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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1
Alternatlves
adequate
for
applicant
needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two
stakeholders
responded
to
this
comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The
next
stakeholder
requested
informatioh
on
this
subled
from
EPA.

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

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

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

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

.
have
efficacy
data;

.

c
*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

­
9
­
.
*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

­
1
5
­

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

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

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

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

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

*
begin
writing
a
regulation;
=

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

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

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

The
following
discusslon
summarizes
stakeholder
comments
regardin$
labeling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[
Amber
cah
you
provide
a
response?]

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

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

The
following
question
was
responded
to
by
an
unldantlfied
stakeholder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

­
2
4
­
.
