Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0001-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting Quarantine and Preshipment Applications of Methyl Bromide
Posted Date: 2003-01-02T05:00Z

Thursday,

January
2,
2003
Part
VI
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
82
Protection
of
Stratospheric
Ozone:
Process
for
Exempting
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications
of
Methyl
Bromide;
Final
Rule
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
238
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
Several
revisions
to
the
original
1988
rule
were
issued
on
the
following
February
9,
1989
(
54
FR
6376),
April
3,
1989
(
54
FR
13502),
July
5,
1989
(
54
FR
28062),
July
12,
1989
(
54
FR
29337),
February
13,
1990
(
55
FR
5005),
June
15,
1990
(
55
FR
24490)
and
June
22,
1990
(
55
FR
25812)
July
30,
1992
(
57
FR
33754),
December
10,
1993
(
58
FR
65018).
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
82
[
FRL
 
7434
 
1]

Protection
of
Stratospheric
Ozone:
Process
for
Exempting
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications
of
Methyl
Bromide
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
With
this
rulemaking,
EPA
is
taking
final
action
to
amend
the
accelerated
phaseout
regulations
that
govern
the
production,
import,
export,
transformation
and
destruction
of
substances
that
deplete
the
ozone
layer
under
the
authority
of
Title
VI
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
(
CAA
or
the
Act).
Today's
amendments
incorporate
an
exemption
permitted
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
(
Protocol)
and
required
by
changes
in
Title
VI
of
the
CAA.
Specifically,
EPA
is
creating
an
exemption
from
the
consumption
and
production
phaseout
for
quantities
of
Class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
(
methyl
bromide)
that
are
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment.
DATES:
This
rule
is
effective
January
1,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Materials
relevant
to
this
rulemaking
are
contained
in
Docket
No.
A
 
2000
 
24.
The
Docket
is
located
at
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Avenue
NW.,
Room
B108,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Phone:
(
202)
 
566
 
1742,
Fax:
(
202)
 
566
 
1741.
The
materials
may
be
inspected
from
8:
30
a.
m.
until
4:
30
p.
m.
Monday
through
Friday.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
by
EPA
for
copying
docket
materials.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Kate
Choban,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Global
Programs
Division
(
6205J),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
202
 
564
 
3524.

Table
of
Contents
I.
What
is
the
Background
of
the
Phaseout
Regulations
for
Ozone­
Depleting
Substances?
II.
What
is
the
Background
for
Today's
Action?
III.
What
is
Methyl
Bromide?
IV.
What
are
Examples
of
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Uses
of
Methyl
Bromide?
V.
What
is
the
Legal
Authority
for
Exempting
the
Production
and
Import
of
Methyl
Bromide
for
Use
in
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications?
VI.
What
are
the
Definitions
of
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications?
A.
Are
there
clarifications
regarding
trade
within
the
U.
S.?
B.
Are
there
additional
qualifiers
associated
with
the
definition
of
preshipment
applications?
C.
Are
there
additional
qualifiers
associated
with
the
definition
of
quarantine
applications?
D.
How
does
the
exemption
of
quarantine
applications
apply
to
commodities
issued
``
phytosanitary
certificates''?
E.
How
do
these
definitions
of
preshipment
and
quarantine
applications
apply
to
food
sanitation?
F.
How
do
these
definitions
apply
to
``
propagative
material''?
G.
How
do
these
definitions
apply
to
intransit
applications?
VII.
What
is
the
Process
for
Exempting
Methyl
Bromide
for
Use
in
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications?
A.
What
recordkeeping
and
reporting
must
producers
and
importers
perform?
B.
Are
methyl
bromide
applicators
required
to
report?
C.
Are
distributors
required
to
report?
D.
What
about
methyl
bromide
exported
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications?
E.
Will
there
be
a
FIFRA
pesticide
label
change?
VIII.
What
were
Other
Considerations
and
Situations
on
which
EPA
Sought
or
Received
Comment?
A.
Methyl
bromide
is
the
only
feasible
treatment
option.
B.
Has
the
Agency
Considered
Definitions
Under
the
International
Plant
Protection
Convention
(
IPPC)?
C.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking
Regarding
Prophylactic
Fumigation
of
U.
S.
Exports
When
the
Fumigation
Is
Not
Mandated
by
Import
Regulations?
D.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking
Regarding
the
Exclusion
of
Specific
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications
From
the
Exemption
at
Some
Future
Time?
IX.
What
are
the
Steps
to
Conform
the
U.
S.
Methyl
Bromide
Phaseout
Schedule
and
Exemptions
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
Amended
Clean
Air
Act?
X.
Administrative
Requirements
XI.
Congressional
Review
Entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
are
those
associated
with
methyl
bromide
that
is
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
In
addition,
this
action
potentially
regulates
entities
importing
and
exporting
methyl
bromide.
Potentially
regulated
categories
and
entities
include:

Category
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Industry
....
Producers,
Importers
and
Exporters
of
methyl
bromide.
Distributors
of
methyl
bromide
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment.
Applicators
of
methyl
bromide
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment.
Commodity
Owners
or
Shippers
of
Goods
that
request
the
quarantine
or
preshipment
application
of
methyl
bromide
in
accordance
with
official
controls
or
requirements.
The
above
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
could
also
be
regulated.
To
determine
whether
your
facility,
company,
business,
organization,
etc.
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
regulations
promulgated
at
40
CFR
part
82,
subpart
A.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
000000CONTACT
section.

I.
What
Is
the
Background
of
the
Phaseout
Regulations
for
Ozone­
Depleting
Substances?
The
current
regulatory
requirements
of
the
Stratospheric
Ozone
Protection
Program
that
limit
production
and
consumption
of
ozone­
depleting
substances
were
promulgated
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
or
the
Agency)
in
the
Federal
Register
on
December
20,
1994
(
59
FR
65478),
May
10,
1995
(
60
FR
24970),
August
4,
1998
(
63
FR
41625),
and
October
5,
1998
(
63
FR
53290).
The
regulatory
program
was
originally
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
August
12,
1988
(
53
FR
30566),
in
response
to
the
1987
signing
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
(
Protocol).
1
The
U.
S.
was
one
of
the
original
signatories
to
the
1987
Montreal
Protocol
and
the
U.
S.
ratified
the
Protocol
on
April
21,
1988.
Congress
then
enacted,
and
President
Bush
signed
into
law,
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
(
CAA
or
the
Act)
that
included
Title
VI
on
Stratospheric
Ozone
Protection.
Today's
action
amends
the
existing
EPA
regulations
published
under
Title
VI
of
the
CAA
that
govern
the
production
and
consumption
of
ozonedepleting
substances.
Today's
action
establishes
an
exemption
from
the
methyl
bromide
production
and
import
reduction
and
phaseout
schedule
for
quantities
to
be
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
Today's
amendments
are
intended
to
implement
requirements
of
the
Protocol
and
the
CAA,
including
amendments
to
Title
VI
as
created
by
Section
764
of
the
1999
Omnibus
Consolidated
and
Emergency
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
239
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Supplemental
Appropriations
Act
(
Public
Law
105
 
277,
October
21,
1998)
(
section
604(
d)(
5)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act).
The
requirements
contained
in
the
final
rules
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
December
20,
1994
and
May
10,
1995
establish
an
Allowance
Program.
The
Allowance
Program
and
its
history
are
described
in
the
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
NPRM)
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
10,
1994
(
59
FR
56276).
The
control
and
the
phaseout
of
production
and
consumption
of
ozone­
depleting
substances,
as
required
under
the
Protocol
and
CAA,
are
accomplished
through
the
Allowance
Program.
In
developing
the
Allowance
Program,
EPA
collected
information
on
the
amounts
of
ozone­
depleting
substances
produced,
imported,
exported,
transformed
and
destroyed
within
the
United
States
for
specific
baseline
years
for
specific
chemicals.
This
information
was
used
to
establish
the
U.
S.
production
and
consumption
ceilings
for
these
chemicals.
The
data
were
also
used
to
assign
company­
specific
production
and
import
rights
to
companies
that
were
in
most
cases
producing
or
importing
during
the
specific
year
of
data
collection.
For
methyl
bromide,
1991
was
the
baseline
year
used
to
establish
the
ceiling
and
assign
company­
specific
production
and
import
rights.
Production
or
import
rights
are
called
``
allowances.''
Production
allowances
and
consumption
allowances
continue
to
exist
for
only
one
specific
class
I
controlled
ozone­
depleting
substance
 
methyl
bromide.
All
other
production
or
consumption
of
class
I
controlled
substances
is
prohibited
under
the
Protocol
and
the
CAA,
save
for
a
few
exemptions.
For
methyl
bromide,
the
remaining
schedule
for
the
phaseout
of
production
and
consumption
allowances
is
as
follows:
50
percent
reduction
of
baseline
beginning
January
29,
2001,
70
percent
reduction
of
baseline
beginning
January
1,
2003,
and
a
100
percent
reduction
of
baseline
beginning
January
1,
2005,
with
narrow
exemptions
for
critical
uses
and
emergencies,
as
well
as
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
uses.
In
the
context
of
the
regulatory
program,
the
use
of
the
term
consumption
may
be
misleading.
Consumption
does
not
mean
the
``
use''
of
a
controlled
substance,
but
rather
is
defined
as
the
formula:
consumption
=
production
+
imports
 
exports,
of
controlled
substances
(
Article
1
of
the
Protocol
and
section
601
of
the
CAA).
Class
I
controlled
substances
that
were
produced
or
imported
through
the
expenditure
of
allowances
prior
to
their
phaseout
date
can
continue
to
be
used
by
industry
and
the
public
after
that
specific
chemical's
phaseout
under
these
regulations,
unless
otherwise
precluded
under
separate
regulations.
The
specific
names
and
chemical
formulas
for
the
controlled
ozonedepleting
substances
in
Groups
of
class
I
controlled
substances
are
in
appendix
A
and
appendix
F
in
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
82.
The
specific
names
and
chemical
formulas
for
the
class
II
controlled
ozone­
depleting
substances
are
in
appendix
B
and
appendix
F
in
subpart
A.

II.
What
Is
the
Background
for
Today's
Action?
EPA
published
an
interim
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
19,
2001
(
66
FR
37752)
to
provide
methyl
bromide
users
in
the
United
States
with
an
exemption
to
the
phaseout
of
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
The
interim
final
rule
solicited
public
comment
on
a
number
of
issues
related
to
EPA's
implementation
of
the
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Exemption.
Today's
action
responds
to
public
comment
and
finalizes
the
specifications
for
the
exemption.

III.
What
Is
Methyl
Bromide?
Methyl
bromide
is
an
odorless,
colorless,
toxic
gas,
which
is
used
as
a
broad­
spectrum
pesticide.
Methyl
bromide
is
used
in
the
United
States
and
throughout
the
world
as
a
fumigant
to
control
a
variety
of
pests,
such
as
insects,
weeds,
rodents,
pathogens,
and
nematodes.
Additional
characteristics
and
details
about
the
uses
of
methyl
bromide
can
be
found
in
the
proposed
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
March
18,
1993
(
58
FR
15014)
and
the
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
December
10,
1993
(
58
FR
65018).
Information
on
methyl
bromide
can
be
found
at
the
following
sites
of
the
World
Wide
Web:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr/
and
http://
www.
teap.
org
or
by
contacting
the
Stratospheric
Ozone
Protection
Hotline
at
1
 
800
 
296
 
1996.

IV.
What
Are
Examples
of
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Uses
of
Methyl
Bromide?
An
example
of
a
quarantine
application
of
methyl
bromide
is
the
fumigation
of
a
commodity,
such
as
rice
and
spices,
which
are
subject
to
infestation
by
a
specific
and
officially
recognized
quarantine
pest,
such
as
the
khapra
beetle
(
Trogoderma
granarium
Everts)
when
the
fumigation
is
conducted
before
transport
of
the
commodity
to
meet
official
quarantine
requirements
(
see
discussion
in
part
VI
below).
The
purpose
of
quarantine
fumigation
is
to
prevent
the
introduction
of
specific
quarantine
pest(
s)
into
a
defined
geographical
area,
such
as
an
importing
country.
An
example
of
a
preshipment
use
of
methyl
bromide
is
the
application
to
wheat
immediately
before
shipment
(
see
discussion
in
part
VI
below)
because
of
official
phytosanitary
requirements
of
the
destination
country.
In
1998,
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee
(
MBTOC),
a
sub­
group
under
the
independent
advisory
body
of
the
Technical
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel
(
TEAP)
to
the
Montreal
Protocol,
published
an
assessment
that
gives
further
details
about
uses
of
methyl
bromide
and
possible
alternatives
and
substitutes
for
controlling
pests.
The
MBTOC
and
TEAP
assessments
can
be
found
on
the
web
at
http://
www.
teap.
org/
html/
methyl_
bromide_
reports.
html
and
http:/
/
www.
teap.
org/.

V.
What
Is
the
Legal
Authority
for
Exempting
the
Production
and
Import
of
Methyl
Bromide
for
Use
in
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications?
In
Article
2H
of
the
Montreal
Protocol,
which
establishes
the
phaseout
schedule
for
methyl
bromide
for
developed
countries,
paragraph
6
states
that,
``[
t]
he
calculated
levels
of
consumption
and
production
under
this
Article
shall
not
include
the
amounts
used
by
the
Party
for
quarantine
and
pre­
shipment
applications.''
EPA
notes
that
paragraph
6,
of
Article
2H
indicates
that
the
exemption
is
to
exclude
from
the
U.
S.'
s
calculation
of
methyl
bromide
consumption
and
production
the
amounts
used
by
the
U.
S.
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
In
addition,
Article
7
requires
each
Party
to
report
on,
``
the
annual
amount
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.''
Beyond
the
critical
uses
allowed
in
Article
2H,
Paragraph
5,
quarantine
and
preshipment
uses
are
the
only
exemptions
explicitly
allowed
for
under
the
Montreal
Protocol.
In
1998
Congress
added
several
provisions
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
regarding
methyl
bromide
including
a
provision
title
``
Sanitation
and
Food
Protection,''
which
is
related
to
the
Protocol
exemption
for
quarantine
and
preshipment.
This
provision,
which
was
codified
as
section
604(
d)(
5)
of
the
CAA,
was
added
by
section
764(
b)
of
the
1999
Omnibus
Consolidated
and
Emergency
Supplemental
Appropriations
Act
(
Public
Law
105
 
277).
Section
604(
d)(
5)
says,
``
To
the
extent
consistent
with
the
Montreal
Protocol's
quarantine
and
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
240
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
preshipment
provisions,
the
Administrator
shall
exempt
the
production,
importation,
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
to
fumigate
commodities
entering
or
leaving
the
United
States
or
any
State
(
or
political
subdivision
thereof)
for
purposes
of
compliance
with
Animal
and
Plant
Health
Inspection
Service
requirements
or
with
any
international,
Federal,
State
or
local
sanitation
or
food
protection
standard.''
Prior
to
Congressional
passage
of
section
604(
d)(
5),
the
CAA
did
not
provide
authority
for
creating
such
an
exemption
to
the
methyl
bromide
phaseout
schedule.
In
today's
final
regulation,
EPA
is
implementing
the
express
language
provided
in
Article
2H,
paragraph
6,
of
the
Protocol
under
the
authority
provided
by
section
604(
d)(
5)
of
the
CAA.
EPA
is
also
acting
in
a
manner
consistent
with,
and
to
fulfill
the
obligations
of,
section
614(
b)
of
the
CAA.
Section
614(
b)
of
the
CAA
states
that,
``[
t]
his
title
as
added
by
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
shall
be
construed,
interpreted,
and
applied
as
a
supplement
to
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
Montreal
protocol,
as
provided
in
Article
2,
paragraph
11
thereof,
and
shall
not
be
construed,
interpreted,
or
applied
to
abrogate
the
responsibilities
or
obligations
of
the
United
States
to
implement
fully
the
provisions
of
the
Montreal
Protocol.
In
the
case
of
a
conflict
between
any
provision
of
this
title
and
any
provision
of
the
Montreal
Protocol,
the
more
stringent
provision
shall
govern.''
EPA's
interim
final
rule
related
to
the
process
for
exempting
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
of
methyl
bromide,
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
19,
2001
(
66
FR
37752),
defined
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
as
agreed
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
in
Decisions
VII/
5
and
XI/
12,
respectively.
EPA
received
ten
comments
regarding
our
decision
to
adhere
to
the
language
of
the
Parties'
Decisions.
All
commenters
stated
that
Decisions
of
the
Parties
do
not
have
the
same
force
of
law
as
the
Protocol
itself,
its
amendments,
or
adjustments
adopted
by
the
Parties
and,
as
such,
EPA
is
not
bound
to
their
language.
The
comments
submitted
to
EPA
in
response
to
the
interim
final
rule
echo
a
legal
memorandum
submitted
to
EPA
by
the
legal
counsel
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Industry
Panel
at
a
July
1999
meeting.
A
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
arguments
made
in
this
memorandum
can
be
found
in
the
interim
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
19,
2001
(
66
FR
37752).
EPA
responded
directly
to
the
legal
memorandum
submitted
by
the
Methyl
Bromide
Industry
Panel
in
the
interim
final
rule.
EPA
has
reconsidered
the
issue
as
it
was
raised
by
the
comments
submitted
in
response
to
the
interim
final
rule
and
has
concluded
that
its
approach
reflects
widely
accepted
principles
of
customary
international
law.
The
provisions
of
the
Vienna
Convention
on
the
Law
of
Treaties
(
VCLT),
8
International
Legal
Materials
679
(
1969),
that
concern
treaty
interpretation
generally
reflect
customary
international
law.
Paragraph
1
of
Article
31
of
the
VCLT
provides
that
a
treaty
``
shall
be
interpreted
in
good
faith
in
accordance
with
the
ordinary
meaning
to
be
given
to
the
terms
of
the
treaty
in
their
context
and
in
the
light
of
its
object
and
purpose.''
Paragraph
3
of
Article
31
of
the
VCLT
states,
``[
t]
here
shall
be
taken
into
account,
together
with
any
context:
*
*
*
(
a)
any
subsequent
agreement
between
the
parties
regarding
the
interpretation
of
the
treaty
or
the
application
of
its
provisions.''
Decisions
VI/
11,
VII/
5,
XI/
12
and
XI/
13
constitute
subsequent
consensus
agreements
among
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
(
including
the
United
States)
regarding
the
interpretation
and
application
of
the
quarantine
and
preshipment
provision
of
Article
2H.
Therefore
it
is
appropriate
for
EPA,
when
determining
what
is
consistent
with
the
``
Montreal
Protocol's
quarantine
and
preshipment
provisions,''
to
take
into
account
the
Decisions
of
the
Parties.
Furthermore,
in
amending
the
CAA,
Congress
specifically
cited
the
plural
``
quarantine
and
preshipment
provisions.''
If
Congress
intended
for
this
phrase
to
be
limited
to
the
single
provision
in
the
Protocol
referencing
quarantine
and
preshipment
in
Article
2H,
and
not
the
subsequent
Decisions
between
the
Parties
regarding
interpretation
or
application
of
the
treaty,
Congress
would
have
presumably
directed
the
Agency
to
be
consistent
with
the
singular
provision.
Precedents
within
the
current
regulations
(
40
CFR
part
82)
demonstrate
that
the
United
States
has
routinely
considered
Decisions
that
clarify
and
interpret
obligations
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
to
be
authoritative
and
that
such
Decisions
of
the
Parties
are
currently
implemented
through
regulations
under
the
CAA.
Examples
of
such
regulatory
implementation
of
Decisions
of
the
Parties
include
the
current
U.
S.
definitions
of
``
controlled
substance''
(
based
on
Decision
IV/
12)
and
``
essential
use''.
Additional
examples
of
how
U.
S.
regulations
incorporate
Decisions
by
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
can
be
found
in
the
preamble
of
the
interim
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
19,
2001
(
66
FR
37752)
and
in
40
CFR
part
82,
subpart
A.

VI.
What
Are
the
Definitions
of
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications?
In
today's
final
action,
EPA
is
defining
quarantine
applications
and
preshipment
applications,
as
agreed
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol.
The
Parties
to
the
Protocol
agreed
to
the
following
definition
of
``
quarantine
applications''
in
Decision
VII/
5:
``
quarantine
applications,
with
respect
to
methyl
bromide,
are
treatments
to
prevent
the
introduction,
establishment
and/
or
spread
of
quarantine
pests
(
including
diseases),
or
to
ensure
their
official
control,
where:
(
i)
Official
control
is
that
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
plant,
animal,
or
environmental
protection
or
health
authority;
(
ii)
quarantine
pests
are
pests
of
potential
importance
to
the
areas
endangered
thereby
and
not
yet
present
there,
or
present
by
not
widely
distributed
and
being
officially
controlled.''
The
Parties
to
the
Protocol
first
agreed
to
the
following
definition
for
preshipment
applications
of
methyl
bromide
in
Decision
VI/
11
and
VII/
5:
``
preshipment
applications
are
those
treatments
applied
directly
preceding
and
in
relation
to
export,
to
meet
the
phytosanitary
or
sanitary
requirements
of
the
importing
country
or
existing
phytosanitary
or
sanitary
requirements
of
the
exporting
country.''
At
the
11th
Meeting
of
the
Parties
in
December
1999,
the
Parties
further
clarified
the
intent
of
the
term
preshipment
by
agreeing
to
the
following
definition
in
Decision
XI/
12:
``*
*
*
preshipment
applications
are
those
non­
quarantine
applications
within
21
days
prior
to
export
to
meet
the
official
requirements
of
the
importing
country
or
the
existing
official
requirements
of
the
exporting
country.
Official
requirements
are
those
which
are
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
or
stored
product
authority.''
EPA
adopted
the
above
definition
of
preshipment
applications
in
the
interim
final
rule
and
received
nine
related
comments.
All
of
the
commenters
raised
the
concern
that
the
21­
day
limitation
on
treatments
to
qualify
as
a
preshipment
application
is
unduly
restrictive
and
arbitrary.
One
commenter
stated
that
the
time
restriction
is
unrelated
to
the
purpose
of
the
preshipment
exemption
and
that
so
long
as
a
treatment
is
done
to
meet
the
official
non­
quarantine
requirements
of
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
241
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
importing
or
exporting
country
it
ought
to
qualify
as
a
preshipment
application.
EPA
believes
that
the
incorporation
of
a
time
restriction
within
the
definition
of
preshipment
application
is
necessary
to
meet
the
purpose
of
this
exemption
as
intended
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol.
The
preshipment
exemption
applies
to
treatments
of
commodities
near
the
time
of
export
to
meet
the
official
non­
quarantine
requirements
of
the
exporting
or
importing
country.
Eliminating
the
time
requirement
would
invite
misuse
of
the
exemption.
With
no
established
time
window,
the
argument
could
be
made
that
a
pre­
plant
soil
application
of
methyl
bromide
qualifies
as
a
preshipment
application
because
the
crop
being
cultivated
would
eventually
be
exported
from
U.
S.
soil.
By
imposing
a
time
restriction,
Decision
XI/
12
of
the
Parties
demonstrates
that
their
intent
was
not
to
imbue
the
preshipment
exemption
with
a
lifecycle­
wide
scope.
The
21­
day
restriction
was
agreed
upon
by
the
Parties
(
based
on
the
advice
of
global
experts)
as
a
reasonable
time
limitation
for
the
preshipment
exemption.
EPA
has
received
no
comment
indicating
that
another
time
limitation
would
be
better
justified
and
meet
the
intent
of
the
Parties
in
implementing
the
preshipment
exemption.
In
addition
to
the
above,
the
definition
of
quarantine
applications
is
qualified
by
the
scope
of
the
exemption
as
stated
in
the
CAA.
As
passed
by
Congress,
the
CAA
specifically
applies
the
quarantine
and
preshipment
exemption
to
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
to
``
fumigate
commodities
entering
or
leaving
the
United
States
or
any
State
(
or
political
subdivision
thereof)*
*
*''(
CAA
section
504(
d)(
5)).
This
language
makes
clear
Congress's
intent
to
apply
the
exemption
only
where
there
is
the
transport
of
goods
from
one
distinct
locality
to
another,
and
thus
to
prevent
the
potential
for
the
geographic
spread
of
pests.
As
a
result,
today's
action
adds
the
following
sentence
to
the
definition
of
quarantine
applications:
``
This
definition
excludes
treatments
of
commodities
not
entering
or
leaving
the
United
States
or
any
State
(
or
political
subdivision
thereof).''
Section
III.
D.
further
discusses
the
uses
of
methyl
bromide
that
are
excluded
from
today's
exemption
for
quarantine
applications.
With
today's
final
action,
EPA
is
defining
quarantine
applications
and
preshipment
applications
as
follows:
Quarantine
applications,
with
respect
to
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
are
treatments
to
prevent
the
introduction,
establishment
and/
or
spread
of
quarantine
pests
(
including
diseases),
or
to
ensure
their
official
control,
where:
(
i)
Official
control
is
that
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
(
including
state,
tribal
or
local)
plant,
animal
or
environmental
protection
or
health
authority;
(
ii)
quarantine
pests
are
pests
of
potential
importance
to
the
areas
endangered
thereby
and
not
yet
present
there,
or
present
but
not
widely
distributed
and
being
officially
controlled.
This
definition
excludes
treatments
of
commodities
not
entering
or
leaving
the
United
States
or
any
State
(
or
political
subdivision
thereof).
Preshipment
applications,
with
respect
to
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
are
those
non­
quarantine
applications
within
21
days
prior
to
export
to
meet
the
official
requirements
of
the
importing
country
or
existing
official
requirements
of
the
exporting
country.
Official
requirements
are
those
which
are
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
or
stored
product
authority.
As
specified
in
the
above
definitions,
a
quarantine
application
of
methyl
bromide
must
be
``
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
(
including
state,
tribal
or
local)
plant,
animal
or
environmental
protection,
or
health
authority.''
In
addition,
as
delineated
in
the
above
definition,
quarantine
applications
must
be
directed
at
quarantine
pests.
Today's
definition
of
preshipment
applications
is
limited
to
applications
``
to
meet
the
official
requirements
of
the
importing
country
or
existing
official
requirements
of
the
exporting
country.''
The
definition
of
preshipment
applications
specifies
that
the
phrase
``
official
requirements''
means
``
those
which
are
preformed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
or
stored
product
authority.''

A.
Are
There
Clarifications
Regarding
Trade
Within
the
U.
S.?

The
interim
final
rule
interpreted
``
quarantine
applications''
as
including
interstate
and
inter­
county
treatments
required
to
control
quarantine
pests.
This
interpretation
is
consistent
with
the
Technical
and
Economic
Assessment
Panel's
(
TEAP)
recommendation
that
the
Parties
of
the
Protocol
interpret
Decision
VII/
5
to
include
officially
required
treatments
for
intra­
country
trade
within
the
territory
of
the
Party
and
reconciles
the
language
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
with
section
604(
d)(
5)
of
the
CAA
on
Sanitation
and
Food
Protection,
which
refers
to
international,
Federal,
state
and
local
requirements.
In
recognizing
official
state,
county,
tribal,
and
local
quarantine
requirements,
EPA's
final
rulemaking
interprets
the
definition
of
quarantine
applications
such
that
an
intra­
country
quarantine
treatment
required
by
state,
county,
tribal,
or
local
plant,
animal,
environmental,
or
health
government
authorities
constitutes
an
official
control.
Today's
action
adds
parenthetically
that
``
national''
is
meant
to
include
state,
tribal
or
local
authorities
for
purposes
of
the
definition
of
quarantine
applications.
In
contrast
to
the
definition
of
quarantine
applications,
which
accommodates
intra­
country
trade,
the
Protocol
definition
of
preshipment
applications
is
specific
to
trade
between
countries
because
of
the
phrase
``
applications
within
21
days
prior
to
export.''
This
distinction
was
noted
in
the
interim
final
rule
and
EPA
received
no
comment.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
today's
final
action,
the
exemption
for
preshipment
applications
remains
limited
to
the
movement
of
goods
from
the
U.
S.
to
another
country,
and
does
not
include
movement
of
goods
within
the
U.
S.

B.
Are
There
Additional
Qualifiers
Associated
With
the
Definition
of
Preshipment
Applications?
The
interim
final
rule
noted,
in
agreement
with
the
1998
TEAP
interim
explanatory
notes
for
the
Parties,
the
focus
within
the
definition
of
``
preshipment
applications''
on
applications
to
meet
``
official
requirements''
and
not
``
informal
or
purely
contractual
or
commercial
arrangements
not
required
under
official
regulations''
(
April
1998
TEAP
Report,
page
145).
EPA
is
continuing
to
stress
the
importance
of
this
limitation
in
the
scope
of
the
preshipment
exemption.
The
definition
of
preshipment
applications
specifies
that
the
phrase
``
official
requirements''
means,
``
those
which
are
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health,
or
stored
product
authority.''
The
interim
final
rule's
definition
of
preshipment
applications
further
qualifies
the
term
``
official
requirements''
as
it
relates
to
exporting
countries
to
include
only
``
existing
official
requirements''.
EPA
interpreted
this
phrase
to
imply
the
need
to
establish
a
cutoff
date.
EPA
asked
for
comment
on
four
possible
interpretations
for
the
term
``
existing
official
requirements
of
the
exporting
country''.
The
options
listed
were
to
exempt
applications
pursuant
to
official
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
242
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
preshipment
requirements
of
the
exporting
country
that
were:
(
1)
In
effect
prior
to
the
date
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
adopted
Decision
XI/
12,
which
was
December
3,
1999,
(
2)
in
effect
at
the
time
the
interim
final
rule
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
which
was
July
19,
2001,
(
3)
in
place
at
the
time
this
final
rule
on
the
quarantine
and
preshipment
exemption
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
or
(
4)
existing
at
the
time
of
the
methyl
bromide
application
(
since
it
would
be
an
``
existing''
requirement
of
the
exporting
country
upon
going
into
effect).
EPA
received
eight
comments
related
to
the
interpretation
of
``
existing
official
requirements.''
All
commenters
supported
the
fourth
option,
which
is
to
exempt
applications
pursuant
to
official
preshipment
requirements
of
the
exporting
country
that
exist
at
the
time
of
the
methyl
bromide
application.
Commenters
noted
that
this
interpretation
recognizes
the
possibility
of
future
outbreaks
of
new
pests
requiring
official
action.
EPA
notes
the
value
to
such
flexibility
within
the
rule
and
believes
that
this
interpretation
is
consistent
with
the
intended
purpose
of
the
exemption.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
qualifier
``
existing'',
as
used
within
the
preshipment
application
definition,
applies
only
to
the
official
requirement
of
the
exporting
country
(
the
U.
S.)
and
not
to
the
preshipment
requirements
of
importing
countries.
Thus,
if
an
importing
country
were
to
establish
a
new
official
requirement
for
the
preshipment
application
of
methyl
bromide,
nothing
in
this
rule
would
prevent
a
U.
S.
exporter
from
using
methyl
bromide
to
meet
the
new
requirement
of
the
importing
country.

C.
Are
There
Additional
Qualifiers
Associated
With
the
Definition
of
Quarantine
Applications?
With
today's
final
action
EPA
is
establishing
the
following
parameters
for
the
quarantine
exemption.
For
commodities
imported
to,
exported
from,
and
transported
within
the
U.
S.,
the
exemption
for
quarantine
applications
will
apply
when:
(
1)
Methyl
bromide
is
identified
within
quarantine
regulations
as
the
unique
treatment
option
for
specific
quarantine
pests;
(
2)
methyl
bromide
is
identified
within
quarantine
regulations
as
one
among
a
list
of
treatment
options
for
specific
quarantine
pests;
and
(
3)
methyl
bromide
is
required
for
an
emergency
quarantine
application.
Under
section
3,
section
18,
and
section
24a
of
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA),
EPA
is
notified
of
emergency
quarantine
applications
of
methyl
bromide
in
accordance
with
specific
requirements
published
under
FIFRA.
In
addition
to
the
above,
for
commodities
being
exported
from
the
U.
S.
to
a
foreign
nation,
the
exemption
applies
to
quarantine
applications
when
there
is
a
broad
performance­
based
quarantine
requirement.
In
other
words,
the
exemption
applies
when
an
importing
country
has
quarantine
regulations
which
broadly
require
U.
S.
exported
commodities
to
be
free
of
quarantine
pests
without
specifying
the
types
of
treatments.
The
above
follows
EPA's
decision
in
the
interim
final
rule.
The
Agency
received
12
comments
on
the
scope
of
the
quarantine
exemption.
Every
commenter
said
that
the
broadest
possible
option
should
be
implemented
by
the
Agency.
EPA
believes
that
the
scope
of
the
exemption
described
above
is
the
broadest
interpretation
that
it
can
reasonably
adopt
for
each
given
type
of
commodity.
For
example,
for
imports,
USDA/
APHIS
requirements
are
explicit
regarding
treatment
options
acceptable
for
the
control
of
specific
crop/
pest
combinations.
EPA
considered
limiting
the
scope
of
the
quarantine
exemption
to
only
those
instances
where
APHIS
lists
methyl
bromide
as
the
only
acceptable
treatment
option
for
a
given
pest.
However,
as
many
commenters
noted,
variations
in
climate,
etc.
can
affect
the
level
of
efficacy
of
treatment
options
in
different
regions.
Thus,
EPA
chose
to
adopt
a
broader
definition
of
the
quarantine
exemption
which
applies
to
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
to
meet
quarantine
requirements
where
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide
is
the
listed,
or
one
of
the
listed,
treatment
options.
While
EPA
believes
that
such
an
interpretation
is
sufficiently
broad
for
the
purposes
of
imported
and
domestically
traded
commodities
given
the
applicable
U.
S.
regulations,
the
Agency
recognizes
that
some
foreign
countries
lack
such
specificity
within
their
quarantine
regulations
for
imported
commodities.
EPA
chose
to
create
even
greater
flexibility
within
the
quarantine
exemption
in
order
to
accommodate
the
broad,
performancebased
quarantine
requirements
of
these
foreign
trade
partners.

D.
How
Does
the
Exemption
for
Quarantine
Applications
Apply
to
Commodities
Issued
``
Phytosanitary
Certificates''?
Today's
final
action
exempts
methyl
bromide
in
situations
when
a
foreign
country's
regulations
require
a
certification
that
U.
S.
commodities
be
exported
free
of
quarantine
pests.
EPA
understands
that
both
USDA/
APHIS
and
State
agencies
issue
``
phytosanitary
certificates''
that
accompany
U.
S.
commodities
exported
to
foreign
countries.
These
phytosanitary
certificates
are
often
required
by
importing
foreign
countries
to
ensure
that
U.
S.
exports
are
free
of
quarantine
pests.
To
the
extent
that
methyl
bromide
is
used
by
a
U.
S.
exporter
to
meet
a
foreign
quarantine
requirement,
the
phytosanitary
certificates
(
PPQ
Form
577,
PPQ
Form
578,
and
PPQ
Form
579)
issued
by
USDA/
APHIS
or
an
authorized
State
agency
will
be
an
additional
means
for
EPA
to
cross­
check
quarantine
applications
of
methyl
bromide
under
today's
exemption.
As
was
noted
in
the
interim
final
rule,
and
for
this
final
action,
EPA
is
not
exempting
methyl
bromide
used
for
non­
quarantine
applications,
even
if
the
foreign
country
requires
the
U.
S.
exporter
to
obtain
a
phytosanitary
certificate.
Today's
exemption
applies
to
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
to
meet
an
official
foreign
quarantine
requirement.
If
PPQ
Forms
or
other
types
of
certificates
are
issued
for
commodities
meeting
state
or
local
quarantine
requirements
then
methyl
bromide
used
in
these
cases
is
considered
exempt
under
today's
action,
provided
that
methyl
bromide
is
one
of
the
listed
treatment
options.

E.
How
Do
the
Definitions
of
Preshipment
and
Quarantine
Applications
Apply
to
Food
Sanitation?
The
language
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
related
to
the
quarantine
and
preshipment
exemption
explicitly
limits
the
exemption
to
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
``
to
fumigate
commodities
entering
or
leaving
the
United
States
or
any
State
(
or
political
division
thereof)
for
purposes
of
compliance
with
Animal
and
Plant
Health
Inspection
Service
requirements
*
*
*''
(
emphasis
added).
By
applying
the
quarantine
and
preshipment
exemption
only
to
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
to
fumigate
commodities
being
transported
from
one
geographical
location
to
another,
Congress
imposed
limitations
on
how
the
definitions
of
preshipment
and
quarantine
applications
apply
to
food
sanitation.
As
defined
in
today's
action,
preshipment
applications
are
those
nonquarantine
applications
within
21
days
prior
to
export
to
meet
the
official
requirements
of
the
importing
country
or
existing
official
requirements
of
the
exporting
country.
Official
requirements
are
those
which
are
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
or
stored
product
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
243
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
authority.
Methyl
bromide
used
any
time
within
21
days
prior
to
export
of
a
commodity
to
meet
``
official
requirements''
related
to
food
sanitation
would
qualify
under
the
preshipment
exemption.
Any
treatment
performed
outside
of
this
21
day
window,
by
definition,
does
not
qualify
for
the
preshipment
exemption.
The
exemption
of
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
applications,
as
defined
by
the
interim
final
action,
did
not
apply
to
preventative
treatments
to
meet
food
sanitation
standards.
EPA
received
4
comments
about
the
interaction
between
food
sanitation
standards
and
the
quarantine
exemption.
All
commenters
asserted
that
preventative
treatments
of
commodities
with
methyl
bromide
to
meet
food
sanitation
requirements
should
qualify
as
``
quarantine
applications''
because
``
such
standards
are
geared
to
preventing
the
dissemination
of
pests,
although
admittedly
for
human
health
and
food
sanitation
purposes.''
EPA's
final
action
is
bound
by
the
limitations
imposed
on
the
quarantine
exemption
by
the
definitions
and
determination
of
scope
agreed
upon
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
adopted
by
Congress
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
EPA
understands
that
certain
industries
often
use
methyl
bromide
as
a
prophylactic
treatment
for
periodic
quality
control
fumigations
associated
with
food
sanitation.
Stored
commodities,
such
as
dried
fruits,
nuts,
and
cocoa
beans,
as
well
as
grain
mills
and
pasta
manufacturing
facilities
are
often
fumigated
periodically
with
methyl
bromide
to
prevent
populations
of
pests,
such
as
insects
and
rodents,
from
increasing
to
a
point
where
they
would
adversely
affect
food
quality.
Such
in
situ
population
control
measures
do
not
qualify
as
quarantine
applications
since
they
are
not
performed
on
``
commodities
entering
or
leaving
the
United
States
or
any
state
(
or
political
subdivision
thereof)
*
*
*''
Additionally,
food
sanitation
requirements
that
are
directed
at
controlling
population
levels
of
pests
endemic
to
the
region
would
not
qualify
under
the
definition
of
``
quarantine
applications''.
The
quarantine
definition,
as
established
in
today's
final
action,
stresses
that
exempt
applications
of
methyl
bromide
are
``
to
prevent
the
introduction,
establishment
and/
or
spread
of
quarantine
pests
(
including
diseases).''
Quarantine
pests
are
defined
as
``
pests
of
potential
importance
to
the
areas
endangered
thereby
and
not
yet
present
there,
or
present
but
not
widely
distributed
and
being
officially
controlled.''
Endemic
pests
are
not
quarantine
pests.
The
above
limitations
were
noted
in
the
interim
final
version
of
this
rule.
Likewise,
the
Agency
noted
in
that
publication
its
interest
in
comments
related
to
prophylactic
uses
of
methyl
bromide
to
meet
food
sanitation
standards
in
order
to
use
this
information
in
the
Agency's
development
of
the
Critical
Use
Exemption
to
the
phaseout
of
methyl
bromide.
Please
see
the
discussion
below
(
Section
VIIIA)
related
to
the
Critical
Use
Exemption.

F.
How
Do
These
Definitions
Apply
to
``
Propagative
Material''?
The
use
of
methyl
bromide
to
fumigate
the
soil
for
growing
propagative
material,
such
as
strawberry
rhizomes,
differs
from
many
quarantine
applications
of
methyl
bromide.
The
Agency
sought
comment
on
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
for
propagative
materials
and
received
a
variety
of
information
on
relevant
quarantine
regulations,
planting
and
fumigating
practices,
and
propagative
materials
(
other
than
strawberry
rhizomes)
that
use
methyl
bromide
to
meet
quarantine
requirements.
With
today's
final
action,
the
exemption
for
quarantine
applications
applies
to
methyl
bromide
used
for
growing
propagative
material
if
the
methyl
bromide
is
being
used
to
grow
propagative
material
to
meet
official
quarantine
requirements
of
the
destination
to
which
the
propagative
material
will
be
transported.
Although
the
interim
final
rule
only
cited
strawberry
rhizomes
in
the
discussion
of
the
exemption
for
propagative
material,
with
today's
action
EPA
wishes
to
clarify
that
the
exemption
also
covers
other
propagative
material,
including
tree
seedlings,
when
the
methyl
bromide
is
used
to
meet
an
official
quarantine
requirement
of
the
destination
to
which
the
propagative
material
will
be
transported.
EPA
notes
the
following
qualifiers
in
the
application
of
the
quarantine
exemption
to
methyl
bromide
used
to
grow
propagative
material
(
also
referred
to
as
``
plants
for
planting'').
First,
as
noted
above
(
see
discussion
in
part
VI.
C.),
the
Clean
Air
Act
language
specifies
that
the
scope
of
the
quarantine
exemption
is
limited
to
use
of
methyl
bromide
for
fumigation
of
goods
for
transport
from
one
distinct
locality
to
another.
Thus,
the
exemption
for
propagative
materials
only
applies
for
use
with
``
plants
for
planting''
that
are
to
be
transported
(
complete
with
rootstock)
from
one
distinct
locality
to
another.
Second,
today's
action
only
exempts
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
for
pre­
plant
fumigation
of
soil
to
meet
official
quarantine
requirements
specifying
that
the
underground
portions
of
the
propagative
material
are
to
be
free
from
quarantine
pests.
The
purpose
of
such
regulations
is
ensuring
that
quarantine
pests
are
not
spread
to
the
region
where
the
regulated
rootstock
will
be
replanted.
This
exemption
does
not
apply
to
pre­
plant
soil
treatment
for
commodities
transported
without
their
attached
rootstock,
or
commodities
transported
for
any
purpose
other
than
for
replant.
Finally,
with
this
action,
EPA
is
only
exempting
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
to
grow
propagative
material
to
meet
official
quarantine
requirements
of
the
destination
to
which
such
material
will
be
transported.
If
the
material
is
transported
to
a
destination
that
has
no
applicable
official
quarantine
requirements,
then
the
methyl
bromide
used
does
not
qualify
for
this
exemption.
This
is
true
even
in
an
instance
where
a
farmer
legitimately
justified
using
exempted
methyl
bromide
to
meet
a
quarantine
requirement
for
propagative
materials,
yet
due
to
economic
or
market
conditions
the
farmer
does
not
send
the
seedlings
to
the
planned
destination,
and
instead
sends
the
seedlings
to
a
region
without
relevant
quarantine
requirements.
EPA
recognizes
that
many
of
the
propagative
materials
for
which
this
exemption
applies
are
planted
far
in
advance
of
their
trade
and
transplant
and
that
farmers
face
some
difficulty
in
accurately
predicting
their
commodities'
ultimate
destination.
The
Agency
reminds
methyl
bromide
users
that
nonexempted
quantities
will
be
available
until
the
January
1,
2005
phaseout
date
and
that
the
Critical
Use
Exemption
will
become
available
after
the
phaseout
(
see
discussion
in
part
VIII.
A.
below).
The
use
of
exempted
methyl
bromide
to
grow
propagative
material
that
the
grower
planned
to
ship
to
a
destination
with
a
propagative
material
quarantine
requirement,
but
which
the
grower
ultimately
shipped
to
a
destination
without
such
a
requirement,
may
raise
compliance
issues
for
the
United
States
under
the
Protocol.
Such
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
would
count
against
the
U.
S.
cap
for
domestic
methyl
bromide
consumption.
The
U.
S.
could
exceed
its
control
obligations
under
the
Protocol
if
all
U.
S.
production
and
consumption
allowances
for
methyl
bromide
were
expended
in
a
particular
control
period
(
calendar
year)
and
some
methyl
bromide
in
the
same
control
period
was
mistakenly
exempted
for
quarantine
applications
when,
in
fact,
the
propagative
material
was
sent
to
a
place
without
quarantine
requirements.
With
this
action,
EPA
is
implementing
the
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
244
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
following
options
for
rectifying
such
discrepancies.
The
methyl
bromide
user
found
to
be
incorrectly
using
exempt
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
for
propagative
uses
as
described
above
may
choose
either
of
the
following
options
to
rectify
their
actions.
First,
a
methyl
bromide
user
in
the
above
situation
may
choose
to
buy
an
equivalent
amount
of
production
allowances
for
any
ozone­
depleting
substance,
on
an
ozone­
depleting
potential
(
ODP)
weighted
basis,
and
retire
those
allowances,
thus
rendering
them
unable
to
be
expended
for
new
production
in
accordance
with
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
82.
Alternatively,
a
person
who
uses
exempted
methyl
bromide
to
meet
a
propagative
material
quarantine
requirement,
and
who
ultimately
changes
the
material's
destination
to
one
without
a
quarantine
requirement,
can
choose
to
destroy
an
amount
of
any
ozone­
depleting
substance
that
is
equivalent
on
an
ODPweighted
basis
to
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
used.
This
approach
differs
from
the
first
option,
in
that
it
requires
the
person
to
physically
destroy
an
existing
quantity
of
an
ozone­
depleting
chemical
rather
than
reduce
the
overall
quantity
produced
in
the
future.
Those
users
of
methyl
bromide
required
to
perform
one
of
the
compensatory
measures
described
above
to
rectify
a
non­
compliance
situation
must
submit
to
EPA
a
letter
of
certification
detailing
the
following
information:
(
1)
The
quantity
of
exempt
methyl
bromide
used
on
propagative
materials
that
were
shipped
to
a
destination
lacking
a
quarantine
requirement;
(
2)
the
compensatory
option
chosen
(
see
discussion
above);
(
3)
the
ozone­
depleting
substance
destroyed
or
the
type
of
production
allowance
obtained;
and
(
4)
the
quantity
of
ozone­
depleting
substance
destroyed
or
production
allowances
retired.
See
the
section
above
entitled
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
for
submittal
information.
Monitoring
and
compliance
issues
are
a
concern
associated
with
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
for
pre­
plant
propagative
material
uses.
EPA
expressed
a
concern
in
the
interim
final
rule
about
situations
where
propagative
materials
are
grown
in
proximity
to
crops
that
do
not
qualify
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
exemption.
EPA
believed
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
ensure
that
exempted
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
were
being
properly
used.
However,
the
Agency
received
input
from
3
commenters
that
state
that
propagative
material
is
rarely,
if
ever,
grown
in
proximity
to
other
crops,
which
alleviates
the
Agency's
concern.
The
Agency
will
continue
to
monitor
this
possibility.

G.
How
Do
These
Definitions
Apply
to
In­
Transit
Applications?
EPA
understands
that
some
users
of
methyl
bromide
may
be
testing
and/
or
using
``
on­
ship''
fumigation
of
commodities
while
they
are
``
in­
transit.''
With
today's
final
action,
EPA
is
interpreting
the
definition
of
quarantine
application
to
apply
to
these
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
``
in­
transit''
when
the
use
is
to
meet
an
official
U.
S.
quarantine
requirement
and
is
in
accordance
with
other
U.
S.
regulations
for
commodities
being
imported
into
the
U.
S.,
(
see
discussion
in
part
VI.
C.
above
for
more
information
on
what
is
considered
an
official
quarantine
requirement
for
an
imported
commodity)
or
for
commodities
moving
from
one
location
to
another
within
the
U.
S.
However,
today's
action
does
not
exempt
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
outside
of
U.
S.
jurisdiction
on
U.
S.
exported
commodities
to
meet
the
importing
country's
official
quarantine
requirements
while
the
commodities
are
``
in­
transit.''
Today's
action,
likewise,
does
not
exempt
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
on
U.
S.
exported
commodities
when
they
are
being
transshipped
through
a
foreign
country
en
route
to
the
destination
importing
country.
Finally,
today's
action
does
not
exempt
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
to
meet
an
importing
country's
requirements
when
a
commodity
is
simply
being
transshipped
through
the
U.
S.
from
the
exporting
foreign
country
en
route
to
the
importing
foreign
country.
It
should
be
noted
that
use
of
methyl
bromide
after
a
shipment
leaves
the
Unites
States
is
not
an
exempt
preshipment
application
because
the
application
did
not
occur
``
within
21
days
prior
to
export''
from
the
U.
S.,
where
the
word
``
export''
is
interpreted
to
mean
the
departure
of
a
commodity
from
the
Unites
States.

VII.
What
Is
the
Process
for
Exempting
Methyl
Bromide
for
Use
in
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications?
With
this
action,
EPA
is
establishing
a
process
to
exempt
methyl
bromide
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
from
the
Allowance
Program's
control
measures
that
phase
out
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
(
described
in
Part
I.
Background
above).
Today's
action
exempts
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
from
the
production
and
consumption
reduction
steps
between
now
and
2005,
as
well
as
beyond
the
final
phaseout
of
production
and
consumption
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
Clean
Air
Act
on
January
1,
2005.
EPA
is
creating
a
recordkeeping
and
reporting
process
that
is
flexible
enough
to
respond
to
demands
arising
when
commodities
need
to
be
protected
from
infestations
by
quarantine
pests
and
when
commodities
need
to
be
treated
immediately
prior
to
shipment
in
accordance
with
official
requirements.
Such
flexibility
needs
to
be
balanced
with
the
U.
S.
Government's
reporting
requirements
under
the
Montreal
Protocol.
Today's
action
includes
a
certification
and
reporting
procedure
under
authority
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
for
exempted
production
and
consumption
of
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.

A.
What
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Must
Producers
and
Importers
Perform?
Until
the
January
1,
2005
phaseout
date
for
methyl
bromide,
U.
S.
companies
will
continue
to
hold
production
and
consumption
allowances,
calculated
as
a
percentage
of
their
baseline
production
and
consumption.
After
January
1,
2005,
there
will
not
be
production
allowances
and
consumption
allowances
for
methyl
bromide.
The
relationship
between
each
company's
baseline
production
allowance
and
baseline
consumption
allowances
and
the
reduction
steps
in
these
allowances
is
in
accordance
with
the
control
measures
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
as
described
in
part
I
of
today's
rule
and
in
the
direct
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
28,
2000
(
65
FR
70795).
Because
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
are
exempted
from
the
phaseout,
the
total
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
produced
and
imported
that
are
specifically
designated
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
will
not
be
counted
as
net
production
or
net
import
for
the
purposes
of
the
Allowance
Program.
In
order
for
EPA
to
ensure
that
qualifying
quarantine
and
preshipment
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
are
being
properly
exempted
from
companies'
total
allowed
production/
import,
the
Agency
must
have
a
record
of
those
exempted
quantities.
Currently,
§
82.13
requires
producers
and
importers
to
submit
quarterly
reports
to
EPA
with
information
on
the
gross
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
produced
or
imported
in
that
quarter.
In
that
same
report,
producers
and
importers
indicate
the
quantity
specifically
designated
for
transformation
and
for
destruction
and,

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
245
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
thus,
exempted
from
the
reduction
steps
and
phaseout
of
methyl
bromide.
EPA
subtracts
these
quantities
for
transformation
and
for
destruction
from
the
gross
quantity
reported
to
obtain
the
company's
net
production
or
import.
The
interim
final
rule
required
producers
and
importers
to
include
the
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
specifically
designated
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
on
these
same
quarterly
reports.
Quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
are
also
subtracted
from
the
gross
quantity
of
production
or
import
because
of
their
exempted
status
and,
thus,
are
not
counted
against
a
company's
production
and
consumption
allowances.
In
addition
to
the
reporting
requirements
outlined
above,
the
interim
final
rule
established
the
following
recordkeeping
requirements
for
producers
and
importers.
Domestic
purchasers
(
distributors
or
customers)
must
provide
producers
and
importers
with
certifications
that
a
designated
quantity
is
being
purchased
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
(
discussion
of
requirements
for
foreign
purchasers
appears
below
in
part
VII.
D.)
Certifications
from
distributors
will
attest
that
the
material
will
be
sold
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications,
and
certifications
from
applicators
purchasing
directly
from
a
producer
or
importer
will
attest
that
the
material
will
be
used
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
While
EPA
received
no
comments
on
the
specific
recordkeeping
and
reporting
procedures
described
in
the
interim
final
rule,
several
commenters
submitted
general
feedback.
All
comments
on
this
topic
focused
on
the
burden
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
and
suggested
that
the
creation
of
a
FIFRA
label
specific
to
quarantine
and
preshipment
would
help
to
ease
that
burden.
EPA
recognizes
the
potential
utility
of
a
quarantine
and
preshipment
specific
FIFRA
label
(
see
full
discussion
below
in
part
VII.
E.).
However,
until
such
a
label
can
be
established,
EPA
must
rely
on
another
means
of
obtaining
the
information
it
needs
to
meet
the
U.
S.'
s
reporting
obligations
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
to
ensure
domestic
compliance
with
the
phasedown
and
phaseout
schedule
for
production
and
import.
The
requirements
created
by
the
interim
final
rule
were
discussed
with
many
industry
representatives
and
represent
one
of
the
least
burdensome
options
available.
Thus,
with
this
final
action
EPA
is
continuing
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
producers
and
importers
established
by
the
interim
final
rule
and
described
in
the
above
text.

B.
Are
Methyl
Bromide
Applicators
Required
To
Report?
Today's
action
includes
a
certification
requirement
for
purchases
of
methyl
bromide
by
applicators.
Applicators
must
submit
a
certification
to
the
seller
of
the
methyl
bromide
when
they
want
to
purchase
a
specific
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
explicitly
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
The
applicator
will
certify
that
the
quantity
purchased
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
The
applicator
must
send
the
certification
to
the
company
selling
the
methyl
bromide
before
the
seller
ships
the
cylinders
of
methyl
bromide
(
i.
e.,
certification
before
shipment).
The
applicator
can
obtain
the
certification
form
at
EPA's
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr
or
from
their
methyl
bromide
distributor.
The
applicator
must
check
the
box
indicating
that
the
particular
quantity
being
ordered
is
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
as
defined
on
the
form
(
see
the
definition
above
in
Part
VI)
and
will
neither
be
sold
nor
used
for
any
other
purpose.
The
applicator
must
sign
the
form
certifying,
under
penalty
of
law,
that
the
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
purchased
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
the
definitions.
The
applicator
must
return
the
completed
and
signed
form
to
the
distributor.
The
distributor
retains
the
certification
form
in
order
to
compile
data
that
they
will
submit
to
EPA
on
the
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
sold
under
the
exemption
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
The
certification
form
ensures
that
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
produced
or
imported
under
the
exemption
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
are
used
only
in
accordance
with
the
strict
requirements
of
the
exemption.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
applicator
will
also
be
able
to
purchase
non­
exempt
methyl
bromide
until
the
phaseout
date
for
methyl
bromide.
For
quarantine
applications,
the
applicator
must
collect
documentation
citing
the
regulatory
requirement
or
other
official
requirement
that
justifies
the
use
of
exempted
methyl
bromide.
Acceptable
documentation
for
a
quarantine
application
includes
the
forms
provided
directly
to
the
applicator
by
an
official
from
a
national
plant,
animal,
environmental
protection
or
health
authority
(
e.
g.
USDA/
APHIS)
requesting
the
treatment
of
commodities
to
control
quarantine
pests.
In
the
absence
of
official
documentation
from
a
plant,
animal,
environmental
protection
or
health
authority,
the
commodity
owner,
shipper
or
their
agent
must
provide
a
letter
to
the
methyl
bromide
applicator
requesting
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
that
explicitly
cites
the
regulation
requiring
a
quarantine
treatment
or
quarantine
official
control.
Likewise,
the
applicator
must
collect
documentation
citing
the
official
requirement
calling
for
a
preshipment
application.
The
commodity
owner,
shipper
or
their
agent
must
provide
a
letter
to
the
methyl
bromide
applicator
requesting
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
that
explicitly
cites
the
official
requirement
for
a
preshipment
application.
The
letter
that
the
commodity
owner,
shipper
or
their
agent
presents
to
the
applicator
must
include
the
following
statement:
``
I
certify
knowledge
of
the
requirements
associated
with
the
exempted
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
published
in
40
CFR
part
82,
including
the
requirement
that
this
letter
cite
the
treatments
or
official
controls
for
quarantine
applications
or
the
official
requirements
for
preshipment
requirements.''
Both
the
commodity
owner,
shipper
or
their
agent
and
the
applicator
must
maintain
this
letter
for
three
years
in
accordance
with
current
recordkeeping
requirements
in
40
CFR
part
82,
subpart
A.
Neither
the
applicator
nor
the
commodity
owner,
shipper
or
their
agents
are
required
to
submit
the
letter
to
EPA.
The
requirements
established
by
today's
final
action
exactly
match
the
requirements
of
the
interim
final
rule.
EPA
received
one
comment
related
to
these
reporting
requirements.
The
commenter
raised
the
concern
that
requiring
distributors
to
send
and
recover
Certification
Forms
prior
to
every
sale
could
cause
supply
delays
and
backlog
of
commodities
needing
fumigation
at
ports.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
above
requirements
will
cause
such
a
backlog
if
efficiently
managed.
While
the
above
protocol
explicitly
requires
that
distributors
must
receive
completed
Certification
Forms
prior
to
distributing
the
order
of
methyl
bromide,
there
is
flexibility
regarding
when
distributors
must
provide
the
blank
forms
to
their
customers.
In
fact,
a
distributor
may
send
a
blank
Certification
Form
to
every
applicator
with
instructions
to
make
many
copies
of
the
blank
form,
so
each
applicator
is
ready
to
place
immediate,
``
rush''
orders
for
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
However,
in
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
246
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
situations
when
an
applicator
needs
to
have
methyl
bromide
on­
hand
to
fumigate
a
shipment
hours
after
it
arrives,
EPA
understands
applicators
strive
to
anticipate
these
busy
seasons
and
accordingly
place
large
orders
well
in
advance.
Under
today's
exemption,
when
an
applicator
places
a
large
order
in
anticipation
of
future
needs
for
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications,
the
applicator
can
and
must
submit
the
Certification
Form
for
the
quantity
that
will
be
stored
to
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
the
future.

C.
Are
Distributors
Required
To
Report?

With
today's
action,
EPA
is
requiring
that
a
person
who
distributes
methyl
bromide
to
applicators
(
the
distributor)
compile
all
the
information
from
applicator
certifications
(
as
described
in
part
VII.
B
above)
on
a
quarterly
basis
and
submit
the
summary
data
to
EPA.
In
administering
other
parts
of
the
stratospheric
ozone
protection
program
over
the
past
decade,
regulated
companies
have
often
expressed
an
appreciation
for
the
submission
of
smaller,
quarterly
reports,
rather
than
one
large,
end­
of­
year
report.
EPA
also
believes
that
regular,
quarterly
tracking
by
distributors
will
increase
the
accuracy
of
reporting.
Since
EPA
received
no
comments
objecting
to
the
submission
of
quarterly
reports,
we
are
requiring
distributors
to
submit
quarterly
reports
that
summarize
the
total
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
sold
over
a
quarter
to
applicators
who
submitted
certifications
described
in
part
VII.
B
above.
The
collection
of
information
on
the
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
sold
and
certified
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
is
needed
so
that
the
U.
S.
can
respond
to
a
recent
amendment
to
the
Protocol.
The
amendment,
to
which
the
Parties
agreed
at
their
Eleventh
Meeting
in
Beijing
in
1999,
adds
a
provision
to
Article
7
(
Reporting
of
Data),
requiring
Parties
to
submit
information
on
the
amounts
of
methyl
bromide
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
Reporting
by
the
distributors
will
allow
a
comparison
between
the
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
sold
and
certified
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
with
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
produced
and
imported
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications,
as
reported
in
the
producers'/
importers'
report
as
described
in
part
VII.
A
above.
D.
What
About
Methyl
Bromide
Exported
for
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications?

With
today's
action,
producers
and
others
that
export
methyl
bromide
must
report
the
total
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
explicitly
exported
to
individual
foreign
countries
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
on
a
quarterly
basis.
Under
§
82.13,
producers
and
exporters
already
distinguish
other
exempted
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
explicitly
exported
for
transformation
or
destruction.
For
each
export
of
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications,
as
for
exports
for
transformation
or
destruction,
the
exporter
must
obtain
a
certification
from
the
foreign
person
(
entity)
importing
the
methyl
bromide
stating
that
the
material
will
be
used
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
These
certifications
must
be
submitted
with
the
quarterly
reports.
These
certifications
will
then
be
shared
with
the
appropriate
foreign
government
officials
in
the
importing
country
and
the
compiled
data
will
be
shared
with
UNEP
advisory
bodies
to
the
Protocol.
Certifications
must
accompany
the
reporting
on
quantities
exported
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
because
of
a
concern
that
the
U.
S.,
as
one
of
the
largest
worldwide
producers
of
methyl
bromide,
could
potentially
contribute
to
the
creation
of
a
loophole
for
non­
exempt
uses
of
methyl
bromide
around
the
globe.
EPA
feels
it
will
be
important
to
closely
monitor
and
track
production
of
methyl
bromide
that
is
exported
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
because
these
uses
are
exempt
from
Protocol
control
measures.
The
above
requirements
are
consistent
with
those
created
by
the
interim
final
rule.
EPA
received
no
comments
related
to
this
issue.

E.
Will
There
Be
a
FIFRA
Pesticide
Label
Change?

The
interim
final
rule
introduced
the
possibility
of
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
developing,
under
the
authority
of
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA),
a
unique
label
for
methyl
bromide
specifically
designated
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
use.
The
Agency
received
five
comments
in
support
of
such
an
action.
Commenters
advocated
that
EPA
replace
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
established
by
the
interim
rule
(
and
continued
with
today's
action)
with
such
a
label
in
order
to
reduce
the
burden
on
users
associated
with
the
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Exemption.
EPA
recognizes
the
potential
burden
reduction
that
creating
a
new
QPSspecific
FIFRA
label
could
offer,
however,
the
Agency
also
remains
cognizant
of
the
need
to
retain
access
to
the
information
it
needs
to
meet
the
U.
S.
government's
own
international
reporting
requirements
as
established
by
the
Montreal
Protocol.
Thus,
after
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
finishes
the
process
of
making
changes
that
create
a
new
QPS­
specific
FIFRA
label
for
methyl
bromide,
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
will
consider
ways
to
simplify
today's
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
but
likely
retain
some
of
these
requirements
to
ensure
the
accurate
submission
of
data
in
accordance
with
U.
S.
obligations
under
the
Montreal
Protocol.
A
registration/
label
change
would
designate
individual
cylinders
of
methyl
bromide
specifically
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
and
it
would
be
illegal
to
use
the
material
in
these
cylinders
for
other
uses.
Under
an
approved
registration/
label
change
there
would
be
unique
registration
numbers
for
the
new
labels
that
would
accompany
each
cylinder
through
the
chain
of
commerce
from
producers
or
importers
to
the
end­
user
(
the
applicator).
As
currently
required
under
FIFRA,
establishments
would
report
total
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
under
this
new
quarantine
and
preshipment
registration/
label
to
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
on
an
annual
basis.
Following
a
change
in
the
FIFRA
authorized
registration/
label,
it
would
be
possible
for
the
Agency
to
reconcile
the
total
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
certified
to
be
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
under
procedures
described
in
parts
VII.
B
and
VII.
C
above,
the
total
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
produced
or
imported
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
under
today's
part
VII.
A
above,
and
the
annual
FIFRA
establishment
reports
on
methyl
bromide,
which
reference
specific
products
by
registration
number.
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
is
continuing
to
work
with
the
Methyl
Bromide
Industry
Panel
to
develop
a
registration
and
label
change
for
methyl
bromide
products.
EPA
reserves
the
ability
to
reevaluate
the
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
established
in
today's
action
if
and
when
such
a
label
is
created.

VIII.
What
Were
Other
Considerations
and
Situations
on
Which
EPA
Sought
or
Received
Comment?
In
the
interim
final
rule,
EPA
sought
comment
on
a
number
of
possible
variations
on
the
exemption
that
were
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
247
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
not
incorporated
into
the
interim
rule
as
it
was
published.
The
Agency
received
comment
on
some
of
these
items,
as
well
as
on
other
topics
for
which
comment
was
not
expressly
sought.
EPA
recognizes
that
additional
questions
may
arise
regarding
aspects
of
today's
final
action.
If
a
person
has
a
question
about
whether
a
certain
aspect
of
today's
final
action
applies
to
their
situation,
EPA
is
encouraging
the
submissions
of
written
questions
accompanied
by
a
detailed
description
of
how
methyl
bromide
relates
to
the
person's
particular
enterprise.
The
Agency
will
consider
questions
about
whether
aspects
of
today's
final
action
apply
in
the
context
of
EPA's
regular
process
for
issuing
written
determinations.

A.
Methyl
Bromide
Is
the
Only
Feasible
Treatment
Option
EPA
received
31
comments
in
response
to
the
interim
final
rule
that
addressed
the
lack
of
feasible
alternatives
available
for
specific
uses
of
methyl
bromide
and
the
economic
impact
of
the
phaseout
on
sectors
of
the
agricultural
industry.
In
response
to
such
comments,
EPA
notes
that
there
is
no
``
critical
need''
requirement
associated
with
the
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Exemption
at
this
juncture.
The
exemption
applies
only
to
uses
of
methyl
bromide
that
qualify
as
a
quarantine
or
preshipment
application,
as
defined
by
this
final
action,
regardless
of
the
availability
of
alternatives.
The
Montreal
Protocol
and
the
CAA
created
two
distinct
exemptions
to
the
methyl
bromide
phaseout:
(
1)
The
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Exemption,
and
(
2)
the
Critical
Use
Exemption.
The
Critical
Use
Exemption
was
created
by
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
to
address
the
possibility
that
substitutes
and
alternatives
may
not
be
available
for
all
methyl
bromide
uses
by
the
January
1,
2005
phaseout
date.
The
term
``
critical
use''
is
defined,
in
part,
by
the
lack
of
technically
or
economically
feasible
alternatives.
For
more
information
about
the
Critical
Use
Exemption
please
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section
or
visit
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ozone/
mbr/
cueqa.
html.

B.
Has
the
Agency
Considered
Definitions
Under
the
International
Plant
Protection
Convention
(
IPPC)?
Under
the
International
Standards
for
Phytosanitary
Measures
(
ISPMs)
adopted
by
members
of
the
International
Plant
Protection
Convention
(
IPPC)
on
April
22,
2001,
the
definition
of
``
official
control''
is
different
than
the
definition
that
was
agreed
to
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
adopted
by
EPA
in
the
interim
final
rule.
The
IPPC
definition
of
the
phrase
``
official
control''
is,
``
the
active
enforcement
of
mandatory
phytosanitary
regulations
and
the
applications
of
mandatory
phytosanitary
procedures
with
the
objective
of
eradication
or
containment
of
quarantine
pests
or
the
management
of
regulated
non­
quarantine
pests.''
The
IPPC
glossary
of
phytosanitary
terms
defines
``
official''
as
``
established,
authorized
or
performed
by
a
National
plant
protection
Organization
(
NPPO).''
In
the
United
States,
the
NPPO
is
the
USDA
Animal
and
Plant
Health
Inspection
Service
(
APHIS),
Plant
Protection
and
Quarantine
(
PPQ)
Program.
Further,
under
the
ISPMs
adopted
by
the
IPPC,
the
phrase
``
regulated
nonquarantine
pests''
is
defined
as,
``
a
nonquarantine
pest
whose
presence
in
plants
for
planting
affects
the
intended
use
of
those
plants
with
an
economically
unacceptable
impact
and
which
is
therefore
regulated
within
the
territory
of
the
importing
contacting
party.''
EPA
sought
comment
in
the
interim
final
rule
on
this
IPPC
definition
of
``
official
control''
and
received
3
comments.
All
commenters
stated
that
EPA
ought
to
adopt
the
IPPC
definition
because
it
is
broader
than
that
adopted
in
the
interim
final
rule.
In
this
final
action,
EPA
is
adopting
the
definition
of
``
official
control''
found
in
the
interim
final
rule
and
agreed
upon
by
the
Parties
to
the
Montreal
Protocol.
The
IPPC
definition
is
broader,
insofar
as
includes
within
its
scope
not
only
regulated
quarantine
pests
but
also
regulated
``
non­
quarantine
pests'',
an
addition
not
found
in
EPA's
definition.
However,
IPPC
defines
the
phrase
``
nonquarantine
pests''
as
being
applicable
only
to
``
plants
for
planting''.
[
With
this
final
action,
EPA
explicitly
applies
the
quarantine
exemption
to
use
of
methyl
bromide
for
growing
propagative
material
if
it
is
being
used
to
meet
official
quarantine
requirements
of
the
destination
to
which
the
propagative
materials
are
being
transported.
However,
the
IPPC's
definition
is
much
narrower
than
the
Protocol's,
because
the
word
``
official''
under
the
IPPC
is
limited
only
to
national
plant
protection
organization,
and
the
Protocol's
quarantine
definition
refers
to
``
plant,
animal
or
environmental
protection
or
health
authority''
and
the
preshipment
definition
refers
to
``
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
or
stored
product
authority''.
Additionally,
in
1998,
the
TEAP
explicitly
laid
out
the
differences
between
the
IPPC's
and
the
Montreal
Protocol's
definitions
of
``
official
control''
for
consideration
by
the
Parties.
The
Parties
rejected
making
any
changes
to
the
Protocol's
definition
of
``
official
control''
even
when
presented
with
the
IPPC
language
(
See
discussion
in
section
IV
above).
The
Agency
is
acting
in
conformity
with
customary
international
law
by
adhering
to
the
decision
of
the
Parties
on
this
matter.

C.
What
Action
Is
the
Agency
Taking
Regarding
Prophylactic
Fumigation
of
U.
S.
Exports
When
the
Fumigation
Is
Not
Mandated
by
Import
Regulations?
U.
S.
businesses
sometimes
use
methyl
bromide
against
non­
quarantine
pests
for
a
commodity
that
is
being
exported
because
it
is
known
that
the
importing
country
will
treat
with
methyl
bromide
at
the
port
of
entry
if
the
detected
level
of
these
non­
quarantine
pests
during
port­
of­
entry
inspection
exceeds
that
country's
standards.
Some
U.
S.
exporters
give
their
commodities
a
prophylactic
treatment
in
the
U.
S.
to
prevent
a
much
more
damaging
treatment
in
the
receiving
country
that
could
occur
if
non­
quarantine
pests
were
found,
possibly
reducing
the
quality
of
the
commodity.
In
cases
where
an
official
foreign
Party
requirement
is
specific
to
quarantine
pests,
or
there
is
a
general
performancebased
quarantine
requirement,
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
under
the
exemption
for
quarantine
applications
would
be
appropriate.
In
addition,
fumigation
with
methyl
bromide
to
meet
U.
S.
government
or
foreign
non­
quarantine
requirements
21
days
prior
to
export
of
the
commodity
would
also
be
exempt
under
the
definition
of
preshipment
applications.
The
Agency
reminds
methyl
bromide
users
that
nonexempted
quantities
will
be
available
until
the
January
1,
2005
phaseout
date
and
that
the
Critical
Use
Exemption
will
become
available
after
the
phaseout
(
see
section
VII.
A.
above).

D.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking
Regarding
the
Exclusion
of
Specific
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Applications
From
the
Exemption
at
Some
Future
Time?
The
Parties
to
the
Protocol
in
Decision
XI/
13
request
Parties
to
``
review
their
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
an
stored
product
regulations
with
a
view
to
removing
the
requirement
for
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
where
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist.''
The
reason
for
a
review
process
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
248
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
would
be
to
limit
the
production
and
import
of
methyl
bromide
to
only
those
cases
where
no
other
``
technologically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist.''
Through
time,
it
is
likely
that
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
will
be
less
and
less
necessary
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
When
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
are
available,
a
process
will
be
devised
that
will
allow
the
U.
S.
to
limit
the
use
of
this
ozone­
depleting
substance
while
taking
into
account
the
need
to
protect
international
trade.
In
the
years
beyond
the
methyl
bromide
production
and
consumption
phaseout,
there
will
continue
to
be
an
exemption
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
but
there
may
no
longer
be
price
pressures
for
moving
away
from
these
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
of
methyl
bromide.
Therefore,
the
Parties
to
the
Protocol
emphasize
the
importance
of
reviewing
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
and
identifying
when
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist,
and
removing
these
applications
from
the
exemption.
EPA
offered
several
options
for
implementing
such
a
review
process
in
the
interim
final
rule.
The
Agency
received
5
comments
related
to
this
issue.
All
commenters
asserted
that
the
option
to
eliminate
the
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Exemption
after
the
phaseout
and
ask
users
to
apply
for
critical­
use
exemptions
where
no
technically
or
economically
feasible
alternatives
exist
offered
by
EPA
in
the
interim
final
rule
was
contrary
to
the
provisions
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
could
not
be
pursued
without
an
amendment
to
the
agreement.
Given
the
request
by
the
Parties
for
a
future
contraction
of
the
Quarantine
and
Preshipment
Exemption,
EPA
does
not
agree
that
the
Protocol
prohibits
such
a
course
of
action.
However,
the
Agency
agrees
that
this
option
may
impose
the
burden
of
completing
a
Critical
Use
Exemption
Application
on
users
where
it
may
not
be
necessary.
Thus,
with
this
action,
EPA
sets
forth
its
intent
to
meet
the
Parties'
request
for
a
domestic
review
process
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
of
methyl
bromide
by
establishing
a
procedure
for
excluding
specific
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
from
the
exemption
when
EPA
determines
by
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
that
alternatives
are
in
significant
international
use
for
the
specific
applications.
In
undertaking
the
process
of
notice
and
comment
rulemaking,
EPA
will
consult
with
USDA/
APHIS
regarding
alternatives
that
are
efficacious
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
and
are
in
significant
international
use
for
specific
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
Such
a
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
process
will
allow
U.
S.
users
of
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
to
make
the
case
that
although
alternative(
s)
are
in
significant
international
use,
the
specific
circumstances
of
their
U.
S.
applications
are
unique
(
e.
g.,
the
alternatives
are
not
feasible
or
commercially
available
in
the
U.
S.)
and
continue
to
warrant
the
use
of
methyl
bromide.
EPA
considered
relying
on
market
prices
to
guide
methyl
bromide
use
as
an
alternative
to
the
formal
review
process
described
above.
However,
the
Agency
was
unable
to
gather
adequate
information
to
determine
whether
the
price
of
methyl
bromide
would
be
sufficiently
likely
to
provide
an
incentive
for
the
development
and
use
of
alternatives.
Without
adequate
economic
analysis,
the
Agency
is
unable
to
rely
on
market
forces
to
meet
the
U.
S.'
s
international
commitment.

IX.
What
Are
the
Steps
To
Conform
the
U.
S.
Methyl
Bromide
Phaseout
Schedule
and
Exemptions
to
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
Amended
Clean
Air
Act?
During
stakeholder
meetings,
and
in
the
proposed
and
final
rules
that
established
the
25
percent
reduction
in
methyl
bromide
baseline
allowances
beginning
in
1999
(
64
FR
9290,
64
FR
29240),
EPA
described
its
intention
to
follow
with
separate
rulemakings
that
would
include
the
additional
phaseout
steps
for
methyl
bromide
and
establish
additional
exemptions
in
accordance
with
the
Protocol
and
the
CAA.
The
rule
establishing
the
remaining
reduction
and
phaseout
schedule
for
methyl
bromide
was
published
November
28,
2000
(
65
FR
70795).
The
reduction
and
phaseout
schedule
is
listed
above
at
the
end
of
part
I.
After
the
phaseout
on
January
1,
2005,
critical­
use
exemptions
are
permitted
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
when
nominated
by
the
United
States
and
approved
by
the
Parties.
In
addition,
an
emergency
use
exemption
of
no
more
than
20
metric
tonnes
is
available
after
the
phaseout
on
January
1,
2005.
In
2001,
EPA
initiated
stakeholder
meetings
to
develop
a
process
for
an
emergency
use
exemption
and
for
critical
use
exemptions,
which
is
designed
to
ensure
that
the
U.
S.
meets
its
obligations
under
the
Montreal
Protocol
consistent
with
statutory
requirements
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
On
May
10,
2002
EPA
published
a
Federal
Register
document
(
67
FR
31798)
asking
for
people
to
submit
Critical
Use
Exemption
Applications.
At
this
time
no
final
decision
has
been
published
regarding
what
uses
will
be
exempted
as
``
critical.''
Sometime
in
advance
of
2005,
EPA
will
establish
a
process
for
an
emergency
use
exemption
through
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.

X.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
the
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
of
least
burdensome
alternatives
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
The
rule
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
on
any
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
249
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
State,
local,
or
tribal
government.
The
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
the
only
mandates
imposed
on
those
members
of
the
private
sector
that
choose
to
take
advantage
of
the
exemption
to
the
methyl
bromide
phaseout
established
by
this
rulemaking,
which
EPA
calculated
to
be
under
$
100
million
per
year.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
this
final
rule.
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
that
is
identified
by
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
code
(
NAICS)
in
the
Table
below;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

Type
of
enterprise
NAICS
Code
Size
standard
(
number
of
employees)
Size
standard
(
millions
of
dollars)

Pesticide
and
Other
Agricultural
Chemical
Manufacturing
..........................................................
32532
500
........................
Support
Activities
for
Agriculture
and
Forestry
............................................................................
115
........................
$
6.0
Exterminating
and
Pest
Control
Services
....................................................................................
56171
........................
$
6.0
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
has
concluded
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
We
have
determined
that
although
some
small
percentage
of
distributors
may
be
small
entities
and
many
of
the
applicators
are
too,
that
all
entities
regulated
by
today's
action
receive
a
benefit
through
the
exemption,
which
allows
them
to
continue
to
obtain
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
outside
of
the
reduction
schedule
and
phaseout
controls.
We
estimate
that
these
benefits
are
equal
to
approximately
7
to
10%
of
the
U.
S.
baseline
of
methyl
bromide,
annually,
or
about
1,787
to
2,552
metric
tonnes,
which
at
current
prices
for
methyl
bromide
of
approximately
$
3.00/
pound
would
be
equal
to
an
estimated
annual
benefit
of
$
12
to
$
17
million.
The
costs
of
this
exemption
arise
from
the
limited
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
which
are
estimated
to
be
less
than
$
53
thousand
per
year
for
the
entire
industry
that
uses
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
Although
this
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
nonetheless
has
tried
to
reduce
the
impact
of
this
rule
on
small
entities.
EPA
held
several
stakeholder
meetings
to
explore
options
for
establishing
a
reasonable
record
keeping
and
reporting
system
that
would
allow
the
Agency
to
monitor
and
collect
information
for
the
U.
S.
reporting
obligations
to
the
Montreal
Protocol.
One
option
considered
would
have
asked
for
certifications
from
applicators
to
be
submitted
to
producers
or
importers
prior
to
exempted
production
or
import.
This
and
other
options
were
not
only
administratively
too
burdensome,
but
would
also
be
too
disruptive
of
normal
commerce.
In
today's
action,
for
each
level
in
the
methyl
bromide
market
chain,
the
Agency
chose
the
least
burdensome
method
for
collecting
the
minimum
amount
of
information
that
would
allow
the
U.
S.
to
accurately
fulfill
its
Protocol
reporting
requirements.

C.
Executive
Order
12866
Under
Executive
Order
12866,
(
58
FR
51735
(
October
4,
1993)),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
this
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more,
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
OMB
has
notified
EPA
that
it
considers
this
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
within
the
meaning
of
the
Executive
Order.
EPA
has
submitted
this
action
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
on
the
original
rule
submitted
to
them
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.

D.
Applicability
of
Executive
Order
13045
(
Children's
Health
Protection)

Executive
Order
13045:
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885
(
April
23,
1997))
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
implements
a
specific
exemption
set
forth
by
Congress
in
section
604(
d)(
5)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.

E.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
rule
for
three
years
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
250
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
OMB
control
number
is
2060
 
0170.
In
relation
to
the
expected
benefits
of
today's
exemption
from
the
phaseout
schedule
for
methyl
bromide,
this
action
is
maintaining
the
additional
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
required
in
the
interim
final
rule.
This
action
requires
reporting
by
distributors
of
methyl
bromide
regarding
the
total
quantity
sold
that
is
certified
to
be
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
This
action
also
requires
applicators
of
methyl
bromide
to
certify
that
specified
quantities
purchased
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
Producers
and
importers
of
methyl
bromide
must
include
additional
information
in
existing
quarterly
reports.
As
in
the
interim
final
rule,
producers
that
export
and
third­
party
exporters
must
submit
additional
information
regarding
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
exported
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
Today's
action
also
maintains
the
record
keeping
requirements
of
the
interim
final
rule
associated
with
the
reporting
listed
above
and
for
commodity
owners
or
shippers
who
must
formally
request
methyl
bromide
use
citing
the
official
control
or
official
requirement
for
the
quarantine
and
preshipment
application.
EPA
is
making
the
reporting
forms
associated
with
this
rule
available
electronically,
as
a
first
step.
In
addition,
EPA
is
working
to
make
it
possible
for
people
to
complete
the
forms
electronically
with
special
guidance
on
a
``
file
naming
protocol.''
EPA
wants
to
create
this
``
file
naming
protocol''
so
forms
completed
electronically
by
producers
and
importers
can
be
saved
with
similar
nomenclature
for
transmission
to
EPA
by
email.
For
example,
the
company,
Acme
Ltd.,
might
complete
the
thirdquarter
importer's
report
electronically
and
save
the
document
with
the
name
3Q_
ImpR_
Acme
and
send
it,
by
email,
to
EPA.
The
Agency
believes
guidance
on
a
``
file
naming
protocol''
will
ease
the
process
for
electronically
filing,
searching
and
identifying
forms
for
both
the
Agency
and
companies,
and
be
especially
helpful
if
a
question
arises
about
information
in
a
specific
form.
EPA
will
strive
to
have
forms
available
that
can
be
completed
electronically
by
the
regulatory
deadline
for
submission
of
the
first­
quarter
reports
(
30
days
after
the
end
of
the
quarter
in
2003),
and
will
make
every
effort
to
have
them
available
no
later
than
for
submission
of
secondquarter
reports.
Concurrent
with
the
process
for
making
it
possible
to
electronically
complete
forms
for
submission
by
email,
EPA
is
pursuing
technical
and
logistical
questions
about
creating
a
secure
Web­
based
system
for
direct
electronic
reporting
of
data.
If
EPA
deems
that
it
is
feasible
and
efficient
to
create
a
secure
Web­
based
database
for
direct
electronic
reporting,
then
EPA
will
work
to
bring
such
a
system
online
by
2004.
The
information
collection
under
this
action
is
designed
to
implement
the
exemption
in
paragraph
6
under
article
2H
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
for
quantities
of
methyl
bromide
used
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
as
well
as
the
exemption
under
604(
d)(
5)
of
the
CAA.
The
information
collection
under
this
rule
is
authorized
under
section
603(
b)
and
603(
d)
of
the
CAA.
This
information
collection
is
conducted
to
meet
U.
S.
obligations
under
Article
7,
Reporting
Requirements,
of
the
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
(
Protocol);
and
to
carry
out
the
requirements
of
Title
VI
of
the
CAA,
including
sections
603
and
614.
The
reporting
requirements
included
in
this
rule
are
intended
to:
(
1)
Allow
exempted
production
and
import
for
a
specific
exemption
and
the
consequent
tracking
of
that
production
and
import;
(
2)
respond
to
industry
comments
on
the
functioning
of
the
program
to
streamline
reporting
and
eliminate
administrative
inefficiencies;
(
3)
satisfy
U.
S.
obligations
under
the
international
treaty,
The
Montreal
Protocol
on
Substances
that
Deplete
the
Ozone
Layer
(
Protocol),
to
report
data
under
Article
7;
(
4)
fulfill
statutory
obligations
under
Section
603(
b)
of
Title
VI
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
for
reporting
and
monitoring;
and
(
5)
provide
information
to
report
to
Congress
on
the
production,
use
and
consumption
of
class
I
controlled
substances
as
statutorily
required
in
section
603(
d)
of
Title
VI
of
the
CAA.
EPA
informs
respondents
that
they
may
assert
claims
of
business
confidentiality
for
any
of
the
information
they
submit.
Information
claimed
confidential
will
be
treated
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
for
handling
information
claimed
as
confidential
under
40
CFR
part
2,
Subpart
B,
and
will
be
disclosed
only
to
the
extent,
and
by
means
of
the
procedures,
set
forth
in
that
subpart.
If
no
claim
of
confidentiality
is
asserted
when
EPA
receives
the
information
it
may
be
made
available
to
the
public
without
further
notice
to
the
respondents
(
40
CFR
2.203).
The
information
collection
requirements
for
this
action
have
an
estimated
reporting
burden
averaging
1.38
hours
per
response.
This
estimate
includes
time
for
reviewing
instructions,
searching
existing
data
sources,
gathering
and
maintaining
the
data
needed
and
completing
the
collection
of
information.
The
estimate
includes
the
time
needed
to
comply
with
EPA's
reporting
requirements,
as
well
as
that
used
for
the
completion
of
reports.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

Collection
activity
No.
of
respondents
Responses/
respondent
Total
responses
Hours
per
response
Total
hours
Producers
&
Importers
Report
.............................................
4
4
16
1
16
Exporters
Report
..................................................................
2
4
8
8
64
Applicator
Certification
.........................................................
15
6
90
0.5
45
Distributor
Report
.................................................................
15
4
60
4
240
Commodity
Owner,
Shipper
or
Agent
Record
keeping
.......
500
10
500
1
500
Total
burden
hrs
...........................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
865
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
19:
23
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
251
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
F.
Executive
Order
13132
(
Federalism)

Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
governmental
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
rule
does
not
in
any
way
restrict
States
from
continuing
to
operate
their
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
or
stored
product
protection
programs
associated
with
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13175
(
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments)

Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249
(
November
9,
2000)),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
There
is
no
enforceable
mandate
imposed
on
tribal
governments
within
this
regulation.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

H.
The
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

I.
Executive
Order
13211
(
Energy
Effects)

This
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
Further,
we
have
concluded
that
this
rule
is
not
likely
to
have
any
adverse
energy
effects.

XI.
Congressional
Review
A.
Submission
to
Congress
and
the
Comptroller
General
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
that
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
rule
is
not
a
major
rule
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
January
1,
2003.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
82
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Exports,
Imports,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
December
23,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
82
 
PROTECTION
OF
STRATOSPHERIC
OZONE
1.
The
authority
citation
for
subpart
82
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7414,
7601,
7671
 
7671q.

Subpart
A
 
Production
and
Consumption
Controls
2.
Section
82.3
is
amended
by
adding
new
definitions
in
alphabetical
order
for
the
terms,
``
Applicator,''
``
Commodity
Owner,
Shipper
or
their
Agent,''
``
Distributor
of
methyl
bromide,''
``
Preshipment
applications,''
and
``
Quarantine
applications.''

§
82.3
Definitions.

As
used
in
this
subpart,
the
term:
Applicator
means
the
person
who
applies
methyl
bromide.
*
*
*
*
*
Commodity
Owner,
Shipper
or
their
Agent
means
the
person
requesting
that
an
applicator
use
methyl
bromide
for
quarantine
or
preshipment
applications.
*
*
*
*
*
Distributor
of
methyl
bromide
means
the
person
directly
selling
a
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance
to
an
applicator.
*
*
*
*
*
Preshipment
applications,
with
respect
to
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
are
those
non­
quarantine
applications
applied
within
21
days
prior
to
export
to
meet
the
official
requirements
of
the
importing
country
or
existing
official
requirements
of
the
exporting
country.
Official
requirements
are
those
which
are
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
plant,
animal,
environmental,
health
or
stored
product
authority.
*
*
*
*
*
Quarantine
applications,
with
respect
to
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
are
treatments
to
prevent
the
introduction,
establishment
and/
or
spread
of
quarantine
pests
(
including
diseases),
or
to
ensure
their
official
control,
where:
(
1)
Official
control
is
that
performed
by,
or
authorized
by,
a
national
(
including
state,
tribal
or
local)
plant,
animal
or
environmental
protection
or
health
authority;
(
2)
quarantine
pests
are
pests
of
potential
importance
to
the
areas
endangered
thereby
and
not
yet
present
there,
or
present
but
not
widely
distributed
and
being
officially
controlled.
This
definition
excludes
treatments
of
commodities
not
entering
or
leaving
the
United
States
or
any
State
(
or
political
subdivision
thereof).
*
*
*
*
*
3.
Section
82.4
is
amended
by
redesignating
paragraphs
(
a)
as
(
a)(
1)
and
republishing
the
text,
adding
(
a)(
2),
redesignating
paragraphs
(
c)
as
(
c)(
1)
and
republishing
the
text,
adding
(
c)(
2),

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
252
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
redesignating
(
k)
as
(
k)(
1)
and
republishing
the
text,
and
adding
(
k)(
2)
as
follows:

§
82.4
Prohibitions.

(
a)(
1)
Prior
to
January
1,
1996,
for
all
Groups
of
class
I
controlled
substances,
and
prior
to
January
1,
2005,
for
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
no
person
may
produce,
at
any
time
in
any
control
period,
(
except
that
are
transformed
or
destroyed
domestically
or
by
a
person
of
another
Party)
in
excess
of
the
amount
of
unexpended
production
allowances
or
unexpended
Article
5
allowances
for
that
substance
held
by
that
person
under
the
authority
of
this
subpart
at
that
time
for
that
control
period.
Every
kilogram
of
excess
production
constitutes
a
separate
violation
of
this
subpart.
(
2)
Effective
January
1,
2003,
production
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
is
not
subject
to
the
prohibitions
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section
if
it
is
solely
for
quarantine
or
preshipment
applications
as
defined
in
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(
c)(
1)
Prior
to
January
1,
1996,
for
all
Groups
of
class
I
controlled
substances,
and
prior
to
January
1,
2005,
for
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
no
person
may
produce
or
(
except
for
transhipments,
heels
or
used
controlled
substances)
import,
at
any
time
in
any
control
period,
(
except
for
controlled
substances
that
are
transformed
or
destroyed)
in
excess
of
the
amount
of
unexpended
consumption
allowances
held
by
that
person
under
the
authority
of
this
subpart
at
that
time
for
that
control
period.
Every
kilogram
of
excess
production
or
importation
(
other
than
transhipments,
heels
or
used
controlled
substances)
constitutes
a
separate
violation
of
this
subpart.
(
2)
Effective
January
1,
2003,
production
and
import
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
is
not
subject
to
the
prohibitions
in
paragraph(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
if
it
is
solely
for
quarantine
or
preshipment
applications
as
defined
in
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(
k)(
1)
Prior
to
January
1,
1996,
for
all
Groups
of
class
I
controlled
substances,
and
prior
to
January
1,
2005,
for
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
a
person
may
not
use
production
allowances
to
produce
a
quantity
of
a
class
I
controlled
substance
unless
that
person
holds
under
the
authority
of
this
subpart
at
the
same
time
consumption
allowances
sufficient
to
cover
that
quantity
of
class
I
controlled
substances
nor
may
a
person
use
consumption
allowances
to
produce
a
quantity
of
class
I
controlled
substances
unless
the
person
holds
under
authority
of
this
subpart
at
the
same
time
production
allowances
sufficient
to
cover
that
quantity
of
class
I
controlled
substances.
However,
prior
to
January
1,
1996,
for
all
class
I
controlled
substances,
and
prior
to
January
1,
2005,
for
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
only
consumption
allowances
are
required
to
import,
with
the
exception
of
transhipments,
heels,
and
used
controlled
substances.
Effective
January
1,
1996,
for
all
Groups
of
class
I
controlled
substances,
except
Group
VI,
only
essential­
use
allowances
or
exemptions
are
required
to
import
class
I
controlled
substances,
with
the
exception
of
transhipments,
heels
and
used
controlled
substances.
(
2)
Notwithstanding
paragraph
(
k)(
1)
of
this
section,
effective
January
1,
2003,
for
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
consumption
allowances
are
not
required
to
import
quantities
solely
for
quarantine
or
preshipment
applications
as
defined
in
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
4.
Section
82.13
is
amended
by:
a.
Adding
paragraphs
(
f)(
2)(
xvii)
through
(
f)(
2)(
xix),
and
(
f)(
3)(
xiii)
through
(
f)(
3)(
xv),
b.
Adding
paragraphs
(
g)(
1)(
xvii)
through
(
g)(
1)(
xix),
and
(
g)(
4)(
xv)
through
(
g)(
4)(
xvii),
c.
Revising
paragraph
(
h),
d.
Adding
paragraphs
(
aa),
(
bb),
and
(
cc).
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:

§
82.13
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
(
f)
*
*
*
(
2)
*
*
*
(
xvii)
For
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
dated
records
of
the
quantity
of
controlled
substances
produced
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
and
quantity
sold
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications;
(
xviii)
Written
certifications
that
quantities
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
produced
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
were
purchased
by
distributors
or
applicators
to
be
used
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
in
this
subpart;
and
(
xix)
Written
verifications
from
a
U.
S.
purchaser
that
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
produced
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications,
if
exported,
will
be
exported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
upon
receipt
of
a
certification
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
of
this
subpart
and
requirements
in
paragraph
(
h)
of
this
section.
(
3)
*
*
*
(
xiii)
The
amount
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
sold
or
transferred
during
the
quarter
to
a
person
other
than
the
producer
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications;
(
xiv)
A
list
of
the
quantities
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
produced
by
the
producer
and
exported
by
the
producer
and/
or
by
other
U.
S.
companies,
to
a
Party
to
the
Protocol
that
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
and
therefore
were
not
produced
expending
production
or
consumption
allowances;
and
(
xv)
For
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
in
the
United
States
or
by
a
person
of
another
Party,
one
copy
of
a
certification
that
the
material
will
be
used
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
in
this
subpart
from
each
recipient
of
the
material
and
a
list
of
additional
quantities
shipped
to
that
same
person
for
the
quarter.
*
*
*
*
*
(
g)
*
*
*
(
1)
*
*
*
(
xvii)
For
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances,
dated
records
of
the
quantity
of
controlled
substances
imported
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
and
quantity
sold
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications;
(
xviii)
Written
certifications
that
quantities
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
imported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
were
purchased
by
distributors
or
applicators
to
be
used
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
in
this
subpart;
and
(
xix)
Written
verifications
from
a
U.
S.
purchaser
that
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
imported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications,
if
exported,
will
be
exported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
upon
receipt
of
a
certification
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
of
this
Subpart
and
requirements
in
paragraph
(
h)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(
4)
*
*
*
(
xv)
The
amount
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance
sold
or
transferred
during
the
quarter
to
a
person
other
than
the
importer
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications;

VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
253
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
xvi)
A
list
of
the
quantities
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
exported
by
the
importer
and
or
by
other
U.
S.
companies,
to
a
Party
to
the
Protocol
that
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
and
therefore
were
not
imported
expending
consumption
allowances;
and
(
xvii)
For
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
in
the
United
States
or
by
a
person
of
another
Party,
one
copy
of
a
certification
that
the
material
will
be
used
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
in
this
subpart
from
each
recipient
of
the
material
and
a
list
of
additional
quantities
shipped
to
that
same
person
for
the
quarter.
(
h)
Reporting
Requirements
 
Exporters.
(
1)
For
any
exports
of
class
I
controlled
substances
(
except
Group
VI)
not
reported
under
§
82.10
of
this
subpart
(
additional
consumption
allowances),
or
under
paragraph
(
f)(
3)
of
this
section
(
reporting
for
producers
of
controlled
substances),
the
exporter
who
exported
a
class
I
controlled
substance
(
except
Group
VI)
must
submit
to
the
Administrator
the
following
information
within
45
days
after
the
end
of
the
control
period
in
which
the
unreported
exports
left
the
United
States:
(
i)
The
names
and
addresses
of
the
exporter
and
the
recipient
of
the
exports;
(
ii)
The
exporter's
Employee
Identification
Number;
(
iii)
The
type
and
quantity
of
each
controlled
substance
exported
and
what
percentage,
if
any,
of
the
controlled
substance
is
used,
recycled
or
reclaimed;
(
iv)
The
date
on
which,
and
the
port
from
which,
the
controlled
substances
were
exported
from
the
United
States
or
its
territories;
(
v)
The
country
to
which
the
controlled
substances
were
exported;
(
vi)
The
amount
exported
to
each
Article
5
country;
(
vii)
The
commodity
code
of
the
controlled
substance
shipped;
and
(
viii)
The
invoice
or
sales
agreement
containing
language
similar
to
the
Internal
Revenue
Service
Certificate
that
the
purchaser
or
recipient
of
imported
controlled
substances
intends
to
transform
those
substances,
or
destruction
verifications
(
as
in
paragraph(
k)
of
this
section)
showing
that
the
purchaser
or
recipient
intends
to
destroy
the
controlled
substances.
(
2)
For
any
exports
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
not
reported
under
§
82.10
of
this
subpart
(
additional
consumption
allowances),
or
under
paragraph
(
f)(
3)
of
this
section
(
reporting
for
producers
of
controlled
substances),
the
exporter
who
exported
a
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance
must
submit
to
the
Administrator
the
following
information
within
45
days
after
the
end
of
each
quarter
in
which
the
unreported
exports
left
the
United
States:
(
i)
The
names
and
addresses
of
the
exporter
and
the
recipient
of
the
exports;
(
ii)
The
exporter's
Employee
Identification
Number;
(
iii)
The
type
and
quantity
of
each
controlled
substance
exported
and
what
percentage,
if
any,
of
the
controlled
substance
is
used,
recycled
or
reclaimed;
(
iv)
The
date
on
which,
and
the
port
from
which,
the
controlled
substances
were
exported
from
the
United
States
or
its
territories;
(
v)
The
country
to
which
the
controlled
substances
were
exported;
(
vi)
The
amount
exported
to
each
Article
5
country;
(
vii)
The
commodity
code
of
the
controlled
substance
shipped;
and
(
viii)
The
invoice
or
sales
agreement
containing
language
similar
to
the
Internal
Revenue
Service
Certificate
that
the
purchaser
or
recipient
of
imported
controlled
substances
intends
to
transform
those
substances,
the
destruction
verifications
(
as
in
paragraph
(
k)
of
this
section)
showing
that
the
purchaser
or
recipient
intends
to
destroy
the
controlled
substances,
or
the
certification
that
the
purchaser
or
recipient
and
the
eventual
applicator
will
only
use
the
material
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
in
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(
aa)
Every
distributor
of
methyl
bromide
(
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances)
who
purchases
or
receives
a
quantity
produced
or
imported
solely
for
quarantine
or
preshipment
applications
under
the
exemptions
in
this
subpart
must
comply
with
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
specified
in
this
paragraph
(
aa)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Every
distributor
of
methyl
bromide
must
certify
to
the
producer
or
importer
that
quantities
received
that
were
produced
or
imported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
under
the
exemptions
in
this
subpart
will
be
used
only
for
quarantine
applications
or
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
the
definitions
in
this
subpart.
(
2)
Every
distributor
of
a
quantity
of
methyl
bromide
that
was
produced
or
imported
solely
for
quarantine
or
preshipment
applications
under
the
exemptions
in
this
subpart
must
receive
from
an
applicator
a
certification
of
the
quantity
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
ordered,
prior
to
delivery
of
the
quantity,
stating
that
the
quantity
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
or
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
definitions
in
this
subpart.
(
3)
Every
distributor
of
methyl
bromide
who
receives
a
certification
from
an
applicator
that
the
quantity
ordered
and
delivered
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
definitions
in
this
subpart
must
maintain
the
certifications
as
records
for
3
years.
(
4)
Every
distributor
of
methyl
bromide
who
receives
a
certification
from
an
applicator
that
the
quantity
ordered
and
delivered
will
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
definitions
in
this
subpart
must
report
to
the
Administrator
within
45
days
after
the
end
of
each
quarter,
the
total
quantity
delivered
for
which
certifications
were
received
that
stated
the
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance
would
be
used
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
accordance
with
definitions
in
this
Subpart.
(
bb)
Every
applicator
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
who
purchases
or
receives
a
quantity
produced
or
imported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
under
the
exemptions
in
this
subpart
must
comply
with
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
specified
in
this
paragraph
(
bb)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Recordkeeping
 
Applicators.
Every
applicator
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
produced
or
imported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
under
the
exemptions
of
this
subpart
must
maintain,
for
every
application,
a
document
from
the
commodity
owner,
shipper
or
their
agent
requesting
the
use
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
citing
the
regulatory
requirement
that
justifies
its
use
in
accordance
with
definitions
in
this
subpart.
These
documents
shall
be
retained
for
3
years.
(
2)
Reporting
 
Applicators.
Every
applicator
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substances
who
purchases
or
receives
a
quantity
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance
that
was
produced
or
imported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
under
the
exemptions
in
this
subpart
shall
provide
the
distributor
of
the
methyl
bromide,
prior
to
shipment
of
the
class
I,
Group
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5
254
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
1
/
Thursday,
January
2,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
VI
controlled
substance,
with
a
certification
that
the
quantity
of
controlled
substances
will
be
used
only
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
as
defined
in
this
subpart.
(
cc)
Every
commodity
owner,
shipper
or
their
agent
requesting
an
applicator
to
use
a
quantity
of
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance
that
was
produced
or
imported
solely
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
under
the
exemptions
of
this
subpart
must
maintain
a
record
for
3
years,
for
each
request,
certifying
knowledge
of
the
requirements
associated
with
the
exemption
for
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
in
this
subpart
and
citing
the
regulatory
requirement
that
justifies
the
use
of
the
class
I,
Group
VI
controlled
substance
in
accordance
with
definitions
in
this
subpart.
The
record
must
include
the
following
statement:
``
I
certify
knowledge
of
the
requirements
associated
with
the
exempted
quarantine
and
preshipment
applications
published
in
40
CFR
part
82,
including
the
requirement
that
this
letter
cite
the
treatments
or
official
controls
for
quarantine
applications
or
the
official
requirements
for
preshipment
requirements.''

[
FR
Doc.
02
 
32986
Filed
12
 
31
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
18:
48
Dec
31,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
02JAR5.
SGM
02JAR5