99 MBIP Limiting the amount of fumigant that can be used in a given time period would encourage fumigators and food plants to reduce dosage, conduct fewer treatments, or provide other less effective options. These practices already have resulted in less effective treatments, the potential for diminished sanitation at some of our nation's food plants, and can potentially lead to insect resistance as is currently the case with phosphine. This practice would pose particular problems at ports where incoming perishable commodities must be treated quickly to comply with USDA requirements, and to ensure shelf life is not severely impacted. Also, food processing facilities typically schedule fumigations during weekends or holiday weekends to minimize See response # 5. 24 # ID Public Comment Agency Response production disruptions. Limitations on amount and time could have severe economic impacts. ( See also our comments relating to problematic conditions under California's system in Section above.) A preferred solution would be to require monitoring to demonstrate that acceptable levels are not exceeded. 100 APHIS Similar concerns which would arise from requiring recovery systems for all fumigations would also arise from limiting methyl bromide use by amount and time. Over the years, business infrastructures supporting local and regional economies have developed around the importation of large quantities of perishable commodities along a section of the northeastern coast of our country. To handle certain cargoes such as Chilean fruit, these regions have developed specialized infrastructures such as cold storage, pier space to fumigate with adequate buffer zones, specially trained personnel ( longshoreman, pier managers, fumigators, quality control, Federal employees). Major cargo transportation routes have developed around these infrastructures. The cost would be prohibitive to develop more ports in such a manner. A single fumigation enclosure in some warehouses that contain multiple enclosures might exceed 100,000 cubic feet at some of these northeastern ports; if the temperature is cold enough, a single enclosure containing perishable commodities may contain up to 400 pounds of methyl bromide. During the winter months, when perishable commodities enter our nation's ports from the southern hemisphere, certain eastern seaboard locations may have up to 11 fumigation operations occurring simultaneously   releasing over 4,000 pounds of fumigant in one evening. If fumigation were limited in the manner currently required by California, the local, national, and global economic infrastructure that has developed over the years would collapse. Limiting the amount and use of methyl bromide would seriously impede the movement of perishable commodities out of the ports with short term economic consequences that may include: loss of marketability of the commodities arising from delays in fumigation and inappropriate storage conditions ( there are insufficient storage warehouses to hold perishables if they cannot be fumigated immediately after being off loaded from vessels); increased vessel traffic with potential increases in accidents; and increased truck traffic with potential increases in accidents. Back ups of vessels containing imported fruit may begin to occur at the exporting country. Countries may export less to our country to avoid losses at the ports. From a global trade perspective, complaints to the United States by exporting countries stand to increase significantly. In the long term, it is possible that new fumigation facilities and warehouses might develop to handle the treatments for those quantities of shipments that could not be treated at the standard ports of entry. However, this would mean that untreated cargo would be moving inland from the ports. APHIS has serious phytosanitary concerns regarding this scenario. Moving imported commodities within our nation's borders prior to treatment, even with safeguarding measures in place, may increase the risk of a non indigenous, quarantine pest escaping into the environment. The Agency also acknowledges that the specific risk mitigation options that are being considered would likely have a different economic effect on each facility that conducts fumigations. Further, the Agency agrees that, depending on the particular risk mitigation option selected and the site specific conditions of the facility, some options could produce substantial adverse economic effects.

101 Royal Timings of Applications or Aeration. Royal questions whether the premise underlying this proposal, that the atmosphere at night is more stable than during the day, applies to the port settings in which Royal does most of its fumigations. In almost twenty years of water side fumigation, it is Royal's experience that there is always some sort of prevailing wind at night that can be used to help control the dispersal of methyl bromide emissions. There can also be daytime air inversions that make it more difficult to predict dispersion. Under these circumstances Royal believes that the safety advantages of working in a port at night, when other personnel are not present, far outweigh any benefit from less stable daytime air. See response to comment 34 above. The Agency would also welcome the submission of additional meteorological data for modeling purposes. It should also be noted that the Agency used coastal weather sources in Ventura California for modeling coastal situations.

102 ASOEX Timing of Applications or Aeration: It is questionable if the atmospheric conditions along the California coast apply to other fumigation sites. If aeration is required to start during daylight horns for all fumigation locations, the importation process at ports of entry on the East Coast for Chilean fresh produce would be adversely affected as the fumigation and aeration of Chilean generally take place during night hours, when few people are likely to be in the area surrounding the fumigation, in a secured port warehouse and with the cooperation of port security to keep bystanders from the sites. See response # 37. The Agency would also welcome the submission of additional meteorological data for modeling purposes ( HED/ SRRD)

103 NRDC Timing of applications or aeration. EPA notes that the less stable atmosphere during the daylight hours results in dilution and dissipation of methyl bromide more rapidly than during the more stable night time conditions. California DPR already requires that aeration with MBr be performed during daylight hours (( Reference Manual   Methyl Bromide Commodity Fumigation. August 8, 1994. State of California Environmental Protection Agency). If daytime aerations are See response # 81. 25 # ID Public Comment Agency Response not practical, CDPR requires a larger buffer zone to be in effect for nighttime aerations. Has EPA estimated the impact of this proposal on overall MBr use and release? Does EPA have data supporting its estimated impact? Has EPA evaluated the impact of this restriction on the attractiveness of alternative pest control methods? 104 FS& S Risk Management Option 7   Timing of Applications or Aeration. Most space applications are heavily impacted by wind. These are generally 24 hour treatment periods. If ventilation starts during daylight when winds are normally the highest   " add gas" will subsequently be greater during the most critical first 12 hours of the treatment. We generally practice the opposite of the California suggested process with excellent results. See response # 37. The Agency would also welcome the submission of additional meteorological data for modeling purposes ( HED/ SRRD)

105 NAMA Limiting aeration to daylight hours except for facilities meeting an exhaust stack height requirement We oppose such arbitrary restrictions. Restricting aeration to daylight hours will not contribute measurably to safe usage. In fact, depending on the location, it could conceivably add to the risk. For example, for a mill in an urban location, it may be far better to aerate during the night. Those decisions are best left to the professional fumigator using site specific information and experience. Further, such a restriction would extend the time of the fumigation and add considerably to the expense. Mills come in all different shapes, sizes and heights. Yet all can be safely aerated without a restriction based on hours or height. Actual air monitoring is the best way to ensure the safety of the aeration process. See response # 37. The Agency would also welcome the submission of additional meteorological data for modeling purposes ( HED/ SRRD)

106 MBIP Many facilities and enclosures do not have exhaust stacks that meet height requirements imposed in California. Thus, aeration limitations would apply. Aeration during daylight hours can cause disruption in the operation of fumigated facilities. If the facility is not able to complete treatment preparation and shutdown at scheduled times, the aeration time will be delayed and may not fall within the anticipated time. Thus, aeration hour restrictions can contribute to longer downtime periods for the facility. Actual monitoring is the only way to ensure the aeration process is proceeding safely. Proper monitoring by trained individuals can assure gas concentrations outside the fumigated site do not pose safety concerns regardless of the time of day when aeration occurs. If air monitoring indicates a need, the aeration process can be slowed down so that the level of methyl bromide remains within acceptable limits. See response # 5.

107 APHIS APHIS believes that it would be unsafe to require aeration events to occur during hours when the ports are full of people. Active aeration takes a minimum of 2 3 hours; passive aeration, which often follows active aeration to allow for offgassing requires several more hours. It has been APHIS's experience that it is difficult to convince port employees, passers by, forklift operators, and truck drivers in busy ports to stay outside of the buffer area for any length of time. While many ports, particularly those in California and Florida, treat and aerate large quantities of smaller enclosures during daylight hours, most of these facilities are located away from other port activities. The ports which fumigate large enclosures, holding 400 lbs of gas or more, and which do not have warehouses located away from port activities, time their fumigations so that aeration occurs when the fewest people are present   during late night and early morning hours. See response # 37.

108 Royal Sensitive Sites. Royal believes that the methyl bromide product labels already prohibit fumigation and aeration in areas where people are present, including schools, hospitals and other sensitive sites. Royal is not aware of data that show the need for other protective measures for these types of sites. Current EPA labels do not require buffer zones. The Agency is considering whether to require additional mitigation controls for sensitive site where risks may be higher. 109 NRDC Sensitive sites. The EPA is considering additional protective measures for schools, hospitals, and other sensitive sites, including a prohibition on fumigations or aeration while people are present. NRDC is supportive of any measures that severely and significantly limit or cancel MBr uses, particularly near sensitive sites. However, there is no discussion in the EPA document of the limits that EPA proposes, for what uses, under what conditions, by how much. There is no discussion of estimated costs or quantitative mitigation impact of this measure on the overall reduction of volume of MBr used. Has EPA estimated the impact of this proposal on MBr use and release at sensitive sites? Does EPA have data supporting its estimated impact? If so, what is the source of this data, and what are the costs associated with this proposal compared with the estimated impact on MBr total usage? Has EPA evaluated the impact of this restriction on the attractiveness of alternative pest control methods? The Agency solicited and received comments for these the following questions as they relate to sensitive sites: ° What is the feasibility of implementing this option on a national level? ° What are the costs associated with this option? ° How effectively does this option mitigate the risks resulting from methyl bromide use?

110 FS& S Risk Management Option 8   Sensitive Sites The Agency considered these comments 26 # ID Public Comment Agency Response This sounds prudent but what is the distance? As for not allowing other people to be " on site"   more detail is needed. What is a " safe" distance? For a container vs. a 20,000,000 cubic foot food processing facility. It should recognize volumes of scale. when evaluating the potential of establishing additional measures for sensitive sites.

111 MBIP EPA's Post Harvest RA already includes safety factors that take into account the most sensitive individuals in a population, so there is no rationale for the Agency's suggestion that additional protection is needed for some types of facilities. Current labels and work practices already require that the fumigated facility and immediate surrounding area be cleared of people ( except the fumigation crew) when the fumigation is in progress. See Response # 110.

112 APHIS Current APHIS PPQ buffers are protective of port employees; therefore, APHIS does not see how additional protective measures are needed for sites located even farther away. APHIS PPQ guidance exists that would prevent certification of a fumigation site located directly upwind from a school or hospital; furthermore, the majority of sites are intentionally located in areas secluded from other businesses. It appears that this section is in direct conflict with mitigation number 7, which prefers to have fumigation occur during daylight hours, when businesses and schools are operating and more people are present. See Response # 110.

113 CDPR Our comments pertain to Risk Management option 9 ( Minimum Aeration Times). This option includes the statement " The amount of air which passes through the enclosure or structure has a minimal effect on the rate of off gassing.... The Agency believes that a minimum time period for aeration may reduce exposures for workers reentering enclosures". The amount of air passing through the fumigation structure has a huge effect on exhausting the methyl bromide that is ultimately emitted by the commodity. Defining a minimum aeration period is a good idea, but active ventilation as a method to control worker exposure should not be neglected. This is especially important in storage areas. The basis for this option came directly out of the CDPR Reference Manual ( page 45).

Condition 14  Enclosures must be aerated for the following minimum duration: a. 4 hours if mechanically ventilated using fans, or b. 12 hours if passively ventilated NOTE: This condition pertains to aeration of the fumigation enclosure, not aeration of areas where commodities are stored, except when they are the same. Reasoning Methyl bromide absorbed within the commodity can continue to offgas for a long time. The rate of off gassing depends on how tightly methyl bromide binds to the commodity. The amount of air which passes through the enclosure has a minimal effect on the rate of off gassing.

The EPA agrees that a minimum aeration time alone should not be relied upon to reduce exposures for workers reentering enclosures. However, in accordance with CDPR's manual, EPA believes that the amount of air which passes through the enclosure or structure will have a minimal effect on the rate of off gassing. While the Agency agrees that active ventilation is effective in reducing the concentration of MeBr, a minimum aeration period may be needed to ensure that off gassing has continued to sufficient levels. 114 Royal Minimum Aeration Times. Royal does not see the logic, or the value, of a proposal for minimum aeration times. Simply, if a fumigator is given a choice between entering an area that has been subjected to a minimum required aeration, or an area in which the level of methyl bromide has been demonstrated to be 5 ppm or less, no one will opt for a minimum aeration time. Royal is not aware of data that demonstrates that the 5 ppm requirement is inadequate, and further believes that fumigators and regulators should, and must, exercise their judgment in finding the best combination of active and/ or passive aeration to achieve the 5 ppm requirement. Current EPA label specify a 5 ppm limit. The Agency is now considering a lower limit based on HED risk assessment ( see response # 2). The Agency is not proposing that that fumigators choose between a minimum aeration time AND the 5 ppm limit.

115 APHIS APHIS believes that placing minimum aeration times on the label may serve to decrease the safety of methyl bromide use. It would be preferable to allow users to have flexibility in deciding an appropriate aeration time, according to the situation. By placing a minimum aeration time on the label, both workers and by standers may be led into a false sense of security regarding the safety of re entering a fumigation area without wearing self contained breathing apparatus following a required aeration period. The Agency acknowledges this comment and considered the implications of aeration durations in its risk management decision. The Agency would also encourage the development of real time methyl bromide air monitors which can reliably screen for lower air concentrations 27 # ID Public Comment Agency Response In addition, it is difficult to imagine how EPA could develop minimum standards of aeration which would keep up with the technological changes in packing material and methods, both of which may affect treatment and aeration times. The APHIS PPQ Treatment Manual covers a wide variety of issues that may affect treatment and aeration ( see Chapter 2 3 at http:// www. aphis. usda. gov/ ppq/ manuals/ port/ pdf_ files/ Treatment_ Chapters/ 02 03 ChemFumMethyl% 20Bromide. pdf ) For example, plastic wrappings such as cellophane, films, and shrink wrap, and papers that are waxed, laminated, or waterproofed are not readily permeable. APHIS requires that they be removed, opened, or perforated in a very specific manner before fumigation in order to ensure that the commodity receives the fumigant; likewise, the removal of the fumigant also becomes a challenge. Boxes packed with wood or other sorptive material which off gas over time, also cause aeration to be a challenge. Great Lakes Chemical Company has reminded APHIS that air concentration readings must be taken within the box of fruit itself, not in the air space between the pallets holding the boxes of fruit; this greatly increases the time needed to remove the fumigant as it off gasses from the fruit and the sorptive materials in the box. In short, aeration times must be increased for commodities packaged in certain ways to ensure that the air concentration levels within the box are adequately reduced to 5 ppm, the current allowable level. How would EPA determine the appropriate aeration time for the various ways commodities are packaged and wrapped? Allowing APHIS ( and fumigators) flexibility in determining necessary aeration times according to the readings of ambient air concentrations will allow commodities that are not packaged in certain ways to aerate more quickly, and thus enter the chain of commerce more efficiently. The current method of requiring a maximum air concentration level appears to be the best and most reliable way to maintain safety during fumigation and aeration. in order that they can be used as key component in any real time monitoring requirements instituted by the Agency.

With regard to the general issue of aeration, it is clear that an approach to effectively manage the risks for workers and others who might be impacted from incomplete aeration needs to be multifaceted including some sort of aeration time stipulations and also a real time monitoring component which would add flexibility for users. Specific guidance for monitoring is also being discussed. The points raised by APHIS in this comment with regard to monitoring are critical to the nature of an effective program and were considered in the Agency's decision. It is clear, for example, that sampling in treated, wrapped commodity packaging is likely a health protective approach.

The Agency also acknowledges that developing a universally applicable approach to establishing a standard aeration time would be difficult because of the broad range of potential field situations that could be encountered. Key factors could be the nature of the packaging, volume of treated space, type of commodity, and the nature of the treatment facility ( e. g., concrete or wood construction). 116 USA Rice Minimum aeration durations are also required under California rules. Waiting as much as an extra 12 hours adds prohibitive costs to the fumigation process. USA Rice believes that air monitoring is not only sufficient, but also the only sure way to determine if an area is safe to enter and therefore aeration time limits should not be required. See response $ 8.

117 ASOEX Minimum Aeration Times: The establishment of a minimum time period for aeration would delay the importation process of Chilean fresh produce. See response # 5.

118 NRDC Minimum aeration times. EPA recognizes that MBr will off gas from products and commodities that have been treated. Current labels require aeration until concentration reaches 5 ppm or less, but a minimum time is not listed. A minimum time may limit worker reentry exposures. EPA outlines the results of air dispersion modeling which demonstrates that extending aeration intervals ( e. g. from 1 hr to 4 hrs) is an effective means to reduce ambient air concentrations of MBr ( pg 41, Figure 11). EPA reports that that there is an inverse, direct correlation between the length of the aeration interval, and the resulting ambient air concentrations during this period of the fumigation operation. If the aeration interval is doubled, a 50 percent reduction in the ambient air concentrations during aeration would be expected. CDPR presently requires minimum aeration intervals ranging from 4 hours to 12 hours for MBr fumigations (( Reference Manual   Methyl Bromide Commodity Fumigation. August 8, 1994. State of California Environmental Protection Agency). See response # 115.

119 FS& S Risk Management Option 9   Minimum Aeration Times It is important to understand that aeration should not be rushed. Careful and comprehensive monitoring is required. Having an aeration plan as part of the FMP is critical. Many temporary ventilation systems are available and used today. Fan assisted aeration should be required   no passive ventilation should be allowed. Ventilation should not be complete until commodity concentration is at or below the PEL. Most fumigation situations facilitate quick headspace aeration time but clearing the commodity in bulk or bag takes much longer. If gas is not cleared from the dense areas then safety can be compromised. See response # 5.

120 NAMA Mandated minimum aeration times We oppose minimum aeration times as they will not guarantee safety. Safe reentry can only be ensured by air monitoring as is currently the case. If air monitoring shows the facility is safe for re entry, there is no cause for keeping the facility idle awaiting the expiration of an arbitrary time period. If the air is not safe, only air monitoring will detect it and prevent an unsafe entry. See response # 115. 28 # ID Public Comment Agency Response 121 MBIP These aeration requirements are not necessary for many facilities. The best way to minimize risk and ensure safe levels for re entry is to conduct air monitoring during the fumigation. If air monitoring indicates levels of methyl bromide below risk levels, the area is safe to re enter and additional aeration is redundant and unnecessary. Under the California system, the facility must remain shut down during the entire prescribed aeration period regardless of whether actual air concentrations are below acceptable levels. This increases the downtime for food handling facilities and imposes unnecessary costs. See response # 5.

122 MBIP Current labels require aeration until the methyl bromide concentration reaches 5 ppm or less. The Risk Mitigation Memo suggests that a minimum time period for aeration might reduce exposures for workers reentering the structures. The MBIP sees no need for this requirement. If followed, the current requirement for monitoring provides adequate protection. If aeration is continued until the target concentration is reached, it is difficult to understand how aeration for a specified time period would provide additional protection. More detailed label language on how concentrations are to be monitored would be preferable to a minimum aeration time requirement. See response # 5.

123 Royal Permits. It has been Royal's experience in the past that the existing regulatory scheme is adequate to monitor or audit fumigation industry operations. In certain areas where Royal operates, the state authorities maintain lists of fumigation sites and the activity there. In other states, the regulators make it their business to know the fumigation companies. In quarantine fumigation, of course, APHIS is on site during the fumigation. In all cases, Royal welcomes regulators on planned or unplanned visits. Local regulators are familiar with sites, companies, product labels and their enforcement. In addition, Royal informs local emergency services, such as fire departments, of all fumigations so that the public can be protected in the event of an emergency at or near a fumigation site. We do not see how additional oversight will improve the situation. Royal has additional concerns about a permitting process if it has the potential to delay fumigation operations. In our operations, Royal responds to the schedules of the transportation industry and we often fumigate on very short notice due to changes in ship arrival times, availability of port labor or equipment, etc. We have no problem reporting our operations, after the fact, to the appropriate regulators and assisting them in trying to anticipate our schedule so that they can check on us, but a permitting process that hinges on bureaucratic action to proceed will seriously interrupt commerce. See response # 5.

124 ASOEX Permits: ASOEX believes the fumigators diligently comply with EPA regulations, USDA/ APHIS fumigation guidelines, and local requirements. Any permit program at Federal level would create additional obstacles when a timely importation process of perishable commodities is beneficial to U. S. consumers. See response # 81.

125 NRDC Permits. California has a permitting system for commodity fumigation based on a comprehensive state wide program that relies on County Agriculture Commissioners reviewing and issuing permits. The system helps to ensure compliance with label requirements and enforce against misuse. NRDC supports the permit program as a way to capture use and compliance, and to assist with enforcement. However, NRDC does not believe that this mitigation proposal will reduce the overall MBr use in any significant way. Does EPA have data supporting its estimated impact? If so, what is the source of this data, and what are the costs associated with this proposal compared with the estimated impact on MBr total usage? Has EPA evaluated the impact of this restriction on the attractiveness of alternative pest control methods? See response # 81.

126 FS& S Risk Management Option 10   Permits Yes   I agree. See response # 5.

127 MBIP In California, WSP requirements are feasible because there is a regulatory infrastructure for review and approval. California's program for regulating pesticide use is unique because within each county there is a County Agricultural Commissioner that oversees the application permitting program. Fumigation site plans are submitted by the certified applicator to one of approximately 60 County Agricultural Commissioner's offices. After plans are reviewed and approved, a final permit is issued for the fumigation site that spells out specific conditions that must be met in order for the fumigation to proceed. Commissioners also issue a Restricted Materials Permit which must be in place before utilizing methyl bromide and complete on site inspections of the fumigation. We are unaware of any other States that have regulatory systems of this magnitude. Thus, imposing California's formal WSP requirements on a nationwide basis may place unnecessary economic burdens on States that do not have the infrastructure or resources to manage such a process. See response # 81.

128 MBIP We have already addressed the problems and burdens of imposing a California See response # 81. 29 # ID Public Comment Agency Response style permitting system for commodity fumigation on a nationwide basis. The California system relies heavily on an established infrastructure of county agricultural commissioners who review and issue permits for applications. Enforcement systems already exist at the State and Federal level to ensure compliance with pesticide labeling. EPA's entire pesticide regulatory program is based on controlling use through labeling, not permitting requirements. EPA cites no evidence to suggest that fumigators would use methyl bromide in ways inconsistent with the label. Rather than impose a large administrative permitting burden on the states, we urge EPA to consider other options, such as additional training and certification for fumigators. 129 APHIS APHIS considers the APHIS PPQ fumigation site certification to be the functional equivalent to a permitting system is overseen by the Federal entity, APHIS PPQ, and does not believe that additional permitting would add to the safety of these facilities. See response # 81.

130 Royal Record Keeping/ Reporting/ Tracking. Royal believes that responsible fumigation companies already engage in more record keeping than this proposal seems to contemplate, and therefore has no objection to the proposal. The Agency appreciates the information provided by this commenter and has considered this information, along with other pertinent data, in its alternatives and user impact analysis for the proposed risk mitigations.. 131 NRDC Record keeping/ reporting/ tracking. There are currently no requirements on EPA labels for site operators to keep records of equipment testing or applications made. Reporting and tracking of site plan information will be extremely helpful for regulators to ensure compliance with labeling and regulations. NRDC supports a record keeping/ reporting/ tracking program as a way to capture use and compliance, and to assist with enforcement. See response # 130.

132 APHIS Facilities fumigating under APHIS PPQ supervision already have their enclosures approved by APHIS PPQ. APHIS does not believe that further record keeping requirements would add to the safety of these particular operational facilities. See response # 130.

133 FS& S Risk Management Option 11   Record Keeping / Report / Tracking Calibration of monitoring equipment and documentation of expiration dates of colormetric tubes should be part of an effective FMP. See response # 130.

134 PFI As to record keeping, PFI member companies already maintain extensive records on the fumigations in their facilities during the normal course of business. Since these applications are costly and involve significant downtime, and that the applicators are already required to keep extensive records under current regulations, PFI feels the existing record keeping need is adequate and routinely surpassed, alleviating the need for additional record keeping requirements. See response # 5.

135 MBIP Most fumigators already keep detailed records of their operations as required under USDA regulations for certified applicators. However, a uniform program, developed in cooperation with fumigators, could help to ensure compliance and proper use of methyl bromide. 136 Royal Training and Certification. Royal notes that fewer companies are engaging in fumigation, in part because of the higher risk and the very high insurance premiums resulting from that risk. Therefore, there already exists in the industry considerable incentive for training, and the methyl bromide manufacturers offer good stewardship programs on the safe handling of fumigants. In addition, most of the state agencies in charge of the certification of pest control applicators also offer certifications in fumigation, including commodity fumigation. Royal believes the public is adequately protected already in terms of training and certification, and that another layer of regulation will not improve the situation. See response # 5.

137 NRDC Training and certification. EPA proposes a training program specifically designed for the unique hazards that commodity/ structural fumigators are faced with. The program could be associated with programs already underway. NRDC supports a training and certification program as a way to reduce label violations. See response # 5.

138 FS& S Risk Management Option 12   Training and Certification: This is a huge issue. I do not understand the full capability of APHIS and how they could take this issue on. There is an absolute need to review restricted use licensing across the US. There is a wide range of differences in licensing requirements from state department of agriculture to public health to plant boards. Some state groups require continuing educations some do not. Those who do not require continuing education are putting users of fumigants at great risk. Educational materials can be very weak, very outdated or absent. Many fumigation tests are very outdated. Currently when our company provides state training for fumigation, we have trouble providing most recent information due to conflict with old testing   you must answer questions with " currently incorrect / illegal" information. There is a real need to channel changes in restricted use chemical to state agencies in a timely manner. See response # 5. 30 # ID Public Comment Agency Response 139 MBIP The MBIP generally supports to use of training and certification requirements as an effective way to minimize worker and bystander risk from potential inhalation exposures during commodity fumigations. In 1999 2000, methyl bromide registrants recognized the need for additional training for applicators, and held discussions with EPA to develop a training program. A curriculum was developed, reviewed by EPA and adopted by registrants. Since 2001, at least one registrant has required applicators to show evidence of training before purchase of methyl bromide for commodity or structural fumigation. The program is now voluntary, but could be made mandatory, perhaps with an updated or revised curriculum. Need RD input 140 APHIS APHIS believes that potential liability issues that may arise from using a dangerous chemical requiring extremely technical knowledge for safe application already compels APHIS, the product manufacturer, and the fumigation companies to provide intensive certification for its employees and clients, and that further certification requirements may not add to the safe use of this product. Methyl bromide labels already contain a statement that the product may only be sold to persons certified and licensed in fumigation. For example, the Meth O Gas Q products states, " For retail sale to and use only by Certified Applicators or persons under their direct supervision, and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator's certification" ( emphasis added). All APHIS PPQ employees which supervise fumigations are Federally licensed and certified for regulatory fumigation through APHIS PPQ's Professional Development Center. The APHIS PPQ Compliance Agreement's Operational Procedures require that the fumigator provide to APHIS proof of the fumigator's as well as the fumigator's employees' current state license to use restricted use fumigants, as well as official documentation of approved training of all non certified personnel engaged in fumigation operations under APHIS PPQ supervision. The Operational Procedures, as well as the pesticide labels, also require a minimum of two certified persons present during all fumigations. The manufacturers have a great stake in ensuring that their products are being used safely; they provide a rigorous training course. Most, if not all fumigation companies send their employees to intensive fumigation training offered by companies which manufacture or sell methyl bromide. A reliable fumigation company, who also has a great stake in ensuring safety of their employees, will often depend not only on this training, but also on additional policies to ensure employee safety. For example, some companies require newer employees to go through an apprenticeship under more seasoned employees before they are permitted to fumigate on their own. While it appears that EPA Certification and Training regulations in 40 CFR may not have kept up with current State fumigation requirements, most States have already incorporated fumigation categories into their certification and training requirements. The many types of protections in place exceed that which EPA may propose, and may be less of a value added and more of an administrative burden. See response # 81.

141 Royal Maximum Application Rates. It is Royal's understanding that existing label rates are set based upon the efficacy needed to protect American agriculture and safeguard the public. We question, therefore, whether there are " lower rates that are still efficacious," but we lack the expertise necessary to comment further on this proposal. See response # 81.

142 USA Rice USA Rice does not support reducing the amount of MeBr used any further. The rice milling industry has already reduced the amount of MeBr per ft3 due to the price of the gas and the continuing CUE process. Further reductions or limiting the amount of gas used will lead to less effective treatments and possible pest resistance. See response # 81.

143 USA Rice USA Rice believes that application rates listed in the label need to be broad enough to cover a wide variety of situations and ensure efficacy of the targeted pest. Although the majority of fumigations conducted are performed at lower label rates, there may be situations where higher label rates are necessary, such as quarantine fumigations. Specific commodities may have higher listed application rates. These higher rates may be necessary if the treatment is utilized to target pest within bulk commodity such as a bin treatment where increased penetration is necessary or the target pest may be difficult to kill. Quarantine treatments require higher application rates to meet USDA treatment schedule requirements and are typically performed at port locations. Current product labeling allows for application rates of methyl bromide on processed foods at 1 to 2 lbs/ 1,000 ft3. In the food industry, methyl bromide is seldom applied at over 1 lb/ 1,000 ft3 for a typical space fumigation carried out at a food handling establishment. Product cost also impacts the decision to utilize methyl bromide at lower application rates, as customers do not wish to purchase more product than is necessary to complete a successful treatment. See response # 130. 31 # ID Public Comment Agency Response Lastly, utilizing methyl bromide at reduced application rates has serious potential for the development of insect resistance. The food and tobacco industries already face insect resistance to phosphine, which resulted from insects exposed to sub lethal concentrations of that fumigant. 144 Western In terms of lowering of the existing fumigation schedules, there does not seem to be much of an opportunity particularly for USDA quarantine treatments. Vigorous employment of the most effective sealing techniques would be the most practical method to reduce consumption particularly where poor practices exist. See response # 130.

145 NRDC Maximum application rates. Current application rates for commodity uses range from 1 to 9 lbs ai per 1000 cu. ft. EPA proposes that lower rates could still be efficacious and would reduce MBr total volume use and exposure risks. However, the EPA also raises the concern that reduced levels may lead to increased pest resistance. Thus, it is unclear from EPA's description if this mitigation proposal will result in significant reductions in the overall MBr use. Does EPA have data supporting its estimated impact? If so, what is the source of this data, and what are the estimated savings in MBr purchases associated with this proposal, and what would be the estimated impact on MBr total usage? Has EPA evaluated the impact of this restriction on the attractiveness of alternative pest control methods? See response # 81.

146 FS& S Risk Management Option 13   Maximum Application Rates: Applications vary widely and setting maximum rates would appear to be difficult. I believe RMO 4 and Half Loss Time [ HLT] management is a way to limit the amount of fumigant needed while insuring desired efficacy. See response # 130.

147 NAMA Although the label approved by the EPA allows for usage at up to 6.0 lb. per 1000 cubic feet, the common dosage is 1.0  1.25 lb. per 1000 cubic feet. An average mill will contain 1.0  2.0 million cubic feet. See response # 130.

148 MBIP Mitigating risk through reduced application rates has serious potential implications for reducing efficacy and increasing the development of insect resistance. The food and tobacco industries already face insect resistance to phosphine, which resulted from insects exposed to sub lethal concentrations of that fumigant. Thus, the MBIP does not support application rate reduction as a risk mitigation tool, unless it is demonstrated that lower rates for specific types of fumigation are efficacious. See response # 130.

149 APHIS APHIS assumes that this question pertains only to those using methyl bromide under critical use exemptions and not those using methyl bromide for quarantine purposes. All treatment rates for imported commodities are mandated by APHIS in accordance with the Plant Protection Act of 2000 and are published in Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If EPA reduces treatment rates on the label to amounts lower than those mandated by APHIS, it is possible that certain imported commodities may not be permitted entry into this country and would have to be reexported or destroyed. All export quarantine treatments are conducted at rates mandated by the exporting country, and cannot be changed by the United States; if EPA reduces the treatment rates on the label to amounts lower than those mandated by importing countries, then certain domestic commodities may not be permitted entry into that country; a resultant decline in exports may occur. Quarantine treatments require a 100% kill of the pest of concern. Due to the fact that new phytosanitary issues continuously arise as a result of our nation's increase in global trade, APHIS prefers to have the labeled treatments retained at rates somewhat higher than those currently mandated by APHIS PPQ. This will allow flexibility in amending the mandatory treatment rates as the need arises, without having to resort to a section 18 request See response # 130.

150 Royal Alternatives. Due to the phase out of many uses of methyl bromide, Royal has moved to alternative fumigants where it is able, and we believe other fumigators in the industry have now done the same. As noted by EPA, there are no alternatives for the international quarantine uses. See response # 81.

151 Western Methyl Bromide is the most important tool available for the fumigation of quarantine pests, in or on perishable commodities, which cannot be controlled by either heat or cold treatments. International trade in fresh fruits and vegetable is heavily dependent on the use of methyl bromide when a recognizable quarantine risk is associated with those products. The use of methyl bromide is equally important in the control of quarantine pests associated with a variety of other commercial products and packing materials. Denial of these products in international trade, which would be the alternative if methyl bromide fumigation were prohibited, would cause staggering financial losses particularly to third world countries, which depend on agricultural trade for a sizable portion of their Gross National Product ( GNP). See response # 130.

152 ASOEX Alternatives: Methyl bromide is the only substance, at this time, that is practical and effective for most commodities. As part of its activities, ASOEX has funded research for the development of alternative technologies designed to replace, at See response # 130. 32 # ID Public Comment Agency Response least in part, preshipment and quarantine uses of methyl bromide. As of today, no commercially viable alternative exists to methyl bromide to achieve quarantine security objectives set by the USDA/ APHIS. Although research efforts are continuing, we doubt that a fully operational and economically feasible quarantine treatment will be in place in the near future. 153 NRDC Available non chemical and chemical alternatives permit   indeed require   the immediate termination of these MBr uses See response # 81.

154 NRDC Availability of Alternatives EPA states that the use of ozone friendly alternatives is " also a preferred mitigation option", so long as the reduce risk alternatives maintain " sufficient efficacy". In FY 1999, the USDA Agriculture Research Service ( ARS) allocated about $ 14.4 million toward research to develop alternatives to MBr, primarily but not solely focused on chemical replacements. In 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the U. S. EPA formed the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Working Group to track and facilitate adoption of alternatives to MBr. The development of MBr replacements that are not harmful to human health and ecological systems are preferable for all applications and under all conditions, and should be the goal of the EPA. Taking into account both recognized and effective non chemical treatment techniques ( e. g., heat) and other fumigation chemicals ( e. g., sulfuryl fluoride), there is no need or justification for reregistering these uses of MBr. While not the only efficacious alternative pest control method for these applications, NRDC notes that sulfuryl fluoride is registered for virtually all of these uses both federally and in all 50 states. Implemented with proper attention to integrated pest management principles, alternatives are capable of replacing virtually all MBr for these uses. In the 2006 critical use exemption rule issued under the Clean Air Act, EPA arbitrarily assumed that sulfuryl fluoride can displace no more than 15 percent of the structural uses of methyl bromide in 2006. EPA asserted, without any rational basis, that it would take as much as eight years for these uses to transition from MBr to sulfuryl fluoride or other alternatives. In that rulemaking, NRDC commented that EPA's reasoning ignores a key aspect of the phase out process under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act: phase out timetables are intended to accelerate the market penetration of alternatives. But the market penetration of sulfuryl fluoride will be inhibited, not accelerated, as long as EPA allows methyl bromide to remain available for uses that the new chemical could address in the old chemical's absence. Put another way, if EPA has found a 15 percent annual penetration rate is reasonable when there is no environmental reason to replace an established chemical, then it stands to reason that a faster penetration rate for alternatives is feasible when driven by an environmental priority enshrined in treaty and statute   in this case protection of the ozone layer. The same considerations apply here. Under FIFRA and FQPA, EPA cannot just take for granted the transition time that the agency believes to be applicable absent regulation and make that the basis of its regulation. Rather, EPA needs to assess the ability of the alternatives to meet pest control needs assuming the cancellation of MBr. There is no reason to allow more than a year for the transition from MBr to the present suite of alternatives. See response # 130.

155 FS& S Risk Management Option   14 Alternatives At the present time and as I respond to the agency's comments I am monitoring a sulfuryl fluoride fumigation of a mill. I would like to use this site to compare and contrast methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride. 1] Time to prepare   same. 2] Sealing process   same. 3] Method of application  methyl bromide was internal release. Sulfuryl fluoride is external release. 4] Amount of gas used and cost   Methyl bromide 2500 lbs. [$ 16,500]. Sulfuryl fluoride 3500 lbs [$ 17,000]. This is the first time we have used SF on this facility and we expect to work the dosage rate and cost down with the use of the Fumiguide. 5] Duration of fumigation   same 24 hours. 6] Monitoring method   same   both use the Fumiscope [ the same unit switches between methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride]. 7] Length of aeration   same. 8] Clearance device   Methyl bromide used color metric tubes. Sulfuryl fluoride uses an electronic monitor. Color metric tubes only give you a specific sample where electronic monitors give you continuous monitoring. 9] Clean up   same. 10] Disposal   same   ship empty cylinders back to manufacturer. We have converted many facilities from methyl bromide to other treatment See response # 130. 33 # ID Public Comment Agency Response methods   mostly sulfuryl fluoride [ SF]. We have successfully used SF in old and new, loose and tight mills, food processing and warehousing facilities. I work for a large scale fumigation company who has complied with methyl bromide phase out and use no CUE gas for the last year and half. We have completely converted non QPS business to alternatives with no negative impact on our business. We are a living example of how this process can work. Our customers have not paid more and they have not compromised treatment results. I find it strange that so many people find this to be " not possible." 156 PFI No Alternatives to Methyl Bromide The use of methyl bromide is a vital tool in maintaining pest free conditions in pet food processing facilities. Methyl bromide is used as a fumigant to control stored product pests. Pet food retailers and consumers have zero tolerance for any pests in finished products. To that end, there are currently no other alternatives to methyl bromide for use in pet food facilities. Some chemicals can result in severe damage to electrical equipment while others, most notably sufuryl fluoride, are not currently approved for use at all in pet food facilities containing any amount of finished products. Improved sanitation and pest mitigation steps help, but the need for occasional methyl bromide treatments remains. See response # 130.

157 DOW Below is a listing of included documents containing data that support ProFume gas fumigant as an effective alternative to methyl bromide for post harvest uses. These documents demonstrate ProFume's technical and economic viability as a methyl bromide alternative. Many of these documents were submitted to USEPA  BEAD as public comments to support the 2006 allocation rule as well as 2008 US critical use nomination analysis. There are 14 documents sent with this letter. They are: 1. File 1 SPIP Rebound before and after fumigation; 2. File 2 Flour Beetle activity in a mill; 3. File 3 SF Vs MB fumigation comparison; 4. File 4 ProFume field bioassay; 5. File 5 ProFume TM fumigation of rice mills in California 6. File 6 Commercial performance of ProFume; 7. File 7 ProFume commercial fumigation detail; 8. File 8 Red Flour Beetle monitoring after MB Fumigations 9. File 9 Economics of commercial ProFume fumigations; 10. File 10 Canadian ProFume PMRA registration efficacy evaluation; 11. File 11 Development of Sulphuryl Fluoride in China; 12. File 12 U. S. Cocoa Manufacturer's Association; 13. File 13 Testimonials & Letters of Support; 14. File 14 Current ProFume Registration Status See response # 130.

158 MBIP The MBIP does not see the relevance of alternatives to EPA's assessment of risks for methyl bromide or risk management decision making. If efficacious, safer and economically feasible alternatives were available, applicators and facility operators would be using them. The transition to alternatives is already being forced by the reduced availability and increased costs of methyl bromide via controls imposed by the Montreal Protocol ( Critical Use Exemption process) and the federal Clean Air Act. Persons wanting to use methyl bromide under the CUE process are required each year in their application to document in great detail the reasons that alternatives are not available. Typical CUE applications can be supplied if needed to demonstrate support the claim that feasible alternatives are not available. See response # 81.

159 NAMA The industry is experimenting widely with potential alternatives, with mixed success. As an example, high heat treatments are used around the world to disinfest mills and have shown some promise in certain facilities in the US. However, industry wide experiences with heat treatments emphasize the importance of the structural integrity of the mill. Some mills have experienced structural damage from the expansion and contraction inherent to a high heat treatment. Also, most mills have been expanded over the years and therefore a mixture of building materials usually exists. Brick, concrete block, poured concrete, wood and metal can be seen in different portions of the same facility. Each of these materials has a differing ability to retain heat and uneven distribution of the heat is a technical challenge. Also, US mills are generally far larger than their counterparts in other countries and this size difference adds considerable technical challenge. Mills do not possess the heating capacity to raise the temperatures in the structure or equipment to a level of approximately 140 deg F and maintain that temperature for 24 hours or longer. While 120 deg F is insecticidal, the higher temperature is targeted to penetrate the heat into the machinery and also compensate for cool spots that inevitably exist. Bringing in temporary heating units or installing permanent heating capacity are very expensive. There is considerable initial cost associated with outfitting a mill for heat up including changing fire suppressing sprinkler heads, kick outs on motors, etc. Mills are highly automated and the motors, wiring, milling machinery, computers and other components are not designed to withstand high heat. Those costs, however, are minor compared with the lost production resulting from See response # 130. 34 # ID Public Comment Agency Response the longer time necessary for alternative treatments like high heat. For example, a typical grain mill will produce about 1.0 million pounds of milled product each day. At a sales price of about $ 0.15 per pound, the miller will lose $ 150,000 for each day the mill is idle. So addressing the pest problem and getting the mill back in operation as quickly as possible is the highest priority. 160 Royal Integrated Pest Management. As stated regarding the proposal for alternatives, IPM has already been instituted wherever possible to replace or lessen the need for fumigation. See response # 81.

161 NAMA We have always believed that an effective integrated pest management ( IPM) program is a component of ensuring good sanitation. This includes non chemical and chemical means so as to minimize the reliance on any one tool, and maximize the opportunity to produce wholesome food products in a sanitary environment. Nonetheless, is spite of an effective IPM program live infestation can be present and hidden in the complex milling systems. The grain mill cited above must process about 22,000 bushels or 1.32 million pounds of grain each day to make 1.0 million pounds of product. The Official United States Standards for Grain specifically allow live insect infestation in the grain. So while IPM programs are useful and universally used, they are inadequate by themselves to prevent or eliminate pest infestation. See response # 130.

162 FS& S Risk Management Option 15   Integrated Pest Management ( IPM): Yes   this is a good idea. " Start with the pest first." See response # 81.

163 MBIP EPA is correct in stating that effective IPM programs can result in a reduction in the frequency of treatments and in the amount of methyl bromide used. Because of the cost of methyl bromide, few food processing facilities are continuing to fumigate at regular intervals, whether needed or not. A uniform requirement for IPM programs could be helpful. See response # 81.

164 NRDC To further refine the USEPA risk assessment, the U. S. Government specified MBr use rates listed above should define the range of MBr use rates utilized for input in the air dispersion modeling. In addition, to reduce human inhalation exposures and to prevent the unnecessary use of MBr, product labeling should be amended to prohibit product use rates that exceed the upper values specified in the table. See response # 81.

165 NRDC Air monitoring/ modeling data. EPA suggests allowing facilities to use a smaller ( less protective) buffer zone if they demonstrate using air models and modeling that concentrations would be below the EPA level of concern even reflecting a worst case scenario. NRDC does not support this, and believes that any application that is in violation of the label is a legal violation of FIFRA. If representative air monitoring/ modeling data for a specific site shows that a smaller buffer zone for that site would not result in risks of concern, applications at that site would not be in violation of FIFRA. 166 MBIP As discussed previously in Section D ( Buffer Zones), with the availability of sensitive electronic devices for detection of methyl bromide, routine monitoring during fumigations has become a more realistic option. The MBIP supports the use of monitoring in lieu of fixed buffer zones to allow maximum flexibility to applicators and facilities. Also, facilities should have the option of using modeling to demonstrate that their plans for fumigation are sufficiently protective. See response # 130.

167 APHIS Methyl bromide has been used at our nation's ports for over 20 years; APHIS has no records of any adverse affects suffered by persons who abide by the label and the APHIS PPQ fumigation requirements. If regulations or labels change the current buffer policy, APHIS would like to see evidence of the value added by mandating such changes, including more recent air concentration monitoring data. See response # 130.

168 APHIS APHIS is in full agreement that air monitoring is a safe and effective way to protect workers involved with methyl bromide fumigation. While permanent devices have been developed to take ambient air concentration readings as low as 1 ppm, no portable devices have been developed which can take accurate readings at the 1 ppm level. Portable, hand held devices can only give accurate concentration readings to about 2 ppm ( ± 1 ppm). APHIS PPQ employs a permanent continuous air monitoring device in two ports where the highest numbers of phytosanitary fumigations of food commodities occur in this nation: Miami AirCargo and Miami Maritime. Since over 25 fumigations may be occurring at one time ( all during daylight hours), PPQ officers must be continuously taking readings of the gas concentrations within the fumigation enclosures to determine whether the levels within the enclosure are high enough to ensure treatment efficacy. The device is set up and maintained in a permanent office where lines carrying gas from each fumigation enclosure pass through a thermal conductivity analyzer which reads gas concentrations within each enclosure. Due to the continuous amount of gas passing through the office and to protect the health and safety of APHIS PPQ employees, the ambient air monitoring device, called a Methyl Bromide Pyrolyzer Detection System ( minimum detection level of 1 ppm, an accuracy of ± 5%, and a price within the $ 5,000 range) is set up to sound an alarm if air concentrations reach 1 ppm. The See response # 130 35 # ID Public Comment Agency Response busiest season in Miami ( imported asparagus) is between October and January; nearly all food commodities are fumigated in individual containers; the volume of the biggest enclosure is 2926 cubic feet and the maximum treatment is 4 lb/ 1,000 cubic feet ( for food), so the maximum amount introduced into each enclosure is a little less than a mere 12 lb. Despite the fact that the permanent reading office is located 30' ( Maritime) to 50' ( Air Cargo) from the nearest fumigation enclosure and personnel are present even during aeration events, there have been no events which have caused the alarm to sound since the new unit was installed at Miami Maritime last October. As already mentioned, the continuous air monitoring system employed in the two Miami locations is a permanent, not a portable, device. Many if not most of the locations where APHIS PPQ employees take gas concentration readings during the treatment phase of fumigation are in temporary, multi use areas, such as a table located 30 feet beyond the fumigation site. Few gas concentration readings are conducted in permanent structures, as they are in Miami and Baltimore ( where EPA toured.) Therefore, this technology is not usable for most locations where APHIS supervised fumigations occur. 169 0204 Notification/ Posting. Current product labels already require placarding and securing of fumigation sites. In addition, responsible fumigators notify local emergency responders, such as fire departments, of their activities. Royal does not believe that additional requirements are needed. See response # 81.

170 NRDC Notification/ posting. EPA is proposing that fumigation activities be posted in public locations so that bystanders could take steps to protect themselves. NRDC supports the use of notification and posting, but does not support its use as an alternative to significant reduction and cancellation of MBr uses. Shifting the burden of protection from users to bystanders is unacceptable. The Agency is not implying that notification/ posting be used in place of another risk mitigation option. However, the Agency does believe that there is value in informing the public so that they can take steps to protect themselves in the event of accidental exposures. 171 0220.1 FS& S Risk Management Option 17   Notification / Posting: We currently do this with a fumigation preparation guide as part of a more comprehensive FMP. This form includes sensitive material and an employee posting or notification. This notice is to be placed near time clocks, employee information boards, main entrances and shipping delivery entrances. Other important notices are regular delivery people, employees on leave and home office [ anyone with a key to the facility]. See response # 81.

172 NAMA Oral notification We oppose oral notification. It is already a requirement that appropriate signage be posted. Additionally, as was stated earlier, security guards on the property warn and turn away bystanders approaching the facility. These practices have proven effective. Oral notification would not add to safe usage, and may needlessly worry the public. See response # 81.

173 MBIP Warning signs are already required when facilities are fumigated. Fumigators are required to make certain all non authorized personnel have vacated the facility and the immediate surrounding area. Other communication methods ( i. e., verbal notification) is unnecessary, particularly if monitoring is conducted. See response # 81.

174 APHIS The PPQ Treatment Manual, in Chapters 2 3, 2 4, 2 5, 2 6, 2 7, and 2 8 ( http:// www. aphis. usda. gov/ ppq/ manuals/ port/ Treatment_ Chapters. htm) is replete with official requirements for notification, posting, and placarding during treatment and aeration. At least one label ( the methyl bromide quarantine label; EPA Reg. No. 5784 41; Great Lakes Chemical Corp.) already has a section devoted to placarding and notification. Most fumigators verbally notify nearby port workers when treatments and aeration begin, not only out of conscientiousness, but also for liability reasons. APHIS does not see how adding label requirements on that which is already being performed will add to safety. See response # 130.

175 NPMA NPMA is concerned that EPA's proposed risk mitigation measures are based largely on California's regulatory system. California has arguably the most resource intensive state pesticide regulatory system in the country, and simply rubber stamping California requirements and asking other state regulatory agencies to enforce them is completely impractical. No other state has a statecounty pesticide regulatory/ enforcement setup like California, and it does not appear at this time other states are looking to implement such an arrangement. Under California's regulatory approach, each County Agricultural Commissioner is charged with issuing site specific permits for each site that will be fumigated with methyl bromide. The conditions the Commissioners should consider are outlined in a 155 page CADPR document entitled, " Reference Manual: Methyl Bromide Commodity Fumigation." NPMA does not believe other states have the resources or are equipped to issue site specific permits. See response # 1 176 NPMA NPMA is encouraged that the Agency does acknowledge the value and usefulness See response # 81. 36 # ID Public Comment Agency Response of Fumigation Management Plans, and believes that the Plans adequately address possible bystander exposure issues. The labels of products containing aluminum and magnesium phosphide have required applicators to develop Fumigation Management Plans since the compounds were reregistered a few years ago, and the Plans seem to be working effectively. The new phosphine labels have clearly shown that Fumigation Management Plans make buffer zones and most of the other RMM's the Agency has proposed completely unnecessary. 177 IFC IFC supports the use of site specific Futnigation Management Plans to lielp fumigators anticipate, recognize, and evaluate factors that lead to a safe treatment. Advanced planning with facility managers always has been critical for ensuring site safety. Written plans lielp document and effectively communicate what will happen in order to complete a safe, effective, and legal fumigation with all parties involved. See response # 49.

178 IFC We also support improved training and certification requirements for the use of fumigants. Fumigants are a very specialized pest management tool utilized by a very small percentage of pest management professionals. There is currently a need for funding of good training and educational materials that the states could utilize in order to update and strengthen their existing programs. States already have established fumigation categories within their licensing and certification programs. What some states may lack are up to date training materials. Fumigants are a unique pest management tool and are not readily available. Most individuals who oversee State Pesticide programs have limited practical knowledge of fumigation practices. Current state training and certification programs are not always adequate to provide the same type of specialized training that is necessary to properly utilize fumigants. Good on the job training programs combined with manufacturer stewardship programs are a necessary part of the process involved with proper use of fumigants. See response # 5.

179 IFC Establishing buffer zones around a treated site is not an effective option for managing risks from inhalation exposure to workers or bystanders. The only way to safely manage human exposure is to ensure that proper air monitoring occurs during a treatment. Reliable air monitoring equipment is readily available and provides real time, continuous monitoring. An emphasis on proper air monitoring by trained individuals would eliminate the need for cumbersome buffer zone restrictions that do little more than create economic hardships and additional paperwork. IFC has worked within the California buffer zone system since its inception. In our experience, none of the 21 plus conditions required under California's current buffer zone system can do as much to ensure human safety as simple on site monitoring. In order to meet buffer zone conditions, facilities that once safely fumigated critical areas of their operation were forced to reduce dosage, reduce areas treated, and treat at several different dates throughout the year, or eliminate space fumigations altogether and switch to other less effective treatment options. The net result of utilizing other treatment methods was an increased frequency of pesticide use and/ or increased downtime and other expenses. See responses # 5 and # 65.

180 IFC Other treatment options include heat treatments, sulfuryl fluoride fumigations, spot fumigations of equipment with phoosphine. Space foggings with pyretlirin or vapona, and the use of insect growth regulators and residual insecticides. Heat is not a good penetrator and typically requires repeat treatments throughout the year, resulting in additional downtime. If heating systems are not currently in place, the cost of this option can also be significant. Spot fumigation of equipment with phosphine is typically performed in conjunction with a space fogging. Exposure periods of 36 hours for spot treatments do not allow for complete hill of all life stages, therefore more resistant insect stages such as the egg and pupae escape the treatment and allow for population rebound. In order to manage pest populations, periodic spot treatments every four to six weeks are necessary. Space foggings provide contact kill only of exposed insects and do not target pests that are in inaccessible areas. See response # 5.

181 IFC The March 29 Federal Register stated, " for structural, commodity and other types of applications, an application rate of 9 lbs ail1000 ft3 was used as the basis for risk assessment purposes." This assumption regarding use rate is extremely high and does not reflect actual use practices. Application rates utilized for space fumigations of rood handling facilities rarely exceed 1 lb/ 1,000 ft3. Targeted lethal concentrations can be achieved at rates of 1 lb/ l, 000 ft3 and allow for cost control of material utilized. Reduced dosage rates that have been required to meet California's buffer zones pose problems with reduced penetration capabilities, increased fumigation periods, and a real potential for the development of insect resistance. See response # 31.

182 IFC Notification and posting of the treated site is already a labeling requirement. See response # 5. 37 # ID Public Comment Agency Response Facility management notifies personnel of the upcoming treatment well in advance to allow for evacuation of the site during treatment. Exclusion of all personnel from the treated area has always been standard practice for space fumigations of food handling facilities. The fumigation crew and posted guard are on site during time treatment and aeration process, during which time air monitoring is conducted to ensure established safe levels are not exceeded. 183 IFC Arbitrary aeration times can be restrictive and are useless in determining when a facility has been completely aerated. Gas monitoring is the only way to be certain all safety requirements are met. There is no universal buffer zone that will accomplish this safe practice within practical and cost efficient limits. Therefore we are opposed to any nationwide buffer zone requirement. See response # 5.