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 

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 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 

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: http:// 

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 http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Notices 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 http://

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 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 

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 

http://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 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document commences a 

hearing to determine whether the 

application of Patrick Sullivan 

(Sullivan), licensee of FM Translator 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES