[Federal Register: August 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45158-45160]
[DOCID:fr04au08-3]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0003; FRL-8696-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Illinois State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The state is incorporating
revisions EPA made to its definition of volatile organic compound
(VOC). This SIP revision adds one compound to the list of compounds
that

are exempt from being considered a VOC. This is because it was
determined that the listed compound does not significantly contribute
to ozone formation.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 3, 2008, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by September 3, 2008. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0003, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is EPA approving?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the revisions?
III. What are the environmental effects of this action?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA approving?

    EPA is approving an Illinois SIP revision that adds to the list of
compounds that are exempt from being considered a VOC. On January 29,
2008, Illinois submitted its revised 35 Illinois Administrative Code
(IAC) 211.7150(a), the state's VOC exemption list, with the addition of
1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane
(HFE-7300),
C2F5CF(OCH3)CF(CH3)2
, requesting that this revised rule be incorporated into the Illinois
SIP in place of the current 35 IAC 211.7150(a). Compounds listed under
35 IAC 211.7150(a) are considered to be excluded from the definition of
a VOC. These compounds were determined to have negligible photochemical
reactivity. Users of the listed compounds are not required to follow
VOC limits or content requirements.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the revisions?

    EPA evaluated the petition to list HFE-7300 as a negligibly
reactive compound submitted by its manufacturer. On January 18, 2007,
EPA's approval (72 FR 2193) of adding HFE-7300 to its list of compounds
that are not considered VOCs was effective. The reactivity of this
compound with the hydroxyl radical (OH), the primary way by which most
organic compounds initially participate in atmospheric reactions that
lead to ozone formation, was compared to the reactivity of ethane. The
reactivity of ethane is the benchmark EPA considers in determining if
an organic compound is negligibly reactive. For HFE-7300, the
reactivity (kOH) was determined to be 1.5 x 10-14
cm3/molecule/sec. This is lower than ethane's kOH
of 2.4 x 10-13 cm3/molecule/sec. Thus, EPA
considers HFE-7300 to be a negligibly reactive compound. EPA made this
determination only for the compound in its pure form, meaning at least
99.96 percent by weight. Any azeotrope mixtures or organic blends of
HFE-7300 are not exempt and thus are considered VOCs.

III. What are the environmental effects of this action?

    Volatile organic compounds are precursors to ozone formation.
Complex photochemical reactions involving VOCs form tropospheric ozone.
    Ozone decreases lung function, causing chest pain and coughing. It
can aggravate asthma, reduce lung capacity, and increase risk of
respiratory diseases like pneumonia and bronchitis. Children playing
outside and healthy adults who work or exercise outside may also be
harmed by elevated ozone levels. Ozone also reduces vegetation growth
in economically important agricultural crops and wild plants.
    EPA has determined that HFE-7300 makes a negligible contribution to
ozone formation. Thus, the compound is no longer considered to be a VOC
for emission control purposes, and the exemptions will not harm air
quality. In fact, if sources switch from the use of a VOC compound to
one of the compounds that are no longer considered VOC, ozone formation
may be reduced.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Illinois SIP for ozone. This
revision adds one compound to the list of compounds considered exempt
from being a VOC compound. The compound HFE-7300 is added to the exempt
compounds list. Illinois sources are not required to follow VOC limits
or content requirements when using HFE-7300.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 3, 2008
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 3, 2008. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective October 3, 2008.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 3, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 14, 2008.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(182) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (182) On January 29, 2008, Illinois submitted revised regulations
that are consistent with 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1), as amended by 72 FR 2193.
The compound 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-
trifluoromethyl-pentane (HFE-7300) was added to the list of negligibly
reactive compounds excluded from the definition of VOM in 35 IAC
211.7150(a).
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Illinois Administrative Code Title 35: Environmental
Protection, Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions, Subpart B:
Definitions, Section 211.7150: Volatile Organic Matter (VOM) or
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), Subsection 211.7150(a). Effective
January 16, 2008.

[FR Doc. E8-17699 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33460-33467]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14473]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369; FRL-9922-39-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS44

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2016 Critical Use
Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing uses
that qualify for the critical use exemption and the amount of methyl
bromide that may be produced or imported for those uses for the 2016
control period. EPA is proposing this action under the authority of the
Clean Air Act to reflect consensus decisions of the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer at the
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Parties in November 2014.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0369, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI
as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make.
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number
(202) 343-9055; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also visit
the methyl bromide section of the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA's
Stratospheric Protection Division at www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr for further
information about the methyl bromide critical use exemption, other
Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone layer
depletion, and related topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) restrictions on the
consumption, production, and use of methyl bromide (a Class I, Group VI
controlled substance) for critical uses during calendar year 2016.
Under the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide consumption (consumption is
defined under section 601 of the CAA as production plus imports minus
exports) and production were phased out on January 1, 2005, apart from
allowable exemptions, such as the critical use and the quarantine and
preshipment (QPS) exemptions. With this action, EPA is proposing and
seeking comment on the uses that will qualify for the critical use
exemption as well as specific amounts of methyl bromide that may be
produced and imported for proposed critical uses for 2016.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities and categories of entities potentially regulated by this
proposed action include producers, importers, and exporters of methyl
bromide; applicators and distributors of methyl bromide; and users of
methyl bromide that applied for the 2016 critical use exemption
including growers of vegetable crops, ornamentals, fruits, and nursery
stock, and owners of stored food commodities. This list is not intended
to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be regulated by this proposed action. To determine
whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be
regulated by this proposed action, you should carefully examine the
regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section.

III. What is methyl bromide?

    Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas which is used
as a broad-spectrum pesticide and is controlled under the CAA as a
Class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS). Methyl bromide was once widely
used as a fumigant to control a variety of pests such as insects,
weeds, rodents, pathogens, and nematodes. Information on methyl bromide
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.
    Methyl bromide is also regulated by EPA under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and other statutes
and regulatory authority, as well as by States under their own statutes
and regulatory authority. Under FIFRA, methyl bromide is a restricted
use pesticide. Restricted use pesticides are subject to Federal and
State requirements governing their sale, distribution, and use. Nothing
in this proposed rule implementing Title VI of the Clean Air Act is
intended to derogate from provisions in any other Federal, State, or
local laws or regulations governing actions including, but not limited
to, the sale, distribution, transfer, and use of methyl bromide.
Entities affected by this proposal must comply with FIFRA and other
pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements for pesticides
(including, but not limited to, requirements pertaining to restricted
use pesticides) when producing, importing, exporting, acquiring,
selling, distributing, transferring, or using methyl bromide. The
provisions in this proposed action are intended only to implement the
CAA restrictions on the production, consumption, and use of methyl
bromide for critical uses exempted from the phaseout of methyl bromide.

IV. What is the background to the phaseout regulations for ozone-
depleting substances?

    The regulatory requirements of the stratospheric ozone protection
program that limit production and consumption of ozone-depleting
substances are in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. The regulatory program was
originally published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR
30566), in response to the 1987 signing and subsequent ratification of
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is the international
agreement aimed at reducing and eliminating the production and
consumption of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances. The United
States was one of the original signatories to the 1987 Montreal
Protocol, and the United States ratified the Protocol in 1988. Congress
then enacted, and President George H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 1990), which included Title VI on
Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85,
Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United States could satisfy its
obligations under the Protocol. EPA issued regulations to implement
this legislation and has since amended the regulations as needed.
    Methyl bromide was added to the Protocol as an ozone-depleting
substance in 1992 through the Copenhagen Amendment to the Protocol. The
Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Parties) agreed that each developed
country's level of methyl bromide production and consumption in 1991
should be the baseline for establishing a freeze on the level of methyl
bromide production and consumption for developed countries. EPA
published a rule in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR
65018), listing methyl bromide as a Class I, Group VI controlled
substance. This rule froze U.S. production and consumption at the 1991
baseline level of 25,528,270 kilograms, and set forth the percentage of
baseline allowances for methyl bromide granted to companies in each
control period (each calendar year) until 2001, when the complete
phaseout would occur. This phaseout date was established in response to
a petition filed in 1991 under sections 602(c)(3) and 606(b) of the
CAAA of 1990, requesting that EPA list methyl bromide as a Class I
substance and phase out its production and consumption. This date was
consistent with section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990, which, for newly
listed Class I ozone-depleting substances provides that ``no extension
[of the phaseout schedule in section 604] under this subsection may
extend the date for termination of production of any class I substance
to a date more than 7 years after January 1 of the year after the year

in which the substance is added to the list of class I substances.''
    At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties (MOP) in 1995, the Parties
agreed to adjustments to the methyl bromide control measures and agreed
to reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout date for developed countries
with exemptions permitted for critical uses. At that time, the United
States continued to have a 2001 phaseout date in accordance with
section 602(d) of the CAAA of 1990. At the Ninth MOP in 1997, the
Parties agreed to further adjustments to the phaseout schedule for
methyl bromide in developed countries, with reduction steps leading to
a 2005 phaseout. The Parties also established a phaseout date of 2015
for countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol (developing
countries).

V. What is the legal authority for exempting the production and import
of methyl bromide for critical uses permitted by the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol?

    In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the Clean Air Act to
prohibit the termination of production of methyl bromide prior to
January 1, 2005, to require EPA to align the U.S. phaseout of methyl
bromide with the schedule specified under the Protocol, and to
authorize EPA to provide certain exemptions. These amendments were
contained in Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 1998) and
were codified in section 604 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment
that specifically addresses the critical use exemption appears at
section 604(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. 7671c(d)(6). EPA revised the phaseout
schedule for methyl bromide production and consumption in a rulemaking
on November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795), which allowed for the reduction in
methyl bromide consumption specified under the Protocol and extended
the phaseout to 2005 while creating a placeholder for critical use
exemptions. Through an interim final rule on July 19, 2001 (66 FR
37751), and a final rule on January 2, 2003 (68 FR 238), EPA amended
the regulations to allow for an exemption for quarantine and
preshipment purposes.
    On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), EPA published a rule (the
``Framework Rule'') that established the framework for the critical use
exemption, set forth a list of approved critical uses for 2005, and
specified the amount of methyl bromide that could be supplied in 2005
from stocks and new production or import to meet the needs of approved
critical uses. EPA subsequently published rules applying the critical
use exemption framework for each of the annual control periods from
2006 to 2015.
    In accordance with Article 2H(5) of the Montreal Protocol, the
Parties have issued several Decisions pertaining to the critical use
exemption. These include Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4, which set forth
criteria for review of critical uses. The status of Decisions is
addressed in NRDC v. EPA, (464 F.3d 1, D.C. Cir. 2006) and in EPA's
``Supplemental Brief for the Respondent,'' filed in NRDC v. EPA and
available in the docket for this proposed action. In this proposed rule
on critical uses for 2016, EPA is honoring commitments made by the
United States in the Montreal Protocol context.
    Under authority of section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, EPA is now
proposing the uses that will qualify as approved critical uses for
2016, as well as the amount of methyl bromide that may be produced or
imported to satisfy those uses. The proposed critical uses and amounts
reflect Decision XXVI/6, taken at the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the
Parties in November 2014.

VI. What is the critical use exemption process?

A. Background of the Process

    Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol established the critical use
exemption provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1997, the
Parties established the criteria for an exemption in Decision IX/6. In
that Decision, the Parties agreed that ``a use of methyl bromide should
qualify as `critical' only if the nominating Party determines that: (i)
The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl
bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption;
and (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable
from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the
crops and circumstances of the nomination.'' EPA promulgated these
criteria in the definition of ``critical use'' at 40 CFR 82.3.
    In addition, Decision IX/6 provides that production and
consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be
permitted only if a variety of conditions have been met, including that
all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to
minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl
bromide, that research programs are in place to develop and deploy
alternatives and substitutes, and that methyl bromide is not available
in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or
recycled methyl bromide.
    EPA requested critical use exemption applications for 2016 through
a Federal Register notice published on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32646).
Applicants submitted data on their use of methyl bromide, the technical
and economic feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing research
programs into the use of alternatives in their sector, and efforts to
minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide.
    EPA reviews the data submitted by applicants, as well as data from
governmental and academic sources, to establish whether there are
technically and economically feasible alternatives available for a
particular use of methyl bromide, and whether there would be a
significant market disruption if no exemption were available. In
addition, an interagency workgroup reviews other parameters of the
exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization
techniques and applicants' research or transition plans. As required in
section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each exemption period, EPA consults
with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).\1\ This
assessment process culminates in the development of the U.S. critical
use nomination (CUN). Annually since 2003, the U.S. Department of State
has submitted a CUN to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Ozone Secretariat. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
(MBTOC) and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), which
are advisory bodies to Parties to the Montreal Protocol, review each
Party's CUN and make recommendations to the Parties on the nominations.
The Parties then take Decisions on critical use exemptions for
particular Parties, including how much methyl bromide may be supplied
for the exempted critical uses. EPA then provides an opportunity for
public comment on the amounts and specific uses of methyl bromide that
the agency is proposing to exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On January 22, 2014, the United States submitted the twelfth
Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the
United States of

America to the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination contained the
request for 2016 critical uses. In March 2014, MBTOC sent questions to
the United States concerning technical and economic issues in the 2016
nomination. The United States transmitted responses to MBTOC in March
2014. In May 2014, the MBTOC provided their interim recommendations on
the U.S. nomination in the May TEAP Interim Report. These documents,
together with reports by the advisory bodies noted above, are in the
public docket for this rulemaking. The proposed critical uses and
amounts approved in this rule reflect the analyses contained in those
documents.

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

    The December 23, 2004, Framework Rule established the framework for
the critical use exemption program in the United States, including
definitions, prohibitions, trading provisions, and recordkeeping and
reporting obligations. The preamble to the Framework Rule included
EPA's determinations on key issues for the critical use exemption
program.
    Since publishing the Framework Rule, EPA has annually promulgated
regulations to exempt specific quantities of production and import of
methyl bromide and to indicate which uses meet the criteria for the
exemption program for that year.
    This proposed action continues the approach established in the 2013
Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013) for determining the amounts of
Critical Use Allowances (CUAs) to be allocated for critical uses. A CUA
is the privilege granted through 40 CFR part 82 to produce or import 1
kilogram (kg) of methyl bromide for an approved critical use during the
specified control period. A control period is a calendar year. See 40
CFR 82.3. Each year's allowances expire at the end of that control
period and, as explained in the Framework Rule, are not bankable from
one year to the next.

C. Proposed Critical Uses

    In Decision XXVI/6, taken in November 2014, the Parties to the
Protocol agreed ``[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categories
for 2015 and 2016 set forth in table A of the annex to the present
decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the
present decision and in decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those
conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for
2015 and 2016 set forth in table B of the annex to the present
decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses. . . .'' The
following uses are those set forth in table A of the annex to Decision
XXVI/6 for the United States for 2016:

 Cured pork
 Strawberry field

    EPA is proposing to modify the table in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A,
appendix L to reflect the agreed critical use categories for 2016. EPA
is proposing to amend the table of critical uses and critical users
based on the uses permitted in Decision XXVI/6 and the technical
analyses contained in the 2016 U.S. nomination that assess data
submitted by applicants to the CUE program.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing to remove the food processing uses
that were listed as critical uses for 2014. The California Date
Commission as well as all users under the food processing use (rice
millers, pet food manufacturing facilities, and members of the North
American Millers' Association) did not submit CUE applications for 2016
and therefore were not included in the 2016 U.S. nomination to the
Parties of the Montreal Protocol.
    EPA is also proposing to remove the remaining commodity uses
(walnuts, dried plums, figs, and raisins). These sectors applied for a
critical use in 2016 but the United States did not nominate them for
2016. In addition, some sectors that were not on the list of critical
uses for 2014 or 2015 submitted applications for 2016. These sectors
are: Michigan cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato growers; Florida
eggplant, pepper, strawberry, and tomato growers; the California
Association of Nursery and Garden Centers; California stone fruit,
table and raisin grape, walnut, and almond growers; ornamental growers
in California and Florida; and the U.S. Golf Course Superintendents
Association. EPA conducted a thorough technical assessment of each
application and considered the effects that the loss of methyl bromide
would have for each agricultural sector, and whether significant market
disruption would occur as a result. Following this technical review,
EPA consulted with the USDA and the Department of State. EPA determined
that these users did not meet the critical use criteria in Decision IX/
6 and the United States therefore did not include them in the 2016
Critical Use Nomination. EPA notified these sectors of their status by
letters dated March 28, 2014. For each of these uses, EPA found that
there are technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl
bromide. EPA refers readers to the Federal Register Notice ``Request
for Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2017'' (79
FR 38887; July 9, 2014) for a summary of information on how the agency
evaluated specific uses and available alternatives when considering
applications for critical uses for 2016. EPA requests comment on the
technical assessments of the applications in the sector summary
documents found in the docket to this rule and the determination that
these users did not meet the critical use criteria and whether there is
any new or additional information that the agency may consider in
preparing future nominations.
    EPA is also seeking comment on the technical analyses contained in
the U.S. nomination (available for public review in the docket) and
information regarding any changes to the registration (including
cancellations or registrations), use, or efficacy of alternatives that
occurred after the nomination was submitted. EPA recognizes that as the
market for alternatives evolves, the thresholds for what constitutes
``significant market disruption'' or ``technical and economic
feasibility'' may change. Such information has the potential to alter
the technical or economic feasibility of an alternative and could thus
cause EPA to modify the analysis that underpins EPA's determination as
to which uses and what amounts of methyl bromide qualify for the CUE.
EPA notes that it will not finalize a rule containing uses beyond those
agreed to by the Parties for 2016.

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts

    Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/6 lists critical uses and
amounts agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2016. The
maximum amount of new production and import for U.S. critical uses in
2016, specified in Table B of the annex to Decision XXVI/6, is 234.78
MT, minus available stocks. This figure is equivalent to less than 1
percent of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline of 25,528
MT.
    EPA is proposing to determine the level of new production and
import according to the framework and as modified by the 2013 Rule.
Under this approach, the amount of new production for each control
period would equal the total amount permitted by the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol in their Decisions minus any reductions for available
stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives. These terms
(available stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives) are
discussed in detail below. Applying this approach,

EPA is proposing to allocate allowances to exempt 140,531 kg of new
production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2016,
making reductions for available stocks and carryover. EPA invites
comment on the proposal to make reductions for available stocks and
carryover and on the analyses below.
    Available Stocks: For 2016 the Parties indicated that the United
States should use ``available stocks,'' but did not indicate a minimum
amount expected to be taken from stocks. Consistent with EPA's past
practice, EPA is considering what amount, if any, of the existing
stocks may be available to critical users during 2016. The latest data
reported to EPA from December 31, 2014, show existing stocks to be
158,121 kg (158 MT). This shows that 198 MT of pre-2005 stocks were
used in 2014. These data do not reflect drawdown of stocks that is
likely to occur during 2015.
    The Parties to the Protocol recognized in their Decisions that the
level of existing stocks may differ from the level of available stocks.
Decision XXVI/6 states that ``production and consumption of methyl
bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if methyl bromide is
not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks.
. . .'' In addition, the Decision states that ``parties operating under
critical-use exemptions should take into account the extent to which
methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from
existing stocks. . . .'' Earlier Decisions also refer to the use of
``quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has
recognized to be available.'' Thus, it is clear that individual Parties
may determine their level of available stocks. Section 604(d)(6) of the
CAA does not require EPA to adjust the amount of new production and
import to reflect the availability of stocks; however, as explained in
previous rulemakings, making such an adjustment is a reasonable
exercise of EPA's discretion under this provision.
    In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013), EPA established
an approach that considered whether a percentage of the existing
inventory was available. In that rule, EPA took comment on whether 0%
or 5% of the existing stocks was available. The final rule found that
0% was available for critical use in 2013 for a number of reasons
including: A pattern of significant underestimation of inventory
drawdown; the increasing concentration of critical users in California
while inventory remained distributed nationwide; and the recognition
that the agency cannot compel distributors to sell inventory to
critical users. For further discussion, please see the 2013 CUE Rule
(78 FR 43802).
    EPA believes that 5% of existing stocks will be available in 2016
for the two proposed critical uses. As a result of the changes to the
FIFRA labeling, methyl bromide sold or distributed in 2015 can only be
used for approved critical uses or for quarantine and preshipment
purposes. Except for sectors with quarantine and preshipment uses,
California strawberries is the only pre-plant sector that will be able
to use stocks in 2015 or 2016. EPA does not anticipate stocks to be
used for quarantine and preshipment uses as there are no production
allowances required to manufacture that material and it tends to be
less expensive than stocks. Distributors will therefore likely make
stocks available to California strawberry growers in 2015 and 2016.
    While EPA is not proposing to estimate the amount that will be used
in 2015, EPA believes that at least 5% stocks will be available in
2016. As discussed in the carryover section below, demand by California
strawberry growers in 2014 for critical use methyl bromide was lower
than anticipated. For the first time since 2009, not all of the
critical use material produced or imported for a control period was
sold. Decreased demand for critical use methyl bromide in 2014 means
that unsold material already produced will be available in 2015 in
addition to stocks.
    Furthermore, EPA now knows the national distribution and
composition of stocks (e.g. pure or mixed with chloropicrin) due to a
recent information collection request under section 114 of the Clean
Air Act. EPA believes there is geographically accessible pure methyl
bromide for ham producers in the Southeastern U.S. as well as pre-plant
methyl bromide for California strawberry producers.
    For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find 5% of the existing
inventory available for use in 2016. EPA specifically invites comment
on whether between 0% and 5% of existing inventory will be available to
critical users in 2016, taking into consideration the FIFRA labeling
changes, the recent history of inventory drawdown, the amount of unsold
2014 critical use methyl bromide, the removal of the critical stock
allowance provisions that limited the amount of stocks that can be sold
for critical uses, the quantity and geographical location of approved
uses, and the quantity and location of stocks. Existing stocks, as of
December 31, 2014, were equal to 158,121 kg. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to reduce the amount of new production for 2016 by 7,906 kg.
    Carryover Material: EPA regulations prohibit methyl bromide
produced or imported after January 1, 2005, under the critical use
exemption, from being added to the pre-2005 inventory. Quantities of
methyl bromide produced, imported, exported, or sold to end-users under
the critical use exemption in a control period must be reported to EPA
the next year. EPA uses these reports to calculate any excess methyl
bromide left over from that year's CUE and, using the framework
established in the 2005 CUE Rule, reduces the following year's total
allocation by that amount. Carryover had been reported to the Agency
every year from 2005 to 2009. Carryover material (which is produced
using critical use allowances) is not included in EPA's definition of
existing inventory (which applies to pre-2005 material) because this
would lead to a double-counting of carryover amounts.
    In 2015, companies reported that 442,200 kg of methyl bromide was
produced or imported for U.S. critical uses in 2014. EPA also received
reports that 355,857 kg of critical use methyl bromide was sold to end-
users in 2014. EPA calculates that the carryover amount at the end of
2014 was 86,343 kg, which is the difference between the reported amount
of critical use methyl bromide produced or imported in 2014 and the
reported amount of sales of that material to end users in 2014. EPA's
calculation of carryover is consistent with the method used in previous
CUE rules, and with the format in Decision XVI/6 for calculating column
L of the U.S. Accounting Framework. All U.S. Accounting Frameworks for
critical use methyl bromide are available in the public docket for this
rulemaking. EPA is therefore proposing to reduce the total level of new
production and import for critical uses by 86,343 kg to reflect the
amount of carryover material available at the end of 2014, in addition
to the 7,906 kg reduction for available stocks discussed above.
    Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers data on the availability of
alternatives that it receives following submission of each nomination
to UNEP. In previous rules EPA has reduced the total CUE amount when a
new alternative has been registered and increased the new production
amount when an alternative is withdrawn, but not above the amount
permitted by the Parties. Neither circumstance has occurred since the
nomination was submitted for 2016.
    EPA is not proposing to make any other modifications to CUE amounts
to account for availability of alternatives. Rates of transition to
alternatives have

already been applied for permitted 2016 critical use amounts through
the nomination and authorization process. EPA will consider new data
received during the comment period and continues to gather information
about methyl bromide alternatives through the CUE application process,
and by other means. EPA also continues to support research and adoption
of methyl bromide alternatives, and to request information about the
economic and technical feasibility of all existing and potential
alternatives.
    Allocation Amounts: EPA is proposing to allocate critical use
allowances for new production or import of methyl bromide equivalent to
140,531 kg to Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Albemarle Corporation,
ICL-IP America, and TriCal, Inc in proportion to their respective
baselines. Paragraph 3 of Decision XXVI/6 states that ``parties shall
endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of
methyl bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to
the present decision. . . .'' This is similar to language in prior
Decisions permitting critical uses. These Decisions call on Parties to
endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis.
    EPA is proposing to assign the 7,906 kg reduction for available
stocks and 86,343 kg reduction for carryover in proportion to the
amounts indicated in Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/6. In other
words, both the pre-plant and the post-harvest allocation would be
reduced by 40%. Specifically, the pre-plant allocation for California
strawberry production would decline from 231,540 kg to 138,592 kg and
the post-harvest allocation for dry cured ham would decline from 3,240
kg to 1,939 kg. Reported data show that the critical use methyl bromide
carried over from 2014 and the existing stocks include both pre-plant
and post-harvest material. EPA invites comment on reducing the
allocation in this proportional manner or whether an alternate method
is preferable.
    The proposed Framework Rule contained several options for
allocating critical use allowances, including a sector-by-sector
approach. The agency evaluated various options based on their economic,
environmental, and practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA
determined in the final Framework Rule that a lump-sum, or universal,
allocation, modified to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-
harvest uses, was the most efficient and least burdensome approach that
would achieve the desired environmental results, and that a sector-by-
sector approach would pose significant administrative and practical
difficulties. Because EPA is proposing only one use in the pre-plant
sector and one use in the post-harvest sector for 2016, this proposed
rule follows the breakout of specific uses in Decision XXVI/6.
    Emergency Use: The U.S. government is committed to using
flexibility in the Protocol's existing mechanisms as an avenue to
address changes in national circumstance that affect the transition to
alternatives. EPA welcomes comments and any new information on specific
emergency situations that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide,
consistent with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol, and which
could be difficult to address using current tools and authorities.

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

    Decision XXVI/6 calls on Parties to apply the criteria in Decision
IX/6, paragraph 1 and the conditions set forth in Decision Ex. I/4 (to
the extent applicable) to exempted critical uses for the 2016 control
period. The following section provides references to sections of this
preamble and other documents where EPA considers the criteria of those
two Decisions.
    Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 contains the critical use criteria,
which are summarized in Section III.A of the preamble. The nomination
documents detail how each proposed critical use meets the criteria in
Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 including: The lack of available technically
and economically feasible alternatives under the circumstance of the
nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide
where technically and economically feasible; and the development of
research and transition plans. The nomination documents also address
the requests in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that Parties
consider and implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on
actions a Party may take to reduce the critical uses of methyl bromide
and include information on the methodology they use to determine
economic feasibility.
    A discussion of the agency's application of the critical use
criteria to the proposed critical uses for 2016 appears in Sections
III.A., III.C., and III.D. of this preamble. EPA solicits comments on
the technical and economic basis for determining that the uses listed
in this proposed rule meet the criteria of the critical use exemption.
    The agency has previously provided its interpretation of the
criterion in Decision IX/6, paragraph (1)(a)(i) regarding the presence
of significant market disruption in the absence of an exemption. EPA
refers readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE rule (71 FR 5989,
February 6, 2006) as well as to the memo in the docket titled
``Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for
Methyl Bromide for the United States of America'' for further
elaboration. As explained in those documents, EPA's interpretation of
this term has several dimensions, including looking at potential
effects on both demand and supply for a commodity, evaluating potential
losses at both an individual level and at an aggregate level, and
evaluating potential losses in both relative and absolute terms.
    The United States has also considered the adoption of alternatives
and research into methyl bromide alternatives in the development of the
National Management Strategy submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in
December 2005 and updated in October 2009. The National Management
Strategy addresses all of the aims specified in Decision Ex. I/4,
paragraph 3 to the extent feasible and is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.

F. Emissions Minimization

    Previous Decisions of the Parties have stated that critical users
shall employ emissions minimization techniques such as virtually
impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/
or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever
technically and economically feasible. EPA developed a comprehensive
strategy for risk mitigation through the 2009 Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) \2\ for methyl bromide, available in the
docket to this rulemaking, which is implemented through restrictions on
how methyl bromide products can be used. This approach means that
methyl bromide labels require that treated sites be tarped. The RED
also incorporated incentives for applicators to use high-barrier tarps,
such as virtually impermeable film, by allowing smaller buffer zones
around those sites. In addition to minimizing emissions, use of high-
barrier tarps has the benefit of providing pest control at lower
application rates. The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the United
States reflects the lower application rates necessary when using high-
barrier tarps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional information on risk mitigation measures for soil
fumigants is available at http://epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture-

Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and the National Institute for
Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) to promote emissions reduction
techniques. The federal government has invested substantial resources
into developing and implementing best practices for methyl bromide use,
including emissions reduction practices. The Cooperative Extension
System, which receives some support from USDA-NIFA, provides locally
appropriate and project-focused outreach education regarding methyl
bromide transition best practices. Additional information on USDA
research on alternatives and emissions reduction can be found at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=303,
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=304, and
http://www.csrees.usda.gov.
    Users of methyl bromide should continue to make every effort to
minimize overall emissions of methyl bromide. EPA also encourages
researchers and users who are using techniques to minimize emissions of
methyl bromide to inform EPA of their experiences and to provide
information on such techniques with their critical use applications.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action
was deemed to raise novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0482. The application, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements have already been established under previous critical use
exemption rulemakings.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. Since this rule would allow the use of
methyl bromide for approved critical uses after the phaseout date of
January 1, 2005, this action would confer a benefit to users of methyl
bromide. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve
regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This
action would allocate allowances for the production and import of
methyl bromide to private entities. This rule also would limit the
proposed critical uses to geographical areas that reflect the scope of
the trade associations that applied for a critical use. This rule does
not impose any duties or responsibilities on State governments or
allocate any rights to produce or use methyl bromide to a State
government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments nor does it impose
any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the Regulatory Impacts Analysis and Benefits Analysis found in the
docket.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. This action does not pertain to any
segment of the energy production economy nor does it regulate any
manner of energy use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes this action will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations, because it affects the level of environmental protection
equally for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. Any ozone depletion that results from this action will
result in impacts that are, in general, equally distributed across
geographical regions in the United States. The impacts do not fall
disproportionately on minority or low-income populations but instead
vary with a wide variety of factors. Populations that work or live near
fields or other application sites may benefit from the reduced amount
of methyl bromide applied, as compared to amounts allowed under
previous critical use exemption rules.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: June 3, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 82 as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

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

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2016 Critical use    2016 Critical use
                                allowances for  pre-    allowances for
            Company                 plant uses *     post-harvest uses *
                                    (kilograms)           (kilograms)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A                 84,222                1,179
 Chemtura Company.............
Albemarle Corp................               34,634                  485
ICL-IP America................               19,140                  268
TriCal, Inc...................                  596                    8
                               -----------------------------------------
    Total.....................              138,592                1,939
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For production or import of Class I, Group VI controlled substance
  exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in
  appendix L to this subpart.

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

Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82--Approved Critical Uses and Limiting
Critical Conditions for Those Uses for the 2016 Control Period

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Column A                              Column B                              Column C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved Critical Uses.............  Approved Critical User, Location of    Limiting Critical Conditions that
                                      Use.                                   exist, or that the approved
                                                                             critical user reasonably expects
                                                                             could arise without methyl bromide
                                                                             fumigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 PRE-PLANT USES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawberry Fruit...................  California growers...................  Moderate to severe black root rot or
                                                                             crown rot.
                                                                            Moderate to severe yellow or purple
                                                                             nutsedge infestation.
                                                                            Moderate to severe nematode
                                                                             infestation.
                                                                            Local township limits prohibiting
                                                                             1,3-dichloropropene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                POST-HARVEST USES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Cured Pork Products............  Members of the National Country Ham    Red legged ham beetle infestation.
                                      Association and the American          Cheese/ham skipper infestation.
                                      Association of Meat Processors,       Dermestid beetle infestation.
                                      Nahunta Pork Center (North            Ham mite infestation.
                                      Carolina), and Gwaltney of
                                      Smithfield Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-14473 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P