Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a Treatment Schedule for Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Figs, 43055-43056 [2015-17841]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part
372).
In accordance with our process for
soliciting public input when
considering petitions for determinations
of nonregulated status for GE organisms,
we are publishing this notice to inform
the public that APHIS will accept
written comments on our draft EA and
our preliminary PPRA regarding the
petition for a determination of
nonregulated status from interested or
affected persons for a period of 30 days
from the date of this notice. Copies of
the draft EA and the preliminary PPRA,
as well as the previously published
petition, are available as indicated
under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above.
After the comment period closes,
APHIS will review all written comments
received during the comment period
and any other relevant information.
After reviewing and evaluating the
comments on the draft EA and the
preliminary PPRA and other
information, APHIS will revise the
PPRA as necessary and prepare a final
EA. Based on the final EA, APHIS will
prepare a NEPA decision document
(either a FONSI or a notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact
statement). If a FONSI is reached,
APHIS will furnish a response to the
petitioner, either approving or denying
the petition. APHIS will also publish a
notice in the Federal Register
announcing the regulatory status of the
GE organism and the availability of
APHIS’ final EA, PPRA, FONSI, and our
regulatory determination.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of
July 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–17845 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket No. APHIS–2015–0007]
Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a
Treatment Schedule for Methyl
Bromide Fumigation of Figs
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
We are affirming our earlier
determination that it was necessary to
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
immediately add to the Plant Protection
and Quarantine Treatment Manual a
treatment schedule for methyl bromide
fumigation of figs for certain pests,
including Chilean false red mite. In a
previous notice, we made available to
the public for review and comment a
treatment evaluation document that
described the new treatment schedule
and explained why we have determined
that it is effective at neutralizing these
pests.
DATES: Effective July 21, 2015, we are
affirming the addition to the Plant
Protection and Quarantine Treatment
Manual of the treatment described in
the notice published at 80 FR 10661–
10662 on February 27, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager—
Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301) 851–2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are
intended, among other things, to
prevent the introduction or
dissemination of plant pests and
noxious weeds into or within the United
States. Under the regulations, certain
plants, fruits, vegetables, and other
articles must be treated before they may
be moved into the United States or
interstate. The phytosanitary treatments
regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305
(referred to below as the regulations) set
out standards for treatments required in
7 CFR parts 301, 318, and 319 for fruits,
vegetables, and other articles.
In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that
approved treatment schedules are set
out in the Plant Protection and
Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.1
Section 305.3 sets out a process for
adding, revising, or removing treatment
schedules in the PPQ Treatment
Manual. In that section, paragraph (b)
sets out the process for adding, revising,
or removing treatment schedules when
there is an immediate need to make a
change. The circumstances in which an
immediate need exists are described in
§ 305.3(b)(1). They are:
• PPQ has determined that an
approved treatment schedule is
ineffective at neutralizing the targeted
plant pest(s).
• PPQ has determined that, in order
to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s),
the treatment schedule must be
administered using a different process
than was previously used.
1 The Treatment Manual is available on the
Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_
export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/
treatment.pdf or by contacting the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection
and Quarantine, Manuals Unit, 92 Thomas Johnson
Drive, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21702.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43055
• PPQ has determined that a new
treatment schedule is effective, based on
efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in
a commodity or commodities may be
adversely impacted unless the new
treatment schedule is approved for use.
• The use of a treatment schedule is
no longer authorized by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or by
any other Federal entity.
In accordance with § 305.3(b), we
published a notice 2 in the Federal
Register on February 27, 2015 (80 FR
10661–10662, Docket No. APHIS–2015–
0007), announcing our determination
that a new methyl bromide fumigation
treatment schedule to control certain
pests, including Chilean false red mite
(Brevipalpus chilensis), on figs (Ficus
carica) is effective, based on evidence
presented in a treatment evaluation
document (TED) we made available
with the notice. We also determined
that ongoing trade in figs would be
adversely impacted unless the new
treatment is approved for use. The
treatment was added to the PPQ
Treatment Manual, but was subject to
change based on public comment.
We solicited comments on the notice
for 60 days ending on April 28, 2015.
We received one comment by that date,
from a private citizen. The commenter
stated that methyl bromide is known to
deplete the stratospheric ozone layer,
and that authorizing its use for treating
figs violates the Montreal Protocol, in
which the United States agreed to
gradually reduce and ultimately
eliminate use of methyl bromide.
The United States Government
encourages methods that do not use
methyl bromide to meet phytosanitary
standards where alternatives are
deemed to be technically and
economically feasible, practical, and
effective. At present, methyl bromide
fumigation is the only authorized
treatment that meets the above criteria
for the treatment of external pests on
figs. In addition, in accordance with
Montreal Protocol Decision XI/13
(paragraph 7), APHIS is committed to
promoting and employing gas recapture
technology and other methods
whenever possible to minimize harm to
the environment caused by methyl
bromide emissions.
Paragraph 5 of Article 2H of the
Montreal Protocol does allow for
quarantine and preshipment uses of
methyl bromide, and does not specify a
maximum number of such applications.
Therefore, the application of this
treatment is not in conflict with the
2 To view the notice, the TED, and the comment
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0007.
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
43056
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
protocol. Treatment of figs with methyl
bromide fumigation is also consistent
with the International Plant Protection
Convention’s standard of requiring the
least restrictive phytosanitary measures
to mitigate pests of concern.
Therefore, in accordance with the
regulations in § 305.3(b)(3), we are
affirming our addition of a methyl
bromide treatment schedule for figs to
control certain pests, as described in the
TED made available with the previous
notice. The treatment schedule is
numbered T101-i-2–2. The treatment
schedule will be listed in the PPQ
Treatment Manual, which is available as
described in footnote 1 of this
document.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of
July 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–17841 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Kootenai National Forest; Lincoln and
Sanders Counties; Montana; Kootenai
National Forest Young Growth
Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Forest Service will
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to disclose the
environmental effects of commercial
and non-commercial vegetation
management activities and prescribed
burning of activity fuels. Access
management changes and other design
features are included to protect
resources and facilitate management
activities. The project is located across
the Kootenai National Forest Kootenai
National Forest, Lincoln and Sanders
Counties, Montana.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must be received within
30 days from the date of publication in
the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Chris Savage; Forest Supervisor,
Kootenai National Forest, 31374 US
Hwy 2, Libby, MT 59923. Comments
may also be sent via email to commentsnorthern-kootenai@fs.fed.us; or via
facsimile to (406) 283–7709.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact Janis Bouma, Project Team
Leader, Kootenai National Forest, 31374
US Hwy 2, Libby, MT 59923. Phone:
(406) 283–7774.
Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
20, 2014, Department of Agriculture
Secretary Vilsack announced the
designation of approximately 45.6
million acres of National Forest System
lands across 94 national forests in 35
states to address insect and disease
threats that weaken forests and increase
the risk of forest fire. The Kootenai
National Forest is the only forest in
Montana that lies completely within
these priority landscapes. The Governor
of Montana has asked that priority be
given to project development within
these designated insect and disease
areas, and created his Forest in Focus
Initiative to accelerate the pace and
scale of forest restoration in the state of
Montana. The Kootenai National Forest
Young-Growth Project area is
approximately 400,000 acres in size and
is located only in second-growth;
previously harvested timber stands
about across the Kootenai National
Forest.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for this project
is: (1) Improve the resiliency of the
timber stands to insects and disease; (2);
improve wildlife habitat especially for
grizzly bear and lynx; (3) address
impacts from climate change and, 4) and
to decrease risk of stand-replacing
wildfire.
Overall project benefits and the
purpose associated with young-growth
vegetation management will be to
improve stand conditions and increase
resistance to insects, disease, and standreplacement wildfire while also
providing for abundance of forage and
improved habitat conditions for a
variety of wildlife species. Managing
these stands is important in order to
reach a healthier stocking rate and to
increase overall growth and vigor of the
stand by reducing competition and
stress on remaining conifers.
Management of these stands would also
increase quantities of grasses, forbs, and
shrubs that many wildlife species utilize
in the early stage of forest development,
thereby improving foraging habitat for
grizzly bear, lynx, and other wildlife
species. The project would allow for
adaptive management over the next 10
to 15 years as stand conditions would
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
allow and to respond to local
environmental conditions and stocking
rates. All of these benefits fall within
the Governor’s criteria.
Proposed Action
The proposed action includes noncommercial and commercial vegetation
management activities that accomplish
the following:
Habitat improvement for grizzly bear
and lynx; (2) Reduce fuel loading and
ladder fuels; (3) Break up the continuity
of fuels; (4) Reduce tree densities and
tree species susceptible to fire mortality;
(5) Increase fire resilient species; (6)
Reduce susceptibility to insects and
potential disease; (7) Increase tree vigor
and resilience to disturbance.
Project NEPA analysis would employ
various adaptive management screens
across the initial proposed acreage.
These ‘‘screens’’ would be used to avoid
impacts to Threatened and Endangered
wildlife and plant species, and sensitive
areas. Treatment boundaries could also
be further narrowed depending on
localized site conditions including soils
conditions, standard wildlife effects
mitigations, and Best Management
Practices (BMPs). Therefore, the actual,
on-the ground vegetation management
would be considerably smaller than the
initial 400,000 acres proposed for
evaluation. The project would rely on
the existing road system to reach the
stands with a need for treatment, with
no new specified road construction
proposed for this analysis. Prior logging
systems such as previous skid trails may
be used if evidence of them still exists.
If site-specific Forest Plan amendments
may be needed, then the proposed
treatments would be dropped or
deferred to another future project
analysis.
The acres included in this anticipated
decision would provide forest products
for an array of markets. A portion of the
acreage, predominately the older second
growth, would provide a saw log
product. Many of the acres would
provide non-saw products such as post
and pole. These offerings of forest
products would be assessed for
economic feasibility and may be mixed
and matched with other offerings or
decisions in order to ensure economic
viability. Additionally, in order to
anticipate and respond to future timber
market opportunities or newly
developed markets, the analysis would
consider biomass removal in addition to
traditional commercial timber harvest
activities.
Various silvicultural treatments
would be proposed to meet the
vegetative objectives for the previously
harvested areas and move the landscape
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43055-43056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17841]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2015-0007]
Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a Treatment Schedule for
Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Figs
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are affirming our earlier determination that it was
necessary to immediately add to the Plant Protection and Quarantine
Treatment Manual a treatment schedule for methyl bromide fumigation of
figs for certain pests, including Chilean false red mite. In a previous
notice, we made available to the public for review and comment a
treatment evaluation document that described the new treatment schedule
and explained why we have determined that it is effective at
neutralizing these pests.
DATES: Effective July 21, 2015, we are affirming the addition to the
Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual of the treatment
described in the notice published at 80 FR 10661-10662 on February 27,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk
Manager--Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale,
MD 20737; (301) 851-2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are
intended, among other things, to prevent the introduction or
dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into or within the
United States. Under the regulations, certain plants, fruits,
vegetables, and other articles must be treated before they may be moved
into the United States or interstate. The phytosanitary treatments
regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 (referred to below as the
regulations) set out standards for treatments required in 7 CFR parts
301, 318, and 319 for fruits, vegetables, and other articles.
In Sec. 305.2, paragraph (b) states that approved treatment
schedules are set out in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
Treatment Manual.\1\ Section 305.3 sets out a process for adding,
revising, or removing treatment schedules in the PPQ Treatment Manual.
In that section, paragraph (b) sets out the process for adding,
revising, or removing treatment schedules when there is an immediate
need to make a change. The circumstances in which an immediate need
exists are described in Sec. 305.3(b)(1). They are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Treatment Manual is available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf or by contacting the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Manuals Unit,
92 Thomas Johnson Drive, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPQ has determined that an approved treatment schedule is
ineffective at neutralizing the targeted plant pest(s).
PPQ has determined that, in order to neutralize the
targeted plant pest(s), the treatment schedule must be administered
using a different process than was previously used.
PPQ has determined that a new treatment schedule is
effective, based on efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in a
commodity or commodities may be adversely impacted unless the new
treatment schedule is approved for use.
The use of a treatment schedule is no longer authorized by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by any other Federal
entity.
In accordance with Sec. 305.3(b), we published a notice \2\ in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10661-10662, Docket No.
APHIS-2015-0007), announcing our determination that a new methyl
bromide fumigation treatment schedule to control certain pests,
including Chilean false red mite (Brevipalpus chilensis), on figs
(Ficus carica) is effective, based on evidence presented in a treatment
evaluation document (TED) we made available with the notice. We also
determined that ongoing trade in figs would be adversely impacted
unless the new treatment is approved for use. The treatment was added
to the PPQ Treatment Manual, but was subject to change based on public
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To view the notice, the TED, and the comment we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on April 28,
2015. We received one comment by that date, from a private citizen. The
commenter stated that methyl bromide is known to deplete the
stratospheric ozone layer, and that authorizing its use for treating
figs violates the Montreal Protocol, in which the United States agreed
to gradually reduce and ultimately eliminate use of methyl bromide.
The United States Government encourages methods that do not use
methyl bromide to meet phytosanitary standards where alternatives are
deemed to be technically and economically feasible, practical, and
effective. At present, methyl bromide fumigation is the only authorized
treatment that meets the above criteria for the treatment of external
pests on figs. In addition, in accordance with Montreal Protocol
Decision XI/13 (paragraph 7), APHIS is committed to promoting and
employing gas recapture technology and other methods whenever possible
to minimize harm to the environment caused by methyl bromide emissions.
Paragraph 5 of Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol does allow for
quarantine and preshipment uses of methyl bromide, and does not specify
a maximum number of such applications. Therefore, the application of
this treatment is not in conflict with the
[[Page 43056]]
protocol. Treatment of figs with methyl bromide fumigation is also
consistent with the International Plant Protection Convention's
standard of requiring the least restrictive phytosanitary measures to
mitigate pests of concern.
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in Sec. 305.3(b)(3),
we are affirming our addition of a methyl bromide treatment schedule
for figs to control certain pests, as described in the TED made
available with the previous notice. The treatment schedule is numbered
T101-i-2-2. The treatment schedule will be listed in the PPQ Treatment
Manual, which is available as described in footnote 1 of this document.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and
136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of July 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17841 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P