Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23769 

Conference Rooms C and D, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303–8960; 

telephone (800) 241–1754. For the 

Atlanta, GA, hearing, visitors must go 

through the metal detector, sign in with 

the security desk, be accompanied by an 

employee, and will need to show photo 

identification to enter the building. 

The three public hearings will 

convene at 9 a.m. and continue until 8 

p.m. (local time). EPA will make every 

effort to accommodate all speakers that 

arrive and register before 8 p.m. A lunch 

break is scheduled from 12:30 p.m. until 

2 p.m. and a dinner break is scheduled 

from 5 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. during the 

hearings. The EPA Web Site for the 

rulemaking, which includes the 

proposal and information about the 

public hearings, can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ 

powerplanttoxics/actions.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you would like to present oral testimony 

at the public hearing, please contact Ms. 

Pamela Garrett, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Planning Division, (D243–01), Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–7966, fax number (919) 541– 

5450, e-mail address: 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov (preferred 

method for registering), no later than 

2 business days prior to each public 

hearing. The last day to register will be 

close-of-business Thursday, May 19, 

2011, for the Chicago, IL, and 

Philadelphia, PA, hearings, and 

Monday, May 23, 2011, for the Atlanta, 

GA, hearing. If using e-mail, please 

provide the following information: Time 

you wish to speak (morning, afternoon, 

evening), name, affiliation, address, email address, and telephone and fax 

numbers. 

Questions concerning the May 3, 

2011, proposed rule should be 

addressed to Mr. William Maxwell, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Energy Strategies Group, 

(D243–01), Research Triangle Park, N.C. 

27711, telephone number (919) 541– 

5430, e-mail at maxwell.bill@epa.gov for 

the NESHAP and Mr. Christian Fellner, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Energy Strategies Group, 

(D243–01), Research Triangle Park, N.C. 

27711, telephone number (919) 541– 

4003, e-mail at fellner.christian@epa.gov 

for the NSPS. 

Public hearing: The proposal for 

which EPA is holding the public 

hearings was published in the Federal 

Register on May 3, 2011 and is available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ 

powerplanttoxics/actions.html or http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/ 

utilitypg.html and also in the docket 

identified below. The public hearings 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present oral comments 

regarding EPA’s proposed NESHAP 

standards, including data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposal. The 

EPA may ask clarifying questions during 

the oral presentations, but will not 

respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at the public hearing. 

Commenters should notify Ms. Garrett 

if they will need specific equipment, or 

if there are other special needs related 

to providing comments at the hearings. 

EPA will provide equipment for 

commenters to show overhead slides or 

make computerized slide presentations 

if we receive special requests in 

advance. Oral testimony will be limited 

to 5 minutes for each commenter. EPA 

encourages commenters to provide EPA 

with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via e-mail or CD) or in 

hard copy form. 

The hearing schedules, including lists 

of speakers, will be posted on EPA’s 

Web Sites http://www.epa.gov/ 

airquality/powerplanttoxics/ 

actions.html or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/utility/utilitypg.html. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearings and written 

statements will be included in the 

docket for the rulemaking. 

EPA will make every effort to follow 

the schedule as closely as possible on 

the day of the hearings; however, please 

plan for the hearing to run either ahead 

of schedule or behind schedule. 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

the proposed rule ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units and Standards 

of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units’’ under No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0044 (NSPS action) or 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0234 (NESHAP action) (available at 

http://www.regulations.gov). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 

63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 25, 2011. 

Mary Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10283 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0321; FRL–9300–3] 

RIN 2060–AP92 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 

2011 Critical Use Exemption From the 

Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing uses that 

qualify for the 2011 critical use 

exemption and the amount of methyl 

bromide that may be produced, 

imported, or supplied from existing prephaseout inventory for those uses in 

2011. EPA is taking action under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect 

a recent consensus decision taken by the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer at the Twenty-First Meeting of the 

Parties. EPA is seeking comment on the 

list of critical uses and on EPA’s 

determination of the amounts of methyl 

bromide needed to satisfy those uses. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

May 31, 2011. Any party requesting a 

public hearing must notify the contact 

person listed below by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on May 3, 2011. If a 

hearing is requested it will be held on 

May 13, 2011 and comments will be due 

to the Agency June 13, 2011. EPA will 

post information regarding a hearing, if 

one is requested, on the Ozone 

Protection Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone/strathome.html. Persons 

interested in attending a public hearing 

should consult with the contact person 

below regarding the location and time of 

the hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0321, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–1741. 

• Mail: Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0321, Air and Radiation Docket and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23770 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail code: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0321, Air and Radiation 

Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code 

6102T, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0321. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this proposed 

rule, contact Jeremy Arling by telephone 

at (202) 343–9055, or by e-mail at 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov or by mail at U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Stratospheric Protection Division, 

Stratospheric Program Implementation 

Branch (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

You may also visit the methyl bromide 

section of the Ozone Depletion Web site 

of EPA’s Stratospheric Protection 

Division at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

mbr for further information about the 

methyl bromide critical use exemption, 

other Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

regulations, the science of ozone layer 

depletion, and related topics. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act 

(CAA) restrictions on the consumption, 

production, and use of methyl bromide 

(a Class I, Group VI controlled 

substance) for critical uses during 

calendar year 2011. Under the Clean Air 

Act, methyl bromide consumption 

(consumption is defined under the CAA 

as production plus imports minus 

exports) and production was phased out 

on January 1, 2005, apart from allowable 

exemptions, such as the critical use 

exemption and the quarantine and 

preshipment (QPS) exemption. With 

this action, EPA is proposing and 

seeking comment on the uses that will 

qualify for the 2011 critical use 

exemption as well as specific amounts 

of methyl bromide that may be 

produced, imported, or sold from prephaseout inventory for proposed critical 

uses in 2011. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

B. What should I consider when preparing 

my comments? 

II. What is methyl bromide? 

III. What is the background to the phaseout 

regulations for ozone-depleting 

substances? 

IV. What is the legal authority for exempting 

the production and import of methyl 

bromide for critical uses authorized by 

the parties to the Montreal Protocol? 

V. What is the critical use exemption 

process? 

A. Background of the Process 

B. How does this proposed rule relate to 

previous critical use exemption rules? 

C. Proposed Critical Uses 

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts 

E. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. 

I/4 

F. Emissions Minimization 

G. Critical Use Allowance Allocations 

H. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations 

I. Stocks of Methyl Bromide 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Entities 

Entities potentially regulated by this 

proposed action are those associated 

with the production, import, export, 

sale, application, and use of methyl 

bromide covered by an approved critical 

use exemption. Potentially regulated 

categories and entities include 

producers, importers, and exporters of 

methyl bromide; applicators and 

distributors of methyl bromide; users of 

methyl bromide, e.g., farmers of 

vegetable crops, fruits and nursery 

stock; and owners of stored food 

commodities and structures such as 

grain mills and processors. 

This list is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this proposed action. To 

determine whether your facility, 

company, business, or organization 

could be regulated by this proposed 

action, you should carefully examine 

the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart A. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section. 

B. What should I consider when 

preparing my comments? 

1. Confidential Business Information. 

Do not submit confidential business 

information (CBI) to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

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. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

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. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23771 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• 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. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is methyl bromide? 

Methyl bromide is an odorless, 

colorless, toxic gas which is used as a 

broad-spectrum pesticide and is 

controlled under the CAA as a Class I 

ozone-depleting substance (ODS). 

Methyl bromide was once widely used 

as a fumigant to control a variety of 

pests such as insects, weeds, rodents, 

pathogens, and nematodes. Information 

on methyl bromide can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr. 

Methyl bromide is also regulated by 

EPA under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

and other statutes and regulatory 

authority, as well as by States under 

their own statutes and regulatory 

authority. Under FIFRA, methyl 

bromide is a restricted use pesticide. 

Restricted use pesticides are subject to 

Federal and State requirements 

governing their sale, distribution, and 

use. Nothing in this proposed rule 

implementing the Clean Air Act is 

intended to derogate from provisions in 

any other Federal, State, or local laws or 

regulations governing actions including, 

but not limited to, the sale, distribution, 

transfer, and use of methyl bromide. 

Entities affected by provisions of this 

proposal must continue to comply with 

FIFRA and other pertinent statutory and 

regulatory requirements for pesticides 

(including, but not limited to, 

requirements pertaining to restricted use 

pesticides) when importing, exporting, 

acquiring, selling, distributing, 

transferring, or using methyl bromide 

for critical uses. The regulations in this 

proposed action are intended only to 

implement the CAA restrictions on the 

production, consumption, and use of 

methyl bromide for critical uses 

exempted from the phaseout of methyl 

bromide. 

III. What is the background to the 

phaseout regulations for ozonedepleting substances? 

The regulatory requirements of the 

stratospheric ozone protection program 

that limit production and consumption 

of ozone-depleting substances are in 40 

CFR part 82, subpart A. The regulatory 

program was originally published in the 

Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 

FR 30566), in response to the 1987 

signing and subsequent ratification of 

the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal 

Protocol). The Montreal Protocol is the 

international agreement aimed at 

reducing and eliminating the 

production and consumption of 

stratospheric ozone-depleting 

substances. The U.S. was one of the 

original signatories to the 1987 Montreal 

Protocol and the U.S. ratified the 

Protocol on April 12, 1988. Congress 

then enacted, and President George 

H.W. Bush signed into law, the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 

1990) which included Title VI on 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified 

as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter VI, 

to ensure that the United States could 

satisfy its obligations under the 

Protocol. EPA issued regulations to 

implement this legislation and has since 

amended the regulations as needed. 

Methyl bromide was added to the 

Protocol as an ozone-depleting 

substance in 1992 through the 

Copenhagen Amendment to the 

Protocol. The Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol (Parties) agreed that each 

industrialized country’s level of methyl 

bromide production and consumption 

in 1991 should be the baseline for 

establishing a freeze in the level of 

methyl bromide production and 

consumption for industrialized 

countries. EPA published a final rule in 

the Federal Register on December 10, 

1993 (58 FR 65018), listing methyl 

bromide as a Class I, Group VI 

controlled substance, freezing U.S. 

production and consumption at this 

1991 baseline level of 25,528,270 

kilograms, and setting forth the 

percentage of baseline allowances for 

methyl bromide granted to companies in 

each control period (each calendar year) 

until 2001, when the complete phaseout 

would occur. This phaseout date was 

established in response to a petition 

filed in 1991 under Sections 602(c)(3) 

and 606(b) of the CAAA of 1990, 

requesting that EPA list methyl bromide 

as a Class I substance and phase out its 

production and consumption. This date 

was consistent with Section 602(d) of 

the CAAA of 1990, which for newly 

listed Class I ozone-depleting 

substances provides that ‘‘no extension 

[of the phaseout schedule in section 

604] under this subsection may extend 

the date for termination of production of 

any class I substance to a date more than 

7 years after January 1 of the year after 

the year in which the substance is 

added to the list of class I substances.’’ 

At the Seventh Meeting of the Parties 

(MOP) in 1995, the Parties made 

adjustments to the methyl bromide 

control measures and agreed to 

reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout 

date for industrialized countries with 

exemptions permitted for critical uses. 

At that time, the U.S. continued to have 

a 2001 phaseout date in accordance 

with Section 602(d) of the CAAA of 

1990. At the Ninth MOP in 1997, the 

Parties agreed to further adjustments to 

the phaseout schedule for methyl 

bromide in industrialized countries, 

with reduction steps leading to a 2005 

phaseout. 

IV. What is the legal authority for 

exempting the production and import of 

methyl bromide for critical uses 

authorized by the parties to the 

Montreal Protocol? 

In October 1998, the U.S. Congress 

amended the CAA to prohibit the 

termination of production of methyl 

bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to 

require EPA to bring the U.S. phaseout 

of methyl bromide in line with the 

schedule specified under the Protocol, 

and to authorize EPA to provide certain 

exemptions. These amendments were 

contained in Section 764 of the 1999 

Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. 

L. 105–277, October 21, 1998) and were 

codified in section 604 of the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. 7671c. The amendment that 

specifically addresses the critical use 

exemption appears at section 604(d)(6), 

42 U.S.C. 7671c(d)(6). EPA revised the 

phaseout schedule for methyl bromide 

production and consumption in a direct 

final rulemaking on November 28, 2000 

(65 FR 70795), which allowed for the 

phased reduction in methyl bromide 

consumption specified under the 

Protocol and extended the phaseout to 

2005. EPA again amended the 

regulations to allow for an exemption 

for quarantine and preshipment (QPS) 

purposes on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 

37751), with an interim final rule and 

with a final rule on January 2, 2003 

(68 FR 238). 

On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), 

EPA published a final rule (the 

‘‘Framework Rule’’) that established the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

framework for the critical use 

exemption; set forth a list of approved 

critical uses for 2005; and specified the 

amount of methyl bromide that could be 

supplied in 2005 from stocks and new 

production or import to meet the needs 

of approved critical uses. EPA 

subsequently published rules applying 

the critical use exemption framework 

for each of the control periods from 

2006 to 2010. Under authority of section 

604(d)(6) of the CAA, this action 

proposes the uses that will qualify as 

approved critical uses in 2011 and the 

amount of methyl bromide that may be 

produced, imported, or supplied from 

inventory to satisfy those uses. 

This proposed action on critical uses 

for 2011 reflects Decision XXI/11, taken 

at the Twenty-First Meeting of the 

Parties in November 2009. In 

accordance with Article 2H(5), the 

Parties have issued several Decisions 

pertaining to the critical use exemption. 

These include Decisions IX/6 and Ex. 

I/4, which set forth criteria for review of 

proposed critical uses. The status of 

Decisions is addressed in NRDC v. EPA, 

(464 F.3d 1, DC Cir. 2006) and in EPA’s 

‘‘Supplemental Brief for the 

Respondent,’’ filed in NRDC v. EPA and 

available in the docket for this action. In 

this proposed rule on critical uses for 

2011, EPA is honoring commitments 

made by the United States in the 

Montreal Protocol context. 

V. What is the critical use exemption 

process? 

A. Background of the Process 

The critical use exemption is 

designed to permit the production and 

import of methyl bromide for uses that 

do not have technically and 

economically feasible alternatives and 

for which the lack of methyl bromide 

would result in significant market 

disruption (40 CFR 82.3). The criteria 

for the exemption initially appeared in 

Decision IX/6. In that Decision, the 

Parties agreed that ‘‘a use of methyl 

bromide should qualify as ‘critical’ only 

if the nominating Party determines that: 

(i) The specific use is critical because 

the lack of availability of methyl 

bromide for that use would result in a 

significant market disruption; and 

(ii) there are no technically and 

economically feasible alternatives or 

substitutes available to the user that are 

acceptable from the standpoint of 

environment and public health and are 

suitable to the crops and circumstances 

of the nomination.’’ These criteria are 

reflected in EPA’s definition of ‘‘critical 

use’’ at 40 CFR 82.3. 

In response to EPA’s request for 

critical use exemption applications 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24282), applicants 

provided data on the technical and 

economic feasibility of using 

alternatives to methyl bromide. 

Applicants also submitted data on their 

use of methyl bromide, research 

programs into the use of alternatives to 

methyl bromide, and efforts to minimize 

use and emissions of methyl bromide. 

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs 

reviews the data submitted by 

applicants, as well as data from 

governmental and academic sources, to 

establish whether there are technically 

and economically feasible alternatives 

available for a particular use of methyl 

bromide, and whether there would be a 

significant market disruption if no 

exemption were available. In addition, 

EPA reviews other parameters of the 

exemption applications such as dosage 

and emissions minimization techniques 

and applicants’ research or transition 

plans. This assessment process 

culminates in the development of a 

document referred to as the critical use 

nomination (CUN). The U.S. 

Department of State has submitted a 

CUN annually to the United Nations 

Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone 

Secretariat. The Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 

and the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP), which are 

independent advisory bodies to Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol, review the 

CUNs of the Parties and make 

recommendations to the Parties on the 

nominations. The Parties then take 

Decisions to authorize critical use 

exemptions for particular Parties, 

including how much methyl bromide 

may be supplied for the exempted 

critical uses. As required in section 

604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each 

exemption period, EPA consults with 

the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) and other 

departments and institutions of the 

Federal government that have regulatory 

authority related to methyl bromide, 

and provides an opportunity for public 

comment on the amounts of methyl 

bromide that the Agency is proposing to 

exempt for critical uses and the uses 

that the Agency is proposing as 

approved critical uses. 

More on the domestic review process 

and methodology employed by the 

Office of Pesticide Programs is available 

in a detailed memorandum titled 

‘‘Development of 2003 Nomination for a 

Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 

America,’’ contained in the docket for 

this rulemaking. While the particulars of 

the data continue to evolve and 

administrative matters are further 

streamlined, the technical review itself 

remains rigorous with careful 

consideration of new technical and 

economic conditions. 

On January 23, 2009, the U.S. 

Government (USG) submitted the 

seventh Nomination for a Critical Use 

Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the 

United States of America to the Ozone 

Secretariat of the UNEP. This 

nomination contained the request for 

2011 critical uses. In February 2009, 

MBTOC sent two sets of questions to the 

USG concerning technical and 

economic issues in the 2011 

nomination, one for post-harvest uses 

and one for pre-plant uses. The USG 

transmitted responses to MBTOC on 

April 10, 2009. These documents, 

together with reports by the advisory 

bodies noted above, are in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. The 

proposed critical uses and amounts 

reflect the analysis contained in those 

documents. 

B. How does this proposed rule relate to 

previous critical use exemption rules? 

The December 23, 2004, Framework 

Rule (69 FR 76982) established the 

framework for the critical use 

exemption program in the U.S., 

including definitions, prohibitions, 

trading provisions, and recordkeeping 

and reporting obligations. The preamble 

to the Framework Rule included EPA’s 

determinations on key issues for the 

critical use exemption program. 

Since publishing the Framework Rule, 

EPA has annually promulgated 

regulations to exempt from the phaseout 

of methyl bromide specific quantities of 

production and import for each control 

period (each calendar year), to 

determine the amounts that may be 

supplied from pre-phaseout inventory, 

and to indicate which uses meet the 

criteria for the exemption program for 

that year. See 71 FR 5985 (calendar year 

2006), 71 FR 75386 (calendar year 

2007), 72 FR 74118 (calendar year 

2008), 74 FR 19878 (calendar year 

2009), and 75 FR 23167 (calendar year 

2010). 

Today’s action proposes to utilize the 

existing regulatory framework to 

determine critical uses for 2011 and the 

amounts of Critical Use Allowances 

(CUAs) and Critical Stock Allowances 

(CSAs) to be allocated for those uses. A 

CUA is the privilege granted through 40 

CFR part 82 to produce or import 1 kg 

of methyl bromide for an approved 

critical use during the specified control 

period. These allowances expire at the 

end of the control period and, as 

explained in the Framework Rule, are 

not bankable from one year to the next. 

A CSA is the right granted through 40 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23773 

1NPMA, National Pest Management Association, 

includes both food processing structures and 

processed foods. 

CFR part 82 to sell 1 kg of methyl 

bromide from inventory produced or 

imported prior to the January 1, 2005, 

phaseout date for an approved critical 

use during the specified control period. 

The critical uses that EPA is 

proposing to approve as 2011 critical 

uses are the uses included in the USG’s 

seventh CUN and authorized by the 

Parties in Decision XXI/11. EPA is 

utilizing the existing regulatory 

framework for critical uses. This 

framework is discussed in Section V.D.1 

of the preamble. 

C. Proposed Critical Uses 

In Decision XXI/11, taken in 

November 2009, the Parties to the 

Protocol agreed ‘‘to permit, for the 

agreed critical use categories for 2011 

set forth in table C of the annex to the 

present decision for each Party, subject 

to the conditions set forth in the present 

decision and decision Ex.I/4 to the 

extent that those conditions are 

applicable, the levels of production and 

consumption for 2011 set forth in table 

D of the annex to the present decision 

which are necessary to satisfy critical 

uses * * *’’ 

The following uses are those set forth 

in table C of the annex to Decision XXI/ 

11 for the United States: 

• Commodities 

• NPMA food processing structures 

(cocoa beans removed) 1

• Mills and processors 

• Dried cured pork 

• Cucurbits 

• Eggplant—field 

• Forest nursery seedlings 

• Nursery stock—fruit, nut, flower 

• Orchard replant 

• Ornamentals 

• Peppers—field 

• Strawberries—field 

• Strawberry runners 

• Tomatoes—field 

• Sweet potato slips 

The Decision XXI/11 critical use 

levels for 2011 total 2,055,200 kilograms 

(kg), which is equivalent to 8.1% of the 

U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption 

baseline of 25,528,270 kg. The 

maximum amount of allowable new 

production and import for U.S. critical 

uses in Table D of Decision XXI/11 is 

1,855,200 kg (7.3% of baseline), minus 

available stocks. 

EPA is proposing a total critical use 

exemption in 2011 of 1,982,333 kg 

(7.8% of baseline) with new production 

or import of methyl bromide for critical 

uses up to 1,500,000 kg (5.9% of 

baseline), and with up to 482,333 kg 

(1.9% of baseline) coming from prephaseout inventory (i.e., stocks). 

EPA is seeking comment on the 

technical analysis contained in the U.S. 

nomination (available for public review 

in the docket to this rulemaking), and 

seeks information regarding changes to 

the registration or use of alternatives 

that have transpired after the 2011 U.S. 

nomination was written. Specifically, 

California has recently registered 

Iodomethane and EPA has recently 

registered DMDS. EPA is unable to 

estimate uptake of Iodomethane in 

California due to uncertainties created 

by the California label, specifically 

impacts of larger buffer zones and the 

lack of efficacy studies at the California 

label’s lower use rates. Second, each 

state must register DMDS before that 

alternative may be used in that state. 

None of the states where critical use 

methyl bromide is used have registered 

DMDS, though EPA anticipates that 

states will likely do so. While EPA is 

not proposing a specific amount of 

reduction to account for the uptake of 

these alternatives, EPA will consider 

new data received during the comment 

period. EPA recognizes that as the 

market for alternatives evolves, the 

thresholds for what constitutes 

‘‘significant market disruption’’ or 

‘‘technical and economic feasibility’’ 

change. Comments on the technical data 

contained in the nomination or new 

information could potentially alter the 

Agency’s analysis on the uses and 

amounts of methyl bromide qualifying 

for the critical use exemption. The 

Agency may, in response to new 

information, reduce the proposed 

quantities of critical use methyl 

bromide, or decide not to approve uses 

authorized by the Parties. However, the 

Agency will not increase the quantities 

or add new uses in the final rule beyond 

those authorized by the Parties. 

EPA is also proposing to modify the 

table in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, 

appendix L to reflect the agreed critical 

use categories identified in Decision 

XXI/11. The Agency is amending the 

table of critical uses based in part on the 

technical analysis contained in the 2011 

U.S. nomination that assesses data 

submitted by applicants to the CUE 

program. EPA is proposing to remove 

ornamental growers in New York. 

MBTOC did not recommend this use for 

2011, concluding that alternatives are 

available for replacing methyl bromide 

use in Anemone coronaria. The Parties 

did not authorize this use. EPA agrees 

with the Parties’ conclusion, and 

proposes not to list this use as critical 

for 2011. Second, EPA is proposing to 

remove Michigan cucurbit growers, 

Michigan eggplant growers, Michigan 

ornamental growers (specifically, 

herbaceous perennial growers), 

Michigan tomato growers, Michigan 

pepper growers, and members of the 

Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium 

operating in Washington State. These 

users did not submit applications and 

were not part of the CUN. The Parties 

have not authorized them as critical 

uses for 2011, and EPA proposes not to 

list this use as critical for this control 

period. EPA seeks comment on these 

proposed changes to Appendix L. 

EPA is not proposing other changes to 

the table but is repeating the following 

clarifications made in previous years for 

ease of reference. The ‘‘local township 

limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene’’ 

are prohibitions on the use of 1,3- 

dichloropropene products in cases 

where local township limits on use of 

this alternative have been reached. In 

addition, ‘‘pet food’’ under subsection B 

of Food Processing refers to food for 

domesticated dogs and cats. Finally, 

‘‘rapid fumigation’’ for commodities is 

when a buyer provides short (two 

working days or fewer) notification for 

a purchase or there is a short period 

after harvest in which to fumigate and 

there is limited silo availability for 

using alternatives. 

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts 

Table C of the annex to Decision XXI/ 

11 lists critical uses and amounts agreed 

to by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. When added together, the total 

authorized critical use for 2010 is 

2,055,200 kg, which is equivalent to 

8.1% of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide 

consumption baseline. The maximum 

amount of authorized new production 

or import authorized by the Parties is 

1,855,200 kg (7.3% of baseline) as set 

forth in Table D of the annex to Decision 

XXI/11. The difference between the total 

authorized amount and the authorized 

amount of new production is the 

minimum that the Parties expect the 

U.S. to use from pre-phaseout inventory. 

This difference is 200,000 kg (0.8% of 

baseline). EPA is proposing to allocate 

482,333 kg (1.9% of baseline) of existing 

pre-phaseout inventory for critical uses 

in 2011. EPA is also proposing to 

exempt limited amounts of new 

production and import of methyl 

bromide for critical uses for 2011 in the 

amount of 1,500,000 kg (5.9% of 

baseline). 

EPA has calculated the proposed 

allocation amounts differently than in 

past CUE allocation rulemakings. 

Initially, EPA used the ‘‘available 

stocks’’ methodology to calculate the 

allocation amounts for new production/ 

import and stocks. As described in 

previous CUE allocation rules, one of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23774 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the inputs to this methodology is the 

previous year’s inventory drawdown. 

Consistent with past practice, EPA 

prepared an estimate of the prephaseout inventory on December 31, 

2010. 

Due to the timing of the 2011 CUE 

rulemaking, EPA issued a No Action 

Assurance letter December 22, 2010, to 

allow Critical Use Allowance holders to 

continue producing and importing 

methyl bromide beyond December 31, 

2010, in the absence of allowances, 

subject to certain conditions. The 

amounts authorized in the December 22, 

2010, letter, and a subsequent 

clarification letter dated January 13, 

2011, were based on the estimates of the 

2010 inventory drawdown. Specifically, 

EPA clarified that producers and 

importers ‘‘may assume that the 

allocations for production and import 

will equal at least 1,500 MT.’’ Following 

the development of the No Action 

Assurance letter, companies submitted 

end of year reports to EPA detailing how 

much pre-phaseout inventory they held 

on December 31, 2010. These data show 

that the amount of pre-phaseout 

inventory is larger than the estimated 

amounts that formed the basis of the No 

Action Assurance letter. If EPA were to 

use these data in the existing 

methodology for calculating ‘‘available 

stocks,’’ this would result in more 

‘‘available stocks’’ and fewer allowances 

for new production or import as 

compared to the December 2010– 

January 2011 estimates. However, 

because regulated entities have been 

acting on the estimate developed for the 

No Action Assurance letter in good 

faith, EPA believes it would be 

inappropriate to propose less than the 

amount provided for in the No Action 

Assurance letter, as clarified by the 

January 2011 letter. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to allocate 1,500,000 kg for 

new production and import. EPA is also 

proposing a critical stock allowance 

allocation of 482,333 kg. Together the 

total allocation equals 1,982,333 kg. 

EPA is seeking comment on the 

proposed total levels of exempted new 

production and import for critical uses 

and the amount of material that may be 

sold from pre-phaseout inventory for 

critical uses. In addition, EPA is taking 

comment on how to account for the fact 

that the proposed critical-use allowance 

allocation of 1,500,000 kg is greater than 

what would be allocated if it were based 

on the ‘‘available stocks’’ calculation 

using end of year inventory data. One 

possibility is that EPA could reduce 

critical-use allowances for new 

production and import in the 2012 

allocation rule. More information on the 

available stocks calculation and the 

estimate that preceded it is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

E. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. 

I/4 

Paragraphs 2 and 6 of Decision XXI/ 

11 request Parties to ensure that the 

conditions or criteria listed in Decisions 

Ex. I/4 and IX/6, paragraph 1, are 

applied to exempted critical uses for the 

2011 control period. A discussion of the 

Agency’s application of the criteria in 

paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in 

sections V.A., V.C., V.D., and V.H. of 

this preamble. In section V.C. the 

Agency solicits comments on the 

technical and economic basis for 

determining that the uses listed in this 

proposed rule meet the criteria of the 

critical use exemption. The CUNs detail 

how each proposed critical use meets 

the criteria listed in paragraph 1 of 

Decision IX/6, apart from the criterion 

located at (b)(ii), as well as the criteria 

in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision 

Ex. I/4. 

The criterion in Decision IX/ 

6(1)(b)(ii), which refers to the use of 

available stocks of methyl bromide, is 

addressed in sections V.D., V.G., and 

V.H. of this preamble. The Agency has 

previously provided its interpretation of 

the criterion in Decision IX/6(1)(a)(i) 

regarding the presence of significant 

market disruption in the absence of an 

exemption, and EPA refers readers to 

the 2006 CUE final rule (71 FR 5989) as 

well as to the memo on the docket titled 

‘‘Development of 2003 Nomination for a 

Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 

America’’ for further elaboration. 

The remaining considerations, 

including the lack of available 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives under the circumstance of 

the nomination; efforts to minimize use 

and emissions of methyl bromide where 

technically and economically feasible; 

the development of research and 

transition plans; and the requests in 

Decision Ex. I/4(5) and (6) that Parties 

consider and implement MBTOC 

recommendations, where feasible, on 

reductions in the critical use of methyl 

bromide and include information on the 

methodology they use to determine 

economic feasibility, are addressed in 

the nomination documents. 

Some of these criteria are evaluated in 

other documents as well. For example, 

the U.S. has further considered matters 

regarding the adoption of alternatives 

and research into methyl bromide 

alternatives, criterion (1)(b)(iii) in 

Decision IX/6, in the development of the 

National Management Strategy 

submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in 

December 2005 and in ongoing 

consultations with industry. The 

National Management Strategy 

addresses all of the aims specified in 

Decision Ex. I/4(3) to the extent feasible 

and is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

As discussed in the 2010 CUE Rule, 

EPA is no longer making an additional 

reduction to new production to account 

for approved research amounts. In the 

2011 CUN, as in the 2010 CUN, the USG 

did not nominate a separate, additional 

amount specifically for research 

purposes; thus, EPA is not proposing to 

adjust the production level to subtract 

this amount. The nomination was again 

broad enough to cover both research and 

non-research uses. As discussed in the 

2010 CUE rule, research is a key 

element of the critical use process. EPA 

therefore is retaining research on the 

critical use crops shown in the table in 

Appendix L to subpart A as a critical 

use of methyl bromide. Therefore, 

researchers may continue to use newly 

produced methyl bromide, as well as 

pre-phaseout inventory purchased 

through the expenditure of CSAs, for 

field studies requiring the use of methyl 

bromide. 

F. Emissions Minimization 

Previous decisions have stated that 

Parties shall request critical users to 

employ emission minimization 

techniques such as virtually 

impermeable films, barrier film 

technologies, deep shank injection and/ 

or other techniques that promote 

environmental protection, whenever 

technically and economically feasible. 

Through the recent Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision (RED) for methyl 

bromide, the Agency requires that 

methyl bromide applications be tarped 

except for California orchard replant 

where EPA instead requires deep (18 

inches or greater) shank applications. 

The RED also encourages the use of 

high-barrier tarps, such as virtually 

impermeable film (VIF), by providing 

credits that applicators can use to 

minimize their buffer zones. In addition 

to minimizing emissions, use of highbarrier tarps has the benefit of providing 

pest control at lower application rates. 

The amount of methyl bromide 

nominated by the USG reflects the lower 

application rates necessary when using 

high-barrier tarps, where such tarps are 

allowed. Emissions minimization efforts 

should not be limited to pre-plant 

fumigations. While the RED addresses 

emissions minimization only in the 

context of pre-plant fumigation, EPA 

also urges users to reduce emissions 

from structures and port facilities 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23775 

through the use of recapture 

technologies. 

Users of methyl bromide should 

continue to make every effort to 

minimize overall emissions of methyl 

bromide to the extent consistent with 

State and local laws and regulations. 

The Agency encourages researchers and 

users who are successfully utilizing 

such techniques to inform EPA of their 

experiences as part of their comments 

on this proposed rule and to provide 

such information with their critical use 

applications. In addition, the Agency 

welcomes comments on the 

implementation of emission 

minimization techniques and whether 

and how emissions could be reduced 

further. 

G. Critical Use Allowance Allocations 

EPA is proposing to allocate 2011 

critical use allowances for new 

production or import of methyl bromide 

up to the amount of 1,500,000 kg (5.9% 

of baseline) as shown in the proposed 

changes to the table in 40 CFR 

82.8(c)(1). EPA is seeking comment on 

the total levels and allocations of 

exempted new production or import for 

pre-plant and post-harvest critical uses 

in 2011. Each critical use allowance 

(CUA) is equivalent to 1 kg of critical 

use methyl bromide. These allowances 

expire at the end of the control period 

and, as explained in the Framework 

Rule, are not bankable from one year to 

the next. The proposed CUA allocation 

is subject to the trading provisions at 40 

CFR 82.12, which are discussed in 

section V.G. of the preamble to the 

Framework Rule (69 FR 76982). 

Paragraph three of Decision XXI/11 

states ‘‘that Parties shall endeavor to 

license, permit, authorize or allocate 

quantities of critical-use methyl 

bromide as listed in tables A and C of 

the annex to the present decision.’’ This 

is similar to language in Decisions 

authorizing prior critical uses. The 

language from these Decisions calls on 

Parties to endeavor to allocate critical 

use methyl bromide on a sector basis. 

The Framework Rule proposed 

several options for allocating critical use 

allowances, including a sector-by-sector 

approach. The Agency evaluated the 

various options based on their 

economic, environmental, and practical 

effects. After receiving comments, EPA 

determined that a lump-sum, or 

universal, allocation, modified to 

include distinct caps for pre-plant and 

post-harvest uses, was the most efficient 

and least burdensome approach that 

would achieve the desired 

environmental results, and that a sectorby-sector approach would pose 

significant administrative and practical 

difficulties. For the reasons discussed in 

the preamble to the 2009 CUE rule (74 

FR 19894), the Agency believes that 

under the approach adopted in the 

Framework Rule, the actual critical use 

will closely follow the sector breakout 

listed in the Parties’ decisions, but 

continues to welcome comments on this 

issue. 

H. Critical Stock Allowance Allocations 

The 2004 Framework Rule established 

the provisions governing the sale of prephaseout inventories for critical uses, 

including the concept of Critical Stock 

Allowances (CSAs) and a prohibition on 

the sale of pre-phaseout inventories for 

critical uses in excess of the amount of 

CSAs held by the seller. In addition, 

EPA noted that pre-phaseout inventories 

were further taken into account through 

the trading provisions that allow CUAs 

to be converted into CSAs. EPA is not 

proposing changes to these basic CSA 

provisions. 

Previous decisions further addressed 

pre-phaseout inventory of methyl 

bromide. For example, Decision XX/5 

states ‘‘that a Party with a critical use 

exemption level in excess of permitted 

levels of production and consumption 

for critical uses is to make up any such 

differences between those levels by 

using quantities of methyl bromide from 

stocks that the Party has recognized to 

be available.’’ In the Framework Rule (69 

FR 52366), EPA issued CSAs in an 

amount equal to the difference between 

the total authorized CUE amount and 

the amount of new production or import 

authorized by the Parties. In each of the 

subsequent CUE Rules, EPA allocated 

CSAs in amounts that represented not 

only the difference between the total 

authorized CUE amount and the amount 

of authorized new production and 

import but also an additional amount to 

reflect available stocks. After 

determining the CSA amount, EPA 

reduced the portion of CUE methyl 

bromide to come from new production 

and import in each of the 2006–2010 

control periods such that the total 

amount of methyl bromide exempted for 

critical uses did not exceed the total 

amount authorized by the Parties for 

that year. 

As established in the earlier 

rulemakings, EPA views the inclusion of 

these additional amounts in the 

calculation of the year’s overall CSA 

level as an appropriate exercise of 

discretion. The Agency is not required 

to allocate the full amount of authorized 

new production and consumption. The 

Parties only agree to ‘‘permit’’ a 

particular level of production and 

consumption; they do not—and 

cannot—mandate that the U.S. authorize 

this level, or any level, of production 

and consumption domestically. Nor 

does the CAA require EPA to allow the 

full amount permitted by the Parties. 

Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA does not 

require EPA to exempt any amount of 

production and consumption from the 

phaseout, but instead specifies that the 

Agency ‘‘may’’ create an exemption for 

critical uses, providing EPA with 

substantial discretion. 

When determining the CSA amount 

for a year, EPA considers what portion 

of existing stocks is ‘‘available’’ for 

critical uses. As discussed in prior CUE 

rulemakings, the Parties to the Protocol 

recognized in their Decisions that the 

level of existing stocks may differ from 

the level of available stocks. For 

example, Decision IX/6 states that 

‘‘production and consumption, if any, of 

methyl bromide for critical uses should 

be permitted only if * * * methyl 

bromide is not available in sufficient 

quantity and quality from existing 

stocks.’’ Previous decisions refer to use 

of ‘‘quantities of methyl bromide from 

stocks that the Party has recognized to 

be available.’’ Thus, it is clear that 

individual Parties have the ability to 

determine their level of available stocks. 

Decision XXI/11 further reinforces this 

concept by including the phrase ‘‘minus 

available stocks’’ as a footnote to the 

United States’ authorized level of 

production and consumption in Table 

D. Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA does 

not require EPA to adjust the amount of 

new production and import to reflect 

the availability of stocks; however, as 

explained in previous rulemakings, 

making such an adjustment is a 

reasonable exercise of EPA’s discretion 

under this provision. 

EPA is proposing to allocate CSAs to 

the entities shown in the proposed table 

for the 2011 control period in the 

amount of 482,333 kg (1.9% of 

baseline). EPA proposes to update the 

table by incorporating information from 

recent mergers. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to list a single entry for Royster Clark, 

UAP Southeast (NC), and UAP 

Southeast (SC) called Crop Production 

Services. The CSA allocation for Crop 

Production Services would be the sum 

of the three allocations that would have 

gone to Royster Clark and the two UAP 

Southeast entities. 

EPA’s proposed allocation of CSAs is 

based on each company’s proportionate 

share of the aggregate inventory. In 

2006, the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia upheld 

EPA’s treatment of company-specific 

methyl bromide inventory information 

as confidential. NRDC v. Leavitt, 2006 

WL 667327 (D.D.C. March 14, 2006). 

Therefore, the documentation regarding 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

company-specific allocation of CSAs is 

in the confidential portion of the 

rulemaking docket and the individual 

CSA allocations are not listed in the 

table in 40 CFR 82.8(c)(2). EPA will 

inform the listed companies of their 

CSA allocations in a letter following 

publication of the final rule. 

I. Stocks of Methyl Bromide 

An approved critical user may 

purchase methyl bromide produced or 

imported with CUAs as well as limited 

inventories of pre-phaseout methyl 

bromide, the combination of which 

constitute the supply of ‘‘critical use 

methyl bromide’’ intended to meet the 

needs of agreed critical uses. The 

Framework Rule established provisions 

governing the sale of pre-phaseout 

inventories for critical uses, including 

the concept of CSAs and a prohibition 

on the sale of pre-phaseout inventories 

for critical uses in excess of the amount 

of CSAs held by the seller. It also 

established trading provisions that 

allow CUAs to be converted into CSAs. 

EPA is not proposing to change these 

provisions. 

The aggregate amount of pre-phaseout 

methyl bromide reported as being in 

inventory at the beginning of 2010 was 

3,062,674 kg. The Agency continues to 

closely monitor CUA and CSA data. End 

of year reporting shows that the 

inventory at the beginning of 2011 was 

1,802,705 kg. Given this amount, EPA 

believes there is sufficient inventory to 

allocate 482,333 kg as critical stock 

allowances. As stated in the final 2006 

CUE Rule, if an inventory shortage 

occurs, EPA may consider various 

options including authorizing the 

conversion of a limited number of CSAs 

to CUAs through a rulemaking, bearing 

in mind the upper limit on U.S. 

production/import for critical uses. In 

sections V.D. and V.G. of this preamble, 

EPA seeks comment on the amount of 

critical use methyl bromide to come 

from stocks compared to new 

production and import. 

As explained in the 2008 CUE Rule, 

the Agency intends to continue 

releasing the aggregate of methyl 

bromide stockpile information reported 

to the Agency under the reporting 

requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 for the 

end of each control period. EPA notes 

that if the number of competitors in the 

industry were to decline appreciably, 

EPA would revisit the question of 

whether the aggregate is entitled to 

treatment as confidential information 

and whether to release the aggregate 

without notice. EPA is not proposing to 

change the treatment of submitted 

information but welcomes information 

concerning the composition of the 

industry in this regard. The aggregate 

information for 2003 through 2009 is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

proposal is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ This action is likely to result in 

a rule that may raise novel legal or 

policy issues. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under EO 12866 and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

application, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements have already 

been established under previous Critical 

Use Exemption rulemakings and this 

action does not propose to change any 

of those existing requirements. The 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations at 

40 CFR part 82 under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0482. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business that is 

identified by the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

Code in the Table below; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

Category NAICS code SIC code 

NAICS Small 

business size 

standard 

(in number of 

employees or 

millions of 

dollars) 

Agricultural production ............................. 1112—Vegetable and Melon Farming ... 0171—Berry Crops ................................ $0.75 million. 

1113—Fruit and Nut Tree Farming ....... 0172—Grapes. 

1114—Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production.0173—Tree Nuts. 

0175—Deciduous Tree Fruits (except 

apple orchards and farms). 

0179—Fruit and Tree Nuts, NEC. 

0181—Ornamental Floriculture and 

Nursery Products. 

0831—Forest Nurseries and Gathering 

of Forest Products. 

Storage Uses ........................................... 115114—Postharvest Crop activities 

(except Cotton Ginning).

................................................................ $7 million. 

311211—Flour Milling ............................ 2041—Flour and Other Grain Mill Products.500 employees. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23777 

Category NAICS code SIC code 

NAICS Small 

business size 

standard 

(in number of 

employees or 

millions of 

dollars) 

311212—Rice Milling ............................. 2044—Rice Milling ................................. 500 employees. 

493110—General Warehousing and 

Storage.

4225—General Warehousing and Storage.$25.5 million. 

493130—Farm Product Warehousing 

and Storage.

4221—Farm Product Warehousing and 

Storage.

$25.5 million. 

Distributors and Applicators .................... 115112—Soil Preparation, Planting and 

Cultivating.

0721—Crop Planting, Cultivation, and 

Protection.

$7 million. 

Producers and Importers ......................... 325320—Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing.2879—Pesticides and Agricultural 

Chemicals, NEC.

500 employees. 

Agricultural producers of minor crops 

and entities that store agricultural 

commodities are categories of affected 

entities that contain small entities. This 

proposed rule would only affect entities 

that applied to EPA for an exemption to 

the phaseout of methyl bromide. In most 

cases, EPA received aggregated requests 

for exemptions from industry consortia. 

On the exemption application, EPA 

asked consortia to describe the number 

and size distribution of entities their 

application covered. EPA estimated that 

3,218 entities petitioned EPA for an 

exemption for the 2005 control period. 

EPA revised this estimate in 2008 down 

to 2,000 end users of critical use methyl 

bromide. EPA believes that the number 

continues to decline as growers cease 

applying for critical uses. Since many 

applicants did not provide information 

on the distribution of sizes of entities 

covered in their applications, EPA 

estimated that, based on the above 

definition, between one-fourth and onethird of the entities may be small 

businesses. In addition, other categories 

of affected entities do not contain small 

businesses based on the above 

description. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, EPA certifies that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603–604). Thus, an Agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves a regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. Since this rule would exempt 

methyl bromide for approved critical 

uses after the phaseout date of January 

1, 2005, this action would confer a 

benefit to users of methyl bromide. We 

have therefore concluded that this 

proposed rule would relieve regulatory 

burden for all small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or Tribal governments or 

the private sector. Instead, this action 

would provide an exemption for the 

manufacture and use of a phased out 

compound and would not impose any 

new requirements on any entities. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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 proposed 

rule is expected to primarily affect 

producers, suppliers, importers, and 

exporters and users of methyl bromide. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit 

of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed 

action from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This rule does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Indian Tribal governments nor does it 

impose any enforceable duties on 

communities of Indian Tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order No. 13045: 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed 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. 

This proposed rule does not pertain to 

any segment of the energy production 

economy nor does it regulate any 

manner of energy use. Therefore, we 

have concluded that this proposed rule 

is not likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 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. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations, 

because it affects the level of 

environmental protection equally for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

Any ozone depletion that results from 

this proposed rule will impact all 

affected populations equally because 

ozone depletion is a global 

environmental problem with 

environmental and human effects that 

are, in general, equally distributed 

across geographical regions. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, Ozone 

depletion, Chemicals, Exports, Imports. 

Dated: April 22, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 

7671q. 

2. Section 82.8 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising the table in paragraph 

(c)(1); 

b. By revising paragraph (c)(2) 

including the table. 

§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances 

and critical use allowances. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Company 

2011 Critical use 

allowances for 

pre-plant uses 

(kilograms) 

2011 Critical use 

allowances for 

post-harvest uses * 

(kilograms) 

Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company .............................................................................. 839,966 71,584 

Albemarle Corp ........................................................................................................................................ 345,413 29,437 

ICL–IP America ........................................................................................................................................ 190,883 12,267 

TriCal, Inc ................................................................................................................................................ 5,943 507 

Total ** .............................................................................................................................................. 1,382,206 117,794 

* For production or import of Class I, Group VI controlled substance exclusively for the Pre-Plant or Post-Harvest uses specified in appendix L 

to this subpart. 

** Due to rounding, numbers do not add exactly. 

(2) Allocated critical stock allowances 

granted for specified control period. The 

following companies are allocated 

critical stock allowances for 2011 on a 

pro-rata basis in relation to the 

inventory held by each. 

Company 

Albemarle. 

Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc. 

Burnside Services, Inc. 

Cardinal Professional Products. 

Chemtura Corp. 

Company 

Crop Production Services. 

Degesch America, Inc. 

Helena Chemical Co. 

Hendrix & Dail. 

Hy Yield Products. 

ICL-IP America. 

Industrial Fumigant Company. 

Pacific Ag Supplies Inc. 

Pest Fog Sales Corp. 

Prosource One. 

Reddick Fumigants. 

Trical Inc. 

Company 

Trident Agricultural Products. 

Univar. 

Western Fumigation. 

Total—482,333 kilograms. 

3. Appendix L to Subpart A is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82— 

Approved Critical Uses and Limiting 

Critical Conditions for Those Uses for 

the 2011 Control Period 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23779 

Column A Column B Column C 

Approved Critical Uses Approved Critical User and Location of Use Limiting Critical Conditions that exist, or that the approved critical user reasonably expects could arise 

without methyl bromide fumigation: 

PRE–PLANT USES 

Cucurbits .............................. (a) Growers in Delaware and Maryland .......................... Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

(b) Growers in Georgia and Southeastern U.S. limited 

to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Virginia.

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe root knot nematode infestation. 

Eggplant ............................... (a) Florida growers .......................................................... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical 

features and soils not supporting seepage irrigation. 

(b) Georgia growers ........................................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe pythium collar, crown and root rot. 

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical 

features. 

Forest Nursery Seedlings .... (a) Growers in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

(b) International Paper and its subsidiaries limited to 

growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, 

South Carolina, and Texas.

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

(c) Government-owned seedling nurseries in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Moderate to severe weed infestation including purple 

and yellow nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

(d) Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited 

to growing locations in Alabama, Arkansas, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina.

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode or worm infestation. 

(e) Weyerhaeuser Company and its subsidiaries limited 

to growing locations in Oregon and Washington.

Moderate to severe yellow nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

(f) Michigan growers ....................................................... Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe Canada thistle infestation. 

Moderate to severe nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Nursery Stock (Fruit, Nut, 

Flower).

(a) Members of the California Association of Nursery 

and Garden Centers representing Deciduous Tree 

Fruit Growers.

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Medium to heavy clay soils. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

(b) California rose nurseries ........................................... Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

Orchard Replant ................... California stone fruit, table and raisin grape, wine 

grape, walnut, and almond growers.

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Replanted orchard soils to prevent orchard replant disease. 

Medium to heavy soils. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

Ornamentals ......................... (a) California growers ...................................................... Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

(b) Florida growers .......................................................... Moderate to severe weed infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical 

features and soils not supporting seepage irrigation. 

Peppers ................................ (a) Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia 

growers.

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe pythium root, collar, crown and root 

rots. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

23780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Column A Column B Column C 

(b) Florida growers .......................................................... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical 

features and soils not supporting seepage irrigation. 

(c) Georgia growers ........................................................ Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation, or moderate 

to severe pythium root and collar rots. 

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or 

root rot. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical 

features. 

Strawberry Fruit ................... (a) California growers ...................................................... Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot, 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(b) Florida growers .......................................................... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Carolina geranium or cut-leaf evening primrose infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical 

features and soils not supporting seepage irrigation. 

(c) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers.

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe black root and crown rot. 

Strawberry Nurseries ........... (a) California growers ...................................................... Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

(b) North Carolina and Tennessee growers ................... Moderate to severe black root rot. 

Moderate to severe root-knot nematode infestation. 

Moderate to severe yellow and purple nutsedge infestation. 

Sweet Potato Slips ............... California growers ........................................................... Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

Tomatoes ............................. (a) Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia growers.

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical 

features and, in Florida, soils not supporting seepage 

irrigation. 

(b) Maryland growers ...................................................... Moderate to severe fungal pathogen infestation. 

POST-HARVEST USES 

Food Processing .................. (a) Rice millers in the U.S. who are members of the 

USA Rice Millers Association.

Moderate to severe beetle, weevil, or moth infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to 

corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U.S. who are 

members of the Pet Food Institute.

Moderate to severe beetle, moth, or cockroach infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to 

corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(c) Members of the North American Millers’ Association 

in the U.S.

Moderate to severe beetle infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to 

corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(d) Members of the National Pest Management Association treating processed food, cheese, herbs and 

spices, and spaces and equipment in associated 

processing and storage facilities.

Moderate to severe beetle or moth infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to 

corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

Commodities ........................ California entities storing walnuts, beans, dried plums, 

figs, raisins, and dates (in Riverside county only) in 

California.

Rapid fumigation required to meet a critical market window, such as during the holiday season. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23781 

Column A Column B Column C 

Dry Cured Pork Products ..... Members of the National Country Ham Association and 

the Association of Meat Processors, Nahunta Pork 

Center (North Carolina), and Gwaltney and Smithfield 

Inc.

Red legged ham beetle infestation. 

Cheese/ham skipper infestation. 

Dermested beetle infestation. 

Ham mite infestation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10345 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0062; 

92210–1117–0000–B4] 

RIN 1018–AW85 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake Shrew 

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 comment period on the 

October 21, 2009, proposed designation 

of revised critical habitat for the Buena 

Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus 

relictus) (shrew) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We also announce the availability of a 

draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed designation of revised critical 

habitat for the shrew and an amended 

required determinations section of the 

proposed rule. We are reopening the 

comment period for an additional 60 

days to allow all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment simultaneously 

on the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation, the associated DEA, and 

the amended required determinations 

section. We also announce a public 

hearing; the public is invited to review 

and comment on the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation at the public 

hearing or in writing. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted, as they will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: Written Comments: We will 

consider comments received on or 

before June 27, 2011. Comments must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. Any comments that we 

receive after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

action. 

Public Hearing: We will hold the 

public hearing on June 8, 2011. The first 

hearing session will start at 1 p.m. 

Pacific Time with doors opening at 

12:30, and the second session at 6 p.m. 

with doors opening at 5:30. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0062, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

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

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2009– 

0062; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

Public Hearing: We will hold the 

public hearing at the Doubletree Hotel, 

3100 Camino Del Rio Court, Bakersfield, 

California. 

We will post all comments and the 

public hearing transcript on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, or 

Karen Leyse, Listing Coordinator, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 

95825; by telephone (916) 414–6600; or 

by facsimile (916) 414–6713. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed 

designation of revised critical habitat for 

the Buena Vista Lake shrew that we 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 21, 2009 (74 FR 53999), our 

DEA of the proposed revised 

designation, and the amended required 

determinations provided in this 

document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to the species from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The distribution of the Buena Vista 

Lake shrew, including the locations of 

any additional populations of this 

species that would help us further refine 

boundaries of critical habitat; 

(b) The amount and distribution of 

Buena Vista Lake shrew habitat, 

including areas that provide habitat for 

the shrew that we did not discuss in the 

proposed revised critical habitat rule; 

(c) What areas occupied by the 

species at the time of listing that contain 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species we should include in the 

designation, and why; and 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

revised critical habitat. 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts that may result from 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

from the proposed designation that are 

subject to these impacts. 

(5) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

(6) Information on the extent to which 

the description of economic impacts in 

the DEA is complete and accurate. 

(7) The likelihood of adverse social 

reactions to the designation of critical 

habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and 

how the consequences of such reactions, 

if likely to occur, would relate to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS