34700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 

existing waiver of preemption. After 

evaluating CARB’s amendments, 

CARB’s submissions, and the public 

comments, EPA confirms that 

California’s regulatory amendments 

meet the three criteria that EPA uses to 

determine whether amendments by 

California are within the scope of 

previous waivers. First, EPA agrees with 

CARB that the greenhouse gas 

amendments do not undermine 

California’s protectiveness 

determination from its previously 

waived greenhouse gas request. Second, 

EPA agrees with CARB that California’s 

greenhouse gas amendments do not 

undermine EPA’s prior determination 

regarding consistency with section 

202(a) of the Act. Third, EPA agrees 

with CARB that California’s greenhouse 

gas amendments do not present any new 

issues which would affect the 

previously issued waiver for California’s 

greenhouse gas regulations. Therefore, I 

confirm that CARB’s greenhouse gas 

amendments are within the scope of 

EPA’s waiver of preemption for 

California’s greenhouse gas regulations. 

While EPA has confirmed that the 

amendments to California’s greenhouse 

gas regulations are within the scope of 

EPA’s prior waiver, we have also, in the 

alternative analyzed California’s 

greenhouse gas regulations, as amended, 

under the criteria for a full waiver. 

Based on that analysis, we have 

determined that EPA could not deny a 

waiver of preemption for California’s 

regulations, as amended. California has 

made a determination that its 

regulations as amended are at least as 

protective as the Federal GHG 

standards, and those opposing the 

waiver have not met the burden of 

demonstrating that any of the three 

statutory criteria for a denial under 

section 209(b)(1) have been met. 

Therefore, having given consideration to 

all the material submitted for this 

record, and other relevant information, 

I find that I cannot make the 

determinations required for a denial of 

a waiver pursuant to section 209(b) of 

the Act. I find that, even if California’s 

revisions to its greenhouse gas standards 

were not within-the-scope of its earlier 

waiver, California’s amended motor 

vehicle greenhouse gas emission 

regulations would receive a full waiver. 

Consequently, even if the amendments 

were not within the scope of the earlier 

waiver, I am, in the alternative, granting 

California a full waiver of preemption 

for its amended motor vehicle 

greenhouse gas regulations. 

My decision will affect not only 

persons in California, but also 

manufacturers outside the State who 

must comply with California’s 

requirements in order to produce 

vehicles for sale in California. For this 

reason, I determine and find that this is 

a final action of national applicability 

for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 

Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the 

Act, judicial review of this final action 

may be sought only in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review 

must be filed by August 15, 2011. 

Judicial review of this final action may 

not be obtained in subsequent 

enforcement proceedings, pursuant to 

section 307(b)(2) of the Act. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

As with past authorization and waiver 

decisions, this action is not a rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866. 

Therefore, it is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget as 

required for rules and regulations by 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

Further, 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 because this action is not a 

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

Dated: June 8, 2011. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14686 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0431, FRL–9318–5] 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Request for Methyl Bromide Critical 

Use Exemption Applications for 2014 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of 

applications and information on 

alternatives. 

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting applications 

for the critical use exemption from the 

phaseout of methyl bromide for 2014. 

Critical use exemptions last only one 

year. All entities interested in obtaining 

a critical use exemption for 2014 must 

provide EPA with technical and 

economic information to support a 

‘‘critical use’’ claim and must do so by 

the deadline specified in this notice 

even if they have applied for an 

exemption in previous years. Today’s 

notice also invites interested parties to 

provide EPA with new data on the 

technical and economic feasibility of 

methyl bromide alternatives. 

DATES: Applications for the 2014 critical 

use exemption must be postmarked on 

or before August 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA encourages users to 

submit their applications electronically 

to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, at 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov. If the 

application is submitted electronically, 

applicants must fax a signed copy of 

Worksheet 1 to 202–343–2338 by the 

application deadline. Applications for 

the methyl bromide critical use 

exemption can also be submitted by 

U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Attention Methyl Bromide 

Team, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 or by courier delivery to: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, 

Stratospheric Protection Division, 

Attention Methyl Bromide Review 

Team, 1310 L St., NW., Room 1047E, 

Washington DC 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General Information: U.S. EPA 

Stratospheric Ozone Information 

Hotline, 1–800–296–1996; also http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr. 

Technical Information: Bill Chism, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC, 20460, 703–308–8136. 

E-mail: chism.bill@epa.gov. 

Regulatory Information: Jeremy 

Arling, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Stratospheric Protection 

Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, 

202–343–9055. E-mail: 

arling.jeremy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What do I need to know to respond to this 

request for applications? 

A. Who can respond to this request for 

information? 

B. Who can I contact to find out if a 

consortium is submitting an application 

form for my methyl bromide use? 

C. How do I obtain an application form for 

the methyl bromide critical use 

exemption? 

D. What must applicants address when 

applying for a critical use exemption? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 34701 

E. What if I applied for a critical use 

exemption in a previous year? 

F. What if I submit an incomplete 

application? 

G. What portions of the applications will 

be considered confidential business 

information? 

II. What is the legal authority for the critical 

use exemption? 

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

authority for the critical use exemption? 

B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority 

for the critical use exemption? 

C. What is the timing for applications for 

the 2014 control period? 

I. What do I need to know to respond 

to this request for applications? 

A. Who can respond to this request for 

information? 

Entities interested in obtaining a 

critical use exemption must complete 

the application form available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. 

The application may be submitted either 

by a consortium representing multiple 

users who have similar circumstances or 

by individual users who anticipate 

needing methyl bromide in 2014 and 

have evaluated alternatives and as a 

result of that evaluation, believe they 

have no technically and economically 

feasible alternatives. EPA encourages 

groups of users with similar 

circumstances of use to submit a single 

application (for example, any number of 

pre-plant users with similar soil, pest, 

and climactic conditions can join 

together to submit a single application). 

In addition to requesting information 

from applicants for the critical use 

exemption, this solicitation for 

information provides an opportunity for 

any interested party to provide EPA 

with information on methyl bromide 

alternatives (e.g., technical and/or 

economic feasibility research). 

B. Who can I contact to find out whether 

a consortium is submitting an 

application for my methyl bromide use? 

You should contact your local, state, 

regional or national commodity 

association to find out whether it plans 

to submit an application on behalf of 

your commodity group. Additionally, 

you should contact your state regulatory 

agency (generally this will be the state’s 

agriculture or environmental protection 

agency) to receive information about its 

involvement in the process. If your state 

agency has chosen to participate, EPA 

recommends that you first submit your 

application to the state agency, which 

will then forward applications to EPA. 

The National Pesticide Information 

Center Web site identifies the lead 

pesticide agency in each state (http:// 

npic.orst.edu/state1.htm). 

C. How do I obtain an application form 

for the methyl bromide critical use 

exemption? 

An application form for the methyl 

bromide critical use exemption can be 

obtained either in electronic or hardcopy form. EPA encourages use of the 

electronic form. Applications can be 

obtained in the following ways: 

1. PDF format and Microsoft Excel at 

EPA’s Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html; 

2. Hard copy ordered through the 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline 

at 1–800–296–1996; 

3. PDF format and Microsoft Excel at 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0431. The docket can be accessed at the 

http://www.regulations.gov site. To 

obtain hard copies of docket materials, 

please e-mail the EPA Docket Center: aand-r-docket@epa.gov. 

D. What must applicants address when 

applying for a critical use exemption? 

To support the assertion that a 

specific use of methyl bromide is 

‘‘critical,’’ applicants must demonstrate 

that there are no technically and 

economically feasible alternatives 

available for that use. In 2011, the U.S. 

submitted an index of alternatives, 

which includes the current registration 

status of available and potential 

alternatives, to the Ozone Secretariat. 

That index is reproduced in Table 1 and 

can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone/mbr/alts.html. Specifically, 

applications must include the following 

information for the U.S. to successfully 

defend its nominations for critical uses. 

The information requested below is 

included in the application form but we 

are highlighting specific areas that 

applicants must address. 

Commodities such as dried fruit and 

nuts: Applicants must address potential 

pest losses, quality, timing changes and 

economic implications to producers 

when converting to alternatives such as: 

sulfuryl fluoride and phosphine. If 

relevant, the applicant should also 

include the costs to retrofit equipment 

or design and construct new fumigation 

chambers for these uses. Applicants 

must include information on the 

amount of methyl bromide and any 

other fumigants used as well as the 

amounts of commodity treated with 

each fumigant. Include information on 

the size of fumigation chambers where 

methyl bromide is used, the percent of 

commodity fumigated under tarps, the 

length of the harvest season, peak of the 

harvest season and duration, and 

volume of commodity treated daily at 

the harvest peak. The Agency must have 

a description of your future research 

plans which includes the pest(s), 

chemical(s) or management practice(s) 

that you will be testing in the future to 

support this CUE. Also include 

information on what pest control 

practices organic producers are using for 

their commodity. 

Structures and Facilities (flour mills, 

rice mills, pet food): Applicants must 

address potential pest losses, quality, 

timing changes and economic 

implications to producers when 

converting to alternatives such as: 

sulfuryl fluoride, micro-sanitation, and 

heat. If relevant, the applicant should 

include the costs to retrofit equipment 

for these pest control methods. List how 

many mills have been fumigated with 

methyl bromide over the last three 

years, rate, volume and target 

Concentration—Time (CT) of methyl 

bromide at each location, volume of 

each facility, number of fumigations per 

year, and date facility was constructed. 

The Agency must have a description of 

your future research plans which 

includes the pest(s), chemical(s) or 

management practice(s) you will be 

testing in the future to support this CUE. 

Also include information on what pest 

control practices organic producers are 

using for their facilities. 

Ham: List how many facilities have 

been fumigated with methyl bromide 

over the last three years, rate, volume 

and target CT of methyl bromide at each 

location, volume of each facility, 

number of fumigations per year, and 

date facility was constructed. The 

Agency must have a description of your 

future research plans which includes 

the pest(s), chemical(s) or management 

practice(s) you will be testing in the 

future to support this CUE. 

Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and 

Tomato: Applicants must address 

potential yield, quality, and timing 

changes or economic implications for 

growers and/or your region’s production 

of these crops when converting to 

alternatives such as: iodomethane plus 

chloropicrin, the Georgia three way 

mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus 

chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or 

potassium), and dimethyl disulfide 

(DMDS) and any fumigationless system 

(if data are available). If relevant, the 

applicant should include the costs to 

retrofit equipment for these uses. The 

Agency must have a description of your 

future research plans which includes 

the pest(s), chemical(s) or management 

practice(s) you will be testing in the 

future to support this CUE. 

Strawberry Fruit: Applicants must 

address potential yield, quality, and 

timing changes, or economic 

implications for growers when 

converting to alternatives such as: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
34702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 

iodomethane plus chloropicrin, the 

Georgia three way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam (sodium or potassium), and any 

fumigationless system (if data are 

available). If relevant, the applicant 

should include the costs to retrofit 

equipment for these uses. The Agency 

must have a description of your future 

research plans which includes the 

pest(s), chemical(s) or management 

practice(s) you will be testing in the 

future to support this CUE. 

Nursery stock, Orchard Replant, 

Ornamentals, and Strawberry Nursery: 

Applicants must address potential yield, 

quality, and timing changes, or 

economic implications for growers and 

your region’s production of these crops 

when converting to alternatives such as: 

iodomethane plus chloropicrin, the 

Georgia three way mixture of 1,3- 

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus 

metam (sodium or potassium), and 

dimethyl disulfide (if registered in your 

state), and steam. If relevant the 

applicant should include the costs to 

retrofit equipment for these uses. The 

Agency must have a description of your 

future research plans which includes 

the pest(s), chemical(s) or management 

practice(s) you will be testing in the 

future to support this CUE. 

E. What if I applied for a critical use 

exemption in a previous year? 

Critical use exemptions are valid for 

only one year and do not renew 

automatically. Users desiring to obtain 

an exemption for 2014 must apply to 

EPA. Because of the latest changes in 

registrations, costs, and economic 

aspects for producing critical use crops 

and commodities, all applicants will be 

required to fill out the application form 

completely. 

F. What if I submit an incomplete 

application? 

EPA will not accept any applications 

postmarked after August 15, 2011. If the 

application is postmarked by the 

deadline but is incomplete or missing 

any data elements, EPA will not accept 

the application and will not include the 

application in the U.S. nomination 

submitted for international 

consideration. If the application is 

substantially complete with only minor 

errors, corrections will be accepted. EPA 

reviewers may also call an applicant for 

further clarification of an application, 

even if it is complete. 

G. What portions of the applications will 

be considered confidential business 

information? 

You may assert a business 

confidentiality claim covering part or all 

of the information by placing on (or 

attaching to) the information, at the time 

it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, 

stamped or typed legend, or other 

suitable form of notice employing 

language such as ‘‘trade secret,’’ 

‘‘proprietary,’’ or ‘‘company 

confidential.’’ You should clearly 

identify the allegedly confidential 

portions of otherwise non-confidential 

documents, and you may submit them 

separately to facilitate identification and 

handling by EPA. If you desire 

confidential treatment only until a 

certain date or until the occurrence of a 

certain event, your notice should state 

that. Information covered by a claim of 

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA 

only to the extent, and by means of the 

procedures, set forth under 40 CFR part 

2, subpart B; 41 FR 36752, 43 FR 40000, 

50 FR 51661. If no claim of 

confidentiality accompanies the 

information when EPA receives it, EPA 

may make it available to the public 

without further notice. 

If you are asserting a business 

confidentiality claim covering part or all 

of the information in the application, 

please submit a non-confidential 

version that EPA can place in the public 

docket for reference by other interested 

parties. Do not include on the 

‘‘Worksheet 6: Application Summary’’ 

page of the application any information 

that you wish to claim as confidential 

business information. Any information 

on Worksheet 6 shall not be considered 

confidential and will not be treated as 

such by the Agency. EPA will place a 

copy of Worksheet 6 in the public 

domain. Please note, claiming business 

confidentiality may delay EPA’s ability 

to review your application. 

II. What is the legal authority for the 

critical use exemption? 

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

authority for the critical use exemption? 

In October 1998, Congress amended 

the Clean Air Act to require EPA to 

conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for 

methyl bromide to the provisions of the 

Montreal Protocol for industrialized 

countries and to allow EPA to provide 

a critical use exemption. These 

amendments were codified in Section 

604 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7671c. Under EPA implementing 

regulations, methyl bromide production 

and consumption were phased out as of 

January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as 

added in 1998, allows EPA to exempt 

the production and import of methyl 

bromide from the phaseout for critical 

uses, to the extent consistent with the 

Montreal Protocol. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 

prohibit the production and import of 

methyl bromide in excess of the amount 

of unexpended critical use allowances 

held by the producer or importer, unless 

authorized under a separate exemption. 

Methyl bromide produced or imported 

by expending critical use allowances 

may be used only for the appropriate 

category of approved critical uses as 

listed in Appendix L to the regulations 

(40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl 

bromide that was produced or imported 

through the expenditure of production 

or consumption allowances prior to 

2005 is not confined to critical uses 

under EPA’s phaseout regulations; 

however, other restrictions may apply. 

B. What is the Montreal Protocol 

authority for the critical use exemption? 

The Montreal Protocol provides that 

the Parties may exempt ‘‘the level of 

production or consumption that is 

necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them 

to be critical uses’’ (Art. 2H para 5). The 

Parties to the Protocol included this 

language in the treaty’s methyl bromide 

phaseout provisions in recognition that 

alternatives might not be available by 

2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide 

agreed by the Parties to be ‘‘critical 

uses.’’ 

In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the 

Parties to the Protocol agreed to 

Decision IX/6, setting forth the 

following criteria for a ‘‘critical use’’ 

determination and an exemption from 

the production and consumption 

phaseout: 

(a) 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 health and are suitable 

to the crops and circumstances of the 

nomination. 

(b) That production and consumption, 

if any, of methyl bromide for a critical 

use should be permitted only if: 

(i) All technically and economically 

feasible steps have been taken to 

minimize the critical use and any 

associated emission of methyl bromide; 

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in 

sufficient quantity and quality from 

existing stocks of banked or recycled 

methyl bromide, also bearing in mind 

the developing countries’ need for 

methyl bromide; 

(iii) It is demonstrated that an 

appropriate effort is being made to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 34703 

evaluate, commercialize and secure 

national regulatory approval of 

alternatives and substitutes, taking into 

consideration the circumstances of the 

particular nomination. * * * NonArticle 5 Parties [e.g., developed 

countries, including the U.S.] must 

demonstrate that research programs are 

in place to develop and deploy 

alternatives and substitutes. * * * 

EPA has defined ‘‘critical use’’ in its 

regulations at 40 CFR 82.3 in a manner 

similar to Decision IX/6 paragraph (a). 

C. What is the timing for applications 

for the 2014 control period? 

There is both a domestic and 

international component to the critical 

use exemption process. The following 

outline projects a timeline for the 

process for the 2014 critical use 

exemption. 

June 14, 2011: Solicit applications for 

the methyl bromide critical use 

exemption for 2014. 

August 15, 2011: Deadline for 

submitting critical use exemption 

applications to EPA. 

Fall 2011: U.S. Government (through 

EPA, Department of State, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, and other 

interested Federal agencies) prepares 

U.S. Critical Use Nomination package. 

January 24, 2012: Deadline for U.S. 

Government to submit U.S. nomination 

package to the Protocol Parties. 

Early 2012: Technical and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP) and Methyl 

Bromide Technical Options Committee 

(MBTOC) reviews Parties’ nominations 

for critical use exemptions. 

Mid 2012: Parties consider TEAP/ 

MBTOC recommendations. 

November 2012: Parties decide 

whether to authorize critical use 

exemptions for methyl bromide for 

production and consumption in 2014. 

Mid 2013: If the Parties authorize 

critical uses, EPA publishes proposed 

rule for allocating critical use 

allowances in the U.S. for 2014. 

Late 2013: EPA publishes final rule 

allocating critical use allowances in the 

U.S. for 2014. 

January 1, 2014: Critical use 

exemption permits the limited 

production and import of methyl 

bromide for specified uses for the 2014 

control period. 

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

7671q. 

Dated: June 6, 2011. 

Elizabeth Craig, 

Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14571 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–ORD–2011–0503; FRL–9318–9] 

Human Studies Review Board 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Request for Nominations to the 

Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) 

Advisory Committee. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) invites 

nominations from a diverse range of 

qualified candidates with expertise in 

bioethics and toxicology to be 

considered for appointment to its 

Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) 

advisory committee. Vacancies are 

anticipated to be filled by September 1, 

2011. Sources in addition to this 

Federal Register Notice may also be 

utilized in the solicitation of nominees. 

Background: On February 6, 2006, the 

Agency published a final rule for the 

protection of human subjects in research 

(71 FR 24 6138) that called for creating 

a new, independent human studies 

review board (i.e., HSRB). The HSRB is 

a Federal advisory committee operating 

in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 

U.S.C. App. 2 § 9 (Pub. L. 92–463). Each 

year the HSRB experiences membership 

terms expiring, therefore needs 

candidates for consideration as 

replacement members. The HSRB 

provides advice, information, and 

recommendations to EPA on issues 

related to scientific and ethical aspects 

of human subjects research. The major 

objectives of the HSRB are to provide 

advice and recommendations on: (1) 

Research proposals and protocols; (2) 

reports of completed research with 

human subjects; and (3) how to 

strengthen EPA’s programs for 

protection of human subjects of 

research. The HSRB reports to the EPA 

Administrator through EPA’s Science 

Advisor. General information 

concerning the HSRB, including its 

charter, current membership, and 

activities can be found on the EPA Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. 

HSRB members serve as special 

government employees or regular 

government employees. Members are 

appointed by the EPA Administrator for 

either two or three year terms with the 

possibility of reappointment to 

additional terms, with a maximum of 

six years of service. The HSRB usually 

meets four times a year and the typical 

workload for HSRB members is 

approximately 40 to 50 hours per 

meeting, including the time spent at the 

meeting. Responsibilities of HSRB 

members include reviewing extensive 

background materials prior to meetings 

of the Board, preparing draft responses 

to Agency charge questions, attending 

Board meetings, participating in the 

discussion and deliberations at these 

meetings, drafting assigned sections of 

meeting reports, and helping to finalize 

Board reports. EPA compensates special 

government employees for their time 

and provides reimbursement for travel 

and other incidental expenses 

associated with official government 

business. Currently, EPA is seeking 

nominations for individuals with 

expertise in bioethics and toxicology. 

EPA values and welcomes diversity. In 

an effort to obtain nominations of 

diverse candidates, EPA encourages 

nominations of women and men of all 

racial and ethnic groups. 

The qualifications of nominees for 

membership on the HSRB will be 

assessed in terms of the specific 

expertise sought for the HSRB. Qualified 

nominees who agree to be considered 

further will be included in a ‘‘Short 

List.’’ The Short List of nominees’ 

names and biographical sketches will be 

posted for 14 calendar days for public 

comment on the HSRB Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ 

index.htm. The public will be 

encouraged to provide additional 

information about the nominees that 

EPA should consider. At the completion 

of the comment period, EPA will select 

new Board members from the Short List. 

Candidates not selected for HSRB 

membership at this time may be 

considered for HSRB membership as 

vacancies arise in the future or for 

service as consultants to the HSRB. The 

Agency estimates that the names of 

Short List candidates will be posted in 

July 2011. However, please be advised 

that this is an approximate time frame 

and the date is subject to change. If you 

have any questions concerning posting 

of Short List candidates on the HSRB 

Web site, please consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Members of the HSRB are subject to 

the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, 

Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, 

as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR 

part 6401. In anticipation of this 

requirement, each nominee will be 

asked to submit confidential financial 

information that shall fully disclose, 

among other financial interests, the 

candidate’s employment, stocks and 

bonds, and where applicable, sources of 

research support. The information 

provided is strictly confidential and will 

not be disclosed to the public. Before a 

candidate is considered further for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES