Availability of Stipulated Injunction in Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides v. EPA litigation, 53707-53708 [2014-21414]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Joan Leary Matthews,
Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region
2.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Jose C. Font,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection
Division, EPA Region 2.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA
Region 3.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Gail D. Mitchell,
Deputy Director, Water Protection Division,
EPA Region 4.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Timothy C. Henry,
Deputy Director, Water Division, EPA Region
5.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
James R. Brown,
Acting Deputy Director, Water Quality
Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Karen Flournoy,
Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides
Division, EPA Region 7.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Darcy O’Connor,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator,
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance, EPA Region 8.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Nancy Woo,
Associate Director, Water Division, EPA
Region 9.
Dated: August 21, 2014.
Daniel Opalski,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds,
EPA Region 10.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
[FR Doc. 2014–21408 Filed 9–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0301; FRL–9915–79]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Availability of Stipulated Injunction in
Northwest Center for Alternatives to
Pesticides v. EPA litigation
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice announces to the
public the availability of an Order
(stipulated injunction) issued by the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:04 Sep 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington that, among other
things, would reinstitute streamside nospray buffer zones to protect endangered
or threatened Pacific salmon and
steelhead in California, Oregon, and
Washington. The stipulated injunction,
issued on August 15, 2014, settles
litigation brought against EPA by the
Northwest Center for Alternatives to
Pesticides (NCAP) and others. 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 stipulated injunction are part of
a court order but are not to 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 will 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
stipulated injunction reinstitutes the
buffers in the interim.
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:
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you develop, manufacture,
formulate, sell, and/or apply pesticide
products, and if you are interested in
the potential impacts of pesticide use on
listed species. The following list of
North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53707
• Other stakeholders who have an
interested in potential impacts of
pesticides on listed species.
However, 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, 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 affected by 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.
C. How can I get copies of this
document and other related
information?
A copy of the stipulated injunction is
available in the docket under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2014–0301.
II. Background
A. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is announcing the availability of
a stipulated injunction issued on August
15, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington that,
among other things, reinstitutes
streamside no-spray buffer zones to
protect endangered and threatened
Pacific salmon and steelhead in
California, Oregon, and Washington.
The stipulated injunction settles
litigation brought against EPA by NCAP
and others. Like the original buffer
zones, the limitations in this injunction
are part of a court order but are not
enforceable as labeling requirements
under FIFRA. To view the interactive
map displaying the areas where the
buffer zones apply, go to www.epa.gov/
espp/litstatus/wtc/uselimitation.htm.
The interactive map is expected to be
updated no later than September 30,
2014 to include the current list of
chemicals subject to the restrictions,
enhanced spatial resolution, and the
most recent geospatial data depicting
stream reaches where the buffer zones
apply. The no-spray buffer zones apply
to the pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, malathion, and methomyl.
These buffer zones will 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
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
53708
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2014 / Notices
registration review process and the
stipulated injunction reinstates 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 five pesticides
and 60 feet for ground applications.
Under this settlement agreement,
there are three relevant use exemptions
carried over from the WTC case:
1. Public health vector control
administered by public entities, such as
the use of malathion by local
governments for mosquito control.
2. NMFS-authorized programs (i.e.,
where a NMFS finding or permit allows
use within the buffers).
3. Use of carbaryl under a Washington
state-issued 24(c) registration for oyster
beds in the estuarine mudflats of
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 sections 7 and 9 of the ESA
(16 U.S.C. 1536, 1538) with regard to the
effects of six EPA-registered pesticides
(carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos,
diazinon, malathion, and methomyl) on
28 Pacific salmonid species that are
listed as endangered or threatened
under the 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 five
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 three
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 claims that EPA’s
registration of the pesticides was in
violation of the ‘‘take’’ provisions of
section 9 of the ESA.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:04 Sep 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
the parties to discuss the potential for
settlement.
On June 6, 2014, EPA sought public
comment on a proposed agreement with
plaintiffs, in the form of a stipulated
injunction, to reinstitute the no-spray
buffers originally established in the
WTC v. EPA litigation 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). Following review of the
comments, most of which supported the
proposed agreement, EPA filed the
agreement with the Court and the Court
entered the stipulated injunction on
August 15, 2014. These buffer zones
will remain in place until EPA
implements any necessary protections
for Pacific salmon and steelhead based
on reinitiated consultations with NMFS.
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 also
requires 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. The stipulated injunction is
available at https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP2014-0301-0001.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
endangered species.
Dated: August 28, 2014.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–21414 Filed 9–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[OMB Control No. 9000–0183;Docket No.
2014–0055; Sequence 13]
Submission for OMB Review;
Preventing Personal Conflicts of
Interest for Contractor Employees
Performing Acquisition Functions
Department of Defense (DOD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of request for public
comments regarding an extension, to an
existing OMB clearance.
AGENCY:
Under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), the Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB) will be submitting to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request to review an extension
of a currently approved information
collection requirement regarding
Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest
for Contractor Employees Performing
Acquisition Functions. This request for
extension relates to FAR case 2013–022,
Extension of Limitations on Contractor
Employee Personal Conflicts of Interest,
proposed rule, which published
updated burden hours in the Federal
Register at 79 FR 18503 on April 2,
2014. A notice was published in the
Federal Register at 79 FR 33557 on June
11, 2014. No comments were received.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
October 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by Information Collection
9000–0183, Preventing Personal
Conflicts of Interest for Contractor
Employees Performing Acquisition
Functions by any of the following
methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Submit comments via the Federal
eRulemaking portal by searching the
OMB control number 9000–0183. Select
the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that
corresponds with ‘‘Information
Collection 9000–0183, Preventing
Personal Conflicts of Interest for
Contractor Employees Performing
Acquisition Functions’’. Follow the
instructions provided on the screen.
Please include your name, company
name (if any), and ‘‘Information
Collection 9000–0183, Preventing
Personal Conflicts of Interest for
Contractor Employees Performing
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53707-53708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21414]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0301; FRL-9915-79]
Availability of Stipulated Injunction in Northwest Center for
Alternatives to Pesticides v. EPA litigation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces to the public the availability of an
Order (stipulated injunction) issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington 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, issued on August 15, 2014,
settles litigation brought against EPA by the Northwest Center for
Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and others. 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 stipulated
injunction are part of a court order but are not to 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 will 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 stipulated injunction reinstitutes
the buffers in the interim.
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?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you develop,
manufacture, formulate, sell, and/or apply pesticide products, and if
you are interested in the potential impacts of pesticide use on listed
species. The following list of North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
Other stakeholders who have an interested in potential
impacts of pesticides on listed species.
However, 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, 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 affected by
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.
C. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
A copy of the stipulated injunction is available in the docket
under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0301.
II. Background
A. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is announcing the availability of a stipulated injunction
issued on August 15, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington that, among other things, reinstitutes
streamside no-spray buffer zones to protect endangered and threatened
Pacific salmon and steelhead in California, Oregon, and Washington. The
stipulated injunction settles litigation brought against EPA by NCAP
and others. Like the original buffer zones, the limitations in this
injunction are part of a court order but are not enforceable as
labeling requirements under FIFRA. To view the interactive map
displaying the areas where the buffer zones apply, go to www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/wtc/uselimitation.htm. The interactive map is expected
to be updated no later than September 30, 2014 to include the current
list of chemicals subject to the restrictions, enhanced spatial
resolution, and the most recent geospatial data depicting stream
reaches where the buffer zones apply. The no-spray buffer zones apply
to the pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, and
methomyl. These buffer zones will 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
[[Page 53708]]
registration review process and the stipulated injunction reinstates
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
five pesticides and 60 feet for ground applications.
Under this settlement agreement, there are three relevant use
exemptions carried over from the WTC case:
1. Public health vector control administered by public entities,
such as the use of malathion by local governments for mosquito control.
2. NMFS-authorized programs (i.e., where a NMFS finding or permit
allows use within the buffers).
3. Use of carbaryl under a Washington state-issued 24(c)
registration for oyster beds in the estuarine mudflats of Willapa Bay
and Grays Harbor.
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
sections 7 and 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536, 1538) with regard to the
effects of six EPA-registered pesticides (carbaryl, carbofuran,
chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, and methomyl) on 28 Pacific salmonid
species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the 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 five 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 three 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
claims that EPA's registration of the pesticides was in violation of
the ``take'' provisions of section 9 of the ESA.
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.
On June 6, 2014, EPA sought public comment on a proposed agreement
with plaintiffs, in the form of a stipulated injunction, to reinstitute
the no-spray buffers originally established in the WTC v. EPA
litigation 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). Following review of the comments, most of which
supported the proposed agreement, EPA filed the agreement with the
Court and the Court entered the stipulated injunction on August 15,
2014. These buffer zones will remain in place until EPA implements any
necessary protections for Pacific salmon and steelhead based on
reinitiated consultations with NMFS. 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 also requires 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. The stipulated injunction
is available at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
OPP-2014-0301-0001.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, endangered species.
Dated: August 28, 2014.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-21414 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P