Preliminary
Draft
Exempting
critical
use
of
methyl
bromide
 
reproposal
06/
22/
2004
Presentation
of
co­
proposals
The
discussion
on
the
co­
proposals
should
be
clarified.
The
current
draft
is
confusing
since
the
two
ideas
are
mingled.
We
suggest
delineating
each
proposal
more
clearly,
and
offer
a
comparison
thereafter.
p.
39:
If
allocations
are
by
sector,
then
reporting
would
have
to
be
by
sector
as
well.

Stockpile
Are
there
restrictions
on
later
use
of
CSA
allowances
designated
in
2005,
but
that
were
not
used
in
2005?

Characterization
of
the
March
Meeting
p.
10:
#
6
and
7
of
the
decisions
are
not
mentioned
in
the
preamble.
Are
these
terms
not
relevant?

Allowances
for
farmers
(
CUPs)
p.
44:
We
suggest
that
this
discussion
be
scaled
back
significantly.
p.
45:
Discussion
seems
repetitive
(
e.
g.,
Sections
VIII
"
A,"
"
B,"
and
"
C"
seem
to
go
over
the
same
ground).
p.
45:
The
contexts
of
sentences
in
the
3rd
paragraph
(
above
section
A)
are
not
clear.
p.
47:
We
believe
that
allowing
3rd
party
purchase
is
unlikely
to
enhance
liquidity.
Also,
the
discussion
at
the
top
of
p.
47
is
awkward.
p.
48:
Is
EPA
going
to
make
"
best
use"/"
best
practice"
judgments
in
making
critical
user
allocations?
p.
51:
The
rationale
for
the
following
statement
isn't
clear:
" 
CUP
holders
would
have
an
incentive
to
sell
their
permits
to
producers
and
importers
early
in
the
year
in
order
to
obtain
revenues
as
quickly
as
possible."
p.
52:
There
is
no
discussion
of
CSAs,
only
CUAs.
Aren't
CSAs
relevant?

Initial
distribution
for
CUAs/
CSAs
p.
40:
We
suggest
that
the
agency
clarify
this
discussion.
Also,
the
claim
of
environmental
benefit
is
suspect.
p.
49:
Does
EPA
have
the
authority
for
"
pay
as
you
bid"
auction?
p.
50:
The
discussion
on
two
auctions
a
year
is
not
clear.
Why
is
a
two
auction
per
year
approach
necessary?
Is
this
true
for
allocation,
too?

1%
Discount
EPA
would
impose
a
1%
tax
on
trades
of
CUAs.
Does
this
apply
to
all
trades
or
just
the
first
trade?
Does
this
tax
apply
to
trade
of
CSAs?
Is
the
1%
tax
applied
in
all
cases?
Any
other
examples
(
p.
41)?
Is
there
a
legal
basis
for
going
lower?

Baseline
p.
22:
We
suggest
that
the
agency
ask
for
comment
on
the
magnitude
of
burden
in
adjusting
the
baseline
and
whether
people
want
to
do
this.

B/
C
analysis
The
magnitude
of
the
benefits:
20­
30
million
annually.
EPA
should
note
that
the
market
price
for
some
agricultural
commodities
not
reflective
of
opportunity
cost,
and
provide
other
relevant
caveats.
Also,
we
suggest
that
the
agency
delineate
the
sources
of
benefits
and
costs
clearly.
The
agency
should
specify
#
of
years
when
presenting
PV
estimates.
Are
Options
2
and
3
still
relevant?

Reg
Text
p.
62:
There
is
no
transfer
language
for
CUA/
CSA
holders.
This
seems
inconsistent
with
the
preamble
language.

PRA
p.
24:
Has
EPA
satisfied
the
PRA
in
its
section
114
survey
for
existing
stocks?

Penalty
p.
44:
Please
add
text
indicating
that
any
penalty
should
reflect
the
economic
benefit/
advantage
of
the
violation.
p.
44:
" 
deter
them
from
simply
incorporating
the
penalty
(
and
the
mis­
use
of
exempted
methyl
bromide)
into
their
business
plans."
Although
theoretically
possible,
how
likely
is
this
scenario?

EO
13045
p.
60:
EO
13045
does
not
apply
since
this
isn't
a
major/
economically
significant
rule.
