Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25661 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0174; FRL–9343–6] 

Sulfuryl Fluoride; Second Request for 

Comment on Proposed Order Granting 

Objections to Tolerances and Denying 

Request for a Stay 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Order; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is 

requesting comment on several issues 

that were raised in comments on EPA’s 

proposed resolution of objections and a 

stay request with regard to sulfuryl 

fluoride and fluoride tolerances 

promulgated in 2004 and 2005 under 

section 408(d) of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA 

is requesting that interested parties 

address various legal issues that were 

raised by several commenters as well as 

provide further documentation for 

submissions regarding the impacts of 

the withdrawal of the sulfuryl fluoride 

and fluoride tolerances. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0174, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005– 

0174. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or 

email. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Meredith Laws, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–7038; email address: 

laws.meredith@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, pesticide 

manufacturer, or consumer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311), e.g., grain and oilseed milling; 

animal food manufacturing; flour 

milling; bread and bakery product 

manufacturing; cookie, cracker, and 

pasta manufacturing; snack food 

manufacturing. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532), e.g., pesticide 

manufacturers; commercial applicators. 

• Community Food Services (NAICS 

code 624210), e.g., food banks. 

• Farm Product Warehousing and 

Storage (NAICS code 493130), e.g., grain 

elevators, private and public food 

warehousing and storage. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

25662 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Request for Additional Comment 

A. What action is the agency taking? 

In this notice, EPA is requesting 

additional comment on several issues 

that were raised in comments on EPA’s 

proposed resolution of objections and a 

stay request with regard to sulfuryl 

fluoride and fluoride tolerances 

promulgated in 2004 and 2005 under 

section 408(d) of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

(January 19, 2011, 76 FR 3422). In that 

notice, EPA proposed to grant the 

objections to the tolerances based on a 

conclusion that aggregate exposure to 

fluoride (from all sources including 

drinking water, dental products, and 

food) does not meet the safety standard 

in FFDCA section 408, although EPA 

notes that fluoride exposure that occurs 

as a result of sulfuryl fluoride use 

accounts for a relatively small portion of 

overall aggregate exposure 

(approximately 3 to 4 percent of total 

fluoride exposure). In the notice, EPA 

proposed to withdraw the sulfuryl 

fluoride and fluoride tolerances under 

an implementation schedule that would 

provide time for sulfuryl fluoride users 

to transition to new pest control 

alternatives. The notice also specified 

that the proposed tolerance withdrawal, 

if finalized, would become effective 60 

days from the date of the final order, 

and would follow the implementation 

schedule detailed in the final order. 

EPA notes that during the pendency of 

the Agency’s consideration of the 

objections to the sulfuryl fluoride and 

fluoride tolerances, the tolerances 

remain in effect. Neither the January 

2011 proposed order nor this notice 

constitute final agency action. 

B. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

The procedure for filing objections to 

tolerance actions and EPA’s authority 

for acting on such objections is 

contained in section 408(g) of FFDCA 

(21 U.S.C. 346a(g) and regulations at 40 

CFR part 178. That same authority 

governs hearing and stay requests. 

C. On what matters is EPA requesting 

additional comment? 

EPA is seeking additional comment in 

two general areas. First, several 

commenters argued that, as a legal 

matter, EPA had a greater degree of 

discretion in how to interpret the 

standard in section 408(b) than 

indicated by EPA’s proposal. EPA 

believes a fuller discussion of these 

arguments would aid its decisionmaking. Second, EPA has been 

contacted by several organizations 

regarding their comments bearing on the 

availability of alternatives to sulfuryl 

fluoride and the impacts of removal of 

the sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride 

tolerances. In discussions with these 

organizations, EPA noted that additional 

documentation was needed to support 

assertions made in the comments in 

question. In light of this, as well as due 

to the importance of this action, EPA 

has surveyed the comments and 

identified several issues related to 

availability of alternatives and impacts 

from withdrawal of the sulfuryl fluoride 

and fluoride tolerances that were raised 

by one or more commenters but were 

not always sufficiently documented. 

EPA is reopening the comment period to 

allow all commenters or others to 

provide additional information on the 

following issues. 

1. Legal issues. There are three legal 

issues that EPA believes warrant 

comment: whether the de minimis 

doctrine is applicable here given the 

limited fluoride exposure from 

pesticidal sources; whether EPA’s 

aggregation of exposure to a pesticide 

and other related substances can 

include non-pesticidal substances, 

especially where pesticidal exposure is 

proportionally small compared to 

exposure to related substances; and 

whether EPA’s obligations under other 

statutory authority should be considered 

in implementing FFDCA section 408. 

i. De minimis doctrine. Several 

commenters have asserted that EPA’s 

proposed action would lead to absurd 

and undesirable consequences because 

removing the sulfuryl fluoride and 

fluoride tolerances will result in no 

greater than a minimal reduction in 

fluoride exposure but could have major 

impacts with regard to pest control for 

various stored commodities as well as 

complicating compliance by the United 

States with its obligations under the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal 

Protocol) and Title VI of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) addressing Stratospheric 

Ozone Protection. In fact, Dow 

AgroSciences LLC argues that ‘‘if 

sulfuryl fluoride were not in use as a 

fumigant, there would be no change in 

the number of children in the U.S. 

currently exposed to excessive levels of 

fluoride * * *.’’ (EPA–HQ–OPP–2005– 

0174–0228). 

In brief, these commenters are 

objecting to the fluoride exposures EPA 

has taken into account in assessing 

fluoride risk under FFDCA section 408. 

Under that provision, a pesticide 

tolerance may only be promulgated or 

left in effect by EPA if the tolerance is 

‘‘safe.’’ (21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(A)(i)). 

‘‘Safe’’ is defined by the statute to mean 

that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the pesticide chemical 

residue, including all anticipated 

dietary exposures and all other 

exposures for which there is reliable 

information.’’ (21 U.S.C. 

346a(b)(2)(A)(ii)). Other provisions in 

section 408 enlarge on the obligation to 

aggregate and cumulate exposures to the 

pesticide as well as other related 

substances. See 21 U.S.C. 

346a(b)(2)(C)(i)(III) (requiring 

assessment of risk to infants and 

children based on cumulative effects of 

the pesticide and other substances that 

have a common mechanism of toxicity), 

346a(b)(2)(D)(v) (requiring consideration 

of cumulative effects of the pesticide 

and other substances that have a 

common mechanism of toxicity), 

346a(b)(2)(D)(vi) (requiring 

consideration of aggregate exposure to 

the pesticide and other related 

substances). In implementing this safety 

standard for the sulfuryl fluoride and 

fluoride tolerances, EPA has summed 

fluoride exposures from all sources, not 

just pesticidal sources, in evaluating the 

safety of the tolerances. The 

commenters have challenged this 

approach arguing that the de minimis 

doctrine would allow EPA to soften its 

approach to the aggregation of fluoride 

exposures and thus avoid potentially 

absurd consequences. As to absurd 

results, Dow AgroSciences LLC notes 

the ‘‘insignificant exposure profile [of 

sulfuryl fluoride], the adverse impacts 

on public health that would follow its 

elimination, and the de minimis 

treatment that EPA has afforded sources 

of similar amounts of fluoride 

exposure.’’ 

Under the de minimis doctrine, an 

agency need not apply the language of 

the statute in a literal manner if this 

leads to ‘‘patently absurd results that 

will undermine Congress’ broader 

purposes,’’ Public Citizen v. FTC, 869 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25663 

F.2d 1541, 1557 n. 33 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 

and the covered matter can ‘‘fairly be 

considered de minimis,’’ Alabama 

Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 

(D.C. Cir. 1979). Essential to exercise of 

a de minimis exception is that Congress 

cannot have been ‘‘extraordinarily 

rigid,’’ Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 

636 F.2d at 360; the exception cannot 

‘‘thwart a statutory command; it must be 

interpreted with a view to 

‘implementing the legislative design;’ ’’ 

Public Citizen v. Young, 831 F.2d 1108, 

1113 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Alabama 

Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d at 360–61); 

and regulation under the terms of the 

statute must ‘‘yield a gain of trivial or 

no value,’’ Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 

636 F.2d at 360–61. See EDF v. EPA, 82 

F.3d 451, 466–467 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Ohio 

v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1534–35 (D.C. 

Cir. 1993). 

EPA seeks comment on how, if at all, 

the three elements of the de minimis 

doctrine would apply in the context of 

EPA’s proposal to withdraw the sulfuryl 

fluoride and fluoride tolerances. First, 

has Congress imposed the aggregation 

requirement with extraordinary rigidity? 

In responding to this question it would 

be helpful if commenters would address 

the numerous references in FFDCA 

section 408 to the aggregation and 

cumulation of exposures, including the 

multiple references to the aggregation 

and cumulation of exposures to 

pesticides and other substances. See 21 

U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C)(i)(III), 

346a(b)(2)(D)(v), and 346a(b)(2)(D)(vi). 

Second, does not aggregating fluoride 

from pesticidal and non-pesticidal 

sources thwart or implement the 

statutory design? In other words, is the 

withdrawal of the sulfuryl fluoride and 

fluoride tolerances a ‘‘patently absurd 

result[]’’ that would thwart purposes of 

FFDCA section 408 or does it 

implement the statutory design? Finally, 

does fluoride exposure from pesticides 

truly amount to no greater than a de 

minimis risk? In approaching this 

question, it should be considered that 

EPA’s risk assessments show that for the 

most highly exposed communities, total 

pesticidal fluoride amounts are 

approximately 3 to 4 percent of total 

fluoride exposure and 2 to 8 percent of 

the fluoride reference dose (RfD), 

depending on the age groups 

considered. See Kentucky Waterways 

Alliance v. Johnson, 540 F.3d 466, 492 

(6th Cir. 2008). More broadly, any 

decision regarding whether fluoride 

exposure from pesticides is de minimis 

would potentially be precedential 

regarding other pesticides, and thus 

EPA requests comment generally on 

what factors should be considered in 

determining whether a pesticide’s 

contribution to aggregate exposure is de 

minimis. 

ii. Exposure to other related 

substances. FIFRA section 

408(b)(1)(A)(ii) defines the safety 

finding for the establishment of 

tolerances as requiring a determination 

that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the pesticide chemical 

residue, including all anticipated 

dietary exposures and all other 

exposures for which there is reliable 

information.’’ FIFRA section 

408(b)(2)(D)(vi) requires EPA in 

establishing tolerances to ‘‘consider, 

among other relevant factors * * * 

available information concerning the 

aggregate exposure of consumers (and 

major identifiable subgroups of 

consumers) to the pesticide chemical 

and to other related substances * * *.’’ 

Dow AgroSciences LLC argues (1) that 

the ‘‘other related substances’’ 

referenced in FIFRA section 

408(b)(2)(D)(vi) are only other related 

pesticidal substances; and (2) that, even 

if the term ‘‘other related substances’’ 

includes non-pesticidal substances, 

aggregation of pesticide alone must have 

a ‘‘meaningful impact on the end point 

of concern.’’ EPA requests comment on 

whether such an interpretation is 

consistent with the language of these 

two provisions, as well as the other 

provisions of the statute that discuss 

aggregation and cumulation of 

pesticides and other related substances. 

See 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C)(i)(III), 

346a(b)(2)(D)(v). 

iii. Reconciling all environmental 

statutes and treaty obligations. The 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) argues in its comments that EPA 

has an obligation to reconcile its action 

on sulfuryl fluoride under FFDCA 

section 408 with its duties under the 

Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol 

relating to the phase-out of methyl 

bromide. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0174– 

0150). Specifically, NRDC asserts that 

EPA must consider the ‘‘full range of the 

health consequences of its actions’’ 

under FFDCA section 408. EPA requests 

comment on whether the presence of 

other statutory duties would allow EPA 

to approve a pesticide tolerance that 

was otherwise unsafe under FFDCA 

section 408, if failing to approve the 

tolerance would lead to greater net 

damages to the environment. In 

responding to this question, 

commenters should address FFDCA 

section 408(b)(2)(B) that describes the 

circumstances under which EPA may 

take such health-health tradeoffs into 

account. Also, EPA requests comment 

on the question of what are the ‘‘full 

range of the health consequences’’ of 

withdrawing the sulfuryl fluoride and 

fluoride tolerances. If EPA were to 

accept NRDC’s legal premise, the facts 

surrounding the ‘‘range of health 

consequences’’ would be important to 

any EPA decision. 

2. Alternatives and impacts. EPA has 

identified several issues related to 

availability of alternatives and impacts 

from withdrawal of the sulfuryl fluoride 

and fluoride tolerances that were raised 

by one or more commenters but were 

not always sufficiently documented. 

EPA would recommend commenters 

consider the following descriptions of 

the types of documentation that would 

aid EPA in compiling adequate record 

materials on the issues in question: 

i. Please provide complete and 

accurate references (i.e., peer-reviewed 

articles, personal contacts, consultants, 

other) for any and all data and 

information included, mentioned, 

referred to, and/or cited in comments. 

For example, provide sources of 

information for costs of heat treatment, 

costs of construction, phosphine 

resistance, phosphine corrosion, 

efficacy of alternatives, etc. Any 

information relied on to make any 

inference, reach a conclusion, or derive 

a quantitative estimate should be 

accompanied by a complete and 

accurate reference. Some of the 

commenters already provided references 

for their information; others did not. 

Please note that without accurate 

references, the Agency may not be able 

to locate the information to update and/ 

or revise impacts where appropriate. 

ii. If cost estimates for warehouse 

construction, fumigation chamber 

construction, or other types of 

construction were included in a 

comment, please provide the full details 

of the calculations and all assumptions 

used to derive the estimates, and please 

provide a contact name and number for 

the person or company that created the 

estimates, in case the Agency has 

further questions. 

iii. Regarding the corrosive effects of 

phosphine to equipment, what types of 

machines are damaged by phosphine, 

what is the nature of the damage, how 

many phosphine treatments does it take 

to damage them, how much does the 

equipment cost, and, if possible, how 

could the equipment be moved or 

retrofitted so that the damage does not 

occur? 

iv. Please provide complete and 

accurate references to any law or 

regulation on food safety cited in a 

comment. For example, some comments 

mentioned mandatory fumigation, 

pasteurization, etc. of food products. 

Please provide specific references to any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

25664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and all statutes and/or regulations that 

require such treatments. 

v. Several applicators mentioned that 

sulfuryl fluoride was safer than 

phosphine for applicators. Please 

explain why sulfuryl fluoride 

application is safer, using specific 

examples where possible. 

vi. Several comments mentioned the 

inability of heat to penetrate finished 

product. Please contrast this with the 

ability for fumigant gas to penetrate the 

products. 

vii. If any specific customer requests 

for fumigation to address a particular 

pest infestation are mentioned in a 

comment, please provide examples of 

those requests. 

viii. If any claims are made that 

sulfuryl fluoride is needed so that food 

can meet phytosanitary conditions in 

foreign markets, please provide 

examples of those requirements (e.g., 

import requirements of other countries), 

please explain why quarantine methyl 

bromide cannot be used to meet the 

requirements, and please provide details 

on the pounds of product fumigated 

with sulfuryl fluoride for export each 

year to countries with these 

requirements. 

ix. Many comments from groups that 

process and store commodities, such as 

nuts and dried fruit, noted that there 

was a need for fast turnaround times in 

fumigation to meet market demand. If 

the industry never requested a methyl 

bromide critical use exemption, please 

explain how fast fumigation was 

conducted prior to the introduction of 

sulfuryl fluoride, why the transition to 

sulfuryl fluoride occurred, and why it 

would now not be possible to switch 

back to previous methods. Several 

comments indicated that there would be 

human health concerns from lack of an 

effective fumigant. If available, please 

provide specific examples (with 

complete and accurate references) of 

public health issues caused by lack of 

fumigants. 

x. As to claims that there are 

commercially viable, chemical or nonchemical, alternatives for commodities 

and/or structures, please provide 

literature citations and/or personal 

contacts for the efficacy of these 

alternatives and the costs and technical 

feasibility of transition. In addition, 

please provide any available 

information on how using the 

alternatives is expected to affect the cost 

of the end product. 

xi. As to claims that pest problems for 

which U.S. industries currently employ 

sulfuryl fluoride are successfully 

controlled in countries where neither 

sulfuryl fluoride nor methyl bromide is 

used, please provide data, literature 

citations and/or personal contacts for 

the efficacy and costs of these chemical 

or non-chemical alternatives. 

xii. As to claims of economic or other 

types of impacts as a result of EPA’s 

proposed order, recognizing that EPA 

has not yet issued a final order or taken 

final agency action, please provide 

specific information, data, and/or 

personal contacts to substantiate these 

claims. 

X. Regulatory Assessment 

Requirements 

This notice seeks additional comment 

on the Agency’s proposed order 

regarding objections filed under section 

408 of FFDCA. The proposed order is 

part of an adjudication and not a rule. 

The regulatory assessment requirements 

imposed on rulemaking do not, 

therefore, apply to this notice. 

XI. 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, does not apply to 

this notice because this is not a rule for 

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 24, 2012. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10493 Filed 4–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0039; 

92220–1113–0000–C6] 

RIN 1018–AX94 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf 

in Wyoming From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf 

Population’s Status as an 

Experimental Population 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on our October 5, 2011, proposal to 

remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in 

Wyoming from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. This proposal 

relied heavily on Wyoming’s wolf 

management plan and noted that 

conforming changes to State law and 

regulation would be required to allow 

Wyoming’s plan to be implemented as 

written. Wyoming recently completed 

four documents that clarify Wyoming’s 

approach to wolf management should 

we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, 

including revised State statutes, revised 

gray wolf management regulations 

(chapter 21), revised gray wolf hunting 

season regulations (chapter 47), and an 

Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Management Plan. We are reopening the 

comment period for the proposal to 

allow all interested parties an additional 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed rule in light of these 

documents. If you submitted comments 

previously, you do not need to resubmit 

them because we have already 

incorporated them into the public 

record and will fully consider them in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 16, 2012. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– 

R6–ES–2011–0039, which is the docket 

number for this rulemaking. On the 

search results page, under the Comment 

Period heading in the menu on the left 

side of your screen, check the box next 

to ‘‘Open’’ to locate this document. 

Please ensure you have found the 

correct document before submitting 

your comments. If your comments will 

fit in the provided comment box, please 

use this feature of http:// 

www.regulations.gov, as it is most 

compatible with our comment review 

procedures. If you attach your 

comments as a separate document, our 

preferred file format is Microsoft Word. 

If you attach multiple comments (such 

as form letters), our preferred format is 

a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2011– 

0039; Division of Policy and Directives 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS