33460 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 19, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14348 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0915; FRL–9928–87– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina; 

Charlotte-Rock Hill; Base Year 

Emissions Inventory and Emissions 

Statements Requirements for the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the portions of the state implementation 

plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of South Carolina, through South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control on August 8, 

2014, and August 22, 2014, that address 

the base year emissions inventory and 

emissions statements requirements for 

the State’s portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill North 

Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area. 

Annual emissions reporting (i.e., 

emissions statements) and a base year 

emissions inventory are required for all 

ozone nonattainment areas. The Area is 

comprised of the entire county of 

Mecklenburg and a portion of Cabarrus, 

Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan, Union 

Counties in North Carolina and a 

portion of York County in South 

Carolina. EPA has published proposed 

and direct final actions on the emissions 

inventory and emissions statements 

requirements for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area in 

separate rulemaking documents. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 13, 2015 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0915 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0915,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly the Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bell 

can be reached at (404) 562–9088 and 

via electronic mail at bell.tiereny@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

A detailed rationale for the approval is 

set forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all comments received 

will be addressed in a subsequent final 

rule based on this proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

Dated: May 28, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14346 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0369; FRL–9922–39– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS44 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 

2016 Critical Use Exemption From the 

Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing uses that 

qualify for the critical use exemption 

and the amount of methyl bromide that 

may be produced or imported for those 

uses for the 2016 control period. EPA is 

proposing this action under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect 

consensus decisions of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer at the TwentySixth Meeting of the Parties in 

November 2014. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0369, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33461 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

If you need to include CBI as part of 

your comment, please visit http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html 

for instructions. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. 

For additional submission methods, 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343– 

9055; email address arling.jeremy@

epa.gov. You may also visit the methyl 

bromide section of the Ozone Depletion 

Web site of EPA’s Stratospheric 

Protection Division at 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: 

I. Executive Summary 

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 2016. Under the 

Clean Air Act, methyl bromide 

consumption (consumption is defined 

under section 601 of the CAA as 

production plus imports minus exports) 

and production were phased out on 

January 1, 2005, apart from allowable 

exemptions, such as the critical use and 

the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) 

exemptions. With this action, EPA is 

proposing and seeking comment on the 

uses that will qualify for the critical use 

exemption as well as specific amounts 

of methyl bromide that may be 

produced and imported for proposed 

critical uses for 2016. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities and categories of entities 

potentially regulated by this proposed 

action include producers, importers, 

and exporters of methyl bromide; 

applicators and distributors of methyl 

bromide; and users of methyl bromide 

that applied for the 2016 critical use 

exemption including growers of 

vegetable crops, ornamentals, fruits, and 

nursery stock, and owners of stored food 

commodities. 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. 

III. 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 Title VI of 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 this 

proposal must comply with FIFRA and 

other pertinent statutory and regulatory 

requirements for pesticides (including, 

but not limited to, requirements 

pertaining to restricted use pesticides) 

when producing, importing, exporting, 

acquiring, selling, distributing, 

transferring, or using methyl bromide. 

The provisions 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. 

IV. 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 United States was one 

of the original signatories to the 1987 

Montreal Protocol, and the United 

States ratified the Protocol in 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 

developed country’s level of methyl 

bromide production and consumption 

in 1991 should be the baseline for 

establishing a freeze on the level of 

methyl bromide production and 

consumption for developed countries. 

EPA published a rule in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 

65018), listing methyl bromide as a 

Class I, Group VI controlled substance. 

This rule froze U.S. production and 

consumption at the 1991 baseline level 

of 25,528,270 kilograms, and set 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33462 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See CAA section 604(d)(6): ‘‘To the extent 

consistent with the Montreal Protocol, the 

Administrator, after notice and the opportunity for 

public comment, and after consultation with other 

departments or instrumentalities of the Federal 

Government having regulatory authority related to 

methyl bromide, including the Secretary of 

Agriculture, may exempt the production, 

importation, and consumption of methyl bromide 

for critical uses.’’ 

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 agreed to 

adjustments to the methyl bromide 

control measures and agreed to 

reduction steps and a 2010 phaseout 

date for developed countries with 

exemptions permitted for critical uses. 

At that time, the United States 

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 developed 

countries, with reduction steps leading 

to a 2005 phaseout. The Parties also 

established a phaseout date of 2015 for 

countries operating under Article 5 of 

the Protocol (developing countries). 

V. What is the legal authority for 

exempting the production and import of 

methyl bromide for critical uses 

permitted by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol? 

In October 1998, the U.S. Congress 

amended the Clean Air Act to prohibit 

the termination of production of methyl 

bromide prior to January 1, 2005, to 

require EPA to align the U.S. phaseout 

of methyl bromide 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 

rulemaking on November 28, 2000 (65 

FR 70795), which allowed for the 

reduction in methyl bromide 

consumption specified under the 

Protocol and extended the phaseout to 

2005 while creating a placeholder for 

critical use exemptions. Through an 

interim final rule on July 19, 2001 (66 

FR 37751), and a final rule on January 

2, 2003 (68 FR 238), EPA amended the 

regulations to allow for an exemption 

for quarantine and preshipment 

purposes. 

On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982), 

EPA published a rule (the ‘‘Framework 

Rule’’) that established the 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 

annual control periods from 2006 to 

2015. 

In accordance with Article 2H(5) of 

the Montreal Protocol, 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 

critical uses. The status of Decisions is 

addressed in NRDC v. EPA, (464 F.3d 1, 

D.C. Cir. 2006) and in EPA’s 

‘‘Supplemental Brief for the 

Respondent,’’ filed in NRDC v. EPA and 

available in the docket for this proposed 

action. In this proposed rule on critical 

uses for 2016, EPA is honoring 

commitments made by the United States 

in the Montreal Protocol context. 

Under authority of section 604(d)(6) 

of the CAA, EPA is now proposing the 

uses that will qualify as approved 

critical uses for 2016, as well as the 

amount of methyl bromide that may be 

produced or imported to satisfy those 

uses. The proposed critical uses and 

amounts reflect Decision XXVI/6, taken 

at the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the 

Parties in November 2014. 

VI. What is the critical use exemption 

process? 

A. Background of the Process 

Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol 

established the critical use exemption 

provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the 

Parties in 1997, the Parties established 

the criteria for an exemption 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 health 

and are suitable to the crops and 

circumstances of the nomination.’’ EPA 

promulgated these criteria in the 

definition of ‘‘critical use’’ at 40 CFR 

82.3. 

In addition, Decision IX/6 provides 

that production and consumption, if 

any, of methyl bromide for critical uses 

should be permitted only if a variety of 

conditions have been met, including 

that all technically and economically 

feasible steps have been taken to 

minimize the critical use and any 

associated emission of methyl bromide, 

that research programs are in place to 

develop and deploy alternatives and 

substitutes, and that methyl bromide is 

not available in sufficient quantity and 

quality from existing stocks of banked or 

recycled methyl bromide. 

EPA requested critical use exemption 

applications for 2016 through a Federal 

Register notice published on May 31, 

2013 (78 FR 32646). Applicants 

submitted data on their use of methyl 

bromide, the technical and economic 

feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing 

research programs into the use of 

alternatives in their sector, and efforts to 

minimize use and emissions of methyl 

bromide. 

EPA 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, 

an interagency workgroup reviews other 

parameters of the exemption 

applications such as dosage and 

emissions minimization techniques and 

applicants’ research or transition plans. 

As required in section 604(d)(6) of the 

CAA, for each exemption period, EPA 

consults with the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA).1

This assessment process culminates in 

the development of the U.S. critical use 

nomination (CUN). Annually since 

2003, the U.S. Department of State has 

submitted a CUN 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 

advisory bodies to Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol, review each Party’s 

CUN and make recommendations to the 

Parties on the nominations. The Parties 

then take Decisions on critical use 

exemptions for particular Parties, 

including how much methyl bromide 

may be supplied for the exempted 

critical uses. EPA then provides an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

amounts and specific uses of methyl 

bromide that the agency is proposing to 

exempt. 

On January 22, 2014, the United 

States submitted the twelfth Nomination 

for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33463 

America to the Ozone Secretariat of 

UNEP. This nomination contained the 

request for 2016 critical uses. In March 

2014, MBTOC sent questions to the 

United States concerning technical and 

economic issues in the 2016 

nomination. The United States 

transmitted responses to MBTOC in 

March 2014. In May 2014, the MBTOC 

provided their interim 

recommendations on the U.S. 

nomination in the May TEAP Interim 

Report. 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 approved in this rule 

reflect the analyses contained in those 

documents. 

B. How does this proposed rule relate to 

previous critical use exemption rules? 

The December 23, 2004, Framework 

Rule established the framework for the 

critical use exemption program in the 

United States, 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 specific quantities 

of production and import of methyl 

bromide and to indicate which uses 

meet the criteria for the exemption 

program for that year. 

This proposed action continues the 

approach established in the 2013 Rule 

(78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013) for 

determining the amounts of Critical Use 

Allowances (CUAs) to be allocated for 

critical uses. A CUA is the privilege 

granted through 40 CFR part 82 to 

produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) of 

methyl bromide for an approved critical 

use during the specified control period. 

A control period is a calendar year. See 

40 CFR 82.3. Each year’s allowances 

expire at the end of that control period 

and, as explained in the Framework 

Rule, are not bankable from one year to 

the next. 

C. Proposed Critical Uses 

In Decision XXVI/6, taken in 

November 2014, the Parties to the 

Protocol agreed ‘‘[t]o permit, for the 

agreed critical-use categories for 2015 

and 2016 set forth in table A of the 

annex to the present decision for each 

party, subject to the conditions set forth 

in the present decision and in decision 

Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions 

are applicable, the levels of production 

and consumption for 2015 and 2016 set 

forth in table B of the annex to the 

present decision, which are necessary to 

satisfy critical uses. . . .’’ The 

following uses are those set forth in 

table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/ 

6 for the United States for 2016: 

• Cured pork 

• Strawberry field 

EPA is proposing to modify the table 

in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix 

L to reflect the agreed critical use 

categories for 2016. EPA is proposing to 

amend the table of critical uses and 

critical users based on the uses 

permitted in Decision XXVI/6 and the 

technical analyses contained in the 2016 

U.S. nomination that assess data 

submitted by applicants to the CUE 

program. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

remove the food processing uses that 

were listed as critical uses for 2014. The 

California Date Commission as well as 

all users under the food processing use 

(rice millers, pet food manufacturing 

facilities, and members of the North 

American Millers’ Association) did not 

submit CUE applications for 2016 and 

therefore were not included in the 2016 

U.S. nomination to the Parties of the 

Montreal Protocol. 

EPA is also proposing to remove the 

remaining commodity uses (walnuts, 

dried plums, figs, and raisins). These 

sectors applied for a critical use in 2016 

but the United States did not nominate 

them for 2016. In addition, some sectors 

that were not on the list of critical uses 

for 2014 or 2015 submitted applications 

for 2016. These sectors are: Michigan 

cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato 

growers; Florida eggplant, pepper, 

strawberry, and tomato growers; the 

California Association of Nursery and 

Garden Centers; California stone fruit, 

table and raisin grape, walnut, and 

almond growers; ornamental growers in 

California and Florida; and the U.S. Golf 

Course Superintendents Association. 

EPA conducted a thorough technical 

assessment of each application and 

considered the effects that the loss of 

methyl bromide would have for each 

agricultural sector, and whether 

significant market disruption would 

occur as a result. Following this 

technical review, EPA consulted with 

the USDA and the Department of State. 

EPA determined that these users did not 

meet the critical use criteria in Decision 

IX/6 and the United States therefore did 

not include them in the 2016 Critical 

Use Nomination. EPA notified these 

sectors of their status by letters dated 

March 28, 2014. For each of these uses, 

EPA found that there are technically 

and economically feasible alternatives 

to methyl bromide. EPA refers readers to 

the Federal Register Notice ‘‘Request for 

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption 

Applications for 2017’’ (79 FR 38887; 

July 9, 2014) for a summary of 

information on how the agency 

evaluated specific uses and available 

alternatives when considering 

applications for critical uses for 2016. 

EPA requests comment on the technical 

assessments of the applications in the 

sector summary documents found in the 

docket to this rule and the 

determination that these users did not 

meet the critical use criteria and 

whether there is any new or additional 

information that the agency may 

consider in preparing future 

nominations. 

EPA is also seeking comment on the 

technical analyses contained in the U.S. 

nomination (available for public review 

in the docket) and information regarding 

any changes to the registration 

(including cancellations or 

registrations), use, or efficacy of 

alternatives that occurred after the 

nomination was submitted. EPA 

recognizes that as the market for 

alternatives evolves, the thresholds for 

what constitutes ‘‘significant market 

disruption’’ or ‘‘technical and economic 

feasibility’’ may change. Such 

information has the potential to alter the 

technical or economic feasibility of an 

alternative and could thus cause EPA to 

modify the analysis that underpins 

EPA’s determination as to which uses 

and what amounts of methyl bromide 

qualify for the CUE. EPA notes that it 

will not finalize a rule containing uses 

beyond those agreed to by the Parties for 

2016. 

D. Proposed Critical Use Amounts 

Table A of the annex to Decision 

XXVI/6 lists critical uses and amounts 

agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol for 2016. The maximum 

amount of new production and import 

for U.S. critical uses in 2016, specified 

in Table B of the annex to Decision 

XXVI/6, is 234.78 MT, minus available 

stocks. This figure is equivalent to less 

than 1 percent of the U.S. 1991 methyl 

bromide consumption baseline of 

25,528 MT. 

EPA is proposing to determine the 

level of new production and import 

according to the framework and as 

modified by the 2013 Rule. Under this 

approach, the amount of new 

production for each control period 

would equal the total amount permitted 

by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

in their Decisions minus any reductions 

for available stocks, carryover, and the 

uptake of alternatives. These terms 

(available stocks, carryover, and the 

uptake of alternatives) are discussed in 

detail below. Applying this approach, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33464 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EPA is proposing to allocate allowances 

to exempt 140,531 kg of new production 

and import of methyl bromide for 

critical uses in 2016, making reductions 

for available stocks and carryover. EPA 

invites comment on the proposal to 

make reductions for available stocks and 

carryover and on the analyses below. 

Available Stocks: For 2016 the Parties 

indicated that the United States should 

use ‘‘available stocks,’’ but did not 

indicate a minimum amount expected to 

be taken from stocks. Consistent with 

EPA’s past practice, EPA is considering 

what amount, if any, of the existing 

stocks may be available to critical users 

during 2016. The latest data reported to 

EPA from December 31, 2014, show 

existing stocks to be 158,121 kg (158 

MT). This shows that 198 MT of pre2005 stocks were used in 2014. These 

data do not reflect drawdown of stocks 

that is likely to occur during 2015. 

The Parties to the Protocol recognized 

in their Decisions that the level of 

existing stocks may differ from the level 

of available stocks. Decision XXVI/6 

states that ‘‘production and 

consumption of methyl bromide for 

critical uses should be permitted only if 

methyl bromide is not available in 

sufficient quantity and quality from 

existing stocks. . . .’’ In addition, the 

Decision states that ‘‘parties operating 

under critical-use exemptions should 

take into account the extent to which 

methyl bromide is available in sufficient 

quantity and quality from existing 

stocks. . . .’’ Earlier Decisions also 

refer to the use of ‘‘quantities of methyl 

bromide from stocks that the Party has 

recognized to be available.’’ Thus, it is 

clear that individual Parties may 

determine their level of available stocks. 

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. 

In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, 

July 22, 2013), EPA established an 

approach that considered whether a 

percentage of the existing inventory was 

available. In that rule, EPA took 

comment on whether 0% or 5% of the 

existing stocks was available. The final 

rule found that 0% was available for 

critical use in 2013 for a number of 

reasons including: A pattern of 

significant underestimation of inventory 

drawdown; the increasing concentration 

of critical users in California while 

inventory remained distributed 

nationwide; and the recognition that the 

agency cannot compel distributors to 

sell inventory to critical users. For 

further discussion, please see the 2013 

CUE Rule (78 FR 43802). 

EPA believes that 5% of existing 

stocks will be available in 2016 for the 

two proposed critical uses. As a result 

of the changes to the FIFRA labeling, 

methyl bromide sold or distributed in 

2015 can only be used for approved 

critical uses or for quarantine and 

preshipment purposes. Except for 

sectors with quarantine and 

preshipment uses, California 

strawberries is the only pre-plant sector 

that will be able to use stocks in 2015 

or 2016. EPA does not anticipate stocks 

to be used for quarantine and 

preshipment uses as there are no 

production allowances required to 

manufacture that material and it tends 

to be less expensive than stocks. 

Distributors will therefore likely make 

stocks available to California strawberry 

growers in 2015 and 2016. 

While EPA is not proposing to 

estimate the amount that will be used in 

2015, EPA believes that at least 5% 

stocks will be available in 2016. As 

discussed in the carryover section 

below, demand by California strawberry 

growers in 2014 for critical use methyl 

bromide was lower than anticipated. For 

the first time since 2009, not all of the 

critical use material produced or 

imported for a control period was sold. 

Decreased demand for critical use 

methyl bromide in 2014 means that 

unsold material already produced will 

be available in 2015 in addition to 

stocks. 

Furthermore, EPA now knows the 

national distribution and composition of 

stocks (e.g. pure or mixed with 

chloropicrin) due to a recent 

information collection request under 

section 114 of the Clean Air Act. EPA 

believes there is geographically 

accessible pure methyl bromide for ham 

producers in the Southeastern U.S. as 

well as pre-plant methyl bromide for 

California strawberry producers. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

find 5% of the existing inventory 

available for use in 2016. EPA 

specifically invites comment on 

whether between 0% and 5% of existing 

inventory will be available to critical 

users in 2016, taking into consideration 

the FIFRA labeling changes, the recent 

history of inventory drawdown, the 

amount of unsold 2014 critical use 

methyl bromide, the removal of the 

critical stock allowance provisions that 

limited the amount of stocks that can be 

sold for critical uses, the quantity and 

geographical location of approved uses, 

and the quantity and location of stocks. 

Existing stocks, as of December 31, 

2014, were equal to 158,121 kg. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to reduce 

the amount of new production for 2016 

by 7,906 kg. 

Carryover Material: EPA regulations 

prohibit methyl bromide produced or 

imported after January 1, 2005, under 

the critical use exemption, from being 

added to the pre-2005 inventory. 

Quantities of methyl bromide produced, 

imported, exported, or sold to end-users 

under the critical use exemption in a 

control period must be reported to EPA 

the next year. EPA uses these reports to 

calculate any excess methyl bromide left 

over from that year’s CUE and, using the 

framework established in the 2005 CUE 

Rule, reduces the following year’s total 

allocation by that amount. Carryover 

had been reported to the Agency every 

year from 2005 to 2009. Carryover 

material (which is produced using 

critical use allowances) is not included 

in EPA’s definition of existing inventory 

(which applies to pre-2005 material) 

because this would lead to a doublecounting of carryover amounts. 

In 2015, companies reported that 

442,200 kg of methyl bromide was 

produced or imported for U.S. critical 

uses in 2014. EPA also received reports 

that 355,857 kg of critical use methyl 

bromide was sold to end-users in 2014. 

EPA calculates that the carryover 

amount at the end of 2014 was 86,343 

kg, which is the difference between the 

reported amount of critical use methyl 

bromide produced or imported in 2014 

and the reported amount of sales of that 

material to end users in 2014. EPA’s 

calculation of carryover is consistent 

with the method used in previous CUE 

rules, and with the format in Decision 

XVI/6 for calculating column L of the 

U.S. Accounting Framework. All U.S. 

Accounting Frameworks for critical use 

methyl bromide are available in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. EPA 

is therefore proposing to reduce the total 

level of new production and import for 

critical uses by 86,343 kg to reflect the 

amount of carryover material available 

at the end of 2014, in addition to the 

7,906 kg reduction for available stocks 

discussed above. 

Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers 

data on the availability of alternatives 

that it receives following submission of 

each nomination to UNEP. In previous 

rules EPA has reduced the total CUE 

amount when a new alternative has 

been registered and increased the new 

production amount when an alternative 

is withdrawn, but not above the amount 

permitted by the Parties. Neither 

circumstance has occurred since the 

nomination was submitted for 2016. 

EPA is not proposing to make any 

other modifications to CUE amounts to 

account for availability of alternatives. 

Rates of transition to alternatives have 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33465 

2Additional information on risk mitigation 

measures for soil fumigants is available at http://

epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/. 

already been applied for permitted 2016 

critical use amounts through the 

nomination and authorization process. 

EPA will consider new data received 

during the comment period and 

continues to gather information about 

methyl bromide alternatives through the 

CUE application process, and by other 

means. EPA also continues to support 

research and adoption of methyl 

bromide alternatives, and to request 

information about the economic and 

technical feasibility of all existing and 

potential alternatives. 

Allocation Amounts: EPA is 

proposing to allocate critical use 

allowances for new production or 

import of methyl bromide equivalent to 

140,531 kg to Great Lakes Chemical 

Corporation, Albemarle Corporation, 

ICL–IP America, and TriCal, Inc in 

proportion to their respective baselines. 

Paragraph 3 of Decision XXVI/6 states 

that ‘‘parties shall endeavour to license, 

permit, authorize or allocate quantities 

of methyl bromide for critical uses as 

listed in table A of the annex to the 

present decision. . . .’’ This is similar 

to language in prior Decisions 

permitting critical uses. These Decisions 

call on Parties to endeavor to allocate 

critical use methyl bromide on a sector 

basis. 

EPA is proposing to assign the 7,906 

kg reduction for available stocks and 

86,343 kg reduction for carryover in 

proportion to the amounts indicated in 

Table A of the annex to Decision XXVI/ 

6. In other words, both the pre-plant and 

the post-harvest allocation would be 

reduced by 40%. Specifically, the preplant allocation for California 

strawberry production would decline 

from 231,540 kg to 138,592 kg and the 

post-harvest allocation for dry cured 

ham would decline from 3,240 kg to 

1,939 kg. Reported data show that the 

critical use methyl bromide carried over 

from 2014 and the existing stocks 

include both pre-plant and post-harvest 

material. EPA invites comment on 

reducing the allocation in this 

proportional manner or whether an 

alternate method is preferable. 

The proposed Framework Rule 

contained several options for allocating 

critical use allowances, including a 

sector-by-sector approach. The agency 

evaluated various options based on their 

economic, environmental, and practical 

effects. After receiving comments, EPA 

determined in the final Framework Rule 

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 sector-by-sector 

approach would pose significant 

administrative and practical difficulties. 

Because EPA is proposing only one use 

in the pre-plant sector and one use in 

the post-harvest sector for 2016, this 

proposed rule follows the breakout of 

specific uses in Decision XXVI/6. 

Emergency Use: The U.S. government 

is committed to using flexibility in the 

Protocol’s existing mechanisms as an 

avenue to address changes in national 

circumstance that affect the transition to 

alternatives. EPA welcomes comments 

and any new information on specific 

emergency situations that may 

necessitate the use of methyl bromide, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Montreal Protocol, and which could be 

difficult to address using current tools 

and authorities. 

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

I/4 

Decision XXVI/6 calls on Parties to 

apply the criteria in Decision IX/6, 

paragraph 1 and the conditions set forth 

in Decision Ex. I/4 (to the extent 

applicable) to exempted critical uses for 

the 2016 control period. The following 

section provides references to sections 

of this preamble and other documents 

where EPA considers the criteria of 

those two Decisions. 

Decision IX/6, paragraph 1 contains 

the critical use criteria, which are 

summarized in Section III.A of the 

preamble. The nomination documents 

detail how each proposed critical use 

meets the criteria in Decision IX/6, 

paragraph 1 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; and the 

development of research and transition 

plans. The nomination documents also 

address the requests in Decision Ex. 

I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that Parties 

consider and implement MBTOC 

recommendations, where feasible, on 

actions a Party may take to reduce the 

critical uses of methyl bromide and 

include information on the methodology 

they use to determine economic 

feasibility. 

A discussion of the agency’s 

application of the critical use criteria to 

the proposed critical uses for 2016 

appears in Sections III.A., III.C., and 

III.D. of this preamble. EPA 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 agency has previously provided 

its interpretation of the criterion in 

Decision IX/6, paragraph (1)(a)(i) 

regarding the presence of significant 

market disruption in the absence of an 

exemption. EPA refers readers to the 

preamble to the 2006 CUE rule (71 FR 

5989, February 6, 2006) as well as to the 

memo in the docket titled 

‘‘Development of 2003 Nomination for a 

Critical Use Exemption for Methyl 

Bromide for the United States of 

America’’ for further elaboration. As 

explained in those documents, EPA’s 

interpretation of this term has several 

dimensions, including looking at 

potential effects on both demand and 

supply for a commodity, evaluating 

potential losses at both an individual 

level and at an aggregate level, and 

evaluating potential losses in both 

relative and absolute terms. 

The United States has also considered 

the adoption of alternatives and 

research into methyl bromide 

alternatives in the development of the 

National Management Strategy 

submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in 

December 2005 and updated in October 

2009. The National Management 

Strategy addresses all of the aims 

specified in Decision Ex. I/4, paragraph 

3 to the extent feasible and is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

F. Emissions Minimization 

Previous Decisions of the Parties have 

stated that critical users shall employ 

emissions 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. EPA developed a 

comprehensive strategy for risk 

mitigation through the 2009 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

(RED) 2 for methyl bromide, available in 

the docket to this rulemaking, which is 

implemented through restrictions on 

how methyl bromide products can be 

used. This approach means that methyl 

bromide labels require that treated sites 

be tarped. The RED also incorporated 

incentives for applicators to use highbarrier tarps, such as virtually 

impermeable film, by allowing smaller 

buffer zones around those sites. In 

addition to minimizing emissions, use 

of high-barrier tarps has the benefit of 

providing pest control at lower 

application rates. The amount of methyl 

bromide nominated by the United States 

reflects the lower application rates 

necessary when using high-barrier tarps. 

EPA will continue to work with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture– 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33466 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Agricultural Research Service (USDA– 

ARS) and the National Institute for Food 

and Agriculture (USDA–NIFA) to 

promote emissions reduction 

techniques. The federal government has 

invested substantial resources into 

developing and implementing best 

practices for methyl bromide use, 

including emissions reduction practices. 

The Cooperative Extension System, 

which receives some support from 

USDA–NIFA, provides locally 

appropriate and project-focused 

outreach education regarding methyl 

bromide transition best practices. 

Additional information on USDA 

research on alternatives and emissions 

reduction can be found at: http://

www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/

programs.htm?NP_CODE=303, http://

www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/

programs.htm?NP_CODE=304, and 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov. 

Users of methyl bromide should 

continue to make every effort to 

minimize overall emissions of methyl 

bromide. EPA also encourages 

researchers and users who are using 

techniques to minimize emissions of 

methyl bromide to inform EPA of their 

experiences and to provide information 

on such techniques with their critical 

use applications. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. This action was deemed to raise 

novel legal or policy issues. Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0482. The application, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements have already been 

established under previous critical use 

exemption rulemakings. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. 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 regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. Since this 

rule would allow the use of 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 action will 

relieve regulatory burden for all directly 

regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. The action 

imposes no enforceable duty on any 

state, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. 

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. This action would 

allocate allowances for the production 

and import of methyl bromide to private 

entities. This rule also would limit the 

proposed critical uses to geographical 

areas that reflect the scope of the trade 

associations that applied for a critical 

use. This rule does not impose any 

duties or responsibilities on State 

governments or allocate any rights to 

produce or use methyl bromide to a 

State government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. 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 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in the Regulatory Impacts 

Analysis and Benefits Analysis found in 

the docket. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

This action does not pertain to any 

segment of the energy production 

economy nor does it regulate any 

manner of energy use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes this action 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 action will result in impacts that 

are, in general, equally distributed 

across geographical regions in the 

United States. The impacts do not fall 

disproportionately on minority or lowincome populations but instead vary 

with a wide variety of factors. 

Populations that work or live near fields 

or other application sites may benefit 

from the reduced amount of methyl 

bromide applied, as compared to 

amounts allowed under previous critical 

use exemption rules. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Exports, Imports, Ozone depletion. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33467 

Dated: June 3, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 82 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. Amend § 82.8 by revising the table 

in paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 82.8 Grant of essential use allowances 

and critical use allowances. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Company 

2016 Critical use 

allowances for 

pre-plant uses * 

(kilograms) 

2016 Critical use 

allowances for 

post-harvest uses * 

(kilograms) 

Great Lakes Chemical Corp. A Chemtura Company .......................................................................... 84,222 1,179 

Albemarle Corp .................................................................................................................................... 34,634 485 

ICL–IP America .................................................................................................................................... 19,140 268 

TriCal, Inc ............................................................................................................................................ 596 8 

Total .............................................................................................................................................. 138,592 1,939 

* 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend subpart A by revising 

appendix L to read as follows: 

Appendix L to Subpart A of Part 82— 

Approved Critical Uses and Limiting 

Critical Conditions for Those Uses for 

the 2016 Control Period 

Column A Column B Column C 

Approved Critical Uses ....... Approved Critical User, 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 

Strawberry Fruit .................. 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. 

POST-HARVEST USES 

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

the American Association of Meat Processors, 

Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina), and Gwaltney 

of Smithfield Inc.

Red legged ham beetle infestation. 

Cheese/ham skipper infestation. 

Dermestid beetle infestation. 

Ham mite infestation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14473 Filed 6–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 150121066–5497–01] 

RIN 0648–BE81 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments; notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to modify the 

baseline annual U.S. quota and 

subquotas for Atlantic bluefin tuna 

(BFT). NMFS also proposes minor 

modifications to the regulatory text 

regarding Atlantic tuna purse seine 

auxiliary vessel activity under the 

‘‘transfer at sea’’ provisions. This action 

is necessary to implement binding 

recommendations of the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by 

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 

(ATCA), and to achieve domestic 

management objectives under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 13, 2015. 

NMFS will host an operator-assisted 

public hearing conference call and 

webinar on July 1, 2015, from 2 to 4 

p.m. EDT, providing an opportunity for 

individuals from all geographic areas to 

participate. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for further details. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0011,’’ by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0011, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS