[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12534-12535]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05293]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74417; File No. SR-ISE-2015-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

March 3, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 18, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared
by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase certain
network and gateway fees. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of
Fees to increase certain network and gateway fees. The Exchange charges
an Ethernet fee for its four different Ethernet connection options,
which is $750 per month for a 1 Gigabit (``Gb'') connection, $4,000 per
month for a 10 Gb connection, $7,000 per month for a 10 Gb low latency
connection, and $12,500 per month for a 40 Gb low latency connection.
These Ethernet connectivity options provide access to both the ISE and
the ISE's sister exchange, ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'').\3\ The
Exchange proposes to increase these Ethernet fees to $1,000 per month
for the 1 Gb connection, $4,500 per month for the 10 Gb connection,
$8,000 per month for the 10 Gb low latency connection, and $15,000 per
month for the 40 Gb low latency connection. In addition, the Exchange
offers both shared and dedicated gateways to facilitate member access
to ISE and ISE Gemini for a single fee. The Exchange charges members a
monthly gateway fee of $500 per gateway for a shared gateway or $2,000
per gateway pair for members that elect to use their own dedicated
gateways as an alternative to using shared gateways. The Exchange
proposes to increase the gateway fee to $750 per month for a shared
gateway and $2,250 per month for a dedicated gateway pair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Market participants pay the same fees regardless of whether
they choose to connect to both exchanges or solely to the ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase the
network and gateway fees described in this filing as the new fees are
more in line with the Exchange's current connectivity costs, including
costs for software and

hardware enhancements, and resources dedicated to development, quality
assurance, and support. The proposed fees are within the range of fees
currently charged by other options exchanges. Furthermore, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory as all
market participants that use these services will pay the same fee based
on the connectivity options that they choose, and there is no
differentiation among market participants with regard to the fees
charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\6\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change increases certain network and gateway fees to levels that
are within the range of fees charged by other options exchanges. These
fees will be charged to all firms that elect to use the connectivity
options described in this filing. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2015-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2015-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2015-06 and should be
submitted by March 30, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05293 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


distributors and third-party applicators to which they have sold any
methyl bromide, including pre-2005 stocks, in order to get accurate data
to track amounts sold for all purposes (including non-critical
purposes).  The commenter believes that the costs of such reporting
would be minimal and would be justified by the benefits of better
tracking of CAA and Protocol compliance.  EPA responds to this comment
in Section E of this preamble.

In previous CUE rules, EPA used the approach described in the Framework
Rule for implementing carry over reductions.  After applying this
reduction to the total volumes of allowable new production or import,
EPA pro-rated CUA allocations to each company based on their 1991
baseline market share. In developing this action, EPA proposed to use
the same approach for issuing company-specific CUA amounts in 2008.

In the proposed rule, EPA explained that Chemtura’s petition
recommends alternative methods for apportioning carry-over reductions
among CUA holders.  EPA encouraged interested parties to consult
Chemtura’s petition and sought comments on the recommendations in that
petition, as well as any additional suggestions regarding the
apportionment of carry-over among companies.

Chemtura’s petition requests that EPA apportion carryover amounts to
hold accountable only the producers responsible for the carryover
originating in their own supply chain.  The petition further states that
EPA’s process for apportioning carry over reductions among producers
is unfair and perpetuates poor stewardship.  As the commenter
acknowledges, EPA does not currently collect information that would
allow the Agency to reduce CUAs on the basis of carry over originating
in each producer’s supply chain.  As discussed below in more detail,
EPA believes that acquiring credible data of this nature would impose
extra burden on the regulated community with no discernible
environmental benefit, or help to achieve the primary goal of the CUE
program: to satisfy critical needs for methyl bromide.  EPA believes a
better solution is to continue to strengthen outreach and educational
programs that facilitate full reporting under existing requirements.

Chemtura’s petition asserts that “apportioning carryover penalties
based on 1991 consumption share is arbitrary and capricious.”
Chemtura notes that CUE reductions to account for carry over are
distributed among the four methyl bromide producers based on their 1991
consumption baselines.  The commenter believes that an equal allocation
of the carry over would be fairer and that using the 1991 data is now
inconsistent with the available supply chain information and would
maximize future distortions in the critical use market.  However,
Chemtura has no grievances with EPA’s framework for distributing CUAs
to producers based on their 1991 market share, by which Chemtura
receives over 60 percent of the new production allowances each year.
The Proposed Framework Rule stated that, “Allocating CUAs based on
each company’s 1991 baseline allowances (on a pro-rata basis) is a
better reflection of market share than simply dividing the number of
allowances by the total number of entities, and would be less burdensome
than conducting a detailed historical market share analysis on a [sic]
an annual basis.  Using the 1991 historic baseline method for
distributing CUAs is consistent with how EPA has allocated methyl
bromide production and consumption allowances for the past decade under
the methyl bromide phaseout” (69 FR 52376).  EPA believes the
arguments in the Proposed Framework Rule still apply.  Using the 1991
market shares, which have become the company-specific baselines for CUA
allocations , provides the best available estimation of how much carry
over is attributable to each company’s supply chain.  A more detailed
method of estimation would involve additional burden for respondents.
Finally, EPA notes that in its comments Chemtura claims that four
distributors in its supply chain did not fully report sales to EPA.  EPA
encourages all producers to identify distributors in their supply chains
that did not fully report sales and to assist them in complying with the
requirements of 82.13.  If the commenters are correct in suggesting that
a large portion of the calculated carryover amount is actually
unreported sales, then full reporting would minimize the effects of the
carryover on all producers, including Chemtura.

Chemtura’s petition recommends a “fault-based” system for
allocating CUA reductions to account for carry over amounts.  Chemtura
states that in order to support the fault-based carry over allocation
process, EPA could modify the reporting requirements established at
82.13 to require that importers, producers, distributors and third-party
applicators include information on the producer-level source of any
critical use methyl bromide they acquired during the year.  In its
comments, Chemtura asserts that, “Identifying the producer of origin
for any given sale or distributor should be a simple task, as each of
the four producers supplies downstream customers with methyl bromide
products under different pesticide registrations, labels, and product
names.  Thus, regardless of how many intermediary distributors a methyl
bromide product may have passed through before reaching the end user,
that entity can identify the producer by a review of the label or sales
invoice.”

Whether or not producer of origin reporting would be a “simple
task,” it would add to the regulatory burden currently borne by
entities in the distribution chain.   Preliminary estimates, using
previous ICR analyses as a guideline, suggest that the burden imposed by
producer of origin reporting could require  150 respondent hours per
year, depending on how much EPA follow-up is necessary to perform
standard data quality assurance procedures.  EPA does not believe the
“fault-based” system, or the extra reporting burden it requires,
would have any discernible environmental benefit, or help to satisfy
critical needs for methyl bromide.  Therefore, while the Agency may
continue to analyze Chemtura’s proposed reporting additions as part of
its ICR renewal processes during 2008, in this final rule the Agency is
not implementing Chemtura’s “fault-based” system or the additional
reporting that it would require.

Chemtura’s petition asserts that, “The opt-out system proposed [in
the petition] provides an appropriate method for apportioning carryover
penalties.”  Chemtura’s proposed “opt-out” system would allow
producers to voluntarily submit supply chain data in exchange for
EPA’s removal of the individual producer from the “default penalty
pool.” As an example of the “opt-out” system, Chemtura provided
information that it believes establishes the following: 42 of the 48
entities that reported 2006 critical sales to EPA are part of
Chemtura’s supply chain; four third-party applicators in Chemtura’s
supply chain that had reporting obligations did not report 2006 critical
sales; and actual carry-over of critical use methyl bromide from
Chemtura’s supply chain into 2007 was less than 50,575 kg.  Chemtura
asserts that the information it provided does not support using the 1991
baseline for carry over reduction allocation.

Verifying the confidential information that Chemtura voluntarily
provided would be costly for the distributors that EPA would have to
contact, and would not further any of EPA’s priorities under the CUE
program.  As discussed above, EPA relies on officially submitted data,
on OMB approved forms, for accuracy and reliability.   EPA followed the
appropriate procedures under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) for the
current reporting requirements.  The Agency is concerned that in
practice the proposed “op-out” system would not be as voluntary as
Chemtura claims.  Allowing one entity to submit voluntary reports as the
basis for a more favorable allocation could be tantamount to imposing a
reporting requirement on all such entities, because the practical effect
of that policy would be that other companies would have to submit
similar reports in order to avoid being adversely affected.  EPA
estimates the burden hours associated with the submission and
consideration of these voluntary reports could annually impose 60 burden
hours for respondents.  The Agency believes this additional burden would
be unjustified.

In its comments on the proposed rule Chemtura asserts that Ameribrom has
acknowledged responsibility for the majority of the 2008 carryover.
Chemtura contends that at the Public Hearing on this action, Ameribrom
admitted that approximately 80 percent of the 2006 carryover originated
within Ameribrom’s supply chain in the form of unreported sales.
Chemtura states that Ameribrom also suggested that it had failed to
reach users with portions of its 2006 allocation, citing an inability to
move product through its supply chain during 2006.  Chemtura also states
that Ameribrom has suggested that distributors in its supply chain are
“probably never going to be able to comply” with EPA’s reporting
requirements.  A careful reading of the transcript from the public
hearing does not confirm Chemtura’s assertion that Ameribrom claimed
that 80 percent of the 2006 carry over originated from Ameribrom’s
supply chain.  EPA explains this response in more detail in the Response
to Comment document on the docket for this rulemaking.  EPA has not
received data to substantiate the claim that 80 percent of the 539 tons
constitutes unreported sales.

Chemtura’s petition asserts that, “EPA has received ample notice of
the flaws in the framework.”  In its comments, Chemtura states that
EPA has received multiple past comments regarding the issues surrounding
carryover calculation and should therefore be equipped to address the
reporting and penalty apportioning issues in the final 2008 rule.  For
the reasons discussed above, EPA does not agree with the commenter’s
assertion that there are flaws in the Agency’s framework for
calculating carry over, or implementing carry over reductions.  In
addition, EPA received Chemtura’s petition too late to evaluate
Chemtura’s proposals prior to issuance of the proposed rule.

Chemtura further comments that any material that stays in the
distribution system past the end of a control period should be
considered part of the supply chain factor rather than carry over, and
that no carry over should be subtracted from CUEs in 2008 and beyond.
The Framework Rule established EPA’s policy of not allowing companies
to build inventories of critical use methyl bromide.  In this final
rule, EPA is applying carry over reductions for 2008, and has explained
why it believes its method for calculating carry over is the appropriate
approach.  If EPA understands correctly, the commenter is suggesting
that EPA expand the supply chain factor to include carry over amounts.
However, the proposed supply chain factor is based upon an analysis of
the amount of stocks necessary to respond to particular supply
disruption scenarios. The Agency does not understand why the amount of
carry over should affect that analysis.  In future rules EPA may
consider revising its policy towards carry over amounts, but at this
time, considering the amount of available stocks, the Agency believes it
is best to maintain the framework for responding to carry over.

In this action, EPA is reducing the total level of new production and
import for critical uses by 499,234 kg to reflect the total level of
carry-over material available at the end of 2006.  To implement the
reduction, the Agency is reducing the total number of CUAs issued for
2008 by 499,234.  EPA is not adopting any of the recommendations in
Chemtura’s petition that would change the way EPA apportions carry
over reductions to CUA recipients.  As explained below in Section V.E.
of this preamble, in this action EPA is amending 82.13 to add reporting
requirements that the Agency believes will enhance its continuing
efforts to encourage full and accurate reporting, which is used to
calculate the carry over amount.  However, EPA’s preliminary analysis
finds that adopting Chemtura’s other proposals would impose extra
burden on the regulated community without furthering any of EPA’s
goals under Section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act.

	5. Amounts for Research Purposes

	Decision XVII/9(7) “request[ed] Parties to endeavor to use stocks,
where available, to meet any demand for methyl bromide for the purposes
of research and development.”  Consistent with that Decision, in the
2007 CUE Rule, EPA reduced the amount of new production and import by
21,702 kilograms, which was the amount needed for research. Consistent
with Decision XVII/9, EPA continued to encourage methyl bromide
suppliers to sell inventory to researchers and encouraged researchers to
purchase inventory.

Decision XVIII/15(1) authorizes “the production and consumption of
[methyl bromide] necessary to satisfy laboratory and analytical critical
uses.”  Paragraph 2 of that decision states that methyl bromide
produced under the exemption for laboratory and analytical uses may be
used as a reference or standard; in laboratory toxicology studies; to
compare the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives inside a
laboratory; and as a laboratory agent which is destroyed in a chemical
reaction in the manner of feedstock.  In a separate notice-and-comment
rulemaking titled the “Global Essential Laboratory and Analytical Use
Exemption,” EPA is implementing the exemption authorized in Decision
XVIII/15 (72 FR 52332).  More information about that rulemaking process
is available on the docket for that rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0384).

In developing this action, EPA stated that there continues to be a need
for methyl bromide for research purposes that do not meet the criteria
for laboratory and analytical uses, as defined in Decision XVIII/15.  A
common example is an outdoor field experiment that requires methyl
bromide as a standard control treatment with which to compare the trial
alternatives’ results.  In the proposed rule, EPA listed the critical
use sectors that were approved by the Parties to use methyl bromide for
research purposes in 2008 in Section V.C. and with the phrase
“research purposes” listed in their limiting critical conditions in
Table I of this preamble.

In developing this action, EPA proposed to allow sale of 15,491 kg of
existing stocks for research purposes in 2008 to account for the amount
authorized for those purposes.  EPA proposed to allow methyl bromide
sale from stocks for exempted research purposes by expending CSAs.  An
explanation of what amounts of methyl bromide and of what sectors
qualify for research purposes can be found in Section V.C. of this
preamble.  The Agency proposed to continue to encourage methyl bromide
suppliers to sell inventory to researchers and to encourage researchers
to purchase inventory for research purposes.  EPA sought comment on its
proposal to issue CSAs for sale of methyl bromide stocks for exempted
research purposes.

EPA received one comment objecting to its proposal to issue CSAs for
sale of pre-phaseout stocks for exempted research purposes.  The
commenter believes that existing stocks of pre-2005 inventory are too
low to warrant further drawdown for research purposes and that new
production should be increased by 15,491 kilograms to account for
research needs.  The Agency disagrees, and proposed a detailed analysis
of the amount of available stocks, which found more than 1,700,000 kg of
stocks available for critical uses.  Therefore, in accordance with Dec.
XVII/9(7), EPA is reducing new production by 15,491 kg, and encouraging
researchers to procure methyl bromide from available stocks.

	6. Methyl Bromide Alternatives

	In the 2006 CUE Rule (71 FR 5985) EPA allocated less methyl bromide for
critical uses than was authorized by the Parties in order to account for
the recent registration of sulfuryl fluoride.  The allocation reductions
in that rule reflected transition rates that were included for the first
time in the 2007 U.S. Critical Use Nomination (CUN).  In the 2007 CUE
Rule, EPA explained why a similar reduction was made in that rule:
“The report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)
indicated that the MBTOC did not make any reductions in these
[post-harvest] use categories for the uptake of sulfuryl fluoride in
2007 because the United States Government indicated that it would do so
in its domestic allocation procedures. Therefore, EPA is reducing the
total volume of critical use methyl bromide by 53,703 kilograms to
reflect the continuing transition to sulfuryl fluoride” (75 FR 75390).

In developing this action, EPA referenced preliminary results of a study
by Dr. Brian D. Adam of Oklahoma State University, which the Agency is
making available on the public docket for this rulemaking.  The proposed
rule stated that the results of Dr. Adam’s study indicate that the
cost of post-harvest cocoa fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride is not
substantially greater than the cost of using methyl bromide for that
fumigation.  The proposed rule explained that in response to the study
results, the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) decided to
withdraw its nomination request for critical use methyl bromide for
cocoa for calendar year 2009 and not to seek critical use methyl bromide
for cocoa at all in calendar year 2010.  EPA reiterated NPMA’s stated
need for some critical use methyl bromide for cocoa in 2008 as the
sector transitions to sulfuryl fluoride, and explained the situation
further.  EPA sought comment on how much of the 50,188 kg of critical
use methyl bromide approved by the Parties for cocoa for 2008 should be
allowed by the Agency.  EPA asked that comments on this topic recommend
specific amounts of critical use methyl bromide for cocoa in 2008, and
provide detailed justifications for their recommendations.

EPA received a comment from NPMA that recognizes that an Oklahoma State
University study has shown that the cost of using sulfuryl fluoride to
treat post-harvest cocoa is not substantially greater than the cost of
using methyl bromide.  However, NPMA’s comment states that some
transition time is needed for the smaller companies in the industry to
transition to sulfuryl fluoride.  This transition includes the
completion of a manufacturer’s stewardship program as well as an
education process with the customers to receive their consent to a
different treatment.  Additionally, while most states in which cocoa is
processed have a special 24(C) label to allow for higher Concentration
and Time (CT) dosage allocations for use of sulfuryl fluoride on cocoa,
New York still needs to obtain this label.  Therefore, the commenter
requests that at least 75 percent of the 53.188 metric tones of critical
use methyl bromide approved by the Parties be allocated for 2008.  The
commenter states that NPMA’s application for 2009 has been withdrawn,
as the transition to sulfuryl fluoride should be complete by that time.

	In their 2008 CUE application, NPMA requested 79,950 kg for 2008
critical uses.  In developing the critical use nomination, the U.S.
government (USG) reduced NPMA’s original request by 3,051 kg to
account for growth, because EPA’s framework does not allow critical
users to increase their critical need based on expansion of their
operations (FR 69 76996).  USG also reduced NPMA’s original request by
12,980 kg to account for a reduction in the use rate of methyl bromide
from 24 kg/1,000 m3 to 20 kg/ 1,000 m3.  USG made a further reduction of
10,753 kg to NPMA’s request to account for a transition rate of 16.8%
per year to sulfuryl fluoride.  In light of new information about the
feasibility of sulfuryl fluoride for post-harvest cocoa fumigation, in
this action EPA is increasing these reductions to account for a greater
transition rate to sulfuryl fluoride.

	As noted previously, in its comments, NPMA requested that EPA approve
75 percent (or 39,891 kg) of the 53,188 kg that the Parties authorized
for 2008 cocoa fumigation in Dec. XVIII/13.  NPMA states that some of
its members need more time to complete the required manufacturer’s
stewardship program, time for customer education for consent to
non-methyl bromide treatments, and time for resolving regulatory issues
such as the need for 24(C) special local needs (SLN) labels for sulfuryl
fluoride to allow for a more effective concentration and time (CT)
dosage rate in New York State, which includes the third-largest cocoa
port.

However, NPMA does not provide specific calculations or estimates to
support its request for 75 percent of the amount agreed by the Parties.
In its comments, and in previous communications with the Agency, NPMA
suggested that the two largest cocoa fumigation companies, which treat
the majority of post-harvest cocoa in the U.S., are fully ready to
transition to sulfuryl fluoride.  EPA acknowledges that the transition
to sulfuryl fluoride is impeded in New York State by the SLN label issue
that NPMA raises in its comments.  However, after considering the latest
available information, EPA can not support NPMA’s request for 75
percent of the 53,188 kg agreed to by the Parties.

	After these considerations, and noting NPMA’s proactive steps
transitioning to alternatives, EPA is approving 35,498 kg, or roughly 67
percent of the 53,118 kg of critical use methyl bromide agreed to by the
Parties for cocoa for 2008.  Therefore, EPA is reducing the total
critical use amount for 2008 by 17,690 kg, which is the difference
between the Parties’ authorization for cocoa fumigation (53,188 kg)
and the amount that EPA is approving (35,498 kg).

Besides the issues regarding post-harvest cocoa fumigation discussed
above, EPA did not propose to make any other reductions in post-harvest
or pre-plant critical use allowances to account for the uptake of
sulfuryl fluoride, or any other pre-plant or post-harvest alternatives.
The Agency explained that the 2008 Critical Use Nomination (CUN) the
Agency applied transition rates for all critical use sectors.  The MBTOC
report of September 2006 included reductions in its recommendations for
critical use categories based on the transition rates in the 2008 CUN.
MBTOC’s recommendations were then considered in the Parties’ 2008
authorization amounts, as listed in Decision XVIII/13.  Therefore, EPA
explained that transition rates, which account for the uptake of
alternatives, have already been applied for authorized 2008 critical use
amounts.  Furthermore, the Agency stated that the 2009 CUN, which
represents the most recent analysis and the best available data for
methyl bromide alternatives, does not conclude that transition rates
should be increased for 2008. In developing this action, EPA sought
comment on its proposal not to make further reductions in 2008 to
account for the uptake of methyl bromide alternatives.

One commenter states that post harvest application requests by NPMA,
NPCA, Pet Food Institute, and Rice Millers are for applications for
which methyl bromide is not necessary, and thus believes that they
should not receive CUE allocations.  One commenter expresses support for
EPA’s proposal not to make further reductions in 2008 to account for
the uptake of methyl bromide alternatives.  The commenter notes that
some fumigation companies need more time to transition to sulfuryl
fluoride, including the purchase of new equipment and training in its
use.  Specifically, the commenter believes that allowing CUEs for cocoa
in 2008 will enable a smoother transition to sulfuryl fluoride and would
help to guarantee methyl bromide availability to guard against
unforeseen problems with the transition.

EPA received two comments that state that sulfuryl fluoride is a viable
and economic fumigant alternative for all post-harvest structural
fumigations.  These commenters believe that methyl bromide allocations
for these applications should therefore be significantly reduced or
eliminated.  EPA received one comment that states that nearly 50 percent
of the 220 flour mills in the U.S. are fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride.
 The commenter believes that the 15-20 percent transition of new
technology stated by EPA may apply to farm applications but believes
that it is too low for structural applications. Additionally, the
commenter notes that sulfuryl fluoride has proved successful even after
multiple applications with no return to methyl bromide, and that
fumigation failures can happen with all materials, including methyl
bromide.  One commenter requests that EPA reduce the proposed CUE amount
for all structural uses by at least half for 2008 and eliminated
exemptions for such uses in 2009. The commenter notes that CUEs for
post-harvest cocoa uses in particular should be reduced.

The Agency believes that there are still some efficacy and validation
issues that need to be adequately addressed before sulfuryl fluoride can
be fully adopted by the food processing industry.  Sulfuryl fluoride
fumigation integrates temperature (requires less product as temperature
increases), dosages (choice of only post-embryonic stages or all life
stages), and exposure time.  Sulfuryl fluoride efficacy on insect eggs
requires higher concentrations, except at optimal temperatures.  Its use
also requires extensive training of applicators to proficiently use the
computerized fumigation guide.  Although many flour and rice mills have
indeed fumigated their facilities with sulfuryl fluoride in 2006, the
food processing industry is still learning how to incorporate sulfuryl
fluoride fumigation into its pest management strategies.   Therefore,
with this action, the post-harvest applications with the limiting
critical conditions listed in the table in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A,
Appendix L qualify for critical uses in 2008.  EPA further responds to
comments about the efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride in the response to
comment document for this rulemaking.

One commenter notes that EPA recently approved the use of iodomethane
(methyl iodide) for field uses, which will reduce the need for methyl
bromide CUE allocations.  The commenter states that iodomethane is a
drop-in substitute for methyl bromide and that while it is more costly
per kilogram, less of it is require to achieve the same efficacy.  The
commenter also states that while iodomethane poses direct toxicity
issues, the toxicity issues associated with methyl bromide are worse.

One commenter requests that EPA assess the technical and economic
feasibility of methyl iodide for no fewer than two years before
factoring its availability into future CUE decisions.  The commenter
believes that the controversial nature of the registration combined with
the proximity of the registration to the close of the comment period on
the CUE rule provide reason to delay considering this alternative when
allocating CUEs.  The commenter also notes that methyl iodide is not yet
registered in California because of safety questions and that there is
anecdotal evidence of efficacy problems with the chemical. The commenter
believes that at least two growing seasons are necessary to review and
assess viability.

The Agency acknowledges that iodomethane is now registered at the
Federal level for certain authorized critical uses of methyl bromide,
most notably, strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, and ornamental crops.
Notwithstanding the registration status at a Federal level, US growers
cannot currently use iodomethane in their production processes.  The
pesticide registration process in the United States involves multiple
layers of regulatory approval.  The product must first be registered at
the Federal level.  Subsequently, each State can elect to register or
not register the chemical for use in that state. Similarly, the
pesticide registrant has the option of not seeking registration in a
particular state.  To date, no state has registered iodomethane for use.
 Without state registrations in place, the Agency is not in a position
to reduce production levels for methyl bromide based on the status of
the Federal registration alone.

Dow AgroSciences (Dow) provided extensive comments objecting to EPA’s
assessment of the label restriction on 1,3-D product use near karst
topographical features in Florida.  The Agency’s assessment of those
restrictions was part of the basis for the 2008 and 2009 CUN for
pre-plant critical uses in Florida.  The commenter asserts that EPA’s
kart impact assessment represents an unnecessarily simplified, regional
assessment inappropriate to assess a site-specific restriction. The
commenter asserts that EPA’s 2007 assessment is not an accurate
reflection of the current 1,3-D product label restrictions which
specifies that a particular field is not impacted unless there is a
karst surface feature within 100’ of the edge of that field,
independent of the percentage of the surrounding area which may contain
karst surface features. The commenter references two field-level
evaluations of occupied structures that have been conducted in rural and
urban agricultural areas of Florida and Georgia.  The commenter believes
that EPA should use the methods in those studies as a surrogate for
karst surface features.  The commenter states that results of these
analyses indicate that restrictions on product use associated with
features (either occupied structures or karst surface features) at
distances of ≤100’ can be expected to have an impact on agricultural
ranging from 1% to 5.5% compared to the proposed impact of up to 93%
that is assigned to the 1,3-D karst restriction in the 2007 U.S.
assessment. The commenter also mentions that additional information on
this further characterization of the karst impact was presented to EPA
by Dow at a meeting on July 25, 2007 and submitted that information as
separate documents into the public docket associated with this rule.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s critique of EPA’s 2007 karst
impact assessment.  It appears that Dow is arguing that occupied
structures can be used as a proxy for karst surface features, and that
therefore analyses that examine the presence of occupied structures as a
restriction to fumigant use are appropriate to use for estimates of the
karst impact. However, Dow assumes that karst features will occur with a
frequency and distribution similar to that of occupied structures in all
agricultural counties of Florida. Unless Dow has data to support this
presumption, information which they have not presented, EPA does not see
how using occupied structures as a proxy for karst topological features
is valid.  Therefore, we believe that our methodology of using
geological maps which identify “sensitive karst areas” is superior.

Dow’s comments go on to state that the 2007 U.S. government assessment
concludes that the soils restriction causes 23% to 100% of agricultural
land in Florida to be unsuitable for 1,3-D uses due to the
state-specific (“Special Local Need” registrations for 1,3-D
products) soil requirements. The commenter states that the U.S.
Government included in their assessment, agricultural land (in Alachua,
Gadsden and Jackson counties) that is not subject to the specific
Florida soil restrictions. In addition, the commenter states that the
2007 soils assessment relies on a simplified soil assessment that
characterizes the percentage of soil areas, by county, which are
non-suitable for 1,3-D applications. The county-specific percentage
values are then used to determine the percentage of agricultural land
within that county that is unsuitable for 1,3-D uses. This represents a
significant overestimation of impact, in the commenter’s opinion,
because non-agricultural land is considered into the assessment. A more
refined assessment utilizing GIS and land-use data, provided by Dow
AgroSciences in 2002, indicates that the southern Florida soil
restriction has the potential to impact up to only 24.6% of agricultural
land in the key south Florida counties. The commenter mentions that this
information was shared with EPA in 2002 and 2007 and is placed in
separate documents into the public docket that is associated with this
proposed rule.

EPA agrees with the commenter that three counties included in the 2007
U.S. assessment are not subject to the second “seepage irrigation”
SLN restriction, and that these counties should be removed from the
portion of the analysis done for the CUNs. These counties would be
Alachua, Gadsden and Jackson counties.  However, even completely
removing these counties from EPA’s analysis of soil restrictions would
remove only a relatively small amount of crop acreage: EPA’s analysis
only considered the strawberry crop in Alachua county, a total of 22
acres harvested, and a total of 2,513 acres of tomato in Gadsden and
Jackson counties (out of a total of 43,790 acres harvested in the
state). Crop acreage information is taken from Appendix B of the 2006
CUN for tomatoes, eggplants, peppers, and strawberry fruit.  EPA notes,
however, that these three counties are still affected by the ‘karst’
restriction on 1,3-D (Telone ®)use.   Therefore, even though EPA will
make the commenter’s recommended revisions in future analysis, the
Agency does not believe these revisions support changing the proposed
amount of critical use methyl bromide for pre-plant uses in 2008.

Regarding Dow’s comments on the technical aspects of the
Florida-specific “seepage irrigation” portion of EPA’s soils
analysis described: EPA examined the information supplied by Dow at its
meeting with Agency staff in July 2007.   In addition to the differences
in methods for estimating the impact of the karst restriction that are
discussed above, a major difference between the Dow analysis of seepage
irrigation restrictions and the EPA analysis is that the EPA analysis
assumes that the agricultural land is distributed within the county in
proportion to its overall percentage rather than looking at the specific
location of agricultural land used in the production of row crops.

Dow is correct in stating that using the actual location of agricultural
land would provide a refined estimate of potential 1,3-D product use.
However, this refinement would change the overall assessment very
little.  Particularly in counties which are largely agricultural, the
difference between the EPA and Dow estimates is very small.  The fact
that the estimates of karst-restricted areas must be overlaid on the
areas affected by seepage irrigation restrictions reduces the
differences still further.  The county where the difference is the most
pronounced is Palm Beach, a county where agricultural use makes up a
relatively small proportion of land use.  Palm Beach County is
approximately the 5th most important tomato-producing county in Florida,
producing 7-8% of the 2002 tomato crop (2002 is the most recent year for
which such data were available and thus the year used for the analysis).
 Palm Beach County is not a significant producer of strawberries.
Strawberries and tomatoes are the Florida crops for which the largest
methyl bromide request is put forward in 2008 U.S. Critical Use
Nomination.  Thus, changing the estimate of the proportion of land in
Palm beach County that is eligible to use 1,3-D products will make very
little difference to the overall assessment  of the proportion of
Florida cropland where 1,3-D products can be used in place of methyl
bromide.  Therefore, EPA does not believe the commenter’s critique of
EPA’s analysis supports changing the proposed amount of critical use
methyl bromide for pre-plant uses in 2008.

EPA emphasizes that it is very interested in refining its estimates of
the impact of soil related restrictions on 1,3-D use in Florida, and is
open to working with Dow to do so for future methyl bromide CUE
assessments. EPA notes here that in order to significantly alter its
current karst analysis, EPA would need to see more than just a summary
of Dow’s study, but rather a detailed description of the study,
including data sources, analytical methods, and dataset sizes if
appropriate.

In this action, EPA is reducing the proposed critical use amount for
post-harvest cocoa fumigation by 17,690 kg.  EPA is not reducing any of
the other proposed critical use amounts for 2008 to account for the
uptake of alternatives, because uptake of alternatives was already
considered in the 2008 U.S. CUN, adopted by MBTOC, and reflected in the
2008 CUE authorization amounts that EPA is finalizing with this action.
Furthermore, the most recent information that EPA has does not support
further reductions.

E. Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements

	1. Reporting

	With this action, individuals or legal entities that produce,
distribute, sell, apply, or buy methyl bromide are required to report
the name of every non-end user entity (i.e. producer, distributor or
applicator) to which they sell critical use methyl bromide in each
control period.  These requirements will be added to the existing annual
reporting requirements at Part 82.13 for critical uses of methyl
bromide.  To collect this information, EPA will add a section to the
form titled Sales of Critical Use Methyl Bromide to End Users Report
(OMB Control Number 2060-0564), which must be submitted no later than 45
days after the 31st of December each year.  This new annual reporting
requirement will begin for the 2008 control period, meaning that no
later than 45 days after December 31, 2008, producers, distributors and
applicators must submit the name of every non-end user entity to which
they sell critical use methyl bromide during the 2008 control period.
EPA is also requesting this information for the 2007 control period
under a separate Section 114 information request.  Section VI.B of this
preamble provides more information about the information collection
requirements in this rule, and compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act.

	EPA is adding the reporting requirement described above to enhance
compliance tracking of the critical use allowance and critical stock
allowance caps; and determinations of how much critical use methyl
bromide remains unused at the end of the compliance period.  The
information collected for this exemption is authorized under Sections
603(d) and 614(b) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.  EPA believes
these reporting requirements will enhance EPA’s fulfillment of U.S.
reporting obligations under Article 7 of the Protocol, Clean Air Act
reporting requirements to Congress under Section 603(d), and
implementation of the critical use exemption under Section 604(d)(6)
from one control period to the next.  Furthermore, EPA believes that
today’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements create the least
burden while still ensuring that EPA is able to meaningfully improve its
implementation of the U.S. critical use exemption framework established
in the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule (69 FR 76997).

In developing this action, EPA specifically requested comment on whether
requiring producers, distributors and applicators to report the names of
non-end user entities to which they have sold critical-use methyl
bromide would provide valuable information to EPA, and help to encourage
complete reporting .  EPA sought comment on whether this would justify
the additional burden of such requirements (72 FR 48970).  EPA did not
receive any comments opposing this additional reporting requirement.

EPA received six comments supporting a petition submitted by Chemtura to
augment the current reporting and record keeping process to prevent
underreporting of methyl bromide use.  The commenters propose that EPA
modify its reporting system in a manner that would allow the Agency to
identify non-reporting companies and the amount of critical use sales
attributable to each non-reporting company.  EPA could achieve this, the
commenters assert, by requiring each entity in the supply chain – from
the manufacturer to the company that sells to the end user – to file a
report stating who that entity sold critical use methyl bromide to and
how much material it sold.  EPA agrees with the commenters that
collecting information that would allow EPA to identify non-reporting
companies would assist EPA’s efforts to encourage full reporting, and
increase incentives for regulated entities to properly submit required
reports.  However, EPA does not agree that it should require information
that would allow the Agency to quantify the amount of critical use sales
attributable to each non-reporting company.  Instead of imposing
additional burden on entities that do report in order to obtain
information about non-reporters, the Agency believes a more
straightforward and practical approach is to encourage full reporting.
EPA believes that collecting the names of all entities with reporting
requirements in each control period will increase incentives for full
reporting, facilitate Agency follow-up with non-reporters, and thus
diminish any advantages of collecting more detailed information, about
non-reporting entities.

EPA used previous information collection request (ICR) analyses of
burden hours for existing methyl bromide reporting requirements as a
guideline to estimate the burden associated with the additional
reporting requirements that the commenters propose. The Agency estimates
that annually requiring producers, distributors and third-party
applicators to provide the names of entities, excluding end-users, to
whom they sell critical use methyl bromide would add approximately 90
burden hours to all responders each year, or roughly 90 minutes per
respondent per year.  EPA believes the benefits of collecting that
additional information would outweigh the associated administrative
burden for respondents.  EPA also estimates that considering all burden
hours and other costs, it would cost the Agency less than $1,300 per
year to process this additional information.

EPA also estimated the burden associated with collecting information
that would allow the Agency to determine the amount of methyl bromide
sold to each non-reporting entity, as the commenters recommend.  Using
previous ICR analyses as a guideline, EPA estimates that collecting
information about the amount of critical use methyl bromide sold to each
non-end user would be more complicated than simply requiring the names
of those entities.  EPA expects that in some cases respondents would
have to compile multiple sales transaction records for each non-end user
entity to which they sold methyl bromide.  Therefore, EPA estimates that
this reporting would impose an additional 60 burden hours to all
respondents each year, or roughly one hour per respondent per year.  EPA
also estimates that it would cost the Agency more than $2,500 per year
to process this new information.  Most importantly, EPA does not believe
this reporting requirement would have any environmental benefit, or help
to meet the primary goals of the critical use exemption program.
Therefore, with this action, EPA will not require respondents to provide
information about the amount of methyl bromide sold to each non-end user
each year.

	EPA received one comment from the Nation Resources Defense Council
stating that EPA should require reporting of the names of distributors
and third-party applicators to which they have sold any methyl bromide,
including pre-2005 stocks, in order to get accurate data to track
amounts sold for all purposes (including non-critical purposes).  As EPA
moves forward with the ICR renewal processes in 2008, the Agency intends
to give further consideration to the commenter’s suggestion that EPA
collect the names of distributors and applicators that buy pre-phaseout
material.  However, because the Agency did not specifically seek comment
on this additional requirement in the proposed rule, EPA would like to
gather more input before deciding whether to implement the commenter’s
proposal.

	2. Recordkeeping

	This action does not impose any additional recordkeeping requirements,
as the regulated community is already required, under Part 82.13, to
keep methyl bromide sales records and invoices for three years.

F. The Criteria in Decisions IX/6 and Ex. I/4

	Paragraphs 2 and 6 of Decision XVIII/13 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 2008 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.  The critical use nominations (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) that Parties consider and implement MBTOC
recommendations, where feasible, on reductions in the critical use of
methyl bromide and in paragraph 6 for Parties that submit critical use
nominations to include information on the methodology they use to
determine economic feasibility, are all 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 (NMS) submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in December
2005 and in on-going consultations with industry.  The NMS 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.

G.   Emissions Minimization

	In the proposed rule, EPA noted for the regulated community the
reference to emission minimization techniques in paragraph 8 of Decision
XVIII/13, which states 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.”  EPA understands that research is being
conducted on the potential to reduce rates and emissions using newly
available high-barrier films and that these studies show promising
results.  Users of methyl bromide should make every effort to minimize
overall emissions of methyl bromide by implementing measures such as the
ones listed above, to the extent consistent with state and local laws
and regulations.  In the proposed rule, the Agency encouraged
researchers and users who are successfully utilizing such techniques to
inform EPA of their experiences as part of their comments and to provide
such information with their critical use applications.  In addition, the
Agency welcomed comments on the implementation of emission minimization
techniques and whether and how further emission minimization could be
achieved.

	One commenter believes that EPA should create a regulatory incentive
for emissions reduction.  One commenter states that the most effective
way to achieve further emission minimization is to require the use of
emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films
(VIF), barrier films, and deep shank injection.  The commenter notes
that these techniques offer the concurrent benefit of reducing the
amount of methyl bromide needed for fumigations.  EPA believes that
reducing supply through the phaseout will provide an incentive for use
minimization and therefore limit emissions.  Other points discussed by
this commenter can be found in the corresponding Response to Comments
document for this action.

	One commenter notes that virually impermeable film (VIF) keeps the
methyl bromide applied in the soil longer so it is metabolized in the
soil rather than escaping into the atmosphere.  The commenter believes
that methyl bromide that is used in this way should not be decreased
since it is not reaching the ozone layer.  EPA has not fully reviewed
the research that the commenter is referring to.  In compiling annual
critical use nominations, the United States Government considers the
feasibility of VIF, and other less permeable tarps, because the use of
these technologies can reduce required dosage rates, and the critical
need for methyl bromide to treat certain crops.  EPA does not believe,
that methyl bromide used with VIF, would qualify for the critical use
exemption as it is currently defined under the Protocol.  The commenter
may be proposing a different type of exemption for methyl bromide use
that does not result in emissions to the stratosphere.  This issue is
outside the scope of the present rulemaking.  Until EPA fully reviews
the research that the commenter refers to, it would be inappropriate for
the Agency to respond further.

H.  Critical Use Allowance Allocations

	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.  This allocation of pre-plant and post-harvest
CUAs to the entities listed below 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).

	In the August 27, 2007 proposed rule, EPA proposed to allow limited
amounts of new production or import of methyl bromide for critical uses
for 2008 up to the amount of 3,101,076 kg (12.2% of baseline) as shown
in Table II below.  EPA sought comment on the total levels of exempted
new production or import for pre-plant and post-harvest critical uses in
2008.  For the reasons discussed in Section V.D. of this preamble EPA is
adjusting the proposed CUA amounts to account for late sales reports
that decrease the calculated 2006 carry over amount [list other
changes].  Therefore, the total critical use exemption amount for 2008
is 4,823,531 kg (18.9% baseline), with 3,098,981 kg (12.1% baseline) of
critical use allowances allowing new production or import, and the
remaining amount, 1,724,550 kg (6.8% baseline), available through
critical stocks allowances (CSAs) that allow critical users to access
pre-phaseout methyl bromide.  EPA is continuing to calculate
company-specific CUA allocations on the basis of the 1991 baseline
consumption share of the companies listed in Table II.  The updated
calculation spreadsheet is available on Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-1016.  Therefore, the CUAs are allocated as follows:

Table II: Proposed Allocation of Critical Use Allowances

Company	2008 Critical use allowances for pre-plant uses* (kilograms)
2008 Critical use allowances for post-harvest uses* (kilograms)

Great Lakes Chemical Corp.

A Chemtura Company	1,695,734	187,516

Albemarle Corp.	697,324	77,111

Ameribrom, Inc.	385,356	42,613

TriCal, Inc.	11,999	1,327

Total	2,790,414	308,567

* 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 40 CFR Part 82.

Paragraph five of Decision XVIII/13 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 Ex.
I/3(4), Ex. II/1(4) and VII/9(4) regarding 2005, 2006 and 2007 critical
uses, respectively.  The language from these Decisions calls on Parties
to endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis.

	In establishing the critical use exemption program, the Agency
endeavored to allocate directly on a sector-by-sector basis by analyzing
and proposing this option among others in the August 2004 Framework Rule
notice (69 FR 52366).  EPA solicited comment on both universal and
sector-based allocation of critical use allowances.  The Agency
evaluated the various options based on their economic, environmental,
and practical effects.  After receiving comments, EPA determined in the
final Framework Rule (69 FR 76989) 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-specific approach would pose significant administrative and
practical difficulties.  Although the approach adopted in the Framework
Rule does not directly allocate allowances to each category of use, the
Agency anticipates that reliance on market mechanisms will achieve
similar results indirectly.  The TEAP recommendations are based on data
submitted by the U.S. which in turn are based on recent historic use
data in the current methyl bromide market.  In other words, the TEAP
recommendations agreed to by the Parties are based on current use and
the current use patterns take place in a market where all pre-plant and
post-harvest methyl bromide uses compete for a lump sum supply of
critical use material.  Therefore, the Agency believes that under a
system of universal allocations, divided into pre-plant and post-harvest
sectors, the actual critical use will closely follow the sector breakout
listed by the TEAP. These issues were addressed in the previous rule and
EPA is not aware of any factors that would alter the analysis performed
during the development of the Framework Rule.  A summary of the options
analysis conducted by EPA is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.

In developing this action, EPA did not propose to change the approach
adopted in the Framework Rule for the allocation of CUAs but, in an
endeavor to address Decision XVIII/13(5), EPA sought additional comment
on the Agency’s allocation of CUAs in the two groupings (pre-plant and
post-harvest) that the Agency has employed in the past.  	Two commenters
note that the universal system is working well and believe the concept
of the pre-plant/post-harvest allocations is simple and easy for
stakeholders to understand.  The commenters also note that the system
has not disrupted the supply chain and has been easy for distributors to
implement.  The commenter discourages the Agency from switching to a
sector-by-sector allocation system.

Two commenters state that the geographical distribution of methyl
bromide has created shortfalls resulting in the inability of individual
growers to access or afford material to fumigate their fields in
accordance with their production schedules. One commenter indicates that
this was particularly noticeable during the 2005 and 2006 fall
fumigation periods.  One commenter states that the universal system does
not work well for the above reasons, but believes that a
sector-by-sector allocation system would be equally flawed due to
insufficient allocations in certain sectors and unequal holding of
stocks.

One commenter believes that EPA should explore a hybrid between a
regional and a lump-sum allocation system.  Specifically, the commenter
suggests that EPA consider creating several large regional areas (such
as the EPA regions) that combine all of the sectors within each region
to create a regional lump-sum.  The commenter further states that the
methyl bromide users who most frequently face difficulty obtaining
methyl bromide are small, minority growers.  The commenter argues that
the allocation of methyl bromide creates a harm that is
disproportionately distributed.

The commenter’s primary concern is not human health and environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations.  Instead, the commenter
believes that EPA’s current allocation system causes economic harm for
these populations, because they have difficulty satisfying their
critical needs for methyl bromide.

This final rule creates an exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide.
The overall impact of this action is deregulatory, and has an economic
benefit for growers with critical needs for methyl bromide.  EPA
responds further to this comment in the Response to Comment document for
this action.

EPA agrees with the commenters that support the existing allocation
system.  EPA considered sector-specific, and other allocation approaches
in the Framework Rule, and decided that the existing universal
allocation system with pre-plant and post-harvest allowances is the most
effective and least burdensome system.  In the Framework, EPA did not
consider a regional approach, as one commenter suggests.  EPA may
consider such an approach for future CUE rules.  EPA does not believe it
would be appropriate to finalize such an approach without giving other
interested parties an opportunity for comment.  EPA responds to these
comments further in the Response to Comment document available on the
docket for this action.

H.  Critical Stock Allowance Allocations and the Confidentiality of
Information about the Aggregate Methyl Bromide Inventory

	Each critical stock allowance (CSA) 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 (69 FR 76990).  CSAs are not used to produce or
import methyl bromide but are rights that enable the holder to sell
pre-phaseout inventories of methyl bromide for use in approved critical
uses.  A CSA is expended when the entity selling methyl bromide sells
the material, or fumigation services with the material, to an approved
critical user who certifies that the material is for an approved
critical use.  Thus, the movement of pre-phaseout inventories or methyl
bromide along the supply chain does not require expenditures of a CSA.

	In developing this action, EPA proposed to allocate critical stock
allowances (CSAs) to the entities listed below in Table III for the 2008
control period in the amount of 1,724,550 kg (6.8% of US 1991 baseline).
 EPA’s proposal was based on the proposed approach for accounting for
available stocks of methyl bromide, which is described in Section V.D.
of this preamble.  For the reasons discussed in Section V.D., in this
action EPA is allocating 1,724,550 kg of CSAs to the entities listed in
Table 3 below.  The amounts are apportioned to each entity in proportion
to inventory held by each on January 1, 2007.

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).  EPA’s allocation of CSAs is based on each
company’s proportionate share of the aggregate inventory.  Therefore,
the documentation regarding 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 below.  EPA will inform the
listed companies of their CSA allocations in a letter following
publication of the final rule.

	In developing this action, EPA explained that several companies that
receive small amounts of CSAs from EPA have contacted the Agency and
requested that they be permitted to permanently retire their allowances.
 Due to the small CSA allocation and because they typically do not sell
critical use methyl bromide, they find the allocation of CSAs, and
associated record-keeping and reporting requirements, to be unduly
burdensome.  In response to this concern, in the Proposed 2007 CUE rule
EPA proposed to allow CSA holders, on a voluntary basis, to permanently
relinquish their allowances through written notification to the Agency.
EPA received no adverse comments.  However, no CSA holders contacted EPA
to take advantage of that voluntary opportunity.  In the 2008 proposed
rule EPA again gave CSA holders the opportunity, on a voluntary basis,
to permanently relinquish their allowances through written notification
to the Agency.  EPA explained that companies voluntarily relinquishing
their allowances would not receive CSA allocations and would be excluded
from future allocations, and that all allowances forfeited by companies
would be reallocated to the remaining companies on a pro-rata basis.

	Seven companies voluntarily contacted EPA during the comment period for
this action and requested to relinquish their CSAs.  The companies that
contacted the Agency were: Blair Soil Fumigation, Dodson Brothers,
Carolina Eastern Inc., Harvey Fertilizer & Gas, J.C. Ehrlich Co.,
Southern States Cooperative Inc., and Vanguard Fumigation Co. With this
final rule, EPA is honoring their requests and removing these seven
companies from Table 3 below.  Additionally, EPA will not issue CSAs to
these seven companies in future control periods.  EPA has reallocated
their CSAs to the remaining companies on a pro-rata basis.

Table III: Allocation of Critical Stock Allowances

Company

	Albemarle	Pacific Ag

Ameribrom, Inc.	Pest Fog Sales Corp.

Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc.	Prosource One

Burnside Services, Inc.	Reddick Fumigants

Cardinal Professional Products	Royster-Clark, Inc.

Degesch America, Inc.	Trical Inc.

Great Lakes Chemical Corp.	Trident Agricultural Products

Helena Chemical Co.	UAP Southeast (NC)

Hendrix & Dail	UAP Southeast (SC)

Hy Yield Bromine	Univar

Industrial Fumigation Company	Western Fumigation

TOTAL – 1,724,550 kilograms

I.  Stocks of Methyl Bromide

	As discussed above and in the December 23, 2004 Framework Rule, an
approved critical user may obtain access to exempted production and
import of methyl bromide and to 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.  In the Framework Rule EPA also established trading
provisions that allow critical use allowances (CUAs) to be converted
into CSAs.  Under this action, no significant changes are being made to
those provisions.

	 Comments from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) state that
EPA should dedicate all pre-phaseout stocks of methyl bromide to CUEs.
The Agency notes that it has responded to similar comments in the Final
Framework Rule (69 FR 76988), the Final 2007 CUE Rule (71 FR 75400), and
in response to NRDC’s late submission of supplemental comments on the
Proposed 2007 CUE Rule.  EPA is not revisiting this issue in this
rulemaking.

	With regard to information about stocks of methyl bromide, in the
proposed rule EPA explained in detail how it acquired that information
from 2003 until the present, and how EPA had applied its regulations on
treatment of information claimed as confidential.  In the proposed rule,
EPA noted that it did not receive any objections to releasing the
aggregate stocks information for calendar year 2006.  To  simplify the
process of releasing future aggregate stocks information, EPA proposed
to release the aggregate of methyl bromide stockpile information
reported to the Agency under the reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13
for the end of 2007, and each year thereafter.  For the reasons given in
a letter that EPA sent on April 23, 2007 to all entities which had
reported holding pre-phaseout inventory at the end of 2003, 2004, 2005
or 2006, which is available in the docket, this aggregate information is
clearly not entitled to confidential treatment.  EPA proposed to release
the aggregate of this stockpile data in future years without first
notifying entities by letter, as EPA has done in the past two years.
EPA sought comment on this proposal.  In the proposed rule, the Agency
stated that if it did not receive any comments opposing its proposal,
the aggregate of methyl bromide stockpile data collected under the
reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13 would not be treated as
confidential information and could be released in future without further
notice.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order (EO) 12866   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action proposes a “significant regulatory
action,” because it raises novel or legal policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set
forth in the Executive Order.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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

	The new information collection requirements in this rule, explained
further in Section E of this preamble, will be submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.  SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1  	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 2060-0564, and EPA ICR number
2179.03.   A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request
(ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW, Washington, DC 20460 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

The new information collection requirements in this rule are authorized
under Sections 603(d) and 614(B) of the CAAA of 1990.

	The new mandatory reporting requirements included in this rule are
intended to:

	(1) Enhance compliance with U.S. obligations under the international
treaty, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Protocol), to report data under Article 7;

	(2) Enhance information provided to Congress on the production, use and
consumption of class I controlled substances as statutorily required in
Section 603(d) of the CAAA of 1990.

	The new information will be collected through annual reporting by
producers, importers, distributors and third-party applicators of methyl
bromide.  EPA estimates the total burden associated with the new
requirements in today’s action to be 90 hours annually.  EPA does not
estimate any start-up of capital costs associated with today’s action.

Collection Activity	No. of Respondents	Total No. of Responses	Hours per
Response	Total Hours

Rule Familiarization	60	60	0.5	30

Data Compilation (annual basis)	60	60	0.5	30

Data Reporting (annual basis)	60	60	0.5	30

Total Burden Hours	 	 	1.5	90

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. [How will EPA notify public
if/when OMB approves the new ICR?]

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-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 action 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 that 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit 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

Storage Uses

Distributors and Applicators

Producers and Importers	1112- Vegetable and Melon farming

1113- Fruit and Nut Tree Farming

1114- Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Production

115114- Postharvest Crop activities (except Cotton Ginning)

311211- Flour Milling

311212- Rice Milling

493110- General Warehousing and Storage

493130- Farm Product Warehousing and Storage

115112- Soil Preparation, Planting and Cultivating

325320- Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing	0171-
Berry Crops

0172- Grapes

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

2041- Flour and Other Grain Mill Products

2044- Rice Milling

4221- Farm Product Warehousing and Storage

4225- General Warehousing and Storage

0721- Crop Planting, Cultivation, and Protection

2879- Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, NEC	$0.75 million

$6.5 million

500 employees

$23.5 million

$6.5 million

500 employees

	Agricultural producers of minor crops and entities that store
agricultural commodities are categories of affected entities that
contain small entities.  This action will only affect entities that
applied to EPA for a de-regulatory exemption.  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 received requests from a comparable number of
entities for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 control periods.  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 one-third 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 final 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 exempts methyl bromide for approved critical uses after the
phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this is a de-regulatory action which
will confer a benefit to users of methyl bromide.  EPA believes the
estimated de-regulatory value for users of methyl bromide is between $20
million and $30 million annually.  We have therefore concluded that this
final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

	This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.  This action is deregulatory and does
not impose any new requirements on any entities.  Thus, this proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.  Further, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.

E.  Executive Order 13132: Federalism

	Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
 The phrase “policies that have federalism implications” is defined
in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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 final rule 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 final 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
final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

	Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  This final rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments.  The final rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on communities of Indian tribal governments.  Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

G.  Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

	Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by
the Agency.

	EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under Section 5–501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation.  This final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 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 final 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 final rule
does not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor
does it regulate any manner of energy use.  Therefore, EPA has concluded
that this final rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 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.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.  This 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 final 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 final 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.

K.  Congressional Review Act

	The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective [Insert date of publication].

"

6

7

9

?

W

X

^

z

–

˜

¢

ú

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

X

˜

ã

ä

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

&

ÿ^„Ð`„0ýgd

&

ÿ^„¼`„Dýgd

&

ÿgd

`„°ægd

&

ÿ^„Ð`„0ýgd

&

ÿ`„Ðgd

&

ÿgd

h

&

ÿgd

&

`„`úgd

＀摧》	?਀&

ÿgd

&

`„0ýgd

ÿgd

h

h

h

h

h

  hy\

h

h

h

h

h

h

&

ÿgd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

Ó

h

h

¸

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

¸

¸

¸

kd»

¸

kdY

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

kd

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

摧》

ÿgd

¸

&

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

&

&

&

&

 h÷

&

&

&

Y

‚

É

hhF

‚

&

&

&

h

&

  h

  h

  h

  h

h

h-J

  hhF

hhF

h

  h

  h

గܪ栕昁q栖䨭

గܪ栕昁q栖䨭

&

&

h

  h

h

&

&

  h

b

l

§

Ä

Ç

Ð

hØU

&

&

&

&

&

  h”

h”

h”

h”

&

&

h”

&

&

&

&

hÜr

h!j

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

ˆ

&

&

hÉ

hÉ

&

&

&

hÉ

hÉ

hÉ

&

&

&

&

&

Z

[

p

~

ž

¬

Ê

Ø

ë

ó

ö

÷

£

$

;

N

Z

ø

&

&

&

&

&

  h°

 h°

  h

&

&

 NPMA stands for National Pest Management Association.

 PAGE

 PAGE   - 42 -

Redacted for CBI

Subject to change is more late sales reports arrive

Run by Alan Margolis, OGC