Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0230-0118
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-08-18T04:00Z

­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Tom
Land/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
08/
18/
2004
08:
26
AM
­
­­­­
"
Smith,
Burleson"
<
Burleson.
Smith@
usda.
gov>
08/
03/
2004
04:
17
PM
To:
"'
Lee,
Amanda
I.'"
<
Amanda_
I._
Lee@
omb.
eop.
gov>,
"'
Fraas,
Ar
thur
G.'"
<
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov>
cc:
Adam
Sharp/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Robert
Meyers/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Drusilla
Hufford/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Tom
Land/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Brian
Doster/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
"
DAHL,
MEREDITH
­
OGC"
<
MEREDITH.
DAHL@
usda.
gov>,
"'
DVanHoog@
CEQ.
EOP.
gov'"
<
DVanHoog@
CEQ.
EOP.
gov>
Subject:
RE:
Edits
to
methyl
bromide
Amanda
and
Art,

Here
are
the
comments
that
USDA
has
on
the
proposed
methyl
bromide
allocation
rule.
The
first
file
contains
edits/
issues
raised
by
our
Office
of
General
Counsel.
The
second
document
is
a
compilation
of
edits
that
reflect
our
changes
to
content,
in
many
cases,
reflecting
the
changes
that
OGC
mentioned.

As
this
is
a
proposed
rule,
some
who
reviewed
it
here
have
stated
that
they
are
confused
as
to
what
course
of
action
the
document
is
proposing
to
take.
This
is
especially
true
after
reading
the
Preamble
before
reading
the
rule
language
itself.
Even
after
reading
the
entire
document,
a
reader
may
wonder
what
is
finally
proposed.
Some
changes
have
been
suggested
for
such
clarity.

We
are
concerned
that
EPA
asks
explicitly
for
comments
48
times
in
the
document.
The
number
of
instances
where
"
EPA
is
seeking
comment"
is
likely
to
elicit
many
conflicting
substantive
suggestions
which
will
take
time
to
summarize
in
the
EPA
response.
As
the
entire
document
is
intended
to
solicit
comments,
we
suggest
limiting
the
requests
to
three
main
areas
for
input:
1.
Lump
sum
or
sector
specific
allocations
2.
Supply
amounts
from
existing
stocks
versus
new
production/
consumption
3.
User
access
to
existing
stocks
­­
inside
versus
outside
of
CUEs
I
have
discussed
several
of
these
changes
with
Bob
Meyers
and
Brian
Doster
at
EPA.

Sorry
for
the
delay.
Let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
After
OMB
and
EPA
consider
the
points
listed
here,
we
clear
the
document
for
the
next
steps.

Burleson
720­
2889
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Lee,
Amanda
I.
[
mailto:
Amanda_
I._
Lee@
omb.
eop.
gov]
Sent:
Friday,
July
30,
2004
6:
05
PM
To:
Smith,
Burleson
Cc:
Fraas,
Arthur
G.
Subject:
Edits
to
methyl
bromide
Hi
Burleson­­
would
you
take
a
look
at
the
language
below
and
give
your
reactions
to
Art
(
hopefully
by
Monday)?
Thanks,

Amanda
(
found
2
paragraphs
before
"
B.
What
is
the
proposed
regulatory
framework...,"
approximate
p.
22)

In
developing
today's
action,
the
Agency's
also
considering
another
option
for
making
the
determination
regarding
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
available
from
existing
stocks
and
seeks
comments
on
this
option
and
the
proposal.
For
the
2005
calendar
year,
the
Agency
could
make
a
determination
that
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
available
from
existing
stocks
is
simply
based
on
the
difference
between
the
limit
on
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses
and
the
limit
on
new
production
and
import
in
the
Decision
Ex.
I/
3.
This
approach
would
adopt
the
use
and
production/
import
levels
for
methyl
bromide
specifically
identified
by
Decision
Ex
I/
3
­
that
is,
an
upper
limit
on
critical
use
of
8,942
metric
tons
and
an
upper
limit
on
the
amount
of
new
production
and
import
of
7,659
metric
tons
in
2005.
This
approach
would
reflect
the
fact
that
the
Decision
affords
Parties
flexibility
in
reading
a
decision
on
the
level
of
production
and
import
needed
to
meet
use
needs.
Had
the
Parties
wished
for
a
more
specific
course
of
action
with
respect
to
a
determination
on
available
stocks,
they
could
have
adopted
specific
language
to
do
so.

(
found
in
definitions
in
the
reg
text
section)

Critical
use
means
a
circumstance
in
which
the
following
two
conditions
are
satisfied:
(
1)
there
are
no
technically
and
economically
feasible
alternatives
or
substitutes
for
methyl
bromide
available
to
end
users
that
are
acceptable
from
the
standpoint
of
environment
and
health
and
are
suitable
to
the
crops
and
circumstances
involved,
and
(
2)
the
lack
of
availability
of
methyl
bromide
for
a
particular
use
would
result
in
a
significant
market
disruption
in
the
United
States.

Limiting
critical
condition
means
the
regulatory,
technical,
and
economic
circumstances
listed
in
Appendix
L
to
this
subpart
that
establish
conditions
of
critical
use
for
methyl
bromide
in
a
fumigation
area.
Such
conditions
may
include,
but
are
not
limited,
to
(
1)
the
absence
of
technically
or
economically
effective
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
for
a
specific
use;
(
2)
regulatory
restrictions
that
prohibit
the
use
of
available
alternatives
in
a
specific
fumigation
area;
(
3)
or
terrain,
soil,
or
climatological
conditions
that
render
use
of
available
alternatives
technically
or
economically
infeasible
in
a
specific
fumigation
area.