified Stekehoidet 1, Metham Sodlutn Task Force An unidentified stakeholder representing the Metham Sodium Task Force requested that alternative manufacturers be contacted to obtain information on the development of alternatives so that evetyone is kept aware of the most current information.

Ms. Moreen stated that evidence of technical feasibility ( or lack thereof) and documentation are necessary in order to show the Parties that a technically feasible alternative does hot exist for a certain end use.

 4  The following set of comments specify the requlrements for possible alternatives.

David McAllister, GLCC and Tracey Heinzman Smith, Howrey & Simon Mr. McAllister and Ms. Heinzman Smith provided a list of criteria for possible alternatives, stating that the alternative must:

. have efficacy data;

.

c *

9 Ms. Moreen asked if anyone had any additions to the list. be registered for the application ( if they are pesticides):

be efflcaclous based on actual ffeld trials ( as opposed to lab tests); pose no health risks to applicators; not require protective equipment that would severely restrict applicability; be commercially available in sufficient quantities; and have an overall risk that is not greater than that of methyl bromide.

Jim Saggent, [ Affiliation] Mr. Ssrgent added that the alternative must be non damaging to crops and any other materials that are being fumigated.

David McAllister, GLCC Mr. McAIIister stated that, an expert opinion, similar to that required for an emergency registration, should be involved in the process.

Bruce Helman, [ Afiliation] Mr. Helman pointed out that if an alternative is registered. it could be inferred that it is already environmeh ta Ily acceptable. Response: Ms. Moreen said that Mr. Hslman's point was a good one, and reiterated the need for economic availability and documentstion of substitutes.

The next stakeholder comments discussed the need for economic availability of alternatives.

David McAllister, GLCC Mr. McAIlister suggested that  PA consult with other agencies, specifically USDA, because they have the right background to assist EPA with economic feasibility studies. He argued that criteria should be established specifying the maximum acceptable percent increase in treatment costs and the maximum acceptable percent decrease in profitability for any given alternative, and claimed that USDA can then use this lnformation to provide an economic analysis of available substitutes.

Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federatbn Mr. Sharp mentioned that he asked farmers about what economic feasibility means from their perspective, and they responded that a methyl bromide alternative or combination should control the same range of pests as methyl bromlde, while concurrently meeting industry standards. He also stated that economic feasibility criteria could be gathered by farmers based on five year average per acre return In yield. Response: Ms. Moreen inquired whether the farmers consulted felt comfortable documenting each of those items.

Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau federation Mr. Sharp replied that there ere B number of areas from which this information could be garnered,

Tracey Heinzrnsn Smith, Howrey & Simon  5  Ms. Heinzman Smith said most growers or people that run warehouses keep track of their treatment costs and profitability or potential losses. She noted that this information is Important because although treatment costs apply to everyone, profitability varies on a case by case basis.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix I$ Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere added that most figures and crop budgets are publicly available through state extension services.

Ms. Moreen asked if everyone was comfortable with the discussion so far, None of the attendees responded, and so a discussion began on slgnificant market disruption and documen tation.

Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federaikm Mr. Sharp began the discussioh by introducing the idea that a loss of methyl bromide in the US. would result in an increase himpork, especially from countrles that ar0 not effected by the phaseout, which wauld cause a signlficant regional shift in productlon. He stated that market production suffers when return per acre drops below a five year average, which can be based on personal farm records, hiversity studies, etc., as described above.

David McAllister, GL CC Mr. McAtlister indicated that it is difficult to difff3tehfiate between significant market disruption and economic feasibility. He said that criteria are currently prioritized, where significant market disruption needs to be determined before economic feasiblllty can be assessed. He remarked that the becision does not specifically mentlon alternatives; rather, they are only a means to avoid signlficant market disruption. He provlded the example of a food processing facility asked the following question: If this is a critical use of methyl bromide. is the significant market disruption criterion determined before or after consideration of alternatives?

Vem Walter, WA W, Inc. Mr. Walter mentioned that although phosphine could be a potential substltute in food plants, it corrodes equfpment. He stressed that these other effects of the alternative need to be considered.

Adam Shap, American Farm Bureau Federation Mr. Sharp added that the availability of the alternative also must be considered.

Tmcey Heinzman Smith, Uowrey & Simon Ms. Hcinzman Smith defined market disruptions in terms of the impact on a particular user of methyl bromide. She used turf farms a5 an example, stating that if ail turf farms were faced with not having methyl bromide available, a significant market disruption would occur Wlthih the turf industry because turf still must be produced. The market would be significantly disrupted if the criteria introduced earlier by Mr. Sharp were not met. In partlcutar, if substitute turf yields per dollar were a certain percent below the yield using methyl bromide such that less turf would be able to be produced, or such that c o s t s to produce turf got so high that they would detrimentally affect the profitability of the industry, a break polnt would eventually be reached where there would exist a significantly lower quantity of turf in the marketplace. The demand would exceed the supply and consumers would try to obtain the commodity offshore.

David McAllisfer, GLCC Mr, McAllister explalned that GLCC was Iooklng at the issue from a userlenterprise perspective as opposed to looking at the issue of significant market disruption at the consumer level. He provided the following hypothetical example: If methyl bromide is unavailable for fumigation of soils for a tree nursery for International Paper, the yields per acre of seedlings will drop by 50 percent. As a result, the price of paper will increase signiflcantly in ten years. He reiterated the fact that GLCC is not referring to this type of situation: rather, they are looking at effects mere from the userknterprisa perspective. Response: Ms. Moreen asked why Mr. McAlllster thought consumer disruptlons should not be considered?

Tracey Heinzman Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzmah Smith responded that consumer effects occur too far Into the future for growers and other methyl bromide users to consider.

Unidentified Stakeholder, Tree Trade Assot$ ation An unidentifled stakeholder claimed that a downstream effect could occur as a result of international competition, Referring to Mr. McAllister's International Paper elample, the unidentifled stakeholder hypothesized that seedlings would then be grown on soils outslde of the US.. where growth rates are far greater than they are domestically. He concluded that a sense of economic impact should be assessed even though It is difficult to quantify,

Jim C/ af, fAEIiation] A mostty inaudible comment from Mr. Clat mentioned sources of information provided by manufacturers.

Jim Scheub, USDA Mr. Schaub indicated that the discussion should be focused on how to define the market, i. e., how broadly to define a commodity, lncludihg a geographic component and a time dimension He mentioned that the Federal Power Comrnlsslon ( FPC) and the Justice Department solved an analogous Issue by viewing disruptions at the consumer level when struggling with a competition determination for antl trusts [ Le,, whether a merger will have a slgnlflcant impact on a market). He concluded his comment by stating that after EPA decides how to define the market, it is then possible to determine significant market disruptions.

Edward M. Ruckert, Will & Emery, Crop Protection Agency Mr. Ruckert vocalized an additional comment regarding defining a market disruption by examining consumer level effects. He provided the following hypothetical example: With international trade In the state It is today, if strawberries can not be grown in the US. without methyl bromide, growers in Mexico would supply the US. market with strawberries, undoing the utility of exemption. Therefore, there is little or no effect at the consumer level; EPA should focus on the industry level effects to define market disruptions.

Lee Murphy, [ A~ Wiation] A mostly inaudible comment from Mr. Murphy mentioned a 25 percent reduction in production.

Pete [ last name, Afikh'on] Pete suggested that if EPA were to develop crlteria for determining a significant market disruption based on five year total average production, it would be dificult to determine which five year period should be analyzed because of steadfly Increasing treatment costs.

Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federation [ cannot hear all c6mmentsJ Mr. Sharp asked Ms. Moreen whether a basellne would be best established using a five or ten year period, and stated that establishing a, baseline is difficult because EPA will have to predict future demand for the product and consider criteria other than total production. Response: Ms. Moreen asked whether the farmers Mr. Sharp interacted with express a preference for a five year or a ten year period for establishing a baseline,

Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federation Mr. Sharp indicated that the farmers interviewed did not express a preference regarding selecting a time period, but were concerned about shlfk In the market and analyzing present market conditions to create a baseline for future use. With regard to economlc feasiblilty and significant  7  market disruptions, Mr. Sharp suggested that posting a list of available alternatives would be a way to initiate research on this issue,

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentifled stakeholder agreed with Mr. Sharp's comments and added that It would be difficult to establish a baselihe for the post harvest sector because it is impossible to quantify future food contamination. Response: Ms. Moreen respohded by stating that results from tests on alternatives exist, and one could project from those results to create a baseline. She clarified the unidentified stakeholder's comment by asking if he thought that no alternatives were available on a base level.

Unidentified stakeholder The unldentifled stakeholder affirmed that that was Indeed the point Re was trying to make. Response: Ms. Moreen asked the unidentified stakeholder if he would respond in a similar manner if alternatives were tested and made available for use In the post harvest use sector.

Unidentified Stakeholder The Unidentified Stakeholder provided an Inaudible response to Ms. Moreen's question.

Ms. Moreen changed the discussion topic SO that stakeholders would respond to Mr. Shawls comment on how  PA should define the methyl bromide market. The following set of stakeholder comments relate to this discussion,

Edwwrd M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will 8 Emery; Cmp Protection Coalition Prior to addressing Ms. Moreen's question on the definition of a market, Mr. Ruckert required additional clarification regarding the dlscusslon on whether or not the effectiveness of an alternative Is quantifiable.

Ms. Moreen responded to Mr. Ruckert by restating the previously addressed question. Ms. Moreen explained that she was attempting to clarify the unidentified stakeholder's comment, stating that perhaps an alternative is not quantifiable if it has not been used on a large scale and long term results can not be projected. However. she argued that If the alternative has been tested, there should be some data avaflable to quantify the effectiveness of the alternatlve.

The following comments highlight the discussion on the definition of a market and may be used in determining definitions of a significant market disruption.

Tmcey Heinzman Smith, Howmy & Simon Ms. Heintman Smith addressed this topic by explaining that varlations in pest type require EPA to define a market by lndlvidual commodities limited by geographic distinctions, as opposed to determining a market just by use ( e. g., post harvest uses), She went on to state that methyl bromide is not a chemical that has broad industry wide uses, and that users may utilize methyl bromide for one type pest in one region that might not be applicable to a similar pest in another geographic area. Although not entirely sure that the topics are analogous, Ms. Helnzman Smith went on to mention that the Department of Justlce ( DoJ) Federal Power Commission ( FPC) guldellnes deflne a market using regional and geographic distinctions.

Ms. Moreen posed the comment prevlously Introduced by Jim Schaub of USDA to the stakeholders to determine whether a market defined by commodity and geography would be too broad for this situation ( e g.. canned tomatoes versus fresh tomatoes, same commodity grown and processed in the same region). ReSpQnStS  8  TfaCe) r Heihzman Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Helnzman Smith responded to this statement by asking Mr. Schaub if the market would have to be defined by species ( e. g., Roma Tomatoes).

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, lnc. Mr. Godbehere informed attendees that methyl bromide is only used on fresh tomatoes, not canned tomatoes.

Ms. Moreen stated that using fresh versus canned tomatoes to discuss thls topic is not an appropriate Instance. She proposed that the stakeholders consider this issue of wlth a different example, such as winter versus summer tomatoes.

Jim Schaub, USOA Mr. Schaub suggested that EPA use registration definitions to define the market ( e. g., Bermuda grass). He mentloned that there exists a certain amount of substitution between the commodities ( Le,, turf farms may produce several grass varleties) and that not defining the market may lead to confusion among producers. Mr. Schaub concluded that the subject of defining market scope is critical and he did not think that it could be defihed by slating examples. He suggested that EPA think about economic prihciptes for defining a market and then rely on industry and users to apply these principles to specific commodities.

Tiacey Heinzrnan Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzrnan Smith agreed with Mr. Schaub's idea that the market may have to be defined more specifically by explalning how the word " turf" is synonymous with the word "` fruit," meaning that stating that there are different types of fruit is similar to stating that there are different types of turf.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder commented that it is important to make distinctions for the purposes of defining the market even within crops, becsuse harvesting cycles and time required to control pests are not always the same.

Ms. Moreen redirected the topic of conversation by mentioning that many stakeholders had strong reactions when distinctions between the Sectlon 18 exemption process and the methyl bromide critical use exemption process was discussed at the last meeting. She went on to ask if stakeholders had any other opinions on the issue. The following discussion highlights stakeholder comments on this Issue.

Adam Sharp, Americen Farm Bureau Federation Mr. Sharp stated that unlike Section 18, the methyl bromide critical use process wlll have to grant approval on a multi year basis.

Tracey Heinzman Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinman Smith mentioned that the Section I S exemption process relates to emergency pest outbreaks and focuses on public health effects, while the critical use exemptlon process focuses more on economic and technical criterla. Response: Ms Moreen clarified the discussion toplc by restating that there are only a few portions of the Sectfon I 8 process that relate to this issue, and mentioned that EPA wanted feedback on whether stakeholders see distinctions between the manners in which feasible alternatives are determined through the Sectfon 18 process and the critical use exemption process.

Unidentified Stakeholder An Unidentified stakeholder stated that the following three items are the main criteria used to determine whether an exemption Is granted through the Section 18 process. and asked Ms. Moreen if she believed that these same criteria applied to the critical use exemption process:

 9  . *

a Response: Ms. Moreen responded by stating that in some respects, she agreed with these criteria.

Unidentified Stakeholder The unidentified stakeholder went on to suggest that all three of these criteria apply to the methyl bromide situation. and stated his agreement with Mr. Sharp regarding the need to grant exemptions on a multi year basis based oh the following'reasons: Will a lack of use of the product al7lOUht to substantial economlc loss? Are there feasible alternatives that are commercially available? Does the situation occur frequently?

a There are not many available alterhatives; and Bureaucracy of the system would make an annual appllcation process difficult.

Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will & Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert inquired about EPA progress to reglster new alterhatives.

Pete past name, AffllrationJ Pete suggested looking back five years to define the methyl bromide market. Response: Ms. Moreen responded to Pete's comment by stating that some people have suggested that EPA examlne a flve year time period to define the market.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere argued that examining a period five years ago to define the methyl bromide market will not take into consideration the fact that methyl bromlde prices are increasing. He went on to express his concern about cornpletihg the rulemaking process in 8 timely manner in order to ensure the sustainability of the United States agricultural market. Response: In response to the previously stated comments, Ms. Moreen inquired as to whether or not Mr. Godbehere supported the measurement of 8 time period prior to five years ago for quantlfying the methyl bromide market.

Steve Godhehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere suggested that EPA examine a speciflc time frame to average the high costs in order to define the market. He once again stressed the urgency of this rulemaking by describing EI situatlon where high methyl bromlde costs had led to a decrease In the amount of acres produced. MI. Godbehere explained how there is currently no indication that planting will occur in the near future In Georgia because plastic has not yet been laid down to prepare for the upcoming season.

Ms. Moreen modified the discussion topic and stated that she understood the need to extend a exemption for longer than one year, but could not understand why stakeholders suggested that exemptions be granted for three to five years and went on to ask why a two to three year exemption Is not an adequate amount of tlrne. The followlng dialogue highllghts stakeholder responses to this topic, comments on the timeframe for an exemption notification, and discusses the application process.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder mentioned that users have to initiate the application process 18 months in advance. Response: Ms. Moreen agreed, and explained that the review process is lengthy and explained that it is set up in this manner so that nominations can be submitted to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol. She restated her question so that stakeholders would comment on the length of a granted exemption rather the length of the application process.

 10 Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder claimed that an exemption granted for less thah two years would result in a perpetual application cycle, and went on to ask if the exemption renewal process would be less time consumlng, Le., approximately three months. Response: Ms. Moreen could not comment on the question posed, but did slate that users would have to apply every year if the exemptions were granted annually. This comment led to a situation where many people began talking at the same time. The disorder was curbed by a comment from an  FA representative.

Paul Horwitz, OAREPA Mr. Horwitz discussed the need to understand the international structure of this process. He stated that countrles will be notified as to whether or not a use Is granted at least 12 to 18 months prior to the calendar year In which the use is requlred, and hence over one year would elapse in which a farmer could consider alternatives to methyl brornlde use. He restated that the process does allow plenty of time for a user to assess his/ her pesticide use for the following year.

Uflidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder described a situation that displayed the need for a multi year exemption. He explained that an orchard requires several years to reach to complete harvest and therefore cannot be planted if a grower is not sure that methyl bromide will be accessible throughout the rnufti year production cycle.

David Mdllister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Mr. McAllister stated that it seemed unreasonable to submit applications to the  PA on an annual or biannual basis unless there has been significant progress in alternatlves, or if a situation changes. He suggested that EPA should consider creatlng a permanent list of critical uses that the US. could submit to the Parties on an annual basis, rather than submlttlng the same justification each year. Mr. McAlllster stated that this perpetual list could b e updated by EPA, USDA, or someone wishing to promote a new alternative.

Edward M. Ruckert, McDwmott, Will & Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert stated that there are two maln components of this situatlon that need to be analyzed. They are as follows:

= Lehgth of time For an exemption grant; and Type of application process.

He suggested that the exemption process should be tm to three years because reviewing applications on an annual basis is extremely resource intensive for EPA. He also suggested that an annual application'process is too burdensome and difficult for users, as well as resource intensive and tlme consuming for EPA. He agreed with Mr. McAllister by stating that users should only re apply for a critical use exemptlon If circumstances change,

At this point, Ms. Moreen asked the stakeholders If they had any additional input regarding this subject .

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder, responding to Mr. Hotwltz's explanation of the international framework and the exemption notification period, noted that a nursery or any perennial crop requimes two years notice of pesticide use prlor to plahting. in other words. a grower needs to know if methyl bromlde Is going to be available for more than one year. Response; Ms. Moreen requested that the unldentifled stakeholder elaborate on thls toplc.

 11  Adam Sham, American Farm Bureau federation Mr. Sharp added that another reason why applications should not be processed annually is that a crop cycle does not necessarily follow the calendar year, and growers do not always plant in the spring and harvest in the fall. He mentioned that some growers make plans more than one year In advance.

Unidentified Stakeholder To elaborate on the previously mentiohed topic, the unidentified stakeholder described a typlcal grower's plantlng process and explained how pesticide knowledge is required more than one year in advance. He described a hypothetical situation where If it were the year 2003, and a grower planned to produce 100 acres of pistachios in 2005, he/ she would not know whether they would be permitted to use methyl bromide in 2005. He explatned that a grower in this situation would probably prefer to wait until recelvlng notiflcation before continuing the planning process, and if notification was issued in 2004. the grower may not be able to plant by 2005. He Stated that four to five years is an average planning period for a grower.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder commented that walnut trees require methyl bromide for both pre plaht and post harvest USES. We stated that eliminating methyl bromide in either of those use categories would reduce product yield. Response: Ms, Moreen agreed with the unldentifled stakeholder in that a circumstance such as the one mentioned Is distinct and would be examined as such, and stated that a nursery could apply for an exemption in the middle of 2002 ( the earliest date possible) and would be notified in early 2004 for a use in 2005.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix B Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere clarified the situattons previously described to Ms. Moreen by explalnlng that growers are concerned about the time allotted fer a notlflcatlon because they are in contract with the nursery. He went on to explain that trees need to be fumigated immediately prior to relocatlon from the nursery to the field. Therefore, even if a nursery has access to methyl bromide, a grower is concerned that methyl bromide will not be available when it is necessary to move the trees. two to three years later.

Tracey Heinztnan Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzrnan Smith mentioned that the language in the Montreal Protocol does not state that EPA needs to re substantiate the list of critical use exemptions annually, and that it only requires EPA to review and determine whether nominations meet the criteria. She suggested that if a substantial effort has been placed on identifying critical uses, it is approprlate to annually nomlnate the same list to avoid a perpetual cycle of applying for and nominating exemptions.

At thls point in the meeting, the discussion tumed to international issues. Specifrcally, topics such as expectations for applications and the percent of total productlon reserved for critical use exemptions were discussed,

Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitz provided a summary of the International point of view to date. He mentioned that initial international dis'cusslons have revealed that some countries believe that critical use exemptions represent a very small percentage ( approximately one to three percent) of total national production. He indicated that countries expressing thls viewpoint probably have not begun to explore the issue as in depth as the US. has. and that they will probably become more aware of criticaliw as the Issue is investigated further. He stressed that it is essential to notice that the language of the Montreal Protocol is designed so that there Is an Incentive for users to investigate new alternatives to methyl bromide, and exemptions will be granted to those that have displayed advances In alternative research throughout the exemption period. Mr. Howitz elaborated on this topic by stating that the best case that will be submitted to the Parties is one  12 that presents a plan to consider new alternatfves. He stated that the feasibility of an alternative is not determined in just a one year or a three year research plan for methyl bromide use; rather, results of multiple crop cycle research may be necessary to determlne efficacy. He stated that the Parties' conslderation for rnulti year exemption requests wlll be based an plans of action for trying to flnd alternatives in areas where there were originally none.

Tracey Heinzrnan Smfth, llowrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith contributed to the conversation by stating that If the US. could present a list of feasible alternatives and a correspohding use list to the Parties to illustrate current research, previous exemptions granted for uses that do. not have feasible alternatives could be renewed without an application process. She went on to clarify this topic by asking Mr. Horwitz if it is important to show progress in analyzlng research regarding new alternatives.

Paul Horwitr; OAWEPA Mr. Horwih stated that the application process and Montreal Protocol language state that one must demonstrate that new alternatives are being exahihed.

Tacey Heinzman Smith, Howey 8 Simah Ms. Heinzman Smith restated Mr. Horwltz's point that proving that one has explored other options to methyl bromide Is an important part of this process.

Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitz remarked that he wanted all stakeholders to understand that the previously discussed information Is his opinion based on preliminary discusslons, and not a reflection of the US. or international position on the Issue.

Matt Lynch, Albemarle Mr. Lynch suggested that it would be inapproprlate to require users to apply to EPA for exemptions annually in order to prove to the Parties that users are seeking alternatives. He mentioned that the application process for crltical use exemptions should be discussed independently of the length of a granted exemption.

Edward M. Ruckerf, McDerrnott, Will t4 Emery; Cmp Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert pointed but that the methyl bromide situation can not be compared to the ban of CFCs, and asked Ms. Moreen whether EPA has considered streamlining the critlcal use process by eliminating a procedural step ( specifically, the international process). Mr. Ruckert stated that eliminating the international process could save time and money for EPA and users because EPA is a professlonal organization and decisions made by EPA do not require additional examinatlon.

Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Hohnritz responded to this comment by stating that EPA has not considered eliminating a procedural step. He went on to suggest that the purpose of the international review process is to ensure that the Montreal Protocol is implemented equally internationally and to allow alf countries to more readily access research regarding new alternatives.

Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will g Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert responded to this statement by presentlng the negative effects of procedural steps:

Numerous steps contribute to the uncertainty in predicting sxemptioq grants; and Extra steps create an opportunity for political issues to guide policy decisions.

Mr. Ruckert added that the blofoglcal nature of methyl bromide w e requires that the system run efficiently to eliminate possible production and employment losses.

 13 Unidentified Stakeho/ der An unidentified stakeholder asked Mr. HDwitz whether the international cornmunlty would consider that 80 to 90 percent of U. S. methyl bromide uses are critical.

Paul ~ orwitz, oaR/& a Mr. Howitz stated that the international community would probably understand that 80 to 90 percent of US. methyl bromide uses are critical once more research has been completed. Mr. Howitr went on to suggest that in the past, each time methyl bromide consumption has been reduced. many have assumed that a negative effect on industry would occur, and that 50 percent less methyl bromide use would lead to a 50 percent loss In production. He indicated that to date, this trend has not occurred, but that users will have to shift to use of alternatives in many places in order to phase out methyl bromide.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix 8 Dale, Inc Mr. Godbehere explained that there has not been a shift to alternatives within the tomato industry; rather, the percent of chloropicrin mixed with methyl bromide has increased to extend volume, and production has decreased significantly.

[ Can not hear all comments1 Edward M. Ruckert, McDermoff, Will 8 Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert stressed that agrlbuslness Is an international issue and that the statement. " Ninety percent of our methyl bromide uses have alternatives." discredits our technlcal and problem solving abilities. Response: Ms. Moreen replied to Mr. Ruckert. stating that the statement is slightly mlsleadlng, but reminding stakeholders that this issue was clarified In the previous meeting.

Edward M. Ruckeft, McDemott, W// & Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert suggested that the stakeholders listen to the Greenpeace representative's international perspective on this issue.

Greenpeace representative [ Difficult to hear] The Greenpeace representative began his statements by explaining that there exists no doubt that a larger research effort ( Le., 8 to 9 years) would result in more feasible alternatlves. He stressed that alternatives with a greater environmental risk than that of methyl bromide are not desirable. He also stressed that declslon makers must adhere to buffer tone requirements.

` Tiscey Heinzman Smith, Howrey 4 Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith wanted to remind all attendees that the suggestions brought up by herself and David Mdllister do not represent just the viewpoint of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, but also the viewpoint of a task force Cohsisting of;

r Florida Fresh fruit and Vegetable Association; Crop Protection Coalltlon; and Turf, nuts. and dried fruit industry representatives.

The following two stakeholder comments clarify toplcs dlscussed earlier in the meeting that were answered by Ms. Stendebach.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms, Moreen to clarify an issue brought up earlier in the meeting regarding commodities imported from countries such as Mexi that have hot yet been affected by the methyl bromlde ban.

 14  Sue Stmdebach, QAWEPA Ms. Stendebech reassured the unidentified stakeholder that the Intention of the methyl bromide phaseout is not to relocate agricultural production offshore or to countries such as Mexico. She explained that EPA wants to be made aware of all potential competitive disabilltles.

Tracey Ueinzrnan Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heihzrnan Smith wanted to clarify with EPA that market disruptions are defined by each country as opposed to at the international level.

Sue Stendebach, O A E P A Ms. Stendebach pointed out that as Ms. Moreen rnentiohed earlier in the meeting, a significant market dlsruptioh is a topic that will be defined by individual countries, not by the Montreal Protocol.

Pete past name, Afiiliationf To add to the conversation regarding the importance of the international crlticsl use proFess, Pete mentioned that impartial third patty verification regarding the feasibility of an alternative makes an Individual application stronger.

Ms. Moreen transitioned into a new toplc by asking the stakeholders whether they thought grower groups or individuals should submit applicetions to the US. government.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen why the application process should be limited to groups or individuals. Response: Ms. Moreen stressed that no decisions regarding this toplc have been made and asked the unidentified stakeholder for input on the subject.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unldentifled stakeholder suggested that anyone who is involved in the situation should be able to apply, both individual growers and grower $ toups. He went on to ask whether EPA prefers group applications to increase administrative efficiency. Response: Ms. Moreen repllad to thls comment by indicating that group appllcatlons are a consideration, but Individual growers shpuld be able to apply as well.

Unidentified Stakstmldef The unidentified stakeholder agreed with the previous comment that anyone should be able to apply for an exemptioh, and added that different organizatlons, such as the Farm Bureau, state departments, commodity groups, walnut ~ omrnissions. etc.. will all have different viewpoints as to who should submit applications.

Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitz asked stakeholders how EPA should avoid potential doubte countlng that could result from application submittal from users and groups.

Tracey Hehzmm Smifh, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith suggested that slnce there will have to be an established date to end the annual application cycle,  PA could publish a list of appllcations received for each use pattern. She further suggested that users are the best people to apply for an exemption because they have the most data available regarding previously discussed criterla.

Sue Stendebach, OAREPA Ms. Stendebach asked stakeholders for their feedback regardlng the followihg potential appllcatlon process:

 1 5

e . 9 Unidentified Stakeholder A mostly Inaudible comment by ah unidentified stakeholder stressed the Importance of the appllcation process by citing an example related to the carrot industry.

Pete flast name, Affiliation] Pete mentioned that stakeholders should realize that there are financial limitations in this rulemaking, and that stakeholders must allow for some trade offs. He compared the Section 18 process to this situation by stating that 400 to 000 appllcatlons are processed per year through Section 18, requiring a significant amount of time and resources. He indicated that there will be a learning curve for processing; the first year will be the most time consuming and resource intensive. Pete also stated that once EPA recognizes where critical uses exist, the appllcation processing speed will increase considerably. users apply to state agriculture departments; state agriculture departments aggregate similar applications; aggregated applications are sent to EPA.

Unidentified Stakeholder An uhidentifred stakeholder agreed with Pete in that it would be fairly resource intensive to provide and compose the use list discussed previously, but stressed the importance of having such a list.

Unidentified Stakeholder Another unldentlfled stakeholder mentloned that he arrived at the meeting late and inquired as to whether EPA planned to summarize their action items as part of the meeting agenda. Response: Ms. Moreen stated that all suggestions would be taken into consideration, that there is a February 16,2001 meetlng summary available, a summary of today's meeting would be made available, and that EPA is not ready to present specific action items.

Sue Siendebach, OAREPA Ms. Stendebach added that EPA considers the following to be the current general action Items:

* begin writing a regulation; =

9 create a sensible rulemaking. compile mcre reSearch, including written comments from stakeholders; and Ms. Moreen mentioned that she wanted to continue the discussion regarding stakeholder preference regarding who should apply for exemptions: a larger body or B user. The following stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives but did not requlre a response.

Unidentified Stakeholder, Tee Trade Association An unidentified stakeholder compared this situation to that of the tree industry. He indicated that here are 38 state associations for the tree Industry and that the storm water permitting system .

presents an opportunity to use group applications or apply individually through a state department of agriculture. He suggested that EPA examine this system to determine which option is more administratively effective, and stressed that each individual commodity should determine the most effective option based the comfort level that users have with various institutions.

The following discusslon summarizes stakeholder comments regardin$ labeling.

Pete past name, AffillaiionJ Pete reminded the stakeholders that B label must be created when granting a Section 18 bromide label. tion, and asked if stakeholders thought that companles would be willing to provide a methyl  1 6  , Tracey Heinzman Smith, Howey & Simon Ms. Heinman Smith suggested that producers create a separate label for criticaf uses, and that EPA should avoid d labeling system analogous to the Section I 8 process in order to limit the number of labels that would have to be Droduced.

Pete tlast name, Afffllatiett] Pete stated that if labels for critical uses could not be crop specific, rather, they would have to be asslgned to individual growers. He illustrated thls point by presenting the followlng example: a label will have to be produced for Farmer X at Farm X for Use X so that, for instance, a user in Florida does not use methyl bromide with B Californla label.

Tracey Helnzman Smlth, Howey B Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith suggested that Inspectors could deal with enforcement issues.

[ Can not hear all comments] Pete past name, AMliation] Pete compared Section 18 exemptions to this sltuation and further discussed the issue surrounding enforcement.

Tracey Heinzman Smith, Ho wrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith stated that labeling would depend on how broad an exemption is ( Le., will labels be limited by county, state, or commodity). She also suggested that exemptions should be commodity specific rather than region specific.

[ cannot hear all comments] A conversation then transpired between Pete, Ms. Heinzrnan Smith, and an unidentified stakeholder regarding specific criteria establlshed for Section 18 exemptions.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder mentioned that if there are 600 applicatiorrs. it will be necessary to aggregate them at some level.

Ms. Moreen steered the conversation back to the issue of the applicatlon process by stating that she requited stakeholder Input on. the subject of applications. The following dialogue highlights, this discussion.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen if applications would be filed in each state and subsequently forwarded EPA, or if individuals would apply dlrectly to EPA. Response: Ms. Moreen responded by stating that the EPA has not yet determined the answer to that question and that stakeholder Input Is welcome.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder remarked that at some point  PA will probably adopt the Section 18 process because many are familiar with it.

Tracey Helnzman Smith, Uowrey & Slmon Ms. Heinzrnan Smith asked Ms. Moreen the following questions regarding state agriculture departments:

[ cannot hear all comments] Do state agriculture departments have expertise In thls area? Will state agriculture departments aggregate applications? Will state agrlculture departments evaluate applications. adding another layer of review7  17 Unidentified Stakeholder An unldentlfled stakeholder mentioned that Ms. Heinzman Smith brought up a good point.

The fOllOWihg comment was not related to the application process and was responded to by the Greenpeace representatlve.

Unidenttried Stakeholder An unldentified stakeholder informed the Greenpeace representative that excessive amounts of money have been spent looking for alternatives over the past ten years 8nd asked if efforts have been Initiated by Greenpeace to assist with this research.

Greenpeace Representative The Greenpeace representative stated that no such efforts have been initiated by Greenpeace.

Tracey Heintman Smith, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinkman Smith reverted the conversation topic back to the workings of the critical use exemption process by stating that EPA should consider creating an initial List of critical uses and alternatives, and that stakeholders could examine this list throughout the application process. She went on to state that a list of this type would provide an opportunity for users to examine the most current information. Ms. Heinzman Smith also suggested that the process could be more efficient If USDA could provide information and determine whether applicants have demonstrated a significant market disruption, and if EPA could provide the information and determine whether uses have technically and economically feasible alternatives. She mentioned that she had not thought about how to aggregate applications, but stated that allowing user communities to apply woutd be an efflcient method because it would limit the number of applications to be reviewed,

Ms. Moreen summarized the stakeholder comments regarding the appllcation submission process as follows:

It would be appropriate to incorporate state departments of agriculture into the critical use process because many stakeholders are accustomed, to working with them through the Section I 8 process; Grower groups should be allowed to submit applications because many users are comfortable with these organizations; and Growers that are not part of these organizations should also be able to apply. 9 1 Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder restated that grower groups do not represent all stakeholders. Response: Ms. Moreen asked the unidentified stakeholder if he thought that individuals that 3re not part of an association feel comfortable applying through the state department of agriculture or directly to US. EPA.

Unidmtified Stakeholder The unidentified stakeholder replied that as long as users are aware of the requlrsd documentation, it does not matter what governmental body is involved in the process.

David McAllister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporetion Mr. McAHister suggested that the subrnlsslon process be an open process worded in such a way that joint submissions from groups or various organizations are encouraged. He stated that from a practical standpoht. individuals would probably prefer to submit an application with a group in order to ltmit the amount of work that must be completed by the individual. An open appllcatibh system such as this would limit the total number of applicatlons.

Once again, Ms. Moreen steered the conversation back to the issue of the appllcation process and reminded the stakeholders that there still must be a method to prevent counting requests for a  18 use more than once. She mentioned that Ms. Heinzman Smith had suggested that EPA distribute some type of notlce tt, users, but if there is a deadline for submitting an appllcatlon it might be too late to ensure that Users are aware of all submltted applications.

Tl` acey Heinzman Smith, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzrnan Smith suggested that  PA post applicatlons on the Internet as they are received so that applicants can verify that a request has not already been submitted.

Sue Stendebach, OAWEPA Ms. Stendebach reminded stakeholders that there could be confidential business information ( CEI) issues that would not allow  PA to post such Information on the Internet.

David McAtlister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Mr. McAllister mentioned that if appllcatlons are commodity and region specific, EPA could probably determine if there Is an overlap in requests. and that only ambiguous applications would allow the posslblllty for double counting.

Unidentified Stakeholder, Tree Trade Association An unidentified stakeholder described the submlsslon process for a storm water permit to Ms. Moreen. He m8ntlOned that wheh a group application is racelved, the names of individuals within the group are also submitted, and those people whose names are not in the group submit applications individually He added that a process of this type presents a business opportunlty for associations to entice new members.

Matt Lynch, Albemarle Mr. Lynch reminded the meeting attendees that the system should be Open so that users that prefer to apply as individuals are not forc& to become involved with an association.

Paul Homilz, OAWEPA Mr. Honnritz mentioned that there probably would not be a limit on the number of exemptions granted because the Montreal Protocol language states that:

" This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses"

He also stated that In the past, the same language has been applied to limit the actual tonnage of methyl bromide exempted, and if a grower group requires 4,000 tons and individual farmers growing the same crop claim to requlre an aggregate 4,000 tons, the concern about double counting arises if there is not much use in the entire industry.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere mentioned that the Economic Research Service ( ERS) could help to ensure that double counting does not occur.

Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitr questioned whether ERS would know how many tons of methyl bromide would be needed.

Tracey ffejnzman Smjth, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith interrupted Mr. Iiorwitz and indicated that the Perties must recognfze that it is dimcult to predld quantities of methyl bromide because many manufacturers produce it, a5 opposed to only a few companies producing CFC 12 for metered dose inhalers @ e, CFC 12 producers know how much will be sold next year and can predict the exact tonnage needed). She Went on to remark that it would not be possible to determine a detailed estimate for methyl bromide because weather conditions and pests can not be predicted. She asked Ms. Moreen if the government is aware of this situation.

 1 9  . Response: Ms. Moreen responded by stating that the government is aware of this situstion and suggested that it may be possible to submlt a range of the possible volume needed so that  PA can determlne the adequate amount for each use.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unldentified stakeholder mentioned that the methyl bromide application process should b e analogous to the Sectlon 18 application process.

The following two statements relate to the proposed list of alternatives.

Vern Wai'fer, WA W, InC. Mr. Walter indicated that a proposed list of alternatives should contain the advantages and limitations of each alternative. He requested that 8111 Thomas discuss the progress of this proposed list, and inquired about the posslbllity of posting the list on the Internet.

Bill Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas mentioned that he was trying not to comment because he wanted to listen to stakeholder input. and that he has been working to create a list since 1992 with an interagency EPNUSDA Working Group created specifically to analyze potential alternatives. He indicated that the alternatives identified thus far cah be separated into three different " piles:"

=

He went oh to indicate that he did not want to comment any further because h e is involved with other groups such a5 OPP, USDA, ARS, ERS, and APHIS. Effective alternatives that are unavailable for various reasons { e. g., regulatory hurdles, buffer zone requirements, labeling issues, cost effectiveness, etc.); Alternatives that are already in use; and Experimentally effective alternatlves that ate not s; ornmercially avallable.

Ms. Moreen changed the subject to discuss the emergency use application process and whether stakeholders thought that applications should be submitted to state departments of agriculture.

There was no response regardihg this issue, so Ms. Moreen assumed that stakeholders wanted the emergehcy use application process to function identically to the critical use process. She asked stakeholders which governmental body should assess emergency uses.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, lnc. Mr. Godbehere proposed that APHIS, USDA, and state departments of agrlculture are all qualified to assess emergency use exemptions.

Susan O'Took and Several Unidentified Stakeholders Ms. O'Toole initiated a conversation discussing the differences between quarantlne and preshiprnent ( QPS) exemptions, critical use exemptions, and emetgency exemptions.

Ms. Moreen resolved this discussion by explaining the maln differences between the exemption types. .

Sue Stendebach, OAWEPA Ms. Stendebach added to Ms. Moreen's explanation by stating that preshipment exemptions are used for export products, quarantlne exemptions are used for controlling pests between states, and emergency exemptions are used for heatth threats.

The fOlbWihg stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives but did not require a response.

 2 0  . Dsvld McAllister, Great takes Chemical Corporatlon Mr. McAllister stated that any emergency application would require some validation by a regulatory agency.

Ms. Moreen remarked that she did not have any other specific questions and opened the meeting up to any other suggestions or comments. The following three comments were responded to by a facilltator or an  PA representative,

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen whether Section 18 exemptions will be applicable after the phaseout. Response: Ms. Moreen stated that methyl bromide use will be phased out through the Clean Air Act as of 2005, and mentioned that a user that has been $ ranted a Section 18 exemption will have to apply for an extension through the critical use process, posslbly in conjunction with a Section 18 exemption.

Sue Stendebach, OARLEPA Ms. Stehdebach mentioned that EPA would work closely with OPP to determine what would be considered an emergency use, and that all emergency situations would probably be considered under the critical use and emergency exemptlon process.

David McAlIister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Mr. Mdlister asked Ms. Moreen to clarlfqr whether the Glean Air Act would regulate production as opposed to use, as is the case for FlFRA regulations.

Unidentified Stakehdder An unidentified stakeholder asked if OAR would review Section 18 labels.

Sue Stendebach, OARlEPA Ms. Stendebach replied to the stakeholder questions by stating that OAR would work with OPP, but that it was OPP's responsibility to review Section 18 labels. She also said that Section 18 exemptions would stili be applicable despite the fact that a methyl bromide phaseout had occurred.

David McAllister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporatlon Mr. McAlllster suggested that the Section 18 process is unnecessary for methyl bromide because uses can apply for an emergency use exemption under the critical use exemption process, and asked Ms. Moreen what wlll happen to pre existing methyl bromide Section 18 exemptions after the phaseout.

Paul Uotwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwib indicated that stakeholders need to discuss how to implement exemptions once they are granted.

The following stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives, but many people began to tdk at the same time, making it difficult to hear the response.

Matt Lynch, Albemarle Mr. Lynch asked Ms. Moreen whether it is possible to have an emergency use In the future that would hot be subject to the Section 18 process.

[ Amber cah you provide a response?]

The followlng stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives but did hot require a response.

 21  Greenpeace Representative A Greenpeace representative remarked that EPA should publlclte the dialogue between OAR and OPP so that all stakeholders are aware of progress, plans, and options as decisions ate made.

The following question was responded to by an unldantlfied stakeholder.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder required clarification regarding the relationship between methyl bromide critical use exemptions and Section 18 emergency exemptions.

Unidentified Stakeholder Another unidentified stakeholder explained that Section 18 and the critical use exemption process are separate statutes, and that it is not necessary to look for similarities within each to make the critical use exemption process more efficient. He went on to mention that Clean Air Act requirements would not take precedence over FIFRA requirements.

The following series of questions and responses highlight the dialogue related to publiclzlng a list of alternatives.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix 8 Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere agreed with the Greenpeace representa tive and suggested that EPA publicize alternatlves as they are identified so that users can start preparing for the phaseout.

Btll Thomas, OAWEPA Dr Thomas remarked that the list will be made available In the next several months, as CBI issues are resolved.

Tracey Heinzman Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzrnan Smith suggested that EPNOAR should publlcite the alternatives that are already commercially available, while continuing to resolve CBI issues.

BM Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas stated that it is critical to consider all possible alternatives in this situation.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere suggested that a list of available alternatives should be posted on the Internet. We advised that the list should be updated as more information is discovered so that growers could comment on it and send feedback to EPA.

EN Thomas. OAWEPA Dr. Thomas indicated that the Interagency working group has been working to resolve this issue for 3 to 4 years at the same prior$ level as establishing the rulemaking for the critical use exemption process. He then introduced Ken Vick, the USOA head of the interagency working group. He added that  PA has spoken to growers in diffeteht states and has brought growers to Washington D. C. to create a realistic list of available alternatives.

Tracey Heinzman Smith, Howrey tk Simon MS. Heinman Smith Indicated that, as mentioned previously, users must have a baseline to which to compare themselves so that the application process is not extremely difficult, time consuming, and resource Intensive, and to avoid the need to reapply if all available alternatives are not known

Sue Stendebach, OAWEPA Ms. Stendebach indlcated that 8 list will be made available.

 22 . I Tracey Heinzmen Smith, Homey & Simon Ms. Heinzman Smith asked Dr. Thomas if the list will be made available prior to t h e proposed rulemaking in August.

Bill Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas stated that the llst will be made available around the same time as proposed rule. around the end of the summer ( July or August 2001 ).

Ken Vick, USDA Mr. Vick stated that the following reasons contributed to the delay in posting a potential list of alternatives;

* Research an alternatives included footnotes by varlous studies with regional disparities; and Growers made subjective and sometlmas contradictory judgements about chemicals.

Bill Thomas, OAREPA Dr. Thomas asked stakeholders if they would be comfortable with an internet posting of the potential list of alternatives.

Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, / ne. Mr. Godbehere stated that if users were made aware of the posting, the Internet would be an appropriate place to display the Information

Bill Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas responded to Mr. Godbehere by asklng how EPA should make users aware of the availability of the list.

Steve Godbehem, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere suggested that EPA use an extenslon service, which operates by extracting information from local growers.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen about the length of time designated to the emergency use notification process. Response: Ms. Moreen responded that the process would not he time consuming and that notification would probably be received one to two days beforehand. She went on to indicate that after an emergency use is granted, a critical use review would be completed at the international level to advise parties if the proposed use can qualify as an emergency in the future.

Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen whether the application process would involve a public comment perlod after applications are submitted. Response: Ms. Moreen replied that a public comment period is a possibility and asked stakeholders If there were any mote comments or suggestions.

Paul Hofwitz, OAR/ EPA Mr. Horwitz stressed that the following comment is important but is his own Opinion and not necessarily the position of the US. government. He began his comment by reiterating the importance for users to submit any field research data so that applicants can display both historic efforts and future efforts to try alternatives. He also mentioned that a robust plan will suppot? multlple year requests, and that the applicatlon package will probably request information and to the degree possible, money that has been spent, different alternatives studied, and case studles that show specific results.

 23  . Closing Statement Ms. Moreen thanked everyone for attending the meeting and encouraged stakeholders to contact EPA with any additional comments or special circumstances. She asked all attendees to take a business card and the February 16,2001 Crltical USR Meeting Summary, and reminded everyohe to sign the participant list before departing.

 2 4  .