Request for Public Comment on Proposed Stipulated Injunction Involving Five Pesticides and Pacific Salmonid Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act; Notice of Availability, 32732-32733 [2014-13212]
Download as PDF
32732
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Notices
The registrant will be permitted to
relabel the products listed in Table 1 of
Unit III to conform with the requested
use deletions as long as the registrant
has verified that the products have been
formulated from Technical PCNB that
complies with the certified limits as
amended on November 23, 2011 and
June 13, 2012, and the registrant retains
records demonstrating such compliance.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pesticides
and pests.
Dated: May 22, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–13232 Filed 6–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0301; FRL–9911–68]
Request for Public Comment on
Proposed Stipulated Injunction
Involving Five Pesticides and Pacific
Salmonid Species Listed as
Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act; Notice of
Availability
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
EPA is requesting comments
on a proposed stipulated injunction
that, among other things, would
reinstitute streamside no-spray buffer
zones to protect endangered or
threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead
in California, Oregon, and Washington.
The stipulated injunction would settle
litigation brought against EPA by the
Northwest Center for Alternatives to
Pesticides (NCAP) and others in U.S.
District Court in Washington State.
These buffers were originally
established by the same court in prior
litigation brought against EPA by the
Washington Toxics Coalition (WTC) and
others. Like the original buffer zones,
the limitations in this proposed
stipulated injunction would be part of a
court order but would not be
enforceable as labeling requirements
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The nospray buffer zones will apply to the
pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, malathion, and methomyl.
These buffers would remain in place
until EPA implements any necessary
protections for Pacific salmon and
steelhead based on reinitiated
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:59 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
consultations with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). EPA is
reevaluating these pesticides in
connection with its current FIFRA
registration review process and the
proposed stipulated injunction would
reinstitute the buffers in the interim.
EPA will evaluate all comments
received during the 30-day public
comment period to determine whether
all or part of the proposed stipulated
injunction warrants reconsideration or
revision.
Comments must be received on
or before July 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0301, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Pease, Environmental Fate and
Effects Division (7507P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (703) 305–7695;
email address: pease.anita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public
in general, and may be of particular
interest to the parties in the NCAP v.
EPA litigation, environmental
organizations, professional and
recreational fishing interests, other
public interest groups, State regulatory
partners, other interested Federal
agencies, and pesticide registrants and
pesticide users. Since other entities may
also be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be interested in this
action. If you have any questions
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. How can I get copies of this
document and other related
information?
A copy of the proposed stipulated
injunction is available in the docket
under docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2014–0301.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Notices
II. Background
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. What action is the agency taking?
EPA is requesting comments on a
proposed stipulated injunction that,
among other things, would reinstitute
streamside no-spray buffer zones to
protect endangered and threatened
Pacific salmon and steelhead in
California, Oregon, and Washington.
The stipulated injunction would settle
litigation brought against EPA by NCAP
and others in U.S. District Court in
Washington State. Like the original
buffer zones, the limitations in this
proposed stipulated injunction would
be part of a court order but would not
be enforceable as labeling requirements
under FIFRA. To view the interactive
map displaying the areas where the
buffer zones apply, go to https://
www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/wtc/
uselimitation.htm. The no-spray buffer
zones will apply to the pesticides
carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon,
malathion, and methomyl. These buffer
zones would remain in place until EPA
implements any necessary protections
for Pacific salmon and steelhead based
on reinitiated consultations with NMFS.
EPA is reevaluating these pesticides in
connection with its current FIFRA
registration review process and the
proposed stipulated injunction would
reinstate the buffers in the interim.
The no-spray buffers in the proposed
stipulated injunction extend 300 feet
from salmon supporting waters for
aerial applications of the 5 pesticides
and 60 feet for ground applications.
These same buffers are currently in
place for 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3–D or
telone), bromoxynil, diflubenzuron,
fenbutatin oxide, prometryn, propargite,
and racemic metolachlor that are still
subject to the original injunction issued
in 2004 in WTC, et al. v. EPA. The
buffers for those 7 pesticides will
remain in place until the completion of
EPA’s current Endangered Species Act
(ESA) consultations with NMFS.
EPA will evaluate all comments
received during the 30-day public
comment period to determine whether
all or part of the proposed stipulated
injunction warrants reconsideration or
revision.
B. What is the agency’s authority for
taking this action?
On November 29, 2010, NCAP and
other environmental groups and fishing
interests filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court for the Western District of
Washington alleging that EPA failed to
comply with ESA sections 7 and 9 (16
U.S.C. 1536 and 1538) with regard to the
effects of 6 EPA-registered pesticides
(carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:59 Jun 05, 2014
Jkt 232001
diazinon, malathion, and methomyl) on
28 Pacific salmonid species that are
listed as endangered or threatened
under ESA (NCAP, et al., v. EPA, C10–
01919 (W.D. Wash.)). Subsequent to the
filing of the case, all carbofuran end-use
product registrations were cancelled,
effectively leaving only 5 pesticides at
issue in the litigation. On February 21,
2013, in Dow Agrosciences LLC v.
NMFS, 707 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2013), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
vacated the NMFS biological opinion
addressing chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and
malathion. Following that ruling, the
plaintiffs in the NCAP v. EPA litigation
supplemented their original complaint
to assert that in the absence of a valid
biological opinion, EPA had failed to
complete consultation on those 3
pesticides. In the fall of 2013, the
intervenors, CropLife America and other
pesticide industry and pesticide user
groups, filed a motion to dismiss both
that claim and a claim that EPA’s
registration of the pesticides was in
violation of the ‘‘take’’ provisions of
ESA section 9. On January 28, 2014,
Judge Zilly denied intervenors’ motion
to dismiss these claims. Subsequent to
that ruling, the parties filed a stipulated
motion to stay the NCAP v. EPA
litigation to allow the parties to discuss
the potential for settlement. EPA and
the plaintiffs have reached a proposed
agreement that would reinstitute the nospray buffers originally established in
the WTC v. EPA litigation, as explained
in Unit II.A., during the period that EPA
develops new biological evaluations for
salmonid species (which will be
completed in connection with the
development of EPA’s national FIFRA
registration reviews for these
pesticides). These buffer zones would
remain in place until EPA implements
any necessary protections for Pacific
salmon and steelhead based on
reinitiated consultations with NMFS.
The agreement is embodied in the
proposed stipulated injunction that is
being made available for review and
comment through this notice. In
separate litigation, NCAP v. NMFS,
C07–1791 (W.D. Wash.), NMFS has
agreed to complete any consultation
EPA reinitiates on chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, and malathion by December
2017, and any consultation EPA
reinitiates on carbaryl and methomyl by
December 2018. These dates are
intended to correspond with EPA’s
FIFRA registration review schedule for
these pesticides.
The stipulated injunction would also
require EPA to provide notice of the
reinstitution of the no-spray buffers
zones to numerous groups, including
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32733
certified applicators, State and local
governments, Federal agencies, user
groups, extension services, and land
grant universities in affected portions of
California, Oregon, and Washington. It
also requires EPA to provide certain
information to the public and pesticide
users through the EPA Web site,
including maps that highlight the
stream reaches where the buffer zones
apply.
With this document, EPA is opening
a 30-day comment period on the
proposed stipulated injunction. EPA
will review any comments received
during the 30-day public comment
period to determine whether all or part
of the proposed stipulated injunction
warrants reconsideration or revision. If
EPA determines that any part of the
proposed stipulated injunction merits
reconsideration or revision, EPA will
contact the plaintiffs concerning this
matter and the proposed stipulated
injunction will not be submitted to the
Court until EPA and plaintiffs reach
agreement on any such changes. If EPA
determines that the proposed stipulated
injunction does not need to be
reconsidered or revised, the proposed
stipulated injunction will be submitted
to the Court and shall become effective
upon ratification by the Court. Once the
stipulated injunction is ratified by the
Court, EPA will post on its Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides a notice
indicating the stipulated injunction has
been so entered.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Endangered species.
Dated: June 2, 2014.
Jack Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–13212 Filed 6–3–14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 14–82; DA 14–703]
Patrick Sullivan (Assignor) and Lake
Broadcasting, Inc. (Assignee),
Application for Consent To
Assignment of License of FM
Translator Station W238CE,
Montgomery, Alabama
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This document commences a
hearing to determine whether the
application of Patrick Sullivan
(Sullivan), licensee of FM Translator
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32732-32733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13212]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0301; FRL-9911-68]
Request for Public Comment on Proposed Stipulated Injunction
Involving Five Pesticides and Pacific Salmonid Species Listed as
Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act; Notice of
Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is requesting comments on a proposed stipulated injunction
that, among other things, would reinstitute streamside no-spray buffer
zones to protect endangered or threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead
in California, Oregon, and Washington. The stipulated injunction would
settle litigation brought against EPA by the Northwest Center for
Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and others in U.S. District Court in
Washington State. These buffers were originally established by the same
court in prior litigation brought against EPA by the Washington Toxics
Coalition (WTC) and others. Like the original buffer zones, the
limitations in this proposed stipulated injunction would be part of a
court order but would not be enforceable as labeling requirements under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The no-
spray buffer zones will apply to the pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, malathion, and methomyl. These buffers would remain in place
until EPA implements any necessary protections for Pacific salmon and
steelhead based on reinitiated consultations with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). EPA is reevaluating these pesticides in
connection with its current FIFRA registration review process and the
proposed stipulated injunction would reinstitute the buffers in the
interim. EPA will evaluate all comments received during the 30-day
public comment period to determine whether all or part of the proposed
stipulated injunction warrants reconsideration or revision.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0301, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Pease, Environmental Fate and
Effects Division (7507P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7695; email address:
pease.anita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to the parties in the NCAP v. EPA litigation,
environmental organizations, professional and recreational fishing
interests, other public interest groups, State regulatory partners,
other interested Federal agencies, and pesticide registrants and
pesticide users. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
A copy of the proposed stipulated injunction is available in the
docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0301.
[[Page 32733]]
II. Background
A. What action is the agency taking?
EPA is requesting comments on a proposed stipulated injunction
that, among other things, would reinstitute streamside no-spray buffer
zones to protect endangered and threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead
in California, Oregon, and Washington. The stipulated injunction would
settle litigation brought against EPA by NCAP and others in U.S.
District Court in Washington State. Like the original buffer zones, the
limitations in this proposed stipulated injunction would be part of a
court order but would not be enforceable as labeling requirements under
FIFRA. To view the interactive map displaying the areas where the
buffer zones apply, go to https://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/wtc/uselimitation.htm. The no-spray buffer zones will apply to the
pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, and methomyl.
These buffer zones would remain in place until EPA implements any
necessary protections for Pacific salmon and steelhead based on
reinitiated consultations with NMFS. EPA is reevaluating these
pesticides in connection with its current FIFRA registration review
process and the proposed stipulated injunction would reinstate the
buffers in the interim.
The no-spray buffers in the proposed stipulated injunction extend
300 feet from salmon supporting waters for aerial applications of the 5
pesticides and 60 feet for ground applications. These same buffers are
currently in place for 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or telone),
bromoxynil, diflubenzuron, fenbutatin oxide, prometryn, propargite, and
racemic metolachlor that are still subject to the original injunction
issued in 2004 in WTC, et al. v. EPA. The buffers for those 7
pesticides will remain in place until the completion of EPA's current
Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations with NMFS.
EPA will evaluate all comments received during the 30-day public
comment period to determine whether all or part of the proposed
stipulated injunction warrants reconsideration or revision.
B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
On November 29, 2010, NCAP and other environmental groups and
fishing interests filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the
Western District of Washington alleging that EPA failed to comply with
ESA sections 7 and 9 (16 U.S.C. 1536 and 1538) with regard to the
effects of 6 EPA-registered pesticides (carbaryl, carbofuran,
chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, and methomyl) on 28 Pacific salmonid
species that are listed as endangered or threatened under ESA (NCAP, et
al., v. EPA, C10-01919 (W.D. Wash.)). Subsequent to the filing of the
case, all carbofuran end-use product registrations were cancelled,
effectively leaving only 5 pesticides at issue in the litigation. On
February 21, 2013, in Dow Agrosciences LLC v. NMFS, 707 F.3d 462 (4th
Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the
NMFS biological opinion addressing chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and
malathion. Following that ruling, the plaintiffs in the NCAP v. EPA
litigation supplemented their original complaint to assert that in the
absence of a valid biological opinion, EPA had failed to complete
consultation on those 3 pesticides. In the fall of 2013, the
intervenors, CropLife America and other pesticide industry and
pesticide user groups, filed a motion to dismiss both that claim and a
claim that EPA's registration of the pesticides was in violation of the
``take'' provisions of ESA section 9. On January 28, 2014, Judge Zilly
denied intervenors' motion to dismiss these claims. Subsequent to that
ruling, the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the NCAP v. EPA
litigation to allow the parties to discuss the potential for
settlement. EPA and the plaintiffs have reached a proposed agreement
that would reinstitute the no-spray buffers originally established in
the WTC v. EPA litigation, as explained in Unit II.A., during the
period that EPA develops new biological evaluations for salmonid
species (which will be completed in connection with the development of
EPA's national FIFRA registration reviews for these pesticides). These
buffer zones would remain in place until EPA implements any necessary
protections for Pacific salmon and steelhead based on reinitiated
consultations with NMFS. The agreement is embodied in the proposed
stipulated injunction that is being made available for review and
comment through this notice. In separate litigation, NCAP v. NMFS, C07-
1791 (W.D. Wash.), NMFS has agreed to complete any consultation EPA
reinitiates on chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion by December 2017,
and any consultation EPA reinitiates on carbaryl and methomyl by
December 2018. These dates are intended to correspond with EPA's FIFRA
registration review schedule for these pesticides.
The stipulated injunction would also require EPA to provide notice
of the reinstitution of the no-spray buffers zones to numerous groups,
including certified applicators, State and local governments, Federal
agencies, user groups, extension services, and land grant universities
in affected portions of California, Oregon, and Washington. It also
requires EPA to provide certain information to the public and pesticide
users through the EPA Web site, including maps that highlight the
stream reaches where the buffer zones apply.
With this document, EPA is opening a 30-day comment period on the
proposed stipulated injunction. EPA will review any comments received
during the 30-day public comment period to determine whether all or
part of the proposed stipulated injunction warrants reconsideration or
revision. If EPA determines that any part of the proposed stipulated
injunction merits reconsideration or revision, EPA will contact the
plaintiffs concerning this matter and the proposed stipulated
injunction will not be submitted to the Court until EPA and plaintiffs
reach agreement on any such changes. If EPA determines that the
proposed stipulated injunction does not need to be reconsidered or
revised, the proposed stipulated injunction will be submitted to the
Court and shall become effective upon ratification by the Court. Once
the stipulated injunction is ratified by the Court, EPA will post on
its Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides a notice indicating the
stipulated injunction has been so entered.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Endangered species.
Dated: June 2, 2014.
Jack Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-13212 Filed 6-3-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P