My
copy
did
not
have
page
numbers,
but
since
it
was
provided
by
EPA
I
will
assume
that
you
have
similar
pagination.

Pg
9
Para
4;
"
One
commenter
stated
that
their
product
..."

Pg
10
Para
1
change
"
pet"
to
"
pest"
in
line
9
Pg
10
Para
2
­
Do
tradenames
"
Vikane"
and
"
Profume"
require
trademark
(
i.
e.
the
circle
R
symbol)?

Pg
11
Para
continuing
from
previous
page,
Change
"...
these
ingredients
this
limiting..."
to
"...
these
ingredients
thus
limiting..."

Pg
11
Para
continuing
from
previous
page,
Change
last
sentence
to
read,
"
Finally
SF
is
not
registered
in
California
and
..."

Pg
12
Para
1
&
2,
Need
some
discussion
that
EPA
is
allowing
additional
material
to
come
from
stocks
but
at
the
expense
of
the
new
production
allowance.
This
provision
allows
for
adequate
amounts
to
be
used
for
CUE
while
having
benefit
of
reducing
amounts
emitted
to
atmosphere.
It
is
also
an
instance
where
EPA
is
allowing
market
forces
to
take
stocks
into
account
in
determining
amount
of
new
production.

Pg
12
Para
3
Change
"
different"
to
"
difference"
in
first
sentence.

Pg
13
Para
1
"
Access
to
Stocks",
Need
a
statement
concerning
treatment
of
access
to
existing
stocks
with
other
ODS
if
this
sets
appropriate
precedent
Pg
13
Para
3,
Second
line,
change
"...
equivalent
to
5%
of
1991
baseline."
to
"...
no
more
than
5%
of
1991
baseline
unless
production/
consumption
is
reduced."
Also,
suggest
that
you
discuss
that
conversion
from
CUA
to
CSA
is
a
voluntary
activity
Pg
15
Para
1,
Remove
sentence
"
It
is
likely
that
the
Parties
would
have
approved
a
different
level
of
production
and
consumption
in
the
absence
of
stock
restrictions."
It
is
likely
that
they
would
have
adjusted
the
CUE
to
be
less
than
or
equal
to
30%
instead.

Pg
16
Para
3,
Could
the
conversion
of
a
CUA
to
a
CSA
be
used
to
circumvent
the
preplant
and
postplant
market
segment
allocation
amounts?
The
second
sentence
says
that
the
portion
coming
from
available
stocks
is
allocated
as
a
universal
cap.
Does
this
apply
even
if
the
stocks
are
accessed
via
conversion
of
a
production
allowance?

Pg
17
Para
1,
Change
"
artefact"
to
"
artifact"

Pg
17
Para
1,
Last
sentence,
"
For
these
reasons,
EPA
believes
it
is
not
practicable
to
implement
a
sector­
specific
system
at
this
time."

Pg
19
Para
1,
add
a
date
to
second
sentence:
"...
amount
of
stocks
owned
by
the
entity
as
of
DATE
because
only..."

Pg
21
Para
3,
change
"
acreage/
square
footage
treated"
to
"
acreage/
cubic
footage
treated"

Pgs
22
­
30,
Suggest
changing
headings
of
table
to
include
text
"
Based
on
a
reasonable
expectation
that
one
or
more
of
the
following
circumstances
either
exists
already
or
could
occur
without
methyl
bromide
fumigation"
and
then
adjust
listings
in
Column
C
to
include
only
the
relevant
text
of
limiting
critical
conditions
rather
than
repeating
stock
text
throughout
table.
Also,
suggest
listing
pathogens
and
nematodes
(
common
name
or
latin
name)
where
appropriate
in
limiting
critical
condition
to
be
consistent
with
"
yellow
or
purple
nutsedge".
Also,
would
it
be
possible/
desirable
to
add
a
column
before
current
Column
A
to
indicate
"
Commodity",
"
Structural"
or
"
Field"?
This
would
follow
convention
of
the
MOP
decisions
showing
different
handling
of
"
Field"
and
"
Protected"
crops.
Also,
is
it
necessary
to
say
"
End
User"
in
Column
B,
or
would
it
be
possible
to
restate
Column
B
with
heading
"
Location/
State
of
Use"?

Pg
33
Para
2,
Last
sentence:
Restate
as
an
intention
rather
than
a
statement
in
the
event
that
the
2006
rule
changes
the
handling
of
yearend
leftovers.
e.
g.
It
may
be
necessary
to
allocate
in
two
traunches
and
so
it
may
be
possible
to
adjust
the
second
trauche
to
account
for
previous
year
banked
stocks.
