I
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2609
To make a regulatory correction concerning methyl bromide to meet the
obligations of the Montreal Protocol without placing the farmers of
the United States at a competitive disadvantage versus foreign growers.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 6, 1997
Mr. MILLER of Florida (for himself, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. POMBO, Mr. THOMAS,
Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. BISHOP, and Mrs. THURMAN) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be sub-
sequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To make a regulatory correction concerning methyl bromide
to meet the obligations of the Montreal Protocol without
placing the farmers of the United States at a competitive
disadvantage versus foreign growers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Methyl bromide is a broad spectrum pes-
ticide which protects plants and agricultural prod-
ucts from a wide range of insects, rodents, viruses,
fungi, weeds, and nematodes.
(2) American farmers depend on methyl bro-
mide to grow, store, ship, process, and trade over
100 different crops.
(3) The agricultural community has no safe, ef-
fective, commercially available alternatives to methyl
bromide. Some nonchemical pest control alternatives
have proven effective in small scale tests but are
largely untested, much less proven, for commercial
food production purposes. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances reports that few substitutes
exist, all of which pose potential human health and
environmental risks.
(4) In 1992, the Montreal Protocol on Sub-
stances Depleting the Ozone Layer was amended to
include methyl bromide.
(5) According to the 1992 Science Assessment
Report to the Montreal Protocol, agricultural use of
methyl bromide accounts for less than 3 percent of
the threat to the ozone layer, and a similar report
issued in 1994 notes that the Earth’s ozone layer
will return to normal by the middle of the next cen-
tury even if methyl bromide remains available to
farmers.
(6) In 1993, despite the importance of methyl
bromide, the lack of alternatives, and many scientific
uncertainties, the Environmental Protection Agency,
citing the Montreal Protocol, listed methyl bromide
as an ozone depleting chemical under the provisions
of the Clean Air Act and ordered United States pro-
duction frozen at 1991 levels and an end to produc-
tion by January 1, 2001.
(7) Given current alternatives, analysis at the
University of Florida predicts a 43 percent decline
in affected vegetable acreage in Florida. A 1993
United States Department of Agriculture study finds
that the ban will cost as much as $1,500,000,000 in
Florida, Georgia, California, North Carolina, and
South Carolina, the 5 States where methyl bromide
is most utilized.
SEC. 2. CONTROL OF METHYL BROMIDE.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ‘‘use as a pesticide’’ includes
farming and post-harvest uses.
(2) The term ‘‘pesticide’’ has the same meaning
as when used in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act.
(3) The term ‘‘control’’ means, with respect to
any substance, any ban, phase-out, or other restric-
tion on the production, importation, export, con-
sumption, or use of the substance.
(4) The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(b) RESTRICTIONS ON EPA AUTHORITY.—Except as
provided in subsection (c) or (d), the Administrator may
not—
(1) control the production, importation, or ex-
port of the substance methyl bromide pursuant to
title VI of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. section
7671–7671q) for consumption or use as a pesticide;
(2) control the consumption or use of methyl
bromide as a pesticide; or
(3) require the labelling of any agricultural
product treated with methyl bromide.
(c) EXISTENCE
OF
SUBSTITUTES
OR
ALTER-
NATIVES.—The Administrator may take any action de-
scribed in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b), or
any combination of such actions, if the Secretary of Agri-
culture has certified by rule that there exist viable, cost-
effective substitutes or other alternatives to the consump-
tion or use of methyl bromide as a pesticide for specified
agricultural commodities and products. If the Secretary
has made a certification under this paragraph, a control
permitted pursuant to such certification shall apply only
with respect to those specified applications and to those
specified commodities and products for which the certifi-
cation is made.
(d) MONTREAL PROTOCOL.—The Administrator may
take any action described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3)
of subsection (b), or any combination of such actions, if
the United States is required by the Montreal Protocol
to implement a control on the production, importation, or
export of methyl bromide for consumption or use as a pes-
ticide or a control on the consumption or use of methyl
bromide as a pesticide. The applicability, contents and
timing of any such control—
(1) shall be no more stringent or restrictive
than specifically required by the Montreal Protocol,
(2) shall be equally required of all parties to the
Montreal Protocol; and
(3) shall include all exemptions, exceptions, and
other flexibility (including exemptions for produc-
tion, importation, export, and consumption, for both
preshipment and quarantine uses) allowed by the
Montreal Protocol.
(e) INCONSISTENT EPA ACTIONS.—All rules, stand-
ards and other regulatory actions promulgated, published,
or otherwise issued by the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency before the date of enactment
of this Act are repealed to the extent they impose a control
which is not specifically required by the Montreal Protocol.
(f) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to affect the provisions of 40 C.F.R. §§ 82.9,
82.10, 82.11, and 82.12 (relating to Article 5 parties and
transfers), or any other regulatory provisions granting ex-
emptions, exceptions, or other flexibility not prohibited by
the Montreal Protocol.
Æ