TO:
Burleson
Smith
FROM:
Meredith
Dahl
DATE:
August
3,
2004
RE:
Comments
on
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
1.
A
spell
check
needs
to
be
run
on
this
document.
°
Page
1,
bottom
of
first
paragraph,
"
categorie"
°
Page
21,
second
full
paragraph,
"
firsms"
°
page
24,
toward
the
bottom
"
which
may
be
an
a
lesser
amount"
°
page
25,
towards
the
top,
"
alloances"
°
page
27,
second
to
last
paragraph,
towards
bottom
"
particularly"
should
be
particular.
°
page
40,
top
of
page,
"
selfcertification"
°
page
63,
"
sell
to
an
approved
uses"

2.
A
global
search
should
be
done
for
the
words
"
use"
"
user"
and
"
uses"
to
make
sure
the
correct
word
is
being
used
at
the
correct
time.
Additionally,
is
the
proposed
regulation
capitalizing
the
term
"
Column"
or
not?
(
e.
g.
Column
A
of
Appendix
L
or
column
A
of
Appendix
L).

3.
The
name
or
reference
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
is
inconsistent
throughout
the
entire
document.
Sometimes
it
is
called
the
CAAA
sometimes
its
called
the
"
Clean
Air
Act."
That
is
confusing
because
the
term
CAAA
or
Clean
Air
Act
Amendment
may
be
interpreted
to
be
something
different
than
the
"
Clean
Air
Act."
Page
8,
for
example,
at
the
top
it
says
"
under
602(
d)
of
the
CAAA"
and
then
on
the
bottom
it
says
"
Section
604(
d)(
6)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
.
.
."
Other
places
throughout
the
document
the
whole
term
"
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments"
is
written
out.

4.
Bottom
of
page
8
there
is
a
quote
that
is
wrong.
"
Section
604(
d)(
6)
states
that
`
to
the
extent
consistent
with
the
Montreal
Protocol,
the
Administrator
may
exempt
methyl
bromide
for
critical
uses.'"
That
is
not
a
direct
quote
of
604(
d)(
6).
In
addition,
the
paragraph
directly
before
this
paragraph
states
and
quotes
what
604(
d)(
6)
says.

5.
Page
13,
second
paragraph,
"
This
kind
of
restriction
on
the
use
of
existing
stocks
is
also
authorized
under
the
essential
use
exemption
of
what
as
a
condition
for
allowing
new
production
and
consumption."
This
sentence
is
not
as
clear
as
it
could
be.

6.
Page
21,
second
full
paragraph,
"
critical
stock
allowance"
is
given
the
short
term
"
CSU"
but
then
in
that
same
paragraph
it
is
referred
to
as
"
critical
stock
allowance"
again.
Please
make
all
terms
consistent
to
make
the
document
easier
to
read
and
understand.
7.
Page
24,
third
full
paragraph,
here
a
company
that
holds
stock
of
critical
allowances
is
referred
to
as
an
"
entity"
whereas
it
seems
like
that
organization
is
also
referred
to
as
a
"
person"
elsewhere
in
the
preamble
and
the
regulation.
This
is
confusing.

8.
Page,
32,
last
paragraph,
refers
to
"
criterion
number
two
above,"
there
are
two
number
(
2)
directly
above.
It
might
be
good
to
clarify
that
it
is
the
former
criterion
number
two.

9.
Page
34,
first
full
paragraph,
second
sentence,
a
comma
is
needed
after
"
Therefore"
and
before
"
EPA."

10.
Page
35,
second
full
paragraph,
last
sentence,
does
not
make
sense.
Please
redraft.

11.
82.3,
first
definition,
are
there
any
"
uses"
of
MB
"
listed"
in
82.4(
p)?

12.
82.3,
definition
of
"
critical
use
allowance,"
...
"
for
an
approved
critical
user,"
is
this
supposed
to
be
"
for
an
approved
critical
use."
The
producers
and
importers
aren't
producing
or
importing
specifically
for
a
certain
user,
but,
rather,
for
more
generally
an
approved
critical
use,
correct?

13.
82.3,
limiting
critical
condition,
the
text
says
these
are
listed
in
"
Appendix
L."
The
limiting
critical
conditions
are
in
Column
C
of
Appendix
L.

14.
82.4(
d)(
1),
the
phrase
"(
except
for
controlled
substances
that
are
transformed
or
destroyed)"
is
different
than
the
similar
phrase
in
82.4(
b)(
1).
Is
this
intentional?

15.
Page
65,
(
p)(
2),
this
should
be
changed
to:
"
No
person
shall
sell
methyl
bromide
produced
or
consumed
before
the
phaseout
date
of
January
1,
2005
to
an
approved
critical
user
for
a
critical
use
listed
in
Column
A
to
an
end
user
in
Column
B
of
Appendix
L
unless
the
person
holds
a
critical
stock
allowance
.
.
.
."

°
With
this
redraft,
a
company
can
sell
its
transition
management
reserves
(
as
EPA
defined
as
"
N"
on
page
17)
to
an
end
user
who
also
happens
to
be
an
approved
critical
user
in
one
state
and
who
also
has
a
farm
in
another
state
growing
the
same
crop
(
which
is
by
definition
an
"
approved
critical
use")
but
is
not
an
"
end
user."
Current
Draft
of
(
p)(
2),
prima
facie
case
is
this:

i.
No
person
(
i.
e.
company)
can
sell
its
previous
supplies
(
i.
e.
transition
management)
of
MB
ii.
To
an
"
approved
critical
user"
(
e.
g.
farmer
in
florida,
growing
eggplant,
Farmer
Joe
Smith)
iii.
For
a
"
critical
use
listed
in
Column
A"
(
e.
g.
eggplant)
iv.
Unless
person
(
i.
e.
company)
holds
critical
stock
allowances
Company
will
not
be
able
to
sell
any
transition
management
MB
to
Farmer
Joe
Smith's
eggplant
farm
in
Alabama
because
he
is
by
definition
an
"
approved
critical
user"
and
is
growing
by
definition
a
"
critical
use
listed
in
Column
A."
However,
company
can
sell
any
transition
management
MB
to
Farmer
Joe
Smith's
eggplant
competitors
in
Alabama
who
are
not
by
definition
"
approved
critical
users."

Proposed
Version
of
(
p)(
2),
prima
facie
case
is
this:

i.
No
person
(
i.
e.
company)
can
sells
its
previous
supplies
(
transition
management)
of
MB
ii.
To
an
"
approved
critical
user"
(
e.
g.
farmer
in
florida,
growing
eggplant,
Farmer
Joe
Smith)
iii.
For
a
"
critical
use
listed
in
Column
A"
(
e.
g.
eggplant)
iv.
For
an
"
end
user
listed
in
Column
B"
(
e.
g.
Florida
growers)
v.
Unless
person
(
i.
e.
company
holds
critical
stock
allowances)

This
way,
company
can
sell
its
transition
management
supply
of
MB
to
Farmer
Joe
Smith's
eggplant
farm
in
Alabama.

16.
Page
65,
(
p)(
4)
what
is
the
reason
or
strategy
for
the
sentence,
"
No
person
who
acquires
critical
use
methyl
bromide
produced
under
an
allowance
for
a
specific
use
sector
listed
in
Appendix
L
to
this
subpart,
if
applicable,
may
use
such
quantities
in
a
different
use
sector."
Because
this
sentence
says
"
if
applicable"
is
not
really
a
proposed
statement.
What
exactly
is
EPA
proposing
here?
Or
is
this
in
there
strategically.
Please
explain.

17.
Lastly,
the
preamble
is
quite
lengthy
and
confusing.
Particularly
with
respect
to
Section
VII
of
the
preamble.
This
section
is
so
long
(
at
least
7
pages)
and
the
idea
is
not
even
part
of
the
regulation
text.
Can
this
section
be
a
brief
summary
instead?
As
written
the
preamble
appears
to
invite
comment
on
numerous
alternatives
that
are
not
in
the
proposed
rule
text.
It
would
seem
more
appropriate
to
invite
comment
on
the
proposed
text.
If
EPA
desires
to
notify
the
public
of
the
various
alternatives
it
considered
in
developing
the
proposed
rule,
it
could
simply
set
forth
what
was
considered
in
the
preamble
but
limit
the
request
for
comment
to
the
rule
text.
