METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE NOMINATION FOR POST HARVEST USE BY NPMA FOR FACILITIES AND COMMODITIES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY: DATE RECEIVED BY OZONE SECRETARIAT:

YEAR: CUN:

NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use by NPMA for Facilities and Commodities.

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS Contact Person: John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Title: International Affairs Officer Address: Office of Environmental Policy U. S. Department of State 2201 C Street N. W. Room 4325 Washington, DC 20520 U. S. A. Telephone: ( 202) 647 9799 Fax: ( 202) 647 5947 E mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Following the requirements of Decision IX/ 6 paragraph ( a)( 1), the United States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this Critical use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market disruption.

X Yes

No CONTACT OR EXPERT( S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS Contact/ Expert Person: Tina E. Levine, Ph. D. Title: Division Director Address: Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 7503C Washington, DC 20460 ii U. S. A. Telephone: ( 703) 308 3099 Fax: ( 703) 308 8090 E mail: levine. tina@ epa. gov LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION PACKAGE List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating Party to the Ozone Secretariat 1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Paper Documents and Appendices Number of Pages Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat 2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Electronic Files Size of File ( kb) Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 5 1. Nominating Party................................................................................................................ 5 2. Descriptive Title of Nomination .......................................................................................... 5 3. Situation of Nominated Methyl Bromide Use ...................................................................... 5 4. Methyl Bromide Nominated For Post Harvest Use ( Commodities and Facilities) Not Included in Other Chapters...................................................................................................... 5 5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use....................................... 5 7. Location of the Facility or Facilities Where the Proposed Critical Use of Methyl Bromide Will Take Place....................................................................................................................... 9 PART B: SITUATION CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE................... 12 8. Key Pests for which Methyl Bromide is Requested: .......................................................... 12 PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION................................................................................... 15 11. Summarize the Alternative( s) Tested, Starting with the Most Promising Alternative( s): .. 15 12. Summarize Technical Reasons, if any, for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available for your Circumstances: ........................................................................................................ 17 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL ........................................................................................... 18 13. How has this Sector Reduced the Use and Emissions of Methyl Bromide in the Situation of the Nomination? ............................................................................................................... 18 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................... 19 14. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period ........................ 19 15. Summarize Economic Reasons, if any, for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available for your Circumstances ......................................................................................... 19 Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives..................................... 21 PART F: FUTURE PLANS..................................................................................................... 21 16. Provide a Detailed Plan Describing how the Use and Emissions of Methyl Bromide will be Minimized in the Future for the Nominated Use.................................................................... 21 17. Provide a Detailed Plan Describing what Actions will be Undertaken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for this Use ..................................................................................... 21 17.1. Research...................................................................................................................... 21 17.2. Registration................................................................................................................. 23 18. Additional Comments...................................................................................................... 23 19. Citations.......................................................................................................................... 24 Bibliography........................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. iv List of Tables PART A: SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 5 Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated For Post Harvest Use ( Commodities and Facilities) Not Included in Other Chapters.................................................................................................. 5 Table A. 1: Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 8 Table 6.1: Methyl Bromide Consumption for the Past 5 Years and the Amount Requested in the Year( s) Nominated For Post Harvest Use ( Commodities and Facilities) Not Included In Other Chapters .................................................................................................................... 9 Table A. 2 2005 Request   For Post Harvest Use ( Commodities and Facilities) Not Included in Other Chapters .................................................................................................................. 10 TABLE A. 3 2006 Nomination   Post Harvest Use ( Commodities and Facilities) Not Included In Other Chapters .................................................................................................................. 11 PART B: SITUATION CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE................... 12 Table 8.1: Key Pests for Methyl Bromide Request: Facilties ..................................................... 12 Table 8.1: Key Pests for Methyl Bromide Request: Commodities ............................................. 12 Table B. 1: Characteristic of Sector  Facilities.......................................................................... 13 Table B. 2: Characteristic of Sector: Commodities .................................................................... 13 Table 9.1: ( a) Food Processing Plants........................................................................................ 13 Table 9.1: ( b) Fixed Facilities ................................................................................................... 13 PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION................................................................................... 15 Table 11.1: Summary of the Alternatives Tested....................................................................... 15 Table C. 1: Summary of Review or Position Papers concerning Alternatives for Stored Product Pests.................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 12.1: Summary of Technical Reason for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 12.2: Comparison of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation................................... 17 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL ........................................................................................... 18 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................... 19 Table 15.1: Summary of Economic Reasons for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available .......................................................................................................................................... 19 PART F: FUTURE PLANS..................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix A  Table 1: Effect of temperature on concentration and time thresholds for some pests of stored products. ( From: Bell, C. H. 2000) ............................................................. 27 Appendix A  Table 2: Concentration Time Product recommendations by National Pest Management Association .................................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). .................................. 29 5 PART A: SUMMARY 1. NOMINATING PARTY The United States of America ( U. S.)

2. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination For Post Harvest Use By NPMA For Facilities and Commodities 3. SITUATION OF NOMINATED METHYL BROMIDE USE This sector includes commodities and food processing plants treated by National Pest Management Association members. Commodities included in this application are; processed foods ( such as chips, crackers, cookies and pasta), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, tea pellets, coffee beans, tomato and bell peppers, citrus and cassava. Methyl bromide is typically utilized in processed food and feed facilities as a space fumigant for treating the facility 1 to 3 times per year. As the need arises, methyl bromide is also used for trailer fumigations of product or packaging material. These facilities are under intense pressure from many insect pests as well as rodents.

4. METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED FOR POST HARVEST USE ( COMMODITIES AND FACILITIES) NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CHAPTERS TABLE 4.1: METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED FOR POST HARVEST USE ( COMMODITIES AND FACILITIES) NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CHAPTERS YEAR NOMINATION AMOUNT ( KG) NOMINATION VOLUME ( 1000 M 3) 2006 181,079 7,536 5. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE The US nomination is only for those uses where the alternatives are not suitable. In the U. S. there are a number of factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable for use on structures and commodities. These include:  pest control efficacy of alternatives: the efficacy of alternatives may not be comparable to methyl bromide in some areas, making these alternatives technically and/ or economically infeasible  technical difficulties in adopting alternatives, for example heat may not be suitable for wood frame buildings or commodities with high oil content ( development of rancidity)  regulatory concerns, such as the adoption of a new fumigant such as sulfuryl fluoride that may not be registered in all states COMMODITIES: Methyl Bromide fumigation for commodities occurs to ensure pest free food and meet the strict requirements of the Food Sanitation Regulations. The uses listed in this chapter, processed foods ( chips, cookies, crackers, pasta, etc.), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheese, tea pellets, coffee beans, have no technically feasible alternative that can be used 6 without incurring significant economic losses. Phosphine alone or combined with carbon dioxide is the only chemical alternative currently available for use on these commodities. Phosphine fumigations, however, take much longer than methyl bromide fumigations and are not a feasible alternative when rapid fumigations are needed. Harvest of commodities occurs in autumn, when temperatures are falling, making temperature dependent phosphine fumigation less likely. These sectors are already using phosphine alone or in combination to the extent that their processing systems and marketing needs allow it. Any additional shifting from methyl bromide to the slower phosphine fumigation would result in disruption of commodity processing during peak production times, lost market windows, and substantial economic losses. In addition, adoption of not in kind alternatives, such as controlled atmospheres, cold, and carbon dioxide under pressure, would require major investments for appropriate treatment units and / or retrofitting of existing warehouses.

FACILITIES: Food processing facilities in the United States have reduced the number of methyl bromide fumigations by incorporating many of the alternatives identified by MBTOC. Most important have been implementing IPM strategies, especially sanitation, in all areas of a facility. Plants are now being monitored for pest populations, using visual inspections, pheromone traps, light traps and electrocution traps. When insect pests are found, plants will attempt to contain the infestation with treatments of low volatility pesticides applied to both surfaces and cracks and crevices. These techniques do not disinfest a facility but are critical in monitoring and managing pests.

Facilities in the United States also are using both phosphine and heat treatments to disinfest at least portions of their plants. Phosphine, both alone and in combination with carbon dioxide, is often used to treat incoming grain and some finished products. Unfortunately, phosphine is corrosive to copper, silver, gold and their alloys. These metals are critical components of both the computers that run the machines as well as some of the machines in the plants. Therefore, phosphine is not feasible in all areas of food processing facilities. Additionally, phosphine requires more time to kill insect pests than does methyl bromide, so plants will need to be shut down longer to achieve mortality, with associated economic losses from this downtime. There are also reports of stored product pests becoming resist to phosphine.

There are a number of limitations associated with the use of heat in this industry. Not all areas of a plant can be efficiently fumigated with heat. Some food substances, for instance cheeses will go rancid with heat treatments. Not all finished food products can be heated for the length of time heat is required for efficient kill of pests. In addition, geography of the United States plays a crucial role in the use of heat treatment. Food processing plants in the northern United States will experience winters with several weeks of sustaining temperatures of  32 ° to  35 ° C ( 30 ° to  25 ° F). In these areas plants have heaters and the power plants have the capability to supply excess power as needed. However, the southern and parts of the western zones of the United States are geographically quite different. Winter temperatures there seldom reach   1.2 ° C ( 30 ° F) and when temperatures should fall that low, it is typically for only a few hours one night. Most winters some of these warmer areas of the U. S. don't freeze at all. Subsequently, these facilities do not have heaters, nor do the power plants have sufficient power to allow them to heat such large areas and sustain the temperatures necessary for a kill. Additionally, escaping insects can survive these outdoor temperatures and re enter the facility after treatment, even 7 when low volatility pesticides are used to treat the surfaces existing in the plant. Still, many southern and western facilities use heat treatments as a spot treatment whereas some northern facilities use heat treatments for all or parts of their plants.

By utilizing all these options, facilities in the U. S. have been able to reduce the number of methyl bromide fumigations from an average of 6 times a year to an average of two times in the south and west and once every 3 to 5 years in the north. The U. S. CUE nomination in this sector only includes a request for methyl bromide use where use of alternatives is limited for the reasons described above. There are many food processing facilities in the United States for which we are not requesting methyl bromide use because they have been able to successfully implement alternatives. 8 TABLE A. 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY* Processed Foods ( chips,

cookies, crackers,

Pasta, etc) Spices and Herbs Cocoa Dried Milk Cheese processing Plants Other Commodity1 AMOUNT OF REQUEST Kilograms ( kg) 94,226 10,936 89,022 1,320 3,856 4,794 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) 24.03 48.05 48.05 24.03 24.03 48.05 2005 Volume ( 1000m3) 3921 228 1853 55 160 100 Kilograms ( kg) 93,442 9,938 85,393 503 3,856 4,905 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) 24.03 48.05 48.05 24.03 24.03 48.05 2006 Volume ( 1000m3) 3,893 207 1,777 21 160 102 Nominated Amount 2006 Nominated Amount ( kg) 89,861 5,869 76,899 503 3,596 4,352 ECONOMICS Marginal Strategy Unknown Time Lost Loss per 1000 m ³ Loss per kg MB ( US$/ kg)

Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%) Loss as % of Net Revenue (%) Not Provided by Applicant * See Appendix B for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated.

1 Includes tea on pallets, coffee beans, tomatoes, bell peppers, citrus and cassava. Page 9 6. METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION FOR PAST 5 YEARS AND AMOUNT REQUESTED IN THE YEAR( S) NOMINATED FOR POST HARVEST USE ( COMMODITIES AND FACILITIES) NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CHAPTERS TABLE 6.1: METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS AND THE AMOUNT REQUESTED IN THE YEAR( S) NOMINATED FOR POST HARVEST USE ( COMMODITES AND FACILITIES) NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CHAPTERS*

HISTORICAL USE REQUESTED USE For each year specify: 1997** 1998** 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 Amount of MB ( kg) 220,300 219,616 193149 217,636 204,153 198,037 Volume Treated ( 1000 m ³ ) 7,020 8,037 6,791 8,293 8,497 8,245 Formulation of MB The applicant did not provide any information on formulation Unknown Dosage Rate ( kg/ 1000 m ³ ) 24.03 24.03 24.03 24.03 24.03 24.03 Actual ( A) Estimate ( E) Unknown Unknown * Based on most current information. ** No data from NPMA for 1997 & 1998.

7. LOCATION OF THE FACILITY OR FACILITIES WHERE THE PROPOSED CRITICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE WILL TAKE PLACE This nomination package represents a wide variety of food processing and commodity facilities. The location of each facility where methyl bromide fumigations may take place was not requested by the U. S. Government in the forms filled out by the applicants. Therefore, we currently do not have a complete listing of the actual addresses for each facility. Page 10 TABLE A. 2 2005 REQUEST  POST HARVEST USE ( COMMODITIES AND FACILITIES) NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CHAPTERS*

2005 Request  Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants ( otherwise not included) Processed Foods ( chips, crackers, cookies, pasta) Spices and Herbs Cocoa Dried Milk Cheese Processing Plants Other Commodity ¹ Requested Kilograms ( kg) 94,226 10,936 89,022 1,320 3,856 4,794 Requested Application Rate ( g/ m ³ ) 24.03 48.05 48.05 24.03 24.03 48.05 Applicant Request for 2005 Requested Area ( 1000 m ³ ) 3,921 228 1853 55 160 100 1 Includes tea on pallets, coffee beans, tomatoes, bell peppers, citrus and cassava. * See Appendix B for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated. Page 11 TABLE A. 3 2006 NOMINATION   POST HARVEST USE ( COMMODITIES AND FACILITIES) NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CHAPTERS*

2006 Nomination  Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants ( otherwise not included) Processed Foods ( chips, crackers, cookies, pasta) Spices and Herbs Cocoa Dried Milk Cheese Processing Plants Other Commodity ¹ Requested Kilograms ( kg) 93,442 9,938 85,393 503 3,856 4,905 Requested Application Rate ( g/ m ³ ) 24.03 48.05 48.05 24.03 24.03 48.05 Applicant Request for 2006 Requested Area ( 1000 m ³ ) 3,893 207 1,777 21 160 102 Nominated Volume ( 1000 m ³ ) 3,893 207 1,777 21 160 102 Nominated Application Rate ( g/ m ³ ) 24.03 48.05 48.05 24.03 24.03 48.05 CUE Nominated for 2006 Nominated Kilograms ( kg) 93,442 9,938 85,393 503 3,856 4,905 Overall Percent Reduction (%) 9 2006 Sector Nomination Totals Total 2006 U. S. Sector Nominated Kilograms ( kg) 181,079 1 Includes tea on pallets, coffee beans, tomatoes, bell peppers, citrus and cassava. * See Appendix B for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated. Page 12 PART B: SITUATION CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE 8. KEY PESTS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED:

TABLE 8.1: KEY PESTS FOR METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST: FACILITIES GENUS AND SPECIES OF MAJOR PESTS FOR WHICH THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IS CRITICAL COMMON NAME SPECIFIC REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED Tribolium confusum Confused flour beetle Tribolium castaneum Red flour beetle Pest status is due to health hazard: allergens; plus body parts, exuviae, and excretia violate FDA regulations1. Methyl bromide is needed because these insects can occur in areas with electronic equipment and materials that cannot tolerate high temperatures ( i. e. cooking) so phosphine and heat are not completely adequate.

Trogoderma variable Warehouse beetle Health hazard: choking and allergens; plus body parts, exuviae, and excretia violate FDA regulations. Methyl bromide is needed because these insects can occur in areas with electronic equipment and materials that cannot tolerate high temperatures ( i. e. cooking) so phosphine and heat are not completely adequate.

Lasioderma serricorne Cigarette beetle Sitophilus oryzae Rice weevil Plodia interpunctella Indianmeal moth Oryzaephilus mercator Merchant grain beetle Cryptolestes pusillus Flat grain beetle Food contamination violates FDA regulations. Methyl bromide is needed because these insects can occur in areas with electronic equipment and materials that cannot tolerate high temperatures ( i. e. cooking of some products; oils and butter go rancid with heat) so phosphine and heat are not completely adequate.

1 FDA regulations can be found at: http:// www. fda. gov/ opacom/ laws/ fdcact/ fdcact4. htm and http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ dalbook. html.

TABLE 8.2: KEY PESTS FOR METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST: COMMODITIES GENUS AND SPECIES FOR WHICH THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IS CRITICAL COMMON NAME SPECIFIC REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED Cydia pomonella Codling moth Amyelois transitella Navel orangeworm Plodia interpunctella Indianmeal moth Tribolium castaneum Red Flour Beetle Cadra figulilella Raisin Moth Carpophilus sp. Dried Fruit Beetle Ectomyelois ceratoniae Carob pod moth Carpophilus spp., Haptoncus spp. Nitidulid beetles MB is used mainly where rapid fumigations are needed to meet customer timelines during critical market windows and peak production periods. During peak production months, phosphine fumigation takes three times longer than conventional MB fumigation and 17 times longer than vacuum MB fumigation. The required duration of phosphine fumigation increases as commodity temperature decreases, making its use impractical during the cold winter months. No technically or economically feasible alternatives exist at present during these critical periods. Page 13 TABLE B. 1: CHARACTERISTIC OF SECTOR  FACILITIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Harvest or Raw Material In X X X X X X X X X X X X Fumigation Schedule ( MB)* X X Retail Target Market Window N/ A * Plants in the southern United States may fumigate twice a year; plants in the northern United States may fumigate once every 3 years. However, fumigations may occur whenever a population explosion occurs.

TABLE B. 2: CHARACTERISTIC OF SECTOR: COMMODITIES Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Fumigation Schedule ( MB): All Commodities X X X X X X X X X X X X Retail Target Market Window: All Commodities X X X X Although fumigations may occur whenever a pest population explosion occurs, ideally foodprocessing plants will be fumigated with methyl bromide on 3 day holiday weekends just prior to the summer and at summer's end. This maximizes efficiency since the facilities are usually closed and workers are not present; and prior to very warm temperatures that increases insect pressure.

9. SUMMARY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE METHYL BROMIDE IS CURRENTLY BEING USED TABLE 9.1: ( a) FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS CUE MB DOSAGE ( kg/ 1000m ³ ) EXPOSURE TIME ( hours) TEMP ( º C) NUMBER OF FUMIGATIONS PER YEAR PROPORTION OF FACILITY TREATED AT THIS DOSE FIXED ( F) MOBILE ( M) STACK ( S) National Pest Management Association Ave. 24 48 24 hrs 1 3 60 100% F, M TABLE 9.1: ( b) FIXED FACILITIES CUE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND APPROXIMATE AGE IN YEARS VOLUME ( 1,000m ³ ) OR RANGE NUMBER OF FACILITIES GASTIGHTNESS ESTIMATE National Pest Management Association 5 10% 1 15 yrs old typically newer structures are tilt up concrete construction.

80% 15 75 yrs old, combination of metal, wood, brick and concrete.

5 10% 75+ years old, combination of construction materials and methods. Not available Not available Tilt up concrete   good to medium Metal, wood, brick construction   medium to poor.

Trailers/ containers   good to poor, must be inspected prior to treatment. Page 14 10. LIST ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE BEING USED TO CONTROL KEY TARGET PEST SPECIES IN THIS SECTOR Many of the MBTOC not in kind alternatives to methyl bromide are critical to monitoring pest populations and managing those populations, but they do not render a facility free of pests. . The most critical of these are: sanitation and IPM strategies. Sanitation is important and constantly addressed in management programs ( Arthur and Phillips 2003). Cleaning and hygiene practices alone do not reduce pest populations, but reportedly improve the efficacy of insecticides or diatomaceous earth ( Arthur and Phillips 2003). The principles of IPM are to utilize all available chemical, cultural, biological, and mechanical pest control practices. These include pheromone traps, electrocution traps, and light traps to monitor pest populations. If pests are found in traps, then contact insecticides and low volatility pesticides are applied in spot treatments for surfaces, cracks and crevices, or anywhere the pests may be hiding. These applications are intended to restrict pests from spreading throughout the facility to try to avoid a plant fumigation ( Arthur and Phillips 2003). However, IPM is not designed to completely eliminate pests from any given facility or to ensure that a facility remains free from infestation. In addition a major problem is the infestation of equipment and bins where there are no legal pesticides for those use sites other than the fumigants. Although FDA allows minimal contamination of food products, there is a zero tolerance for insects imposed by market demands, therefore, neither sanitation nor IPM is acceptable as an alternative to methyl bromide fumigation; but these strategies are used to manage pest populations and extend the time between methyl bromide fumigations.

In addition to sanitation and IPM, most food processing manufacturers in the United States currently use both phosphine, alone and in combination with carbon dioxide, and heat to fumigate their facilities. Many of the facilities treat incoming grains and their storage facilities with phosphine, but the corrosive nature of phosphine limits its use throughout the entire plant, especially in areas with electronic components. Phosphine is problematic in that some stored product pests are already becoming resistant to this chemical. Some facilities, probably due to construction, are unable to use phosphine and/ or heat. Facilities in the southern and western parts of the United States do not have heat sources on the premises thereby making heat fumigations impractical. Additionally, heat is a problem causing rancidity in butters and oils and denaturing proteins that may be used in the facility. Yet, there are plants in the U. S. that have incorporated both fumigation techniques and still need to fumigate with methyl bromide although they have been able to lengthen times between methyl bromide applications, thereby reducing the amount of methyl bromide used. Page 15 PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION 11. SUMMARIZE THE ALTERNATIVE( S) TESTED, STARTING WITH THE MOST PROMISING ALTERNATIVE( S)

Table 11.1: Summary of the Alternatives Tested PEST STUDY TYPE RESULTS CITATION T. castaneum Pilot feed and flour mills; Insects contained in plastic boxes. Non uniform heat. Number of hours to reach 50 ° C varied between the mills and within mills. 100% mortality at most locations of 50 60 ° C for 52 hrs. Old instars and pupae more heat tolerant Mahroof, et al. 2003 T. castaneum Lab Mortality of each life stage increased with increase in temperature and exposure time. Young larvae most heat tolerant and required 7.2 hr at > 50 ° C. Mahroof, et al. 2003 T. castaneum & T. confusum Lab Mortality increased as temperature increased and decreased as humidity increased. Mortality at one week was greater than initial mortality probably due to delayed effects of DE. T. confusum mortality lower than T. castaneum. Arthur 2000 Rhyzopertha dominica; P. interpunctella; & T. castaneum Lab Initial investigation of volatiles from mountain sagebrush demonstrated some activity in against these insects in bioassays. No indication of whether this is really a potential alternative Dunkel & Sears 1998 T. confusum 2nd & 3rd floors of a Pilot flour mill Adult insects in open rings placed in mill. 100% mortality of beetles in 25 hr on the north end of the 3rd floor, but south end of 2nd floor had only 75% mortality with full DE and 50% mortality with partial DE after 64 hr. Dowdy & Fields 2002 Ephestia kuehniella Lab Efficacy was influenced by age of the medium with DE when investigated under driest conditions ( 58% rh). But this is not a pest of concern in the U. S. Nielsen 1998 T. castaneum & T. confusum Lab Field collected flour beetles demonstrated varying degrees of resistance to several pesticides: malathion, chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, phosphine, but not to resmethrin. T. castaneum more resistant than confusum. Zettler 1991 T. castaneum & T. confusum Lab Malathion resistant flour beetles were susceptible to cyfluthrin treated steel panels. Longer residuals on unpainted panels than on painted panels Arthur 1992 Page 16 TABLE 11.2: SUMMARY OF REVIEW OR POSITION PAPERS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES FOR STORED PRODUCT PESTS SYNOPSIS OF REVIEW OR POSITION PAPERS CITATION Review of methyl bromide alternatives for stored product insects: Heat: gradients in buildings, insect refugia, rate can be problematic due to structures, some equipment heat sensitive, plastics warp, dust explosions, sugar, oils, butter & adhesives removed, not all food products can be heated; phosphine: activity slow, flammability above concentrations of 1.8% by volume, corrosion of copper, silver, and gold, no data for in combination with CO2 and heat; modified atmospheres: activity slow, requires air tight structures; sulfuryl fluoride1: no food tolerances in the U. S., no registration for this use. Fields & White 2002 Cites studies on: the development of resistance to phosphine in stored product pests; interaction of time, temperature and concentration of performance of phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride's difficulty in killing egg stage; Tables comparing phosphine to methyl bromide ( Table 1, Appendix A) Bell 2000 Theoretical paper based on a few lab studies and small field crop trials indicating that traps currently used for monitoring pest populations could be used to reduce those populations. No studies on a commercial scale or food processing/ storage facility were present. Cox 2004 Mostly lab studies on assorted stored product pests indicate that IGRs, especially methoprene and diflubenzuron, may play a role in controlling these insects Oberlander, et al. 1997 A simulation model in Denmark suggests that increase temperatures inside mills drives moth outbreaks and if mills were cooled to outdoor temperatures, moth outbreaks would be less frequent. Skovgard, et al. 1999 Investigations into chemical control strategies should include a thorough examination of physical, biological and environmental factors that can affect pesticide toxicity. These include: application rate, formulation, timing, surface substrate, and target pest. WP formulation of cyfluthrin applied to concrete lasted longer than the EC formulation. T. confusum was more susceptible than T. castaneum to WP. Zettler & Arthur 2000 1At the time of this review, sulfuryl fluoride had not been registered in the United States for any food uses. The new registration does not include the commodities within this sector. Page 17 12. SUMMARIZE TECHNICAL REASONS, IF ANY, FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE FOR YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES: ( For economic constraints, see Question 15):

TABLE 12.1: SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL REASON FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IN KIND ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY COMMENTS Carbon Dioxide ( high pressure) No Controlled & Modified Atmospheres No Facilities in the United States are not airtight enough for modified atmospheres or carbon dioxide to be effective primarily because most are more than 25 years old and are not subsidized by the federal government. Downtime required for CO2 alone is much longer, at 6 12 days. Ethyl/ Methyl Formate No Not registered in United States ( last product cancelled in Oct. 1989) Hydrogen Cyanide No Not registered in United States ( last product cancelled in Feb. 1988) Phosphine, alone No Phosphine, in combination No Although does kill insects, it is corrosive to metals, especially copper and its alloys, bronze and brass. These metals are important components of the electronics that run the manufacturing equipment. In addition some of the equipment itself ( for example: motors, mixers, etc.) also have metal parts that contain copper. In addition it requires longer application time. This alternative is already being used in the areas without electronics and where temperatures are not a factor. Resistance to this fumigant has also been reported for several stored product pests. Sulfuryl fluoride No United States recent registration does not include these uses NOT IN KIND ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY COMMENTS Heat Treatment No Sufficiently high temperature will kill insects given enough time; but heat sources are not readily available in all areas of United States ( such as those in the south where hot weather is the norm and no heaters are available); and heat requires longer time of exposure. In areas that can use heat, it is being used. It is not feasible in remaining plants or areas of a plant. Cold Treatment No Contact Insecticides No Cultural Practices No Electrocution No Inert Dust No Pest Exclusion/ Physical Removal No Pesticides of Low Volatility No Pheromones No Physical Removal/ Cleaning / Sanitation No Rodenticide No Does not completely disinfest facility;

Table 12.2: Comparison of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation FUMIGANT PREPARATION TIME ( HR) FUMIGATION TIME ( HRS) DISSIPATION TIME ( HRS) MINIMUM NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO ONE MB APPLICATION Methyl Bromide 24 24 24  Phosphine, alone 24 48 72 24 0 2 Phosphine + CO2 24 48 72 24 3 4 Heat 36 48 52 24 3 4 Page 18 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL 13. HOW HAS THIS SECTOR REDUCED THE USE AND EMISSIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE SITUATION OF THE NOMINATION?

Using sanitation, IPM, i. e. the " not in kind" alternatives the industry has been able to reduce methyl bromide use by extending the time between fumigations. Plants in the southern United States used to fumigate with methyl bromide as much as 4 6 times a year. The use of IPM strategies and more stringent sanitation methods have allowed these facilities to reduce the number of methyl bromide fumigations to twice a year. These fumigations are typically at the beginning of the summer and at the end of the summer.

In the northern regions of the United States, IPM strategies and sanitation methods have enabled some of these facilities to fumigate with methyl bromide once every 3 years, and a few facilities have gone without a methyl bromide fumigation for almost 5 years. The facilities in the northern United States have been able to exploit heat treatments more extensively than their southern counterparts, as well as opening up facilities during extremely cold weather for extensive cleaning with low volatility pesticides ( organophosphates, pyrethroids, insect growth regulators, botanicals) at the perimeters to kill pests within the facilities.

The use of methyl bromide in food processing plants in the U. S. is minimized in several ways. In preparation for the loss of methyl bromide, the food processing industry has been active in finding ways to reduce pests in the plants ( these techniques were described in Table 12.1). Page 19 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 14. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD No data are available.

15. SUMMARIZE ECONOMIC REASONS, IF ANY, FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE FOR YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES TABLE 15.1. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC REASONS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE NO. METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC REASON ( IF ANY) FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING AVAILABLE ESTIMATED MONTH/ YEAR WHEN THE ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT COULD BE SOLVED 1 Heat Treatment Under laboratory conditions, brief exposure of commodities to high temperatures may eliminate insects without adversely affecting product quality. Sufficiently high temperature will kill insects given enough time; but heat sources are not readily available in all areas of United States ( such as those in the south where hot weather is the norm and no heaters are available); and heat requires longer time of exposure. In areas that can use heat, it is being used. It is not feasible in remaining plants or areas of a plant. Also, this approach is not feasible for treating commercial scale commodity volumes. Most insects do not survive more than 12 hours when exposed to 45oC or more than 5 minutes when exposed to 50oC ( Fields, 1992). However, the effectiveness of this approach has not been tested with large volumes of commodities. Substitution of heat treatments where high temperatures are not already used for other applications would require extensive retrofitting of existing facilities, as well as heat delivery systems capable of rapidly and uniformly heating large volumes of commodities in order to achieve total insect control. Furthermore, cheese quality may be adversely affected by exposure to heat. No indication was given by the applicant as to a timetable to solve identified problems.

2 Phosphine alone or in combination Although does kill insects, it is corrosive to metals, especially copper and its alloys, bronze and brass. These metals are important components of the electronics that run the manufacturing equipment. In addition some of the equipment itself ( for example: motors, mixers, etc.) also have metal parts that contain copper. In addition it requires longer application time. This alternative is already being used in the areas without electronics and where temperatures are not a factor. Resistance to this fumigant has also been reported for several stored product pests. Also, not suitable to replace methyl bromide when rapid fumigations are needed to meet No indication was given by the applicant as to a timetable to solve identified problems. Page 20 NO. METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC REASON ( IF ANY) FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING AVAILABLE ESTIMATED MONTH/ YEAR WHEN THE ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT COULD BE SOLVED customer timelines. Furthermore, cheese makers claim that phosphine causes damage to the cheese, " melting of the cheese" and may cause acid residue, acrid off odors and affect flavor.

Phosphine fumigation takes 3 10 days, depending on temperature, compared to 1 day for MB ( Hartsell et al., 1991, Zettler, 2002, Soderstrom et al., 1984, phosphine labels). An additional 2 days are needed for outgassing phosphine. Phosphine fumigation is least feasible during the colder winter months when, according to label directions, the minimum exposure periods increases to 8 10 days ( plus two days for aeration) when commodity temperature decreases to 5oC  12 oC. Phosphine is not used when commodity temperature drops below 5oC ( Phosphine and Eco2fume ® labels).

3 Irradiation Although rapid and effective, irradiation may result in living insect left in the treated product. Treated insects are sterilized and stop feeding, but are not immediately killed. The high dosages necessary to cause immediate mortality in target insects may reduce product quality. Irradiation requires major capital expenditures and irradiated food are not widely accepted by consumers. No indication was given by the applicant as to a timetable to solve identified problems.

4 Carbon Dioxide ( high pressure) Facilities in the United States are not airtight enough for modified atmospheres or carbon dioxide to be effective primarily because most are more than 25 years old. No indication was given by the applicant as to a timetable to solve identified problems.

Commodities and facilities listed in this chapter were requested by the National Pest Management Association which represents members that provide fumigation services to food processing and storage facilities. The economic impacts on the facility from using the next best alternative could not be assessed since the applicant is not the end user. However, the uses included in this chapter are those with no technically and economically feasible alternative. In general, economic impacts to the commodity and food processing sector can be characterized as arising from three contributing factors. First, the direct pest control costs increased in most cases because phosphine is more expensive due to increased labor time required for longer treatment time and increased number of treatments. Second, capital expenditures may be required to adopt phosphine for accelerated replacement of plant and equipment due to corrosive nature of phosphine. Finally, additional production downtimes for the use of alternatives are unavoidable. Many facilities operate at or near full production capacity and alternatives that take longer than methyl bromide or require more frequent application can result in manufacturing slowdowns, shutdowns, and shipping delays. Slowing down production would result in additional costs to the methyl bromide users.

The industries that use methyl bromide for commodity and facility fumigation are, in general, subject to limited pricing power, changing market conditions, and government regulations. Companies within these industries operate in a highly competitive global marketplace Page 21 characterized by high sales volume, low profit margins, and rapid turnover of inventories. In addition, producers' associations generally manage companies of this type, and, therefore, making new capital investment is often difficult.

MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES No information available.

PART F: FUTURE PLANS 16. PROVIDE A DETAILED PLAN DESCRIBING HOW THE USE AND EMISSIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE WILL BE MINIMIZED IN THE FUTURE FOR THE NOMINATED USE.

The industry is committed to studying how to improve insect control with IPM strategies and sanitation and to further reduce the number of methyl bromide fumigations. They are also continuing to pursue research of heat treatments to maximize efficiency. The United States government is supporting research in this sector ( see Section 17.1) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or Agency) has made registering methyl bromide alternatives a priority ( see Section 17.2). EPA registered sulfuryl fluoride for some commodities and some mills on January 23, 2004 ( see Section 17.2.1).

17. PROVIDE A DETAILED PLAN DESCRIBING WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS USE:

17.1. Research The number of available insecticides that can be used in and around food plants, processing mills, and food warehouses in the U. S. has declined in recent years. The research and development of chemical alternatives to be used by this sector is a critical need in the U. S. The post harvest food processing sector has invested substantial time and funding into research and development of technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. Past and current research focuses on the biology and ecology of the pests, primarily insect pests. To implement non chemical controls and reduce methyl bromide use requires a thorough understanding of the pests in order to exploit their weaknesses. Some of these investigations have studied the effects of temperature and humidity on the fecundity, development, and longevity of a specific species. Other studies have been to determine the structural preferences and microhabitat requirements of a species. Studies of factors affecting population growth ( interactions within and among species) have been conducted. However, there is still much research that needs to be done.

IPM and sanitation methods are also under investigation. Studies have focused on food plant design, engineering modifications for pest exclusion, and insect resistant packaging. New research is demonstrating a potential to incorporate chemical repellents into packaging materials ( Arthur and Phillips 2003). Further studies with pheromones and trapping strategies are helping to improve IPM in food processing plants. Page 22 The USDA is continuing to fund research projects for post harvest/ food processing plants. Such activities include:

Biology and Management of Food Pests ( Oct 2002 Sep 2007) to: examine the reproductive biology and behavior of storage weevils, Indianmeal moth, and red and confused flour beetles; determine the influence of temperature on the population growth, mating and development of storage pests, specifically storage weevils, Indianmeal moth, and red and confused flour beetles; examine the use of CO2 concentrations within a grain mass to predict storage weevils and flour beetle population growth; and examine the use of alternative fumigants on insect mortality ( ozone, sagebrush, Profume ® ) .

Chemically Based Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Post harvest and Quarantine Pests ( Jul 2000  Dec 2004) to: develop quarantine/ post harvest control strategies using chemicals to reduce arthropod pests in durable and perishable commodities; develop new fumigants and/ or strategies to reduce methyl bromide use; develop technology and equipment to reduce methyl bromide emissions to the atmosphere; develop system approaches for control using chemicals combined with nonchemical methodologies which will yield integrated pest control management programs; and develop methods to detect insect infestations.

The rice milling industry has spent over US$ 500,000 on research to develop alternatives since 1992, and plans to use additional pesticides, such as carbonyl sulfide, carbon dioxide, phosphine, magnesium phosphide ( magtoxin), and dichlorvos ( vapona) over the next few years. Nonchemical methods used by this sub sector, to reduce methyl bromide use, include heat and cold treatments, and many individual companies are involved in further research and testing of alternatives. Industry experts also recommend further studies on sulfuryl fluoride tolerances and combination treatments of heat/ carbon dioxide/ phosphine.

The bakery sector is implementing heat as an alternative at those facilities where heat is technically feasible. Currently, heat is being implemented at several facilities nationwide, but further trials are needed to determine the effects of heat on a long term basis. However, older facilities with hardwood floors and plant electrical wiring systems are unsuitable for heat treatments. Other methods being used to reduce reliance on methyl bromide are: exclusion, cleaning, early detection, improved design of equipment, trapping, and other integrated pest management ( IPM) approaches. Phosphine continues to be tested.

The flour milling industry is committed to IPM techniques in order to minimize reliance on any one tool. Many plants have reduced the amount of annual fumigations from 4 5 per year to 2 3 per year. Some of these facilities combine methyl bromide with carbon dioxide. Further, these applicants have authored three manuals on fumigation best practices, which are widely utilized throughout the industry. The industry continues to test high heat, phosphine, alone and in combination; and the combination of heat, phosphine, and carbon dioxide. Page 23 17.2. Registration Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the EPA currently has more applications pending in its registration review queue than the resources to evaluate them, EPA prioritizes the applications. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U. S. EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the EPA to initiate its review.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application, allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, Agency scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are minimized The U. S. EPA has also co chaired the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's US$ 15 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals each year for USDA's US$ 2.5 million per year methyl bromide alternatives research has further ensured close coordination between the U. S. government and the research community.

Since 1997, the U. S. EPA has registered the following chemical/ use combinations as part of its commitment to expedite the review of methyl bromide alternatives:

  2000: Phosphine in combination to control stored product insect pests   2001: Indianmeal Moth Granulosis Virus to control Indianmeal moth in stored grains   2004: Sulfuryl fluoride registered as a post harvest fumigant for grains and flour mills, but not for the commodities included in this chapter.

18. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Page 24 19. CITATIONS Arthur, F. H. 2000. Toxicity of diatomaceous earth to red flour beetles and confused flour beetles ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of temperature and relative humidity. J. Econ. Entomol. 93( 2): 526 532.

Arthur, F. H. 1992. Cyfluthrin WP and EC formulations to control malathion resistant red flour beetles and confused flour beetles ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of paint on residual activity. J. Entomol. Sci. 27( 4): 436 444.

Arthur, F. and T. W. Phillips. 2003. Stored product insect pest management an d control, In: Food Plant Sanitation eds: Y. H. Hui, B. L. Bruinsma, J. R. Gorham, W. Nip, P. S. Tong, and P. Ventresca. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp. 341 358.

Bell, C. H. 2000. Fumigation in the 21st century. Crop Protection 19: 563 569.

Cox, P. D. 2004. Potential for using semiochemicals to protect stored products from insect infestation. J Stored Prod. Res. 40: 1 25.

Dowdy, A K.& P. G. Fields. 2002. Heat combined with diatomaceous earth to control the confused flour beetle ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in a flour mill. J Stored Prod. Res. 38: 11 22.

Dunkel, F. V. and L. J. Sears. 1998. Fumigant properties of physical preparations from Mountain big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentate Nutt. ssp. vaseyana ( Rydb.) Beetle for stored grain insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 34( 4): 307 321.

Fields, P. and N. D. G. White. 2002. Alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for storedproduct and quarantine insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 331 59.

Hou, X., P. Fields, and W. Taylor. 2004. The effect of repellents on penetration into packaging by stored product insects. J Stored Prod. Res. 40: 47 54.

Mahroof, R., Subramanyam, B. and Eustace, D. 2003. Temperature and relative humidity profiles during heat treatment of mills and its efficacy against Tribolium castaneum ( Herbst) life stages. J. Stored Prod. Res. 39: 555 569.

Mahroof, R., B. Subramanyam, J. E. Throne, and A. Menon. 2003. Time mortality relationships for Tribolium castaneum ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) life stages exposed to elevated temperatures. J. Econ. Entomol. 96( 4): 1345 1351.

Nielsen, P. S. 1998. The effect of a diatomaceous earth formulation on the larvae of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller. J Stored Prod. Res 34: 113 121. Page 25 Oberlander, H., D. L. Silhacek, E. Shaaya, and I. Ishaaya. 1997. Current status and future perspectives of the use of insect growth regulators for the control of stored product insects. J Stored Prod. Res. 33: 1 6.

Skovgard, H., N. Holst, and P. S. Nielsen. 1999. Simulation model of the Mediterranean flour moth ( Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Danish flour mills. Environ. Entomol. 28( 6): 1060 1066.

Zettler, J. L. 1991. Pesticide resistance in Tribolium castaneum and T. confusum ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) form flour mills in the United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 84( 3): 763 767.

Zettler, J. L. and F. H. Arthur. 2000. Chemical control of stored product insects with fumigants and residual treatments. Crop Protection 19: 577 582.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Arthur, F. H. 2000. Toxicity of diatomaceous earth to red flour beetles and confused flour beetles ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of temperature and relative humidity. J. Econ. Entomol. 93( 2): 526 532.

Arthur, F. H. 1992. Cyfluthrin WP and EC formulations to control malathion resistant red flour beetles and confused flour beetles ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of paint on residual activity. J. Entomol. Sci. 27( 4): 436 444.

Bell, C. H. 2000. Fumigation in the 21st century. Crop Protection 19: 563 569.

Cox, P. D. 2004. Potential for using semiochemicals to protect stored products from insect infestation. J Stored Prod. Res. 40: 1 25.

Dowdy, A K.& P. G. Fields. 2002. Heat combined with diatomaceous earth to control the confused flour beetle ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in a flour mill. J Stored Prod. Res. 38: 11 22.

Dunkel, F. V. and L. J. Sears. 1998. Fumigant properties of physical preparations from Mountain big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentate Nutt. ssp. vaseyana ( Rydb.) Beetle for stored grain insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 34( 4): 307 321.

Fields, P. and N. D. G. White. 2002. Alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for storedproduct and quarantine insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 331 59.

Hou, X., P. Fields, and W. Taylor. 2004. The effect of repellents on penetration into packaging by stored product insects. J Stored Prod. Res. 40: 47 54.

Mahroof, R., Subramanyam, B. and Eustace, D. 2003. Temperature and relative humidity profiles during heat treatment of mills and its efficacy against Tribolium castaneum ( Herbst) life stages. J. Stored Prod. Res. 39: 555 569. Page 26 Mahroof, R., B. Subramanyam, J. E. Throne, and A. Menon. 2003. Time mortality relationships for Tribolium castaneum ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) life stages exposed to elevated temperatures. J. Econ. Entomol. 96( 4): 1345 1351.

Mueller, D. K. 1998. Stored product protection  a period of transition. Insects Limited, Inc., Indianapolis, IN. 337 pp.

Nielsen, P. S. 1998. The effect of a diatomaceous earth formulation on the larvae of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller. J Stored Prod. Res 34: 113 121.

Oberlander, H., D. L. Silhacek, E. Shaaya, and I. Ishaaya. 1997. Current status and future perspectives of the use of insect growth regulators for the control of stored product insects. J Stored Prod. Res. 33: 1 6.

Skovgard, H., N. Holst, and P. S. Nielsen. 1999. Simulation model of the Mediterranean flour moth ( Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Danish flour mills. Environ. Entomol. 28( 6): 1060 1066.

UNEP. 1998. 1998 Assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. United Nations Publication.

UNEP. 2001. Sourcebook of Technologies for protecting the ozone layer: alternatives to methyl bromide. United Nations Publication Zettler, J. L. 1991. Pesticide resistance in Tribolium castaneum and T. confusum ( Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) form flour mills in the United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 84( 3): 763 767.

Zettler, J. L. and F. H. Arthur. 2000. Chemical control of stored product insects with fumigants and residual treatments. Crop Protection 19: 577 582. Page 27 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A  TABLE 1: EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON CONCENTRATION AND TIME THRESHOLDS FOR SOME PESTS OF STORED PRODUCTS. ( FROM: BELL, C. H. 2000) TEMPERATURE ( º C) SPECIES FUMIGANT THRESHOLD ( º C OR TIME) 15 25 Sitophilus oryzae Methyl Bromide º C ( mg/ l) 0.6 0.9 1.3 2.0 Tribolium confusum Methyl Bromide º C ( mg/ l) 1.3 2.0 2.5 3.0 Tribolium castaneum Methyl Bromide º C ( mg/ l) 1.3 2.0 3.0 3.5 Tribolium castaneum Phosphine º C ( mg/ l) 0.005 0.0011 Tribolium castaneum Phosphine Time ( h) 0.5 1.5 For phosphine relatively long exposure times are required for kill of all stages & time threshold is more important than the concentration for efficient fumigant action. Page 28 APPENDIX A  TABLE 2: CONCENTRATION TIME PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONS BY NATIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OUNCE HOURS MG/ L SPECIES STAGE TEMP ( ° C) PHOSPHINE 72 HR PHOSPHINE 144 HR METHYL BROMIDE SULFURYL FLUORIDE eggs 4.4 146.4 eggs 10 8.5 49.5 91.2 eggs 15.6 61.8 37.9 48 eggs 21.1 0.64 0.86 43.2 eggs 26.5 711.7 larvae 4.4 6.9 1.2 379.2 larvae 10 3.7 0.86 206.4 larvae 15.6 0.94 0.72 132 larvae 21.1 0.5 0.43 120 larvae 26.5 55.9 pupae 4.4 5.6 7.4 1046 pupae 10 5.6 4.6 324 pupae 15.6 5.2 1.3 124.8 pupae 21.1 0.58 0.3 108 adult 4.4 2.2 1.9 230.4 adult 10 1.8 1.1 105.6 adult 15.6 1 0.5 64.8 adult 21.1 0.36 0.3 57.6 Lasioderma serricorne adult 26.5 34.9 Sitophilus oryzae adult 21 0.36 30 eggs 26.7 1124.8 adult 4.4 209.3 178.2 adult 15.6 92.8 97.6 adult 25 0.48 64 55 Tribolium confusum adult 26.7 74.2 76.5 Tribolium castaneum adult 24 11.5 62 eggs 15 53 eggs 20 29 eggs 25 22 eggs 30 21 larvae 15 34 larvae 20 31 larvae 25 24 larvae 30 25 pupae 15 64 pupae 20 50 pupae 25 43 Plodia interpunctella pupae 30 35 REMINDER Insert a blank for Appendix B Page 29 APPENDIX B. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI).

Date: N/ A Sector: N/ A Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) 2001 & 2002 Average % of Volume 93,523 3,892 24 89,861 3,740 24 0% N/ A N/ A 9,938 414 24 5,869 244 24 0% N/ A N/ A 85,393 3,554 24 76,899 3,200 24 0% N/ A N/ A 503 21 24 643 27 24 0% N/ A N/ A 3,856 160 24 3,596 150 24 0% N/ A N/ A 4,905 204 24 4,352 181 24 0% N/ A N/ A 198,117 8,245 24.03 181,219 7,542 24.03 0% N/ A N/ A 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW Amount ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) % Reduction 93,523  3,663   89,861 89,861 89,861 3,740 24 4%

9,938  4,069   5,869 5,869 5,869 244 24 41%

85,393  8,494   76,899 76,899 76,899 3,200 24 10%

503     503 503 503 21 24 0%

3,856  260   3,596 3,596 3,596 150 24 7%

4,905  553   4,352 4,352 4,352 181 24 11%

198,117 198,117 188,811 188,811 188,811 181,079 181,079 181,079 7,536 24 9%

0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9%

2006 Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Pest free Market Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use /

State Frequency of Treatment / Yr Loss per 1000 m3 ( US$/ 1000m) Loss per Kg of MeBr ( US$/ kg) Loss as a % of Gross Revenue Y Y Y 0 N 2 3 Y Y Y + N 2 Y Y Y 0 N 1/ 5 yr Y Y Y + N 2 Y Y Y 0 N 1/ 5 yr Y Y Y  N 2.5 Conversion Units: 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms 1,000 cu ft = 0.028316847 1,000 cubic meters Cocoa Dried Milk Cheese Processing Plants Other Commodity Spices and Herbs Other Issues Spices and Herbs Cocoa Processed Foods Spices and Herbs TOTAL OR AVERAGE % Reduction from Initial Request Other Commodity Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Heat Heat Loss as a % of Net Revenue FOOD FACILITY TYPE Processed Foods Cheese Processing Plants Other Commodity Other Considerations Dried Milk Spices and Herbs Cocoa Heat Heat Heat (%) Combined Impacts Time, Quality, or Product Loss FOOD FACILITY TYPE Processed Foods Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) (%) Key Pest Distribution (%) Adopt New Fumigants Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

Nomination Amount Dried Milk Cheese Processing Plants FOOD FACILITY TYPE Cocoa 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs)

Processed Foods Dried Milk Cheese Processing Plants Other Commodity 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Volume FOOD FACILITY TYPE MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE Marginal Strategy Heat Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Average Volume in the US:

% of Average Volume Requested:

POST HARVEST USE ( NPMA)

2/ 26/ 04 2006 Amount of Request Economic Analysis Page 30 Footnotes for Appendix B:

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Volume in the U. S.   Average Volume in the U. S. is the average of 2001 and 2002 total volume fumigated with methyl bromide in the U. S. in this sector ( when available). 2. % of Average Volume Requested  Percent (%) of Average Volume Requested is the total volume in the sector's request divided by the Average Volume in the U. S. ( when available). 3. 2006 Amount of Request   The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total volume of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per thousand cubic feet. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the U. S. nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in kilograms active ingredient of methyl bromide, total volume of methyl bromide use, and application rate in kilograms active ingredient of methyl bromide per thousand cubic meters. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) is the percentage (%) of the applicant's requested amount subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume   Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of volume of methyl bromide used within the defined region ( when available). 7. Regional Volume, Requested Volume %  Regional Volume, Requested Volume % is the volume in the applicant's request divided by the total volume fumigated with methyl bromide in the sector in the region covered by the request. 8. 2006 Nomination Options   2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while a consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2006 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried Page 31 to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. Use Rate kg/ 1000 m3 2006   Use rate in pounds per thousand cubic feet, 2006, is the use rate requested by the applicant as derived from the total volume to be fumigated divided by the total amount ( in pounds) of methyl bromide requested. 17. Use Rate kg/ 1000 m3 low   Use rate in pounds per thousand cubic feet, low, is the lowest historic use rate reported by the applicant. The use rate selected for determining the amount to nominate is the lower of this rate or the 2006 use rate ( above). 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For structures/ food facilities and commodities, key pests are assumed to infest 100% of the volume for the specific uses requested in that 100% of the problem must be eradicated. 19. Adopt New Fumigants (%)   Adopt new fumigants (%) is the percent (%) of the requested volume where we expect alternatives could be adopted to replace methyl bromide during the year of the CUE request. 20. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, and new fumigants. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). 21. Qualifying Volume  Qualifying volume ( 1000 cubic meters) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted volume by the combined impacts. 22. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying volume by the use rate. 23. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 24. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 25. Total U. S. Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 26. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 27. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. 28. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 29. Pest free Market. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be pest free in order to be sold either because of U. S. sanitary requirements or because of consumer acceptance. 30. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 31. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. If the applicant has not previously applied the word ` new' appears in this column. 32. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 33. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 34. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 35. Loss per 1000 m3   This measures the total loss per 1000 m3 of fumigation when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative, such as longer time spent in the fumigation chamber. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. 36. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. Page 32 37. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. 38. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 39. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 40. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Page 33 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already well characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors. Examples of the former include significant additional country ( cured, uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage production in Florida and California (` Ornamentals') and a group of structures and process foods that we have termed ` Post Harvest NPMA' which includes processed ( generally wheat based foods), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field grown tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991 U. S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40% for pre plant uses and 60% for postharvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U. S. baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre plant and post harvest sector.

Applicant Name 2005 U. S. CUE Nomination ( lbs)

California Cut Flower Commission 400,000 National Country Ham Association 1,172 Wayco Ham Company 39 California Date Commission 5,319 National Pest Management Association 319,369 Michigan Pepper Growers 20,904 Michigan Eggplant Growers 6,968 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Transplant Trays 2,254 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Field Grown 28,980 Virginia Tobacco Growers  Transplant Trays 941 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,200 Page 34 Ozark Country Hams 240 Nahunta Pork Center 248 American Association of Meat Processors 296,800 Total lbs 1,087,434 Total kgs 493,252


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38953-38957]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0640; Product Identifier 2018-NM-075-AD; Amendment
39-19343; AD 2018-16-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A319-133 airplanes and Model A321-232 airplanes. This
AD requires modification and re-identification, or replacement, of
certain engine fan cowl doors (FCDs) and installation of a placard in
the flight deck. This AD was prompted by reports of in-service engine
FCD losses, and the development of a new FCD front latch and keeper
assembly that addresses this unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 23, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 3,
2017 (82 FR 29371, June 29, 2017).
    We must receive comments on this AD by September 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No:
2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email

[email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0640.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0640; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0053, dated March 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A319-131, -132, and -
133 airplanes, Model A320-231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model
A321-131, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses during take-off were reported on
aeroplanes equipped with IAE V2500 engines. Prompted by these
occurrences, DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation
Civile] France issued AD 2000-444-156(B), mandating FCD latch
improvements. This [DGAC] AD was later superseded by [DGAC] AD 2001-
381(B) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-18-06, Amendment 39-13297
(68 FR 53501, September 11, 2003)], requiring installation of
additional fan cowl latch improvement by installing a hold open
device.
    Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, further FCD in flight losses
were experienced in service. Investigations confirmed that in all
cases, the fan cowls were opened prior to the flight and were not
correctly re-secured. During the pre-flight inspection, it was then
not detected that the FCD were not properly latched.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight loss
of a FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or
injury to persons on the ground.
    Prompted by these recent events, new FCD front latch and keeper
assembly were developed, having a specific key necessary to un-latch
the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless the FCD front latch is
safely closed. The key, after removal, must be stowed in the flight
deck at a specific location, as instructed in the applicable
Aircraft Maintenance Manual. Applicable Flight Crew Operating Manual
has been amended accordingly. After modification, the FCD is
identified with a different Part Number (P/N).
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC AD 2001-381(B), which is superseded, and
requires modification and re-identification of FCD.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0640.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01,
including Appendix 01, dated April 28, 2016. This service information
describes procedures for modifying the engine FCDs, installing
placards, and re-identifying the FCDs with new part numbers. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-131 and -132 airplanes;
Model A320-231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-131 and -231
airplanes, in addition to Model A319-133 airplanes and Model A321-232
airplanes. The unsafe condition on Model A319-131 and -132 airplanes;
Model A320-231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-131 and -231
airplanes is already addressed in AD 2017-13-10, Amendment 39-18940 (82
FR 29371, June 29, 2017); therefore this AD only applies to Model A319-
133 airplanes and Model A321-232 airplanes.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    There are currently no domestic operators of this product.
Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0640; Product
Identifier 2018-NM-075-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, we provide the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510....          $4,813           $5,323
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-16-03 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19343; Docket No. FAA-2018-0640;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-075-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-133 airplanes and Model
A321-232 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-service engine fan cowl
door (FCD) losses, and the development of a new FCD front latch and
keeper assembly that addresses this unsafe condition. We are issuing
this AD to address in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible
consequent damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Modification

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this
AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01, including Appendix 01,
dated April 28, 2016.
    (1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand engine FCDs on engines 1
and 2.
    (2) Install a placard that specifies the FCD keys stowage
location in the flight deck on the box located at the bottom of
panel 120VU or at the bottom of the coat stowage, as applicable to
airplane configuration.
    (3) Re-identify both engine FCDs with the new part numbers, as
specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08AU18.002

(h) Missing FCD Keys or Placard

    Flights with one or both FCD keys missing from the stowage
location in the fight deck, or with the placard (that specifies the
FCD keys stowage location) missing or damaged, are permitted for a
period not to exceed 10 calendar days from the date of discovery.

(i) Alternative Location of FCD Keys and Placard

    As an option to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, an alternative
location for the key stowage in the flight deck and installation of
a placard for identification of that stowage location are permitted
as specified in the operator's FAA-accepted maintenance or
inspection program, provided the keys can be retrieved from that
flight deck location when needed and the placard installation is
done within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Optional Compliance by Replacement or Installation

    (1) Replacing an engine FCD having a part number listed as ``Old
Part Number'' in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of this AD
with an FCD having the corresponding part number listed as ``New
Part Number'' in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of this AD
is an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD for that engine FCD only.
    (2) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 157516 has been
embodied in production is compliant with the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD, provided no engine FCD
having a part number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in figure 1
to paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of this AD is installed on that
airplane.
    (3) An airplane on which Airbus Modification 157718 has been
embodied in production is compliant with the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    (4) Installation on an engine of a right-hand and left-hand
engine FCD having a part number approved after the effective date of
this AD is a method of compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD for that engine only,
provided the part number is approved, and the installation is
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(k) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) For an airplane with an engine FCD installed having a part
number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in figure 1 to paragraphs
(g), (j), and (k) of this AD: After modification of that airplane as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do not install an engine FCD,
having a part number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in figure 1
to paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of this AD.
    (2) For an airplane that does not have an engine FCD installed
having a part number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in figure 1
to paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of this AD: On or after the
effective date of this AD, do not install an engine FCD having a
part number identified as ``Old Part Number'' in figure 1 to
paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, dated
December 18, 2015.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0053, dated March 14, 2016, for related
information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2018-0640.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards

Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(4) and (o)(5) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 3, 2017 (82 FR 29371, June 29, 2017).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1069, Revision 01, including
Appendix 01, dated April 28, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.airbus.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 23, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16576 Filed 8-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P