UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

Application for Critical Use Exemption of Methyl Bromide

for Post Harvest Use in the United States

WHY IS THIS INFORMATION NEEDED?

Under the Clean Air Act and the international treaty to protect the
ozone layer (the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer), the production and import of methyl bromide was phased out in
the United States on January 1, 2005. This application seeks information
to support a U.S. request to produce and import methyl bromide for
certain critical uses and circumstances beyond this 2005 phaseout date.

The information in this application will be used to review whether your
use of methyl bromide is "critical" because no technically and
economically feasible alternatives are available.  In order to estimate
the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available, EPA needs
to compare data (commodity prices, revenues, and costs) for your use of
methyl bromide with uses of alternative pest control regimens.

The information contained in this application is critical to process and
assess the need for methyl bromide. Filling out this application in its
entirety will bolster the U.S. government's ability to strengthen the
nomination package for the international review boards.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  Public reporting burden
for this collection of information is estimated to average 38 hours per
response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted
by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB
control number.

For EPA Use Only ID # _______

SECTOR ___________________ INSTRUCTIONS

The information provided by you in this application will be used to
evaluate the requested methyl bromide use. The U.S. and other countries
that are parties to the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The
Ozone Layer decided 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
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 …"

WHO

APPLIES?

If you anticipate that you will need methyl bromide because you believe
there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives, then
you should apply for the critical use exemption.  This application may
be submitted either by a consortium representing multiple users or by
individual users.  We encourage users with similar circumstances of use
to submit a single application (for example, any number of post harvest
users with similar commodity, pest, and structural conditions can submit
a single application.)

If a consortium is applying for multiple methyl bromide users, the
economic data should be for a representative or typical user within the
consortium unless otherwise noted.  If economic or technical factors
(such as types of commodities) affecting the ability of this
"representative user" to use alternatives are significantly different
than other users in the consortium, more than one application should be
submitted to reflect these differences.

Please contact your local, state, regional, or national commodity
association and/or state representative agency to find out if they plan
on submitting an application on behalf of your commodity group.

WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED?

Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not renew
automatically. Users desiring to obtain an exemption must apply annually
to EPA. Because of the latest changes in registrations, costs, and
economic aspects for producing critical use crops and commodities, all
applicants will be required to fill out the application form completely.
 If these Worksheets are not submitted, EPA will not include the
application in the U.S. nomination submitted for international
consideration.

HOW DO

I APPLY?

You may either complete an electronic (Microsoft Word or Excel) or a
printed version of the application. Please fill out each section in the
application as completely as possible. If you are completing the printed
version and need extra space you may attach additional sheets as needed.

IS MY INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL?

The applicant may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part
or all of the information in the application by placing on (or attaching
to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet,
stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing
language such as trade secret, proprietary, or company confidential.
Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents
should be clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted
separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the
applicant desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or
until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by
EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures set forth under
40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B; 41 FR 36902, 43 FR 400000. 50 FR 51661. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received
by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further
notice to the applicant.

Applicants submitting their application via e-mail assume responsibility
for the confidentiality of the electronic message transmission.

WHEN IS THE INFORMATION NEEDED?	This application must be postmarked to
the EPA address below no later than September 15.

WHERE DO I SUBMIT THE APPLICATION?

Electronic address for applications:   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
When submitting an application electronically, you should also sign
Worksheet 1 and email or fax it to<PHONE_NUMBER>

Mailing address for applications being submitted by mail directly to the
EPA:

US Environmental Protection Agency

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption

Office of Air and Radiation

Stratospheric Protection Division

(6205T)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC  20460

Address for applications being sent by courier or non-U.S. Postal
overnight express delivery to the EPA:

US Environmental Protection Agency

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption

Office of Air and Radiation

Stratospheric Protection Division

1201 Constitution Ave, NW

Room 4355RR

Washington, DC  20004

HOW CAN I RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?	For general questions about
this application:

Stratospheric Ozone Information Inbox at   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

More information is also at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr

WORKSHEET 1: CONTACT AND METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST INFORMATION

The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl
bromide requested and the contact person for this request.  It is
important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional
information during the review of the application.

Is this information Confidential Business Information:	Yes ___	No ___

If yes, the applicant assumes responsibility for the secure transmission
of electronic submissions.

Applicant Name:

Primary Contact:

Contact Name:

Address:

Daytime Phone:

Cell:

Fax:

Email Address:

Specialty: (check one)  Agronomic ___	Economic ___

Alternate Contact:

Contact Name:

Address:

Daytime Phone:

Cell:

Fax:

Email Address:

Specialty: (check one)  Agronomic ___		Economic ___

I certify that all information contained in this document is factual to
the best of my knowledge.

Signature: ______________________________________________	Date: _______

Print Name: _____________________________________________	Title: _______

Information in this application may be aggregated with information from
other applications and used by the United States government to justify
claims in the national nomination package that a particular use of
methyl bromide be considered "critical" and authorized for an exemption
beyond the 2005 phaseout.  By signing below, you agree now to assert any
claim of confidentiality that would affect the disclosure by EPA of
aggregate information based in part on information contained in this
application.

Signature: ______________________________________________	Date: _______

Print Name: _____________________________________________	Title: _______

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 38 hours per response
and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by
consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB
control number.

WORKSHEET 1: CONTACT AND METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST INFORMATION (continued)

1. Location of Facility(ies): Enter the name and physical address of the
facility(ies) where the proposed critical use of methyl bromide will
take place.  Provide more details about the location if relevant to the
feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide.

2. Commodity: Include all commodities that benefit from the application
of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle.

3. Range of structure/facility size by processors included in this
application: Insert number or percentage of users in each category.

0 to 1,000 (1,000 cu ft)	 	10,000 to 50,000 (1,000 cu ft)

1,000 to 5,000 (1,000 cu ft)	 	50,000 to 100,000 (1,000 cu ft)

5,000 to 10,000 (1,000 cu ft)	 	over 100,000 (1,000 cu ft)

4. Climate Average Minimum Temperature: Individual users should enter
their climate zone designation by reviewing the U.S. climate zone map
located at the end of this workbook or it can be reviewed online at
http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb.  If a consortium is
submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of
consortium users in each climate zone. Please check all that apply.

1____  2a____  2b____  3a____  3b____  4a____  4b____  5a____  5b____
6a____  6b____ 7a____  7b____  8a____  8b____   9a____  9b ____  10a____
 10b____  11a____ 11b____

5. Is this applicant eligible for Quarantine and Preshipment (QPS) uses
of methyl bromide:

	Yes ___	 No ___ 	If yes, indicate amount: ____ lbs

6. Has this applicant previously applied for Critical Use Exemption of
methyl bromide:

	Yes ___	 No ___		If yes, indicate CUE #: ________

7. What is the amount of methyl bromide being requested by this
application: (Do NOT include QPS amounts) If a consortium is submitting
this application, the data should be the total for the consortium.

	Year:______	Year:______

A.	Total Pounds Active Ingredient (a.i.) of Methyl Bromide

B.	Total Actual Volume (1000 cu. ft.) Treated

C.	Formulation (Ratio of MB/Pic) to be Used for the CUE

D.	Use Rate (lbs a.i./1000 cu. ft.)

8. Please explain why there may be variations in the pounds or volume
(1,000 cu ft) treated from year to year, especially if the request is
higher this year than in previous years:

9. Please explain why methyl bromide is being requested:

10. Do you anticipate that you will have any methyl bromide in storage?

Yes ___	No ___		If yes, please specify amount: _______ lbs

11. Have you adjusted the request for the following issues:

Regulatory Issues:	     Yes ___No ___	Pest Pressure:		 Yes ___No ___

Adoption of Alternatives: Yes ___No ___	Other (Please Explain): Yes
___No ___

_______________________________________________________________________

WORKSHEET 2: METHYL BROMIDE

Purpose of Data:  To establish a baseline estimate of commodity treated,
gross profits, and costs using methyl bromide.

Instructions specific to each worksheet are located at the top of each
sheet.

Worksheet	Title

2-A	Methyl Bromide - Pest and Commodity Information

 	If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this
table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

	The purpose of this worksheet is to determine pest infestation and
commodity information where methyl bromide is used.  This forms the
baseline for evaluating the impacts of using an alternative to replace
methyl bromide.

2-B	Methyl Bromide - Historical Use

 	If a consortium is submitting this application, all data should
reflect the actual data for the consortium.

 	This worksheet provides data in actual usage for the last five years.

2-C	Methyl Bromide - Commodity Treated and Gross Profits

 	If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this
table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

 	This worksheet provides commodity treated and gross profits for the
last five years.

 	The purpose of this worksheet is to determine past gross profits when
methyl bromide is used. This forms the baseline for evaluating the
revenue impacts of using an alternative to replace methyl bromide.

2-D	Baseline - Operating Costs

 	If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this
table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

 	This data is needed to estimate a baseline for operating costs in
order to estimate changes in costs and the impact on operating profit
and short-run economic viability as a result of not using methyl
bromide.

 	The purpose of this worksheet is to determine operating expenses when
methyl bromide is used. This forms the baseline for evaluating the cost
impacts of using an alternative to replace methyl bromide. The data
requested are designed to help you identify how your operation would
change if methyl bromide were unavailable, which will be shown in
Worksheet 3-B.

WORKSHEET 2-A: METHYL BROMIDE – PEST & PROCESSING INFORMATION

1. Commodity or Consortium:

2. What month does your fumigation cycle start: Please check only one.

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec

3. Fumigation Timeline: Indicate when fumigation, major commodity and
pest management practices typically occur.  If the fumigation cycle is
longer than one year, change the months to an appropriate interval.

Beginning Fumigation Cycle	Time Interval ______________________

(e.g. WEEKS/MONTH/YEAR/SEASON)

(please define time periods)

Facility Preparation

Sealing

Cleaning

Fumigation Timeline

Reception of Raw Materials

Processing

Storage

Raw Materials

Finished Product

Packing

Shipping

Retail Market Window

Other Pest Treatments

Other

4. Please provide a simplified schematic diagram which illustrates the
basic steps of the commodity moving through the process from raw
material to finished product:

4a. Provide a narrative of market channel for each commodity, where it
is fumigated, and how the fumigation effects market availability and
commodity sale:

5. Target Pest(s) or Pest Problem(s): Please identify the key target
pests or pest problems for which methyl bromide is requested. Provide at
least common name and genus and species if possible.  Additional pests
or pest problems can be provided as an attachment. Please also explain
the specific reasons why methyl bromide is being requested for each pest
[e.g., effective herbicide is available, but not registered for this
crop; mandatory requirement to meet certification for disease
tolerance].

 	Common Name	Genus	Specific Reasons Why Methyl Bromide Is Needed

Pest 1

Pest 2

Pest 3

Pest 4

Pest 5

6.  Pest Economic Threshold: Please provide the economic threshold
information for each pest.  Describe year and source of information such
as survey or expert estimate.

 	Threshold	Units (e.g. pests/sq ft)	Year	Source

Pest 1

Pest 2

Pest 3

Pest 4

Pest 5

7. Target Pest Infestation: Please estimate the percentage of this
user's total structural/facility volume with a moderate to severe
problem with these pests.  Describe source of information such as a
survey or expert estimate.

 	Percentage of Total Structure/Facility	Source

Pest 1	%

	Pest 2	%

	Pest 3	%

8. Representative User: Please provide descriptive factors appropriate
for your operation.

a. Number of Facilities: _____

b. Gastightness Estimate (if available):* _________

* Give gastightness estimates where possible according to the following
scale: good - less than 25% gas loss within 24 hours or half loss time
of pressure difference greater than 1 minute; medium - 25-50% gas loss
within 24 hours or half loss time of pressure difference greater than 10
seconds; poor - 50-90% gas loss within 24 hours or half loss time of
pressure difference 1-10 second; very poor - more than 90% gas loss
within 24 hours or a pressure half loss time of less than 1 second.

9. In what part and phase of the operation does the methyl bromide
fumigation take place:  Please check all that apply and indicate
exposure time.

Structure / Facility: _________

Fumigation Chamber: _________

Commodity: _________

Prior to Storage: _________

Storage: _________

Prior to Shipping: _________

All: _________

Other: _________

10. For what percentage of the operation have alternative(s) replaced
methyl bromide in processing this commodity and if so, during what phase
of the process:

Alternative	% Replaced	Phase of Process	Details

Phosphine (Alone)

Heat Treatment

Phosphine in Combination

Sulfuryl Fluoride

Other

11. Please provide a brief description of any equipment fumigated in
this operation:

WORKSHEET 2-B: METHYL BROMIDE – HISTORICAL USE

Row A:	Year

	Enter dates for the last five years. For example, for applications
filled out in 2015, provide data from 2010-2014.

Row B:	Total Actual Pounds a.i. of Methyl Bromide Applied

	Enter the total actual pounds active ingredient (a.i.) of methyl
bromide applied.  Note:  This number should be the total pounds a.i.
applied by the individual user or the entire consortium, for the year
indicated. Include only the pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide.

Row C:	Total Actual Volume (1,000 cu ft) Treated

	Enter the total actual volume (1,000 cu ft) treated. Note: This number
should be the total actual volume (1,000 cu ft) treated by the
individual user or total actual volume (1,000 cu ft) treated for the
entire consortium, for the year indicated.

Row D:	Formulation (Ratio of MB/Pic Mixture) to be Used for the CUE

	Enter the formulation of methyl bromide used (e.g. MB 98:2; MB/Pic
70:30).

Row: E 	Use Rate (lbs a.i./1000 cu. ft.)

	Enter the use rate in pounds a.i. of methyl bromide per area.

A.	Year

	B.	Total Actual Pounds a.i. of Methyl Bromide Applied

	C.	Total Actual Volume (1,000 cu ft) Treated

	D.	Formulation (Ratio of MB/Pic Mixture) to be Used for the CUE

	E.	Use Rate (lbs a.i./1000 cu. ft.)

What is the frequency of methyl bromide applied per volume (1,000 cu
ft): (1x / year, 2x / year, 1x / 3 years, etc.)

_______ times per _______

If there is a variation (greater than 10%) in the quantity a.i., the
acres treated or average application rate from year to year, please
explain the reasons for the variation:

Comments:

WORKSHEET 2-C: BASELINE – METHYL BROMIDE – COMMODITY TREATED &
GROSS PROFIT

Column A:  	Year

 	Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year
for all the commodities in the fumigation cycles for the last five
years. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then
the year of the fumigation cycle is the year methyl bromide was applied.

Column B:  	Commodity

 	Enter all commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in the
fumigation cycle (interval between fumigations). See the Definitions
page for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

	If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of
methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the
quantitative data for the commodity treated in the same
facility/structure, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Column C:  	Market Categories

 	Enter marketing categories that determine prices received, for
example, grade (quality, taste, color) or timeliness (holiday market
season, early season, late season).  Itemize or aggregate these factors
to the extent appropriate if lack of methyl bromide would affect the
price in each category.

Column D:  	Unit of Commodity

 	Enter the unit of measurement for each commodity (lbs, tons, cwt).
If not by weight, specify in the comments section the average weight of
the measure.  For the international review board, all measures will be
converted to metric.

Column E:  	Total Commodity Treated

 	Enter the total units of commodity treated with methyl bromide and
processed/sold per area.

Column F:  	Price

 	Enter average prices received by the users for that commodity and
category.  For the total line, you do not have to enter a price.
Average price over all categories can be calculated separately, if
needed.  If a commodity treated is never owned by the facility, indicate
the fees charged for all services.

Column G: 	Cost of Goods Sold

 	Enter the total cost of goods sold (raw materials purchased) during
the period.  If this expense is not relevant to your post-harvesting
operation, please skip this column.

Column H:  	Gross Profit

 	Gross profit may be calculated using the data you entered as the
Total Commodity Treated times Price minus the Cost of Goods Sold.  If
gross profit is not equal to total commodity sold times price subtracted
by cost of goods sold ((Column E * Column F) - Column G), you may
override the formula and enter a different revenue amount.  Please
explain why this gross profit amount is different in the comment section
below.

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H

Year	Commodity	Market Category

(grade, time, end use)	Unit of Commodity (e.g., lbs, tons)	Total
Commodity Treated        (per unit of commodity)	 Price

(per unit of commodity)	 Cost of Goods Sold

(per unit of commodity)	Gross Profit

(per unit of commodity)

	Comments: WORKSHEET 2-D: METHYL BROMIDE – OPERATING COSTS

The purpose of this section is to determine operating expenses when
methyl bromide is used. This forms the baseline for evaluating the cost
impacts of using an alternative to replace methyl bromide. The data
requested are designed to help you identify how your operation would
change if methyl bromide were unavailable, which will be shown in
Worksheet 3-B. Please fill in the unshaded areas. The shaded areas can
be used if the information is known.

Column A:	Operating Expense Items

 	Identify the operations to which the costs apply. You may add or
delete lines as necessary.  The operating expense items listed here are
not meant to be exhaustive or be representative of your specific
operating system. Other operating expenses include, but are not limited
to, wage/salary, advertising and selling, utilities, rent and lease,
insurance, and supplies. Be as precise as necessary to explain how lack
of methyl bromide would affect your operation, otherwise you may
aggregate operating expenses. These are meant to provide suggestions and
to help you identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide
were unavailable.

Column B:	Quantity Used per Volume (1,000 cu ft) or Weight (short tons)

 	This field is required only for methyl bromide. However you may
include specific amounts of other inputs or operations if you believe it
helps to document the additional costs you would incur by using an
alternative fumigant.

Column C: 	Units (lbs. hours, etc.)

 	For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify
the units of measurement.

Column D:	Unit Cost ($)

 	For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify
the unit cost. Also, indicate all costs of applying methyl bromide,
including any material costs (e.g. tarps). If custom applied and
separate costs are unavailable, write 'custom' and enter total cost in
Column E.

Column E:	Cost ($) per Volume (1,000 cu ft) or Cost ($) per Weight
(short tons)

 	Enter all appropriate costs of operations per volume (1,000 cu ft) or
weight (short tons). You may add or delete lines as necessary.

 	If operation is defined in either cost per volume or cost per weight,
please keep the continuity of units.

A	B	C	D	E

Operating Expense Items	Quantity Used per Volume (1,000 cu. ft.) or
Weight (short tons)	Units           (lbs., hours, etc.)	Unit Cost ($)
Cost ($) per Volume (1,000 cu. ft.) or Cost ($) per Weight (short tons)

1. Pest Management Costs (a+b+c+d)

a) Sanitation

b) Pest Control

c) Methyl Bromide Fumigation (c1+c2)

c1) Product

c2) Application

d) Other Pest Management Costs

2. Repairs / Maintenance / Replacement

3. Interest

4. Depreciation for Plant Assets

5. Other Operating Expenses

TOTAL OPERATING COST

WORKSHEET 3: ALTERNATIVES – FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVE PEST CONTROL
REGIMENS

Purpose of Data: To estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl
bromide available. EPA needs to compare data (commodity prices, gross
profit, operating expenses, etc.) on the use of methyl bromide and
alternative pest control regimens.

Complete Worksheet 3-A for each alternative pest control regimen. Please
indicate the name of the specific alternative pest control regimen
addressed and add additional pages as required.

Enter all alternative pesticides and pest control methods (and
associated cost and yield data) that would replace one treatment of
methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Definitions page
for a comprehensive definition on fumigation cycles.

Worksheet	Title

3-A	Alternatives - Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide

 	You must complete one worksheet for each alternative. Please insert
the name of the alternative in the area on top of the page. If you
prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a
narrative review. However, you must fill in the information in Question
#1 or we will assume no production or quality loss.

3-B	Alternatives - Changes in Operating Costs

 	If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this
table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

 	This data is needed to estimate a baseline for operating costs in
order to estimate changes in costs and the impact on operating profit
and short-run economic viability as a result of not using methyl bromide
and to provide required information to the international review board.

 	Please fill out this worksheet for each alternative for which the
economic evaluation would bolster the case that methyl bromide is
needed.

 	The purpose of this worksheet is to determine operating expenses when
alternatives are used for evaluating the cost impacts of using an
alternative to replace methyl bromide.  The data requested are designed
to help you identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide
were unavailable.

3-C	Alternatives - Economic Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide

 	If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this
table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

 	Please include in this worksheet data for each alternative included
in worksheets 3-A and 3-B.

WORKSHEET 3-A: ALTERNATIVES – FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVE PEST CONTROL
REGIMENS

Name of Alternative:

1. Pest Control When Comparing This Alternative to Methyl Bromide:
Provide numerical estimates where possible.

Study # 	Pest Being Tested	Relative % Pest Control 	Scale of Study (e.g.
pilot, plot)	Resulting Damages (please specify)

1

2

3

4

5

2. Study Information: For the cited studies above, please list: study
name, authors, publication, date, and indicate with a checkmark if a
copy is attached and if it is on the EPA website.

Study # 	Copy?	EPA?	Month/Year project started and finished (e.g. Nov
'09 - Oct '12)	Details

1

2

3

4

5

3. Are there any production delays (downtime) associated with this
alternative?	Yes ___	No ___

	If yes, please continue with 3a, 3b, 3c.

	3a. Please specify the number of days per year of downtime:	 _________
days/year

	3b. What is the cost of production delays or downtime per year? $
_________  per year

	3c. Please explain the details of going into downtime and why it is
necessary with this alternative:

4. What is the estimated probability of the commodity not meeting
consumer quality standards with and without methyl bromide or
alternative treatments: Please explain.

5. Restrictions/Limitations on Alternative Use: This information will be
used to determine the amount of methyl bromide needed.

 	% of Structure/Facility/Volume	Details

Regulatory Restriction

   -  Label Restriction

Climate Restriction

Pest Resistant To Alternative

Structural Limitations

Facility Limitations

Other Restrictions/Limitations (Describe)

6. Why is this alternative not suitable to replace 100% of methyl
bromide use in processing this commodity:

7. Use Rate of Chemical Alternative:

Active Ingredient          (a.i.)	Name of Product and Formulation
Quantity per Volume            (1,000 cu ft)	Units
(gals, lbs, etc.)	Volume (1,000 cu ft) Treated	# of Applications per
Year

8. Non-Chemical Pest Control: Please describe.

9. Fumigation Timeline: Indicate when fumigation, major commodity and
pest management practices typically occur.  If the fumigation cycle is
longer than one year, change the months to an appropriate interval.

Fumigation Cycle	Time Interval (e.g. WEEKS/MONTH/YEAR)

 	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12

Facility Preparation

Sealing

Cleaning

Fumigation Timeline

Reception of Raw Materials

Processing

	Storage

	Raw Materials

Finished Product

Packing

Shipping

Retail Market Window

Other Pest Treatments

Other

Comments:

WORKSHEET 3-B: ALTERNATIVE – CHANGES IN OPERATING EXPENSES

Name of Alternative:

Column A:  	Operating Expense Items

 	Identify the operations to which the costs apply. You may add or
delete lines as necessary. The operating expense items listed here are
not meant to be exhaustive or be representative of your specific
operating system. These are meant to provide suggestions and to help you
identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide were
unavailable.

Column B:	Quantity Used per Volume (1,000 cu ft) or Weight (short tons)

 	This field is required only for alternatives. However you may include
specific amounts of other inputs or operations if you believe it helps
to document the additional costs you would incur by using an alternative
fumigant.

Column C: 	Units (lbs. hours, etc.)

 	For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify
the units of measurement.

Column D:	Unit Cost ($)

 	For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify
the unit cost. Also, indicate all costs of applying alternatives,
including any material costs (e.g. tarps). If custom applied and
separate costs are unavailable, write 'custom' and enter total cost in
Column E.

Column E:	Cost ($) per Volume (1,000 cu ft) or Cost ($) per Weight
(short tons)

 	Enter all appropriate costs of operations per volume (1,000 cu ft) or
weight (short tons). You may add or delete lines as necessary.

 	If operation is defined in either cost per volume or cost per weight,
please keep the continuity of units.

A	B	C	D	E

Operating Expense Items	Quantity Used per Volume (1,000 cu ft) or Weight
(short tons)	Units (lbs., hours, etc.)	Unit Cost ($)	Cost ($) per Volume
(1,000 cu. ft.) or Cost ($) per Weight (short tons)

1. Pest Management Costs (a+b+c+d)

    a) Sanitation

    b) Pest Control

    c) Fumigation (c1+c2)

         c1) Product

         c2) Application

    d) Other Pest Management Costs

2. Repairs / Maintenance / Replacement

3. Interest

4. Depreciation for Plant Assets

5. Other Operating Expenses

                        TOTAL OPERATING COST

4. What are the additional new investments (structures, facilities,
equipment, fumigation chambers, etc.) needed to utilize this
alternative: Establish necessary capital expenditures required for the
uses of alternatives. For example, the incremental costs to convert to
heat treatment might include installing a steam heating system,
purchasing generators, installing necessary ductwork, and retrofitting
other components to make them amenable to heat treatment.

Type of Investment	Total Investment ($)	Life of Investment (# of years)
Salvage Value ($)	Interest Rate (%)

Comments:

WORKSHEET 4: EMISSION CONTROL

1. How do you currently minimize use and/or emissions of methyl bromide,
and how do you plan to further reduce use and/or emissions in the
future: For all use/emissions reduction technique that you use, please
fill out the text, where provided, or state the adoption rate and/or
describe changes.

 	What use/emission reduction methods are you currently using?

Please state the emission reduction amounts.	What further use/emission
reduction methods will be used for critical uses? Please project the
reduction amounts for the year being requested.

Methyl Bromide Dosage Reduction	_____________ lbs/1,000 cu ft
_____________ lbs/1,000 cu ft

	_____________ lbs/1,000 cu ft	_____________ lbs/1,000 cu ft

Less Frequent Application	____ times per____	____ times per____

	____ times per____	____ times per____

Formulation Changes (please specify)	_________% MeBr, _________% Pic
_________% MeBr, ________% Pic

	_________% MeBr, _________% Pic	_________% MeBr, ________% Pic

Reclamation

Sealing Buildings

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Cultural Practices (please specify)

Other Pesticides (please specify)

Non-Chemical Methods (please specify)

Other Measures (please specify)

2.  If methyl bromide emission reduction techniques are not being used,
or are not planned for the future, state reasons:

WORKSHEET 5: FUTURE RESEARCH PLANS

1. Identify the top 3 to 5 target pests for your research:

	1.

	2.

	3.

	4.

	5.

2. Provide a list of alternative chemicals or cultural practices that
have been tested:

1.

	2.

	3.

	4.

	5.

3. Prioritize the alternative chemicals or cultural practices to be
tested:

1.

	2.

	3.

	4.

	5.

4. What would be the best currently available alternative if methyl
bromide were not available:

5. Are there any other potential alternatives under development which
are being considered to replace methyl bromide:

6. Are there technologies being used to produce the crop which avoid the
need for methyl bromide?  Please explain whether such technologies could
replace a proportion of proposed methyl bromide use:

7. Please provide an overview/timeline of the plan to transition away
from using methyl bromide:

8. Will you include incidence reports where a commodity fails:

9. Please describe the management strategies that are in place or
proposed to eliminate the use of methyl bromide for the nominated
critical use, e.g., measures to avoid any increase in methyl bromide
consumption, measure to encourage the use of alternatives, information
on the market penetration of newly deployed alternatives and
alternatives that may be used in the near future:

10. What is the cumulative amount spent and the types of contributions
this consortium has made to fund research to develop alternatives to
methyl bromide since 1992, e.g. consortium dues, direct research
funding, etc.:  Please add additional rows if necessary.

Years	Name of Organization / Research Institution	Amount ($)

11. Other total investments, if any, made to reduce your reliance on
methyl bromide: $ ________

Describe each investment and its associated costs (e.g. specialized
machinery, etc.).  Please add additional rows if necessary.

Investment	Cost

13. Grant requests made to USDA, EPA, state, or other funding group:

For EPA Use Only ID # _________

SECTOR _____________________

WORKSHEET 6: SUMMARY

This section may be posted on the web to notify the public of requests
for critical use exemptions beyond the 2005 phaseout for methyl bromide.
 Therefore, this section cannot be claimed as CBI.

1. Consortium Name:

2. Location:

3. Crop:

4: Year:

4. Pounds of Methyl Bromide Requested:

5. Volume Treated with Methyl Bromide:      ______ (1,000 cu. ft.)

6. Summary of Alternatives Not Feasible: Place an "X" in the column(s)
labeled "Not Technically Feasible" and/or "Not Economically Feasible"
where appropriate.  Use the "Reasons" column to describe why the
potential alternative is not feasible.  Please add additional rows if
necessary.

Potential Alternative	Not Technically Feasible	Not Economically Feasible
Reasons

Definitions:

Fumigation cycle:	The period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.

Year:	If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, "year"
refers to the calendar year when methyl bromide is applied (or the
beginning of the cycle).

Comparable data:	In order to compare revenues and costs with and without
methyl bromide, data on alternatives for pest control, yields, revenues,
and costs must be for the same time interval as the methyl bromide
fumigation cycle. If, however, quantitative data, is not available for
the entire fumigation cycle, then to be comparable, the quantitative
data for the alternatives should cover the same portion of the
fumigation cycle as the quantitative data for methyl bromide, and the
rest of the cycle should be discussed in the comments sections.

2-year example:	If a methyl bromide fumigation is made every 2 years,
then the 2003 fumigation cycle began in 2003 and would end in 2005. The
data should cover the methyl bromide costs and usage for the methyl
bromide fumigation made in 2003, and all yields and revenues received
and other costs incurred during the 2 year period.  To be comparable,
the data on alternatives should cover a similar 2 year period beginning
at the same time of year when a methyl bromide fumigation would be made.
 The data should cover all methyl bromide alternatives used, and all
yields and revenues received during that 2-year interval.  Other pest
control and other costs would only need to be provided for that interval
if they would change from what they were with methyl bromide.

Other beneficiary example	If someone other than the applicant benefits
from a methyl bromide fumigation, you should comment on these benefits
if you do not have quantitative data for the entire fumigation cycle.
For example, if a rotational crop in the second year benefits from a
methyl bromide fumigation a year earlier, but there is quantitative data
only on the first crop, then the data on the alternatives should cover
only the first crop, and the benefits of methyl bromide and the
additional pesticides that would have to be used on the rotational crop
should be discussed in the comments sections.

Crop cycle change example:	If in a one year interval, methyl bromide is
applied, tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers, then the
fumigation cycle would be one year including the tomatoes and peppers.
If, however, without methyl bromide, it is not possible to follow
tomatoes with peppers in the same one year interval, then the
alternative data on pesticides, costs, yields, and revenues should just
cover tomatoes. The loss of profit from not being able to grow peppers
with the alternatives would be part of the loss from not having methyl
bromide.

Crop Grouping	The applicant can group similar crops together if:

(i) Crops would experience similar yield and quality losses in the
absence of methyl bromide; and

(ii) Crops are grown on the same fumigation and cultivation cycle with
similar operating costs.

For example, nursery crops including various flower or tree species can
be aggregated, with average yields per acre and prices.  However, if
crops are distinctly different in revenues and operating costs, or the
cycles, the applicant may want to present yield, price and operating
costs for each crop separately and also indicate the proportion of land
area allocated to each crop.

OMB Control # 2060-0482

Expires 6/30/15

EPA Form # 5900-137		Post-harvest


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our valuable feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation. I am not alone in having strong opinions about e-cigarettes, many people have improved their lives, and the lives of others with these combustible alternatives. Many people also feel like they are finally free from the grasp of big tobacco with this nicotine alternative.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69625-69628]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27679]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0734, FRL-9903-06-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York State
Ozone Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
ozone concerning the control of volatile organic compounds. The SIP
revision consists of amendments to the New York Codes. The intended
effect of this action is to approve control techniques, required by the
Clean Air Act, which will result in emission reductions that will help
attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards for
ozone.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2013-0734, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Mr. Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2013-
0734. 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 email. 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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
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 or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber (wieber.kirk@epa.gov),
Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and how does it apply
to New York?
    A. Background
    B. What are the moderate area requirements?

II. What was included in New York's submittal?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 228, ``Surface Coating
Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and
Primers''?
    A. Background
    B. What are the requirements of Part 228, ``Surface Coating
Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and
Primers''?
    C. What is EPA's evaluation?
IV. What is EPA's conclusion?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and how does it apply to
New York?

A. Background

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or standard) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per
million averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 8-hour ozone
standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes
adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. The three 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment areas located in
New York State are: The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-
NJ-CT nonattainment area; the Poughkeepsie nonattainment area; and the
Jefferson County nonattainment area. The New York portion of the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is
composed of the five boroughs of New York City and the surrounding
counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland. This is
collectively referred to as the New York City Metropolitan Area or
NYMA. The Poughkeepsie nonattainment area is composed of Dutchess,
Orange and Putnam counties.
    These designations triggered the CAA's requirements under section
182(b) for moderate nonattainment areas to submit a demonstration of
attainment, including implementing reasonably available control
technology (RACT).

B. What are the moderate area requirements?

    Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for moderate and above
nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for
each category of volatile organic compound (VOC) sources covered by a
control techniques guidelines (CTG) document issued between November
15, 1990 and the date of attainment.
    Additionally, CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) requires implementation of
RACT statewide in states that are located within an Ozone Transport
Region (OTR). New York is one of the several states located in the OTR
required under the CAA to revise its SIP to include RACT requirements
statewide for each of the source categories identified in the federal
CTGs, including RACT for surface coating processes.
    The EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility.'' 44 FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979). In subsequent
Federal Register notices, EPA has addressed how states can meet the
RACT requirements of the CAA.
    CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to list for regulation those
categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial
products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone
nonattainment areas). EPA issued the list on March 23, 1995, and has
revised the list periodically. See 60 FR 15264 (March 23, 1995); see
also 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006), 70 FR 69759 (Nov. 17, 2005); 64 FR
13422 (Mar. 18, 1999).

II. What was included in New York's submittal?

    On July 15, 2013, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA revisions to the SIP, which
included state adopted revisions to Title 6 of the New York Code of
Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers,'' with an
effective date of June 5, 2013. These revisions are applicable
statewide and will therefore provide volatile organic compound (VOC)
emission reductions statewide and will help towards achieving
attainment of the ozone standards in the NYMA and towards meeting the
RACT requirements.
    New York also included a negative declaration in its July 15, 2013
submittal. New York has certified, based on a review of operating
permits and emissions inventory, no facilities exist in the State to
which the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG or the Industrial
Cleaning Solvents CTG apply.
    EPA recently approved a SIP revision for prior amendments to Part
228 on March 8, 2012 (77 FR 13974).

III. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers''?

A. Background

    New York State currently regulates VOCs emitted by surface coating
processes under 6 NYCRR Subpart 228-1. The revisions to Part 228 update
the current rule by incorporating the latest RACT requirements for
surface coating processes established in seven different CTGs issued by
EPA from April 1996 to September 2008. These CTGs establish presumptive
RACT for surface coating processes in each of the product categories
identified below:
    (1) Wood Finishing Manufacturing Operations [EPA 453/R-96-007
(April 1996); 61 FR 25223 (May 20, 1996)];
    (2) Flat Wood Paneling Coatings [EPA 453/R-06-004 (September 2006);
71 FR 58745 (Oct. 5, 2006)];
    (3) Metal Furniture Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-005 (September 2007); 72
FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (4) Large Appliance Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-004 (September 2007); 72
FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (5) Paper, Film and Foil Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-003 (September
2007); 72 FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (6) Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings [EPA-453/R-
08-006 (September 2008); 73 FR 58481 (Oct. 7, 2008)]; and
    (7) Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings [EPA-453/R-08-
003 (September, 2008); 73 FR 58481 (Oct. 7, 2008)].

B. What are the requirements of Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers''?

    Section 228-1.1, ``Applicability and Exemptions,'' was revised to
reflect the applicability criteria specified in seven of EPA's final
CTGs for specific coating processes. Consistent with the preexisting
regulation, all surface coating facilities located in the NYMA, and the
Orange County towns of Blooming Grove, Chester, Highlands, Monroe,
Tuxedo, Warwick, and Woodbury, are subject to the regulation. Surface
coating facilities located outside the above counties and towns have

specific applicability criteria for various surface coating processes.
These criteria range from a facility using 55 gallons of coating or
more per year up to having a potential to emit 50 tons or more of VOCs
on an annual basis. Typically, only facilities that have actual
emissions of three tons per year or more are subject to the control
requirements of the revised regulation. All others are subject only to
section 228-1.3, ``General Requirements.''
    Section 228-1.2, ``Definitions,'' sets forth several definitions
specific to subpart 228-1. This section includes many new definitions
that are consistent with the federal CTGs, including several added
coating types used in the updated coating processes. The definitions in
Part 200 also apply unless they are inconsistent with subpart 228-1.
    Section 228-1.3, ``General Requirements,'' is a new section added
to subpart 228-1 which describes the minimum requirements applicable to
all surface coating facilities. It combines provisions from the
preexisting regulation related to: Opacity limit; recordkeeping;
prohibition of sale or specification; and handling, storage and
disposal of volatile organic compounds. It also sets forth acceptable
application techniques common to many surface coating processes.
    Section 228-1.4, ``Requirements for controlling VOC emissions using
compliant materials,'' lists the maximum VOC content allowed for
coatings used in surface coating processes. The revisions include
additional requirements as well as exceptions specific to a coating
process, coating type or application requirements.
    Section 228-1.5, ``Requirements for controlling VOC emissions using
add on controls or coating systems,'' provides alternatives to
complying with the VOC content limits of section 228-1.4. Most coating
processes are allowed alternative means of compliance. Pursuant to the
revisions, they can comply with the regulation by: (1) Controlling
their emissions using a capturing system followed by treatment of the
VOCs; (2) using a combination of VOC content coatings compliant with
section 228-1.4 along with non-compliant ones, and with or without
added controls, in a ``coating system'' acceptable to the NYSDEC; or
(3) providing a process-specific RACT demonstration, subject to the
satisfaction of the NYSDEC, which shows that the requirements cannot be
economically or technically achieved. Such process specific RACT
demonstrations must be submitted to the EPA for approval as a revision
to the SIP.
    Section 228-1.6, ``Reports, sampling and analysis,'' specifies the
requirements necessary to determine and maintain compliance with the
regulation. This section allows the NYSDEC to have reasonable access to
subject facilities to obtain samples of any material containing VOC in
order to determine compliance, and specifies the test methods used for
add on control systems to show compliance with the applicable
requirements.
    Revisions to subpart 228-2 make clarifying changes and are non-
substantive. Also, the NYSDEC determined that subsection 228-2.7(a)(1),
the labeling provision requiring that manufacturers specify the
category name, is unnecessary and therefore removed that provision.

C. What is EPA's evaluation?

    Part 228 contains the required elements for a federally enforceable
rule: Emission limitations, compliance procedures and test methods,
compliance dates and record keeping provisions.
    Part 228 includes provisions that prohibit the selling, supplying,
offering for sale, soliciting, using, specifying or requiring the use
of a non-compliant coating on a part or product at a facility in New
York, unless allowed by other provisions of Part 228. Part 228 also
includes provisions for handling, storage and disposal of VOC's.
Facilities also have compliance options including the option of using
add-on control equipment provided it achieves 90 percent control.
    EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the
CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and guideline documents. EPA has
determined that Part 228 is as effective in regulating the source
categories as the following CTG's:
    (1) Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations [EPA 453/R-96-007
(April 1996); 61 FR 25223 (May 20, 1996)];
    (2) Flat Wood Paneling Coatings [EPA 453/R-06-004 (September 2006);
71 FR 58745 (Oct. 5, 2006)];
    (3) Metal Furniture Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-005 (September 2007); 72
FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (4) Large Appliance Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-004 (September 2007); 72
FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (5) Paper, Film and Foil Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-003 (September
2007); 72 FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (6) Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings [EPA-453/R-
08-006 (September 2008); 73 FR 58481 (Oct. 7, 2008)]; and
    (7) Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings [EPA-453/R-08-
003 (September, 2008); 73 FR 58481 (Oct. 7, 2008)].
    EPA has determined that the VOC content limits associated with the
various surface coating processes included in the revised Part 228 are
consistent with the VOC content limits recommended in the applicable
surface coating CTG's, as are all of the other recommended control
options (i.e., add-on controls efficiency, work practices for coating-
related activities and work practices for cleaning materials) and
applicability thresholds. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve it as part
of the SIP and as meeting the requirement to adopt a RACT rule for the
CTG categories listed above.
    With regards to New York's negative declaration for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials and Industrial Cleaning Solvents, EPA agrees
with New York's evaluation that no facilities exist in the State to
which the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG apply. However,
EPA is still reviewing the negative declaration as it applies to the
Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG and will discuss our evaluation in the
future.
    As previously noted, EPA recently approved a SIP revision for prior
amendments to Part 228 on March 8, 2012 (77 FR 13974).

IV. What is EPA's conclusion?

    EPA has evaluated New York's July 15, 2013 SIP revision submittal
for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and
guideline documents. EPA proposes that the revisions made to Title 6 of
the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 228,
``Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives,
Sealants and Primers,'' with an effective date of June 5, 2013, meet
the SIP requirements of the CAA and fulfill the recommended controls
identified in the applicable CTGs. EPA is proposing to approve these
revisions and is also proposing to approve New York's July 15, 2013
negative declaration, which certifies that based on a review of
operating permits and emissions inventory, no facilities exist in the
State to which the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG apply.
Therefore, New York will not have to incorporate provisions consistent
with that CTG into Part 228 or any other regulation.

 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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 proposed action 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 8, 2013.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2013-27679 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13297]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Concerning Submittals Made During Adverse Weather-Related
Government Closures

    Take notice that the Commission is adopting the following
procedural practice with respect to acceptance of submittals when, due
to adverse weather that has resulted in the Office of Personnel
Management closing Federal government offices in Washington, DC., the
Commission is closed.
    Effective March 7, 2014, when the Commission is closed due to
adverse weather that has resulted in the Office of Personnel Management
closing Federal government offices in Washington, DC, the Commission
will not accept submittals--either in hardcopy format or in electronic
format through ``FERC Online'' (including through eFiling and eTariff).
    At such time as the Commission reopens, it will again accept
submittals both in hardcopy format and in electronic format through
``FERC Online'' (including through eFiling and eTariff).

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05123 Filed 3-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P