I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1257 

To amend the Clean Air Act to authorize critical use exemption amounts 

for methy bromide as identified by the United States State Department 

for the years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Mr. RADANOVICH (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. WHITFIELD, 

Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. HERGER, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. ISSA, Mrs. 

EMERSON, Mr. BERRY, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. 

OTTER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. COSTA, Mr. POMBO, and Mr. JONES of 

North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to authorize critical use exemption amounts for methy bromide as identified by the 

United States State Department for the years 2006 and 

2007, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds that— 

5 (1) methyl bromide is a highly effective fumi6 gant used to control insects, nematodes, weeds, and 
2 

•HR 1257 IH 

1 pathogens in more than 100 crops in domestic agri2 culture, in forest and ornamental nurseries, and in 

3 wood products; 

4 (2) the United States Department of Agri5 culture has spent well over $100,000,000 attempting 

6 to find effective alternatives to methyl bromide yet 

7 there are still many domestic agriculture uses with 

8 no alternatives; 

9 (3) the critical use exemption of the Montreal 

10 Protocol allows for the use of ozone depleting sub11 stances beyond the phase-out date if there are no 

12 technically and economically feasible alternatives or 

13 substitutes available and the lack of such options 

14 would result in a significant market disruption; 

15 (4) accordingly, in 2001, the United States En16 vironmental Protection Agency and the United 

17 States Department of Agriculture began the process 

18 under the Montreal Protocol to document the 

19 amount of methyl bromide needed for critical uses in 

20 domestic agriculture; 

21 (5) the United States Environmental Protection 

22 Agency assembled more than 45 Ph.D.s and other 

23 qualified reviewers with expertise in both biological 

24 and economic issues to review applications for meth25 yl bromide critical use exemptions; 
3 

•HR 1257 IH 

1 (6) rigorous review by the United States Envi2 ronmental Protection Agency of the critical use ap3 plications reduced by 22 percent the amount of 

4 methyl bromide initially requested by agricultural 

5 sectors; and 

6 (7) as confirmed by the Parties to the Montreal 

7 Protocol in the ‘‘Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of 

8 the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

9 that Deplete the Ozone Layer’’, the concept of 

10 ‘‘availability’’ in the context of the critical use ex11 emptions shall be primarily guided by the alter12 native’s market presence in sufficient quantities and 

13 accessibility, taking into account, among other 

14 things, regulatory constraints; 

15 (8) after extensive research and technical re16 view, the United States State Department and the 

17 United States Environmental Protection Agency 

18 have concluded that the critical use methyl bromide 

19 that has been requested qualifies as ‘‘critical’’ since 

20 it has been determined that for each use the lack of 

21 availability of methyl bromide for that use would re22 sult in a significant market disruption; 

23 (9) after extensive research and technical re24 view, the United States State Department and the 

25 United States Environmental Protection Agency 
4 

•HR 1257 IH 

1 have concluded that there are no technically and eco2 nomically feasible alternatives or substitutes avail3 able that are acceptable from the standpoint of the 

4 environment and health and that are suitable to the 

5 crops and circumstances for the critical use methyl 

6 bromide that has been requested in the nomination; 

7 (10) the conclusions of the United States State 

8 Department and the United States Environmental 

9 Protection Agency are consistent with the restate10 ment adopted at the Sixteenth Meeting of the Par11 ties to the Montreal Protocol of the criteria that 

12 should be used to approve critical use requests; 

13 (11) the United States 2006 CUE request rep14 resents approximately .4 percent of the ozone deple15 tion potential from all ozone depleting substances in 

16 all countries when the Montreal Protocol was nego17 tiated in 1987; 

18 (12) therefore, given the statistically minor im19 pact on the ozone layer and the lack of suitable fea20 sible alternatives for all uses at this time, legislation 

21 is needed in order to ensure a reasonable transition 

22 for United States agriculture to the complete phase23 out of methyl bromide, legislation is necessary to au24 thorize the critical use exemption amounts identified 

25 by the State Department for the year 2006, as re-
5 

•HR 1257 IH 

1 flected in the Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the 

2 Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

3 Deplete the Ozone Layer, Decision XVI/2, Critical 

4 Use Exemptions Annex, Section IIA, IIB, and Sec5 tion III, and for the year 2007, as reflected in the 

6 Report of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the 

7 Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

8 Deplete the Ozone Layer, Annex III. 

9 SEC. 2. CRITICAL USE EXEMPTIONS FOR METHYL BRO10 MIDE. 

11 Section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 7671c(d)(6)) is amended by inserting the following at the 

13 end thereof: ‘‘For the year 2006, the United States critical 

14 use exemption shall be the sum of the amounts identified 

15 in Decision XVI/2, Annex (Critical Use Exemptions), Sec16 tion IIA and Section III of the Parties to the Montreal 

17 Protocol as set forth in Table I and, for the year 2007, 

18 the amount identified in submissions of the United States 

19 State Department at the first Extraordinary Meeting of 

20 the Parties to the Montreal Protocol as set forth in Table 

21 I. The United States critical use exemptions for the years 

22 2006 and 2007 established by this section shall not be 

23 subject to the conflict provision of section 614(b) of this 

24 Act. The Administrator shall issue a final rule within 90 

25 days of the enactment of this sentence to authorize crit-
6 

•HR 1257 IH 

1 ical-use exemptions of the amounts listed in Table 1 below 

2 and to allocate these amounts for critical-use exemptions 

3 for each of the years 2006 and 2007. 

‘‘Critical Use Exemptions 

Critical Use Exemption 2006: Critical Use Exemption 2007: 

The amount approved by the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol (6897.68 

tonnes) recorded in Decision XVI, 

Annex (Critical Use Exemptions), 

Section IIA, and the amount approved in the interim by the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol (2194.583 

tonnes) recorded in the Sixteenth 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer, Critical 

Use Exemptions Annex, Section III, 

for a total of 9092.263 tonnes 

The amount submitted for the year 

2007 by the U.S. State Department at the first Extraordinary 

Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol (8425 tonnes) 

recorded in the Report of the 

First Extraordinary Meeting of 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete 

the Ozone Layer, Annex III, Appendix I)’’. 

Æ