Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting Quarantine and Preshipment Applications of Methyl Bromide

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: July 19, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 139)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37751-37769]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jy01-18]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-7014-5]
RIN 2060-A142

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting
Quarantine and Preshipment Applications of Methyl Bromide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: With this rulemaking, EPA is taking interim 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
recent changes in Title VI of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is creating a
temporary exemption, through December 31, 2002, from the consumption
and production phaseout for quantities of Class I, Group VI controlled
substances (methyl bromide) that are used for quarantine and
preshipment. Following public comment, EPA intends to issue a final
action to extend this exemption beyond December 31, 2002. EPA is also
actively pursuing a separate notice and comment rulemaking, with
stakeholder involvement, to establish methyl bromide exemptions for
critical uses and emergency uses beyond the phaseout of production and
import on January 1, 2005.

DATES: This rule is effective July 19, 2001 and the additions to 40 CFR
Part 82 will remain in effect through December 31, 2002. The provisions
and requirements established in today's rule apply to the entire 2001
and 2002 calendar years (control periods). EPA will consider all
written comments received by October 12, 2001 to determine whether any
changes are necessary prior to issuing a final action to extend this
exemption beyond December 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Should you have comments that are directly related to this
rulemaking please submit them in duplicate (two copies) to: Air Docket
No. A-2000-24, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460. In addition, should
you have comments that are separately related to a different issue than
those raised by this rulemaking you may send them directly to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Global Programs Division (6205J), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No.
A-2000-24. The Docket is located in room M-1500, First Floor, Waterside
Mall at 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The materials may be
inspected from 8:30 am until 5:30 pm Monday through Friday. A
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Land, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Global Programs Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, 202-564-9185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is taking this action as an interim
final rule without prior proposal and public comment because EPA finds
that the good cause exemption from the notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq., applies here. Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states
that in the case of any rule to which section 307(d) applies, notice of
proposed rulemaking must be published in the Federal Register
(CAA307(d)(3)). The promulgation or revision of regulations under title
VI of the CAA is generally subject to section 307(d). However, section
307(d) does not apply to any rule referred to in subparagraphs (A) or
(B) of section 553(b) of the APA. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA, 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds
that notice and comment public procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.
EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's rule
an interim final rule without prior proposal and opportunity for
comment because we view these revisions as protecting commodity trade
from the adverse impacts of quarantine pest infestations, as well as
protecting the supply of imported fruits and vegetables available to
the general public. Without the creation of the exemption by this rule,
quantities of methyl bromide used for quarantine and preshipment would
be counted against the production and consumption allowances already
limited by prior rulemaking (65 FR 70795), which for 2001 constitute
50% of the baseline. Having to compete for non-exempt methyl bromide,
without today's exemption, fumigators at U.S. ports might not be able
to meet U.S. requirements to treat imported commodities (under the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) requirements). This could jeopardize the supplies of
these commodities for U.S. consumers because in the absence of required
treatments ships would be turned away. Alternatively, the absence of
today's exemption could increase the risk of an outbreak of a
quarantine pest within the United States because shipments are
typically unloaded onto the docks in preparation for fumigation with
methyl bromide. Unloading containers at the docks could occur prior to
a realization that methyl bromide is unavailable at the port and
thereby jeopardize U.S. commodities with a quarantine pest infestation.
If an infestation of a quarantine pest occurs, the amount of methyl
bromide used could greatly increase. For example, when the port of
Houston was infested with the Mediterranean snail, a fumigator who
typically uses 40,000-50,000 pounds a year, used 21,000 pounds in 7\1/
2\ weeks to treat this outbreak of a quarantine pest. In addition,
exporters might not be able to ship U.S. commodities overseas because
they would not be able to meet foreign import requirements without
today's exemption. Thus, notice and public procedure are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest. EPA finds that this constitutes
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Nonetheless, EPA is providing 90
days for submission of public comments following today's action. EPA
will consider all written comments submitted in the allotted time
period to determine if any change is warranted prior to taking final
action that would extend this exemption beyond December 31, 2002. The
phaseout program operates in control periods that correspond to
calendar years. EPA believes that the exemption should correspond to
whole control periods, i.e., entire calendar years. EPA does not
believe it will be possible to take final action before the end of the
2001 control period. Because the Agency is providing a 90-day comment
period and wants to ensure there is sufficient time to carefully review
comments and consider other approaches, and to simplify the
administrative implementation for affected entities, today's exemption
is effective through December 31, 2002.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not
take effect

[[Page 37753]]

earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
However, APA section 553(d) excepts from this provision any action that
grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. Since
today's action grants an exemption from the phaseout of production and
import of methyl bromide, EPA is making this action effective
immediately to ensure the availability of methyl bromide for quarantine
and preshipment through December 31, 2002.
EPA emphasizes that this rule is intended only to address the basic
implementation of the methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment
exemptions according to the definitions agreed upon by the Montreal
Protocol Parties. Any deviations from the Protocol Parties' definitions
are constrained by the Protocol and the Clean Air Act, and therefore
are not addressed in today's rulemaking.

Table of Contents

I. What is the Background of the Phaseout Regulations for Ozone-
Depleting Substances?
II. What is Methyl Bromide?
III. What are Examples of Quarantine and Preshipment Uses of Methyl
Bromide?
IV. What is the Legal Authority for Exempting the Production and
Import of Methyl Bromide for Use in Quarantine and Preshipment
Applications?
V. What is the Definition of Quarantine and Preshipment
Applications?
A. Are there clarifications of the definitions 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 do the definitions of quarantine and preshipment
applications apply to food sanitation?
E. How do these definitions apply to ``propagative material'?
F. How do these definitions apply to in-transit applications?
VI. What is the Process for Exempting Methyl Bromide for Use in
Quarantine and Preshipment Applications?
A. Are Producer and Importer Quarterly Reports and Recordkeeping
Changing?
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?
VII. What are Other Considerations on which EPA is Seeking Comment?
A. What are considerations on which the Agency is seeking
comment regarding definitions under the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC)?
B. What are considerations on which the Agency is seeking
comment regarding prophylactic fumigation of U.S. exports when the
fumigation is not mandated by import regulations?
C. What are considerations on which the Agency is seeking
comment regarding the exclusion of specific quarantine and
preshipment applications from the exemption at some future time?
D. What are considerations on which the Agency is seeking
comment regarding national security fumigations?
VIII. What are the Steps to Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide Phaseout
Schedule and Exemptions to the Montreal Protocol and Amended Clean
Air Act?
IX. Administrative Requirements
X. 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
treatments, official controls or
requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 CONTACT 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Several revisions to the original 1988 rule were issued on
the following dates: 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's action amends the existing EPA regulations published under
Title VI of the CAA that govern the production and consumption of
ozone-depleting 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
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 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

[[Page 37754]]

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 narrow 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 ozone-
depleting 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 Methyl Bromide?

Methyl bromide is used in the United States and throughout the
world as a fumigant to control a variety of pests in many different
situations. Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless, toxic gas. Methyl
bromide is a broad spectrum pesticide, which is used 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: www.epa.gov/ozone/ and www.teap.org
or by contacting the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-
296-1996.

III. What Are Examples of Quarantine and Preshipment Uses of Methyl
Bromide?

An example of a quarantine use of methyl bromide is the fumigation
of commodities such as rice and spices that are subject to infestation
by a specific and officially recognized quarantine pest, such as the
khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium Everts). 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 because of official phytosanitary requirements at the shipment
destination. 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.

IV. What Is the Legal Authority for Exempting Production and
Consumption of Methyl Bromide for 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 of the Protocol was recently amended regarding
methyl bromide and now 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.
The recent amendments to Title VI of the Clean Air Act regarding
methyl bromide include a new provision on ``Sanitation and Food
Protection,'' which is related to the Protocol exemption for quarantine
and preshipment. This new Section 604(d)(5) of Title VI of the CAA, on
Sanitation and Food Protection, was added by Section 764(b) of the 1999
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Public Law 105-277). This new Section 604(d)(5) says, ``To the extent
consistent with the Montreal Protocol's quarantine and 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. Therefore, by today's interim 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 conflict between any provision of
this title and any provision of the Montreal Protocol, the more
stringent provision shall govern.''
At a July 1999 meeting with the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel, EPA
received a legal memorandum from their counsel regarding the definition
of quarantine and preshipment and the recent amendment adding Section

[[Page 37755]]

604(d)(5) to the Clean Air Act. The argument made in the Methyl Bromide
Industry Panel's legal memorandum is that the introductory phrase (``to
the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol's quarantine and pre-
shipment provisions'') in Section 604(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act does
not require EPA to make its regulations consistent with the
``preshipment'' and ``quarantine'' definitions in Decision VII/5 and
Decision XI/12 of the Parties to the Protocol. The issue raised by the
Methyl Bromide Industry Panel's legal memorandum is whether the
reference to the ``Montreal Protocol's quarantine and preshipment
provisions,'' in Section 604(d)(5) refers only to the single provision
found in Article 2H, paragraph 6 of the Protocol (which provides that
the ``calculated levels of consumption and production under this
Article shall not include the amounts used by the Party for quarantine
and preshipment applications'') or also refers to Decision VI/11,
Decision VII/5, Decision XI/12, and Decision XI/13 of the Parties. The
Methyl Bromide Industry Panel's legal memorandum also notes that
Section 602 of the CAA defines the Montreal Protocol as, The Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its amendments
and adjustments without specific reference to Decisions by the Parties
to the Protocol.
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. Article
31 of the VCLT sets forth the general rule of treaty interpretation.
Paragraph 1 of Article 31 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 Decisions
VI/11, VII/5, XI/12, and XI/13.
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. For example, the United
States' current regulatory definition of a ``controlled substance'' is
based on a Decision by the Parties (Decision IV/12) that clarifies
Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Protocol.
In another example, the current process in the United States for
implementing the Protocol's essential-use exemption relies on Decisions
by the Parties for the specific definition of what is an ``essential
use.'' In the process of preparing the United States' annual
nomination, the U.S. relies on Decision IV/25 to evaluate applications
that are submitted by U.S. entities who are requesting an essential-use
exemption. In addition, the U.S. government considers whether the
information that will be provided in the national nomination is in
accordance with Decision VIII/10, as well as whether it is in
accordance with the conditions to be applied in providing an exemption
under Decision VI/9, Decision VII/28, and Decision VIII/9.
Consideration of these Decisions by the U.S. government is important
because the U.S. nomination is reviewed by the Protocol's TEAP, who
then makes recommendations to the Parties based on the Decisions. The
essential-use exemptions nominated by the U.S. government are
ultimately considered and authorized by the Parties in the context of
these Decisions. The control measures in Article 2 of the Protocol
allow for essential-use exemptions (for the production and consumption
of controlled substances beyond phaseout dates). However, the Parties'
interpretation of the phrase ``essential use'' and their agreements
regarding the application of this exemption appear in Decisions.
Finally, EPA is in the process of developing regulations that would
implement Decision IX/7 of the Parties by allowing an exemption for
``emergency methyl bromide use.'' Decision IX/7 reflects an agreement
among the Parties to the Protocol regarding the interpretation and
application of the critical-use exemption provided for in Article 2H(5)
of the Protocol. Decision IX/7 directs the Ozone Secretariat and the
TEAP to ``evaluate the [emergency]
use according to the ``critical
methyl bromide use'' criteria and present this information to the next
meeting of the Parties for review * * *''
The examples above illustrate how U.S. regulations incorporate
Decisions by the Parties to the Protocol. Other precedents for
incorporating Decisions by the Protocol Parties into current U.S.
regulations can be found in 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart A.

V. What Is the Definition of Quarantine and Preshipment
Applications?

In today's action, EPA is defining quarantine 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 but 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 Decisions
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 existing official requirements of the exporting

[[Page 37756]]

country. Official requirements are those which are performed by, or
authorized by, a national plant, animal, environmental, health or
stored product authority.''
With today's action, EPA is defining quarantine applications and
preshipment applications, for implementing the exemption to the methyl
bromide production and consumption phaseout schedule mandated by the
new section 604(d)(5) of the CAA and in a manner consistent with
section 614(b) of the CAA, 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 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.
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, which mirror exactly those
specified by the Protocol, a quarantine application of methyl bromide
must be ``performed by, or authorized by, a national 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 performed 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 Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) provided the
Parties to the Protocol with analyses and clarifications of the
definition of ``quarantine applications,'' recommending that Decision
VII/5 be interpreted to include officially required treatments for
intra-country trade within the territory of the Party. Therefore, for
purposes of today's regulation, ``quarantine applications'' include
inter-state and inter-county treatments required to control quarantine
pests. This is consistent with the Montreal Protocol and reconciles the
language 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 interprets the definition of quarantine
applications such that intra-country quarantine treatments required by
state, county, tribal, and local plant, animal, environmental, or
health government authorities constitute official control.
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.''
Therefore, for purposes of today's regulation, the exemption for
preshipment applications is 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?

In 1998, the TEAP provided interim explanatory notes to assist the
Parties in the consistent implementation of the exemption for
preshipment applications, highlighting that preshipment applications
are ``* * * not intended to cover informal or purely contractual or
commercial arrangements not required under official regulations.''
(April 1998 TEAP Report, page 145). The definition of ``preshipment
applications'' focuses on 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 performed by, or authorized by, a national plant, animal,
environmental, health, or stored product authority.''
The definition of preshipment applications in Decision XI/12
contains the phrase ``existing official requirements of the exporting
country,'' (emphasis added), which implies the need to establish a
cutoff date when a preshipment requirement is existing. With today's
action, however, for the interim period through December 31, 2002, EPA
will interpret the word ``existing'' to mean simply that the
preshipment requirement must be in existence at the time of the
specific treatment. It is important to note that the exporting country
referred to in the phrase is the United States.
EPA is seeking comments on ways to interpret the term ``existing''
in the preshipment applications definition for development of the final
version of this regulation. Options for interpreting the term
``existing official requirements'' might be to exempt official
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 this
interim final rule is published in the Federal Register, (3) in place
at the time the final rule on the quarantine and preshipment exemption
is published in the Federal Register, (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 seeks
comments on these possible interpretations of the phrase ``existing
official requirements of the exporting country.''
For the interim period through December 31, 2002, EPA will also
interpret the phrase ``to meet the * * * official requirements of the
exporting country'' as exempting methyl bromide used to fumigate a
commodity when it is to meet a United States food sanitation
requirement and the fumigation occurs within 21 days prior to export
from the United States. For example, today's action considers methyl
bromide used to meet food sanitation requirements of the U.S.
government (such as requirements for food in interstate commerce under
the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, as monitored by the Food and
Drug Administration) to be exempt under the definition of preshipment
applications for the interim period through December 31, 2002, when the
methyl bromide is applied within the 21 days prior to export to a
foreign country. EPA is seeking comments on this interpretation of the
definition of ``preshipment applications.''
It should be noted that 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.

[[Page 37757]]

C. Are There Additional Qualifiers Associated With the Definition of
Quarantine Applications?

With today's action, EPA is establishing that for the interim
period through December 31, 2002, the exemption for quarantine
applications will apply when methyl bromide is among a list of
treatments or official control options for quarantine pests or if
methyl bromide is required for an emergency U.S. 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, for the interim period (through December 31, 2002), methyl
bromide will be exempted for quarantine applications on U.S.
commodities for export when the foreign country simply has a broad
performance-based quarantine requirement. In other words, today's
action exempts methyl bromide in situations when the 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, then 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. However, EPA is not exempting methyl bromide used for non-
quarantine applications, even if the U.S. exporter must obtain a
phytosanitary certificate for the export of the commodity. Today's
exemption applies to the use of methyl bromide to meet a foreign
quarantine requirement when a phytosanitary certificate is issued for a
U.S. exported commodity. 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.
To assist in development of the final version of this regulation,
EPA is seeking comments on the variety of ways of interpreting the
methyl bromide exemption for quarantine applications. One approach
would be to limit the exemption to cases when regulations list methyl
bromide as the unique treatment or control for specific quarantine
pests.
A second approach would be to apply the exemption in cases when
methyl bromide is among a list of treatment or control options for
quarantine pests. Presumably, currently existing quarantine regulations
that include methyl bromide among a list of treatment or control
options indicate that other treatments or controls on the list can be
used to address the quarantine pest(s).
A third approach would be to apply the exemption in cases when
methyl bromide is required for an emergency quarantine application.
A fourth approach would be to apply the exemption to quarantine
applications when there is a broad performance-based quarantine
requirement. This would be a situation when the regulations require
that a commodity be exported/imported free of quarantine pests. The
Agency understands that many importing countries have quarantine
regulations which broadly require commodities to be free of quarantine
pests without specifying the types of treatments or controls. EPA seeks
comment on these various ways of interpreting the exemption for
quarantine applications.
Combinations of the above approaches for applying the exemption for
quarantine applications, including combinations where the exemption is
applied differently depending on whether a commodity is being imported
into, moved within, or exported from the U.S., are possible as
demonstrated by the conditions established with today's action for the
interim period through December 31, 2002 (first paragraph in V.C.
above). Today's action exempts methyl bromide for imports when methyl
bromide is among a list of treatments or official control options for
quarantine pests or if methyl bromide is required for an emergency U.S.
quarantine application, and exempts methyl bromide for exported U.S.
commodities when the foreign country simply has a broad performance-
based quarantine requirement. Another possible combination of the above
approaches would be to institute the exemption for treatments of
commodities being imported into the U.S., or moved within U.S., when
the quarantine regulations uniquely list methyl bromide as the
treatment/control option, while at the same time exempting methyl
bromide for the export of U.S. commodities when the foreign quarantine
requirement lists methyl bromide among a list of treatment/control
options. In this latter example for exports, the exemption might apply
only in cases when a phytosanitary certificate is issued for a U.S.
commodity to meet the foreign quarantine requirement and methyl bromide
is among the list of treatment/control options. EPA is seeking comments
on the approaches above and possible combinations of these as
demonstrated by the conditions established with today's action for the
interim period through December 31, 2002.
The Agency intends to consider prior Decisions by the Parties to
the Protocol, such as paragraph (c) of Decision VII/5 which states,
``[i]n applying these definitions, all countries are urged to refrain
from use of methyl bromide and to use non-ozone-depleting technologies
wherever possible.'' Further, the Parties to the Protocol agreed in
Decision XI/13, ``to request the Parties to review their national
plant, animal, environmental, health and stored product regulations
with a view to removing the requirement for use of methyl bromide for
quarantine and preshipment where technically and economically feasible
alternatives exist.'' The need to have incentives for people to switch
to non-ozone-depleting methods for controlling quarantine pests will
also be included in development of the final version of this regulation
and EPA is seeking comments on this issue.
EPA is interested in comments addressing the effect of each of
these potential approaches on methyl bromide use. EPA recognizes that
the price of methyl bromide will play a key role in determining uses,
especially where alternatives are available. Basic economic principles
of supply and demand suggest that the price of methyl bromide is likely
to increase during the phaseout period as supply is constrained. A
question remains as to whether this increase will also be seen in the
price of quantities of methyl bromide exempted for quarantine and
preshipment applications, or whether the exempted methyl bromide for
quarantine and preshipment applications will be priced differently than
non-exempt quantities. We are interested in comments that address the
merits of relying on a potential price increase for methyl bromide
exempted for quarantine and preshipment applications--at least over the
initial phaseout period--as a way of governing its use for these
purposes.

[[Page 37758]]

D. How Do the Definitions of Quarantine and Preshipment Aplications
Apply to Food Sanitation?

With today's action, for the interim period through December 31,
2002, the exemption of methyl bromide for quarantine applications will
not apply to preventative treatments to meet food sanitation standards.
Please note that if the methyl bromide use were to occur within 21 days
prior to export to another country it would be exempted under the
definition of ``preshipment applications'' if it was to meet the
official requirements of the importing country or existing official
requirements of the exporting country (see discussion in Part V.B.
above).
Some U.S. industries have stated that not having methyl bromide for
the preventative treatment of their commodities against non-quarantine
pests could jeopardize their ability to bring the commodity to market
because they would not be able to meet food sanitation standards. EPA
is aware that alternative treatments may be technically and
economically available for many industries currently using methyl
bromide to maintain food sanitation or meet food sanitation standards.
For those industries facing food sanitation challenges, production
of methyl bromide will continue until the 2005 phaseout, albeit in
limited quantities. For the period beyond the 2005 phaseout, these
industries, as well as others, will be able to apply for a ``critical-
use'' exemption for continued production and/or import of methyl
bromide. Consistent with the Protocol, Parties can apply for a
critical-use exemption beyond the 2005 phaseout for specific uses where
there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives.
Although the critical-use exemption is not available until after 2005,
EPA has initiated a separate process with stakeholder input to develop
a critical-use exemption. In 2002, a separate Federal Register notice
will be published asking for people to submit specific information to
substantiate requests for a critical-use exemption. However, at this
time no decisions have yet been made regarding what uses will be
exempted as ``critical.''
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. Fumigations with methyl bromide of stored commodities, or
food-processing facilities, as preventative measures to maintain food
sanitation are directed at controlling populations of pests that are
generally endemic to the U.S. and are not designed or intended to
``prevent the introduction, establishment and/or spread of quarantine
pests.'' Congress directed EPA to create an exemption, ``consistent
with the Montreal Protocol's quarantine and preshipment provisions.''
The quarantine definition from Decision VII/5 of the Protocol stresses
that exempt applications of methyl bromide are ``to prevent the
introduction, establishment and/or spread of quarantine pests
(including diseases).'' This focus on ``quarantine pests'' seems to be
the core of the definition and establishes the limit on exempted
quarantine applications.
The definition of preshipment applications from Decision XI/12
includes a time constraint of ``21 days prior to export,'' which
establishes the limit on the exempted preshipment uses. Thus, the
periodic prophylactic fumigation of a commodity, or, the prophylactic
fumigation of a food-processing facility which is not to meet
quarantine requirements and which is outside of the 21 days prior to
export would not be exempt under the Protocol's definition of
quarantine applications or preshipment applications.
The Agency is seeking comments on the prophylactic uses of methyl
bromide to meet food sanitation standards. The Agency intends to use
this information to assist in development of the critical-use exemption
process as discussed above.

E. How Do These Definitions Apply to ``Propagative Material'?

The use of methyl bromide to fumigate the soil for growing
propagative material, such as strawberry propagative rhizomes, differs
from many quarantine applications of methyl bromide. In the specific
example of quarantine treatment of strawberry propagative material that
was brought to EPA's attention, Japanese regulations require that the
underground portions of the imported propagative rhizomes (of the
strawberry planting stock) be certified to have been grown in soil that
is free of quarantine pests. To meet this Japanese quarantine
requirement, and other similar quarantine requirements, U.S. nurseries
fumigate the soil with methyl bromide to raise strawberry propagative
material. Methyl bromide is used to fumigate the soil before each
transplanting (a number of times over 3-5 years) because Japanese
requirements dictate that soil in which the strawberry propagative
rhizomes are grown be free of quarantine pests. EPA is unaware of how
much methyl bromide is used in the growing of strawberry propagative
material in the U.S. to meet this or other foreign or domestic
quarantine requirements and seeks comments on this specific quarantine
application. In addition, the Agency is seeking similar information on
other types of plants for planting for which methyl bromide is used as
a pre-plant treatment (soil treatment) to ensure propagative materials
meet quarantine requirements.
With today's action, for the interim period through December 31,
2002, the exemption for quarantine applications applies to methyl
bromide used for growing propagative material, such as strawberry
rhizomes, if the methyl bromide is being used to grow propagative
material to meet official quarantine requirements of the destination to
which it will be shipped. To ensure that the use of methyl bromide for
propagative material is consistent with the Protocol's quarantine
provisions, applicators availing themselves of the exemption during the
interim period must maintain records of each methyl bromide
application. These records must certify that the methyl bromide
treatments are being undertaken to meet quarantine requirements of the
intended destination country for the specific propagative material.
Monitoring methyl bromide used for propagative materials will be a
large challenge. The propagative materials may be grown in close
proximity to crops that do not qualify for the quarantine and
preshipment exemption. EPA believes that it may be difficult to ensure
that farmers growing propagative material in a small nursery in the
corner of their acreage were meeting the requirements associated with
the quarantine exemption--that the methyl bromide purchased under the
exemption for the nursery was only used for the propagative material--
and growers were not using the methyl bromide for fumigation of their
larger acreage where the actual crop was being grown (i.e., strawberry
fruit versus propagative material). Monitoring for such an abuse of the
exempted methyl bromide may be difficult because both uses would be
soil fumigations on the same farm--in adjoining fields.
Another difficulty in compliance monitoring may be caused by the 3-
5 year time horizon for growing

[[Page 37759]]

strawberry propagative materials. The growing cycle for strawberry
propagative materials necessitates soil fumigation with methyl bromide
several times over a 3-5 year period to protect the specific germplasm
(genetic material) that is desired by the Japanese, or others, as well
as to allow the grower to certify that the underground portions of the
propagative plants are free of quarantine pests. A system is needed to
document and ensure the validity of claims by farmers that they are
using exempted methyl bromide over the 3-5 years to grow strawberry
seedlings for export to meet Japanese or other quarantine requirements.
However, EPA recognizes that some farmers will legitimately justify
using exempted methyl bromide to meet Japanese or other quarantine
requirements for strawberry seedlings, yet due to economic or market
conditions these farmers will not send the seedlings to Japan or
another destination that has a relevant quarantine requirement. To
address this compliance monitoring challenge, the Agency is seeking
comments on establishing a recordkeeping requirement for quarantine
applications that involve the use of methyl bromide in soil fumigation
for the growth of propagative material. EPA is also seeking comments on
whether the U.S. growers of propagative materials, in general, should
be required to report periodically on methyl bromide used to meet
quarantine requirements.
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' obligations under the
Protocol. EPA is seeking comments on the necessity of, and the nature
of, possible compensatory measures. If methyl bromide is used to grow
propagative material with the intention of meeting a quarantine
requirement of a particular importing country or domestic location, but
in the end is sent instead to a destination without a quarantine
requirement for the propagative material, the use of the methyl bromide
is not exempt under the Protocol. Rather, the quantity used would count
against the United States' cap for domestic methyl bromide consumption
(currently limited to 50% of baseline for 2001). 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. EPA is seeking comments on several possible
options for rectifying this potential situation of non-compliance.
Under the first approach, 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, would be required to buy an equivalent amount
of production allowances for any ozone-depleting substance, on an
ozone-depleting potential (ODP) basis, and retire those allowances. In
other words, the allowances could not be expended for new production in
accordance with Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 82. For example, if a person
used 1,000 kilograms of exempted methyl bromide on strawberry
propagative material to meet the quarantine requirement of the intended
destination but delivered the propagative material to a destination
without a quarantine requirement, that person would be required to
purchase the ODP equivalent of 1,000 kilograms of methyl bromide
production allowances to compensate for the United States' exceeding
the methyl bromide production cap.
A second approach would be for the person to destroy an amount of
ozone-depleting substances that is equivalent on an ODP basis. Thus,
the person would be required to purchase and destroy quantities of
existing stocks of ozone-depleting substances, rather than being
required to purchase and retire allowances, as in the first approach.
A third approach would require the person to purchase, and store, a
quantity of non-exempt methyl bromide equivalent to the quantity of
exempt methyl bromide used in the growing of propagative material. This
stored (banked) quantity of non-exempt methyl bromide would be
insurance against the need to compensate for the United States'
specific methyl bromide compliance obligations of zero production after
the phaseout, or in the case when all production and consumption
allowances had been expended for the particular control period prior to
the phaseout. If, in this third option, the propagative material was in
fact sent to a destination with a quarantine requirement for that
particular propagative material, the person could then sell or use the
quantity of non-exempt methyl bromide that was being stored as
``insurance''. However, if the propagative material was ultimately sent
to a destination without a quarantine requirement and compensatory
measures were needed to ensure the United States meets its compliance
obligations under the Protocol, the person holding the stored quantity
of non-exempt methyl bromide would be required to pay for its
destruction. This option addresses issues of the long time horizon
between methyl bromide use and the shipment of the propagative
material, as well as the United States' specific methyl bromide
compliance obligations under the Protocol both before and after the
phaseout.
EPA is seeking comments regarding compliance and enforcement issues
related to soil uses of methyl bromide for propagative material to meet
quarantine requirements, in general, as well as the specific approaches
described above. In addition, the Agency is seeking information on
existing certification programs and recordkeeping requirements
associated with the pre-plant soil use of methyl bromide for growing
propagative material to meet quarantine requirements. EPA is seeking
comments on the possible recordkeeping and reporting aspects of the
specific approaches described above for rectifying possible non-
compliance. Resolving these compliance monitoring and enforcement
issues will be important not only to ensure U.S. compliance with
obligations under the Protocol but also to maintain a level playing
field for all growers in each particular commodity market.

F. How Do These Definitions Apply to In-Transit Applications?

With today's action, for the interim period through December 31,
2002, quantities of methyl bromide used to control quarantine pests on
commodities in-transit to the U.S. or traveling within the U.S. are
exempt when the use is to meet a quarantine, official control
requirement that lists methyl bromide (see discussion in Part V.C.
above). Quantities of methyl bromide used to control quarantine pests
on commodities that are in-transit from the U.S. to another country, to
meet the importing country's quarantine requirements, are also exempt.
However, for the interim period, the in-transit application of methyl
bromide after a shipment leaves the United States is not an exempt
preshipment application because the application would not occur
``within 21 days prior to export'' from the United States (emphasis
added). As above, it should

[[Page 37760]]

be noted that for purposes of today's regulation, the word ``export''
is interpreted to mean the departure of a commodity from the United
States or another foreign country.
EPA is seeking comments on the extent of the practice of fumigating
commodities for non-quarantine purposes while in-transit.

VI. 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 through December 31, 2002. The final version of this
rule will address the exemption for quantities of methyl bromide used
for quarantine and preshipment applications for the period that
includes the remaining reduction steps and the eventual phaseout of
production and consumption under the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air
Act.
EPA is creating a flexible process for exempting production and
consumption of methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment
applications that is responsive to demands arising when commodities
need to be protected from infestations by quarantine pests and when
commodities need to be protected immediately prior to shipment in
accordance with official requirements. Today's action includes a
certification and reporting procedure under authority of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that exempts production and consumption of methyl bromide for
quarantine and preshipment applications from the reduction steps
through December 31, 2002.

A. Are Producer and Importer Quarterly Reports and Recordkeeping
Changing?

Producers and importers must distinguish between quantities of
methyl bromide produced or imported for quarantine and preshipment
applications and quantities produced or imported for other categories,
such as transformation, when submitting quarterly reports that are
otherwise currently required under Sec. 82.13. As with quantities for
transformation, the quantities of methyl bromide produced or imported
for quarantine and preshipment applications are exempt, and are not
counted against a company's production allowances and consumption
allowances. In other words, the quantity reported specifically for
quarantine and preshipment applications by the producer or importer
will not be counted when determining the production allowances and
consumption allowances expended during the quarter. The production
allowances and consumption allowances held by each U.S. company at the
beginning of the year, in accordance with Sec. 82.5, Sec. 82.6 and
Sec. 82.7, establish the U.S. limit on the amount of production and
consumption of methyl bromide for all non-exempted uses in accordance
with obligations under the Montreal Protocol. The relationship between
each company's baseline production allowances 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).
Methyl bromide produced or imported and specifically designated for
quarantine and preshipment applications will not be counted as net
production or net import for the purposes of the Allowance Program. Net
production or net import represents the number of production allowances
and consumption allowances expended by a company. Currently, producers
and importers provide information on the gross quantity of methyl
bromide produced or imported in a quarter. In the same quarterly
report, producers and importers indicate the quantity specifically
designated for transformation and the quantity specifically designated
for destruction which are exempt from the reduction steps and phaseout.
These quantities for transformation and for destruction are subtracted
from the gross quantity in order to calculate a company's net
production or net import. With today's action, producers and importers
must also provide information on the quantity of methyl bromide
designated solely for quarantine and preshipment applications. This
quantity of methyl bromide solely for quarantine and preshipment
applications is exempt and producers and importers should also subtract
it from the gross quantity in order to calculate net production or net
import. Finally, domestic purchasers (distributors or customers) must
provide producers and importers with certifications of the quantities
being purchased that are designated solely for quarantine and
preshipment applications (discussion of requirements for foreign
purchasers appears below in Part VI.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.
In developing today's regulation, EPA initially considered a system
of refunding allowances to producers and importers based on amounts of
methyl bromide certified as having been purchased solely for quarantine
and preshipment applications reported to the Agency by distributors.
However, EPA decided a process of refunding allowances would be time-
consuming and would likely impede the commercial availability of methyl
bromide. EPA also believes a process of refunding allowances to
producers and importers based on certification of purchases solely for
quarantine and preshipment applications would be more burdensome to
implement for both the industry and the Agency. With this action, EPA
is simply exempting through December 31, 2002, methyl bromide
production and import for quarantine and preshipment applications from
the requirement to expend allowances, as is currently done for methyl
bromide for transformation or destruction.
In developing today's action, EPA also considered another option
for exempting methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment
applications. EPA considered a procedure that would allow the Agency to
follow specific quantities of quarantine or preshipment methyl bromide
through the chain of commerce (similar to a RCRA hazardous waste
manifest) but rejected this option as being overly burdensome with
little additional benefit. The option of a manifest system to track
quarantine and preshipment quantities through the market would have
relied on methyl bromide's regulation under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). As a FIFRA regulated substance,
cylinders of methyl bromide are marked with unique registration numbers
and labels that prescribe the use of the substance. Although EPA is not
tracking cylinders by registration number through the chain of
commerce, the Agency is still working with industry on a possible
change to the FIFRA label (see Part VI.E below) which would reflect
requirements of this rulemaking under CAA authority. If the

[[Page 37761]]

FIFRA label on methyl bromide is changed in the future to create a
unique product solely for quarantine and preshipment applications, in
accordance with the provisions of the Protocol and CAA, then EPA
believes identifying material that is exempt because it is designated
explicitly for quarantine and preshipment applications will be
facilitated.

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).
With today's action, for the interim period through December 31,
2002, the distributor must send a Quarantine and Preshipment
Certification Form to any person who places an order for a quantity of
methyl bromide that is explicitly and solely for quarantine and
preshipment applications as defined in today's action. The applicator,
upon receiving the form, must check the box indicating that the
particular quantity being ordered is solely for quarantine and
preshipment applications as defined on the form (the definition above
in Part V) 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 purchased 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.
Today's interim rule does not require the distributor to send a
Certification Form for every methyl bromide purchase `` instead,
distributors are only required to send a Certification Form when an
applicator wants to purchase a quantity solely for quarantine and
preshipment applications. However, the distributor of methyl bromide
may want to send the Certification Form to customers (applicators) for
every methyl bromide quantity before the actual purchase and shipment
of the material. Doing so would allow the distributor and the
applicator to distinctly track the quantities of exempt and non-exempt
methyl bromide. To assist in developing the final rule, EPA is seeking
comments on the merits and burdens associated this type of shipment-by-
shipment certification method as compared to the approach outlined in
today's rule. EPA is also interested in comments addressing the
implications of a FIFRA label for exempt quantitites of methyl bromide
(as discussed in Part VI.E. below).
For quarantine applications, the applicator must collect
documentation citing the regulatory requirement or other official
requirement that justifies the use of 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 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 agent
are required to submit the letter to EPA. EPA is seeking comments on
these procedures, for purposes of developing the final rule.

C. Are Distributors Required To Report?

With today's action, for the interim period through December 31,
2002, 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 VI.B, above) on an
annual basis and submit the summary data to EPA. If certifications were
signed by applicators at the time the specific quantity of methyl
bromide was ordered, in accordance with the procedures described above
in VI.B. but the signature of the certification was before date of
today's publication, then the distributor can consider those quantities
exempt and should include them in the annual report to EPA. In other
words, if certifications were signed contemporaneously with an order
for a quantity of methyl bromide solely for quarantine and preshipment
applications, the distributor should include this quantity in their
annual report to EPA, as long as the certifications were signed within
the 2001 or 2002 control periods (calendar years).
In development of the final version of this regulation, EPA is
seeking comments on whether annual, bi-annual or quarterly reporting of
this information would be easier to manage for the distributors of
methyl bromide. Companies responsible for reporting on other ozone-
depleting substances have clearly expressed their preference for
quarterly reporting because it reduces the burden of an end-of-year
crunch to compile twelve months of data. Regardless of the reporting
periodicity, the distributor must compile all certifications received
during the period to obtain the total quantity that purchasers
certified to be for quarantine and preshipment applications. 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

[[Page 37762]]

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 VI.A above.

D. What About Reporting of Methyl Bromide Exported for Quarantine and
Preshipment Applications?

EPA considered many options for collecting information on the
quantity of methyl bromide produced in the U.S. and then 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.
Currently, producers and exporters 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.
EPA considered linking periodic reporting on the quantity of methyl
bromide exported for quarantine and preshipment applications with a
system for refunding allowances. EPA also considered the option of
establishing a ceiling on the export of exempted methyl bromide for
quarantine and preshipment applications according to historical export
levels. EPA considered this option because the U.S. is one of the
largest global producers of methyl bromide and EPA is concerned that
exempted production of methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment
exports might become a loophole if those exempted quantities were to be
used by other Parties for non-quarantine or non-preshipment
applications. At this time, EPA has no indication that abuse of the
quarantine and preshipment exemption will occur, but the Agency will
monitor the situation closely. For development of the final version of
the rule, EPA is seeking comments on today's recordkeeping and
reporting requirements and other variations for monitoring quantities
of methyl bromide produced in the U.S. and exported for quarantine and
preshipment applications.

E. Will There Be a FIFRA Pesticide Label Change?

In parallel with today's action, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
is working with the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel to develop a
registration and label change for methyl bromide products under
authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). The proposed registration/label change under FIFRA would
create unique methyl bromide products solely and specifically for
quarantine and preshipment applications. 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, as well as today's final action, it will 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 Part VI.B and VI.C above, the
total quantity of methyl bromide produced or imported for quarantine
and preshipment applications under today's Part VI.A above, and the
annual FIFRA establishment reports on methyl bromide, which reference
specific products by registration number.

VII. What Are Other Considerations and Situations on Which EPA Is
Seeking Comment?

EPA is seeking comments on the following paragraphs that describe
possible variations on the exemption that have not been incorporated
into today's action and therefore are not effective during the interim
period (through December 31, 2002). To assist in developing the final
version of the regulation, EPA is seeking comments regarding the items
described below. In addition, EPA will consider comments and questions
regarding aspects of today's action that are effective for the interim
period. If a person has a question about whether a certain aspect of
today's interim action applies to their situation, EPA is encouraging
the submission 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 interim action apply in the context of EPA's regular process
for issuing written determinations.

A. What Are Considerations on Which the Agency Is Seeking Comment
Regarding 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. The IPPC definition of the phrase
``official control'' is, ``the active enforcement of mandatory
phytosanitary regulations and the application 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.

[[Page 37763]]

Further, under the ISPMs adopted by the IPPC, the phrase
``regulated non-quarantine pests'' is defined as, ``a non-quarantine
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.'' Because the IPPC definition of ``regulated non-quarantine
pest'' refers to ``plants for planting,'' the phytosanitary measure is
limited to propagative materials, such as strawberry seedlings.
Although the IPPC's definition of ``official control'' includes
regulated non-quarantine pests, it should be noted that the Montreal
Protocol does not include these regulated non-quarantine pests. 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. EPA is seeking comments on possible
changes to EPA's interpretation of the phrase ``official control'' as
used in today's exemption, for purposes of the final rule.

B. What Are considerations on Which the Agency Is Seeking Comment
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
performance-based 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
non-quarantine pest requirements within 21 days prior to export of the
commodity would also be exempt under the definition of preshipment
applications. However, EPA is seeking comments that would clarify the
scope of the prophylactic use of methyl bromide described in this
section, where the official foreign Party requirement is not specific
to quarantine pests.

C. What Are Considerations on Which the Agency Is Seeking Comment
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 and 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 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 could be
devised that would 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
uses 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.
One option for implementing a review process would be to establish
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. Such a process would 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.
Other options for implementing a review process include: (1)
Immediately prior to the 2005 methyl bromide phaseout, reviewing and
listing all quarantine and preshipment applications that would be
exempt beyond the phaseout through notice and comment rulemaking asking
for justifications for continued use, (2) eliminating the exemption for
quarantine and preshipment applications after the phaseout and asking
users to apply for critical-use exemptions where no technically or
economically feasible alternatives exist, and (3) conducting periodic
reviews (i.e., 3 or 5 years) for listing through notice and comment
rulemaking the specific quarantine and preshipment applications that
would be exempt because there were no technically or economically
feasible alternatives. EPA seeks comments on these and any other
potential processes for reviewing the exemption for quarantine and
preshipment applications, where technically and economically feasible
alternatives exist.
As an alternative to a formal review process, EPA might rely on
market prices to guide methyl bromide use. The effectiveness of this
price mechanism is to some extent dependent on the behavior of methyl
bromide prices over the phasedown period, and particularly on whether a
separate market evolves for the pure grade of methyl bromide needed for
quarantine and preshipment uses. Basic economic supply and demand
principles suggest that the price of methyl bromide is likely to
increase during the phaseout period, thereby providing incentives for
the development and use of alternatives. Following the phaseout period
after January 1, 2005, we expect the price of methyl bromide exempted
for quarantine and preshipment applications (and other exemptions that
may be established in the future) to likely be determined by the cost
of manufacturing those quantities and not by further decreases in
supply. We are interested in comments on this view. We are especially
interested in comments addressing: (1) The likely behavior of the price
of exempt and non-exempt quantities of methyl bromide during the
phaseout; (2) the likely behavior of the price of exempt methyl bromide
after the phaseout, (3) the impact on these prices of establishing a
FIFRA label explicitly for the methyl bromide exempt for quarantine and
preshipment applications, (4) the possible impact of

[[Page 37764]]

other Federal actions that would influence pricing of methyl bromide,
and (5) the value of a price mechanism in assuring that methyl bromide
is directed toward those uses where there are no alternatives and/or
where it provides the greatest value.

D. What Are Considerations on Which the Agency Is Seeking Comment
Regarding National Security Fumigations?

EPA is seeking comments on the possible need for methyl bromide to
meet special national security quarantine requirements. The Agency
understands that it might be necessary to treat military or other U.S.
government property with methyl bromide for import to eliminate
possible contamination with biological weapons. EPA is seeking comments
on whether a national security quarantine situation could arise that
would require a specific exemption. In considering this question,
commenters should be aware that prior to the phaseout date some methyl
bromide will still be produced without use restrictions, and after the
phaseout date, methyl bromide would be available under the emergency
use exemption consistent with Decision IX/7 as agreed by the Parties to
the Protocol.

VIII. What Are the Steps To Conform the U.S. Methyl Bromide
Phaseout Schedule and Exemptions to the Montreal Protocol and the
Amended Clean Air Act?

During stakeholder meetings, and in the proposal 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. EPA, in
consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is in the process
of developing a rulemaking to establish the emergency-use and critical-
use exemptions. In 2001, EPA initiated stakeholder meetings to develop
rulemaking that will establish the process for an emergency use
exemption and the process for critical-use exemptions, which will be
designed to ensure the U.S. meets its obligations under the Montreal
Protocol consistent with statutory requirements in the Clean Air Act.
In 2002, a separate Federal Register notice will be published asking
for people to submit specific information to substantiate requests for
a critical-use exemption. However, at this time no decisions have yet
been made regarding what uses will be exempted as ``critical.''
Sometime in advance of 2005, EPA will establish a process for an
emergecny use exemption through notice and comment rulemaking.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Because the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this
action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as explained in the
Supplementary Information section of this rulemaking, it is not subject
to section 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

Because the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this
action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as explained in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this rulemaking, it is not subject
to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

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 a ``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 or policy issues arising out of 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 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 is not such a rule, and therefore E.O.
13045 does not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule for six (6)
months under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. and the emergency approval provisions of 5 CFR 1320.13.
The OMB control number is 2060-0170.
Today's action also serves as the first notice of a request for
comment on an extension of today's approval. EPA will follow this
action with a second notice in the Federal Register regarding

[[Page 37765]]

today's information collection. EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the information collection as described below. Comments are
requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection
techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection
Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2001. Copies of
material supporting this ICR notice are available free of charge from
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 between
the hours of 10 am and 4 pm Eastern Standard Time or may be received
electronically by sending an e-mail to land.tom@epa.gov. For further
information contact, Tom Land, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Global Programs Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)-564-9185, or facsimile (202)-565-
2155.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the final rule
promulgated on August 4, 1998, and assigned OMB control number 2060-
0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.18).
In relation to the expected benefits of today's exemption from the
phaseout schedule for methyl bromide, this action is adding additional
reporting and recordkeeping requirements. This action increases the
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This action adds 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. In
addition, 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
includes recordkeeping requirements associated with the reporting
listed above and an additional recordkeeping requirement for commodity
owners or shippers who must formally request methyl bromide use citing
the treatment, official control or official requirement for the
quarantine and preshipment application.
The information collection under this action is designed to
implement the exemption in paragraph 5 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
sections 603(b) and 603(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(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 (CAA) for reporting and
monitoring;
(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 the information is received by EPA, 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 the
reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Responses/ Total Hours per
Collection activity respondents respondent responses response Total hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers and 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 1 15 16 240
Commodity Owner, Shipper or 500 10 500 1 500
Agent Recordkeeping...........

[[Page 37766]]

Total Burden Hrs........... .............. .............. .............. ............... 865
---------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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;
search data sources; complete and review the 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.

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.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the regulation.
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 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, 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, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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

On January 1, 2001, EO 13084 was superseded by EO 13175. However,
this rule was developed during the period when EO 13084 was still in
force, and so tribal considerations were addressed under EO 13084.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies or matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do 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, Sec. 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.

X. 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
the 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,

[[Page 37767]]

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 July 19, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Exports, Imports, Methyl Bromide,
Quarantine, Preshipment, Ozone layer.

Dated: July 11, 2001.
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''.

Sec. 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 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.
* * * * *

3. Section 82.4 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a) as (a)(1)
and republishing the text, adding paragraph (a)(2), redesignating
paragraph (c) as (c)(1) and republishing the text, adding paragraph
(c)(2), redesignating paragraph (k) as (k)(1) and republishing the
text, and adding paragraph (k)(2) as follows:

Sec. 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) From January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002, 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) From January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002, 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, 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, from January
1, 2001 through December 31, 2002, 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).

[[Page 37768]]

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 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
substance 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;
(xvi) A list of the quantities of class I, Group VI controlled
substance 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 37769]]

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 the control
period, 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 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.

[FR Doc. 01-17907 Filed 7-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting Quarantine and Preshipment Applications of Methyl Bromide

Local Navigation