53230 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 

If no such motions are filed, the 

restricted service list will be effective at 

the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, 

a further notice will be issued ruling on 

any motion or motions filed within the 

15 day period. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–24910 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0202; FRL–8793–2] 

Urea Sulfate Registration Review; Draft 

Ecological Risk Assessment; Notice of 

Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of EPA’s draft ecological risk 

assessment for the registration review of 

urea sulfate and opens a public 

comment period on this document. 

Registration review is EPA’s periodic 

review of pesticide registrations to 

ensure that each pesticide continues to 

satisfy the statutory standard for 

registration, that is, the pesticide can 

perform its intended function without 

unreasonable adverse effects on human 

health or the environment. As part of 

the registration review process, the 

Agency has completed a comprehensive 

draft ecological risk assessment for urea 

sulfate uses, including a determination 

that urea sulfate uses will have no effect 

on federally listed threatened or 

endangered species or their designated 

critical habitat. After reviewing 

comments received during the public 

comment period, EPA will issue a 

revised risk assessment, explain any 

changes to the draft risk assessment, and 

respond to comments and may request 

public input on risk mitigation before 

completing a proposed registration 

review decision for urea sulfate. 

Through this program, EPA is ensuring 

that each pesticide’s registration is 

based on current scientific and other 

knowledge, including its effects on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

identified by the docket identification 

(ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0202, 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2007–0202. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

pesticide specific information contact: 

Andrea Carone, Chemical Review 

Manager, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–0122; fax number: 

(703) 308–8090; e-mail address: 

carone.andrea@epa.gov. 

For general questions on the 

registration review program, contact: 

Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 305–5026; fax number: 

(703) 308–8090; e-mail address: 

costello.kevin@epa.gov. 

For general questions on OPP’s 

Endangered Species Protection 

Program, contact: Arty Williams, 

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; fax number: (703) 308– 

4776; e-mail address: 

williams.arty@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 interest to a 

wide range of stakeholders, including 

environmental, human health, farm 

worker, and agricultural advocates; the 

chemical industry; pesticide users; and 

members of the public interested in the 

sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. 

Since others also may 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 

chemical review manager 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 53231 

regulations.gov or e-mail. 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. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. Authority 

EPA is conducting its registration 

review of urea sulfate pursuant to 

section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

and the Procedural Regulations for 

Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, 

subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA 

provides, among other things, that the 

registrations of pesticides are to be 

reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, 

a pesticide product may be registered or 

remain registered only if it meets the 

statutory standard for registration given 

in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in 

accordance with widespread and 

commonly recognized practice, the 

pesticide product must perform its 

intended function without unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment; that 

is, without any unreasonable risk to 

man or the environment, or a human 

dietary risk from residues that result 

from the use of a pesticide in or on food. 

III. Registration Reviews 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), 

EPA is reviewing the pesticide 

registration for urea sulfate to ensure 

that it continues to satisfy the FIFRA 

standard for registration— that is, that 

urea sulfate can still be used without 

unreasonable adverse effects on human 

health or the environment. Urea sulfate 

is a herbicide used as a desiccant on 

cotton as a cotton harvest aid/defoliant. 

EPA has completed a comprehensive 

draft ecological risk assessment, 

including an endangered species 

assessment, for all urea sulfate uses and 

is announcing the availability of the 

draft ecological risk assessment. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is 

providing an opportunity, through this 

notice of availability, for interested 

parties to provide comments and input 

concerning the Agency’s draft ecological 

risk assessment for urea sulfate. Such 

comments and input could address, 

among other things, the Agency’s risk 

assessment methodologies and 

assumptions, as applied to the draft risk 

assessment for the registration review of 

urea sulfate. The Agency will consider 

all comments received during the public 

comment period and make changes, as 

appropriate, to the draft ecological risk 

assessment. EPA will then issue a 

revised risk assessment, explain any 

changes to the draft risk assessment, and 

respond to comments. In the Federal 

Register notice announcing the 

availability of the revised risk 

assessment, if the revised risk 

assessment indicates risks of concern, 

the Agency may provide a comment 

period for the public to submit 

suggestions for mitigating the risk 

identified in the revised risk assessment 

before developing a proposed 

registration review decision on urea 

sulfate. As described in detail in the 

Urea Sulfate Summary Document, see 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007– 

0202, the Agency believes that the 

human health risk assessments 

completed prior to registration review 

are adequate, and there are no dietary or 

occupational risks that exceed the 

Agency’s level of concern. Thus, no 

additional human health data are 

needed for the registration review of 

urea sulfate. 

1. Other related information. 

Additional information on urea sulfate 

is available on the Pesticide Registration 

Review Status webpage for this 

pesticide, http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppsrrd1/registration_review/ 

urea_sulfate/index.htm. Information on 

the Agency’s registration review 

program and its implementing 

regulation is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/ 

registration_review. 

2. Information submission 

requirements. Anyone may submit data 

or information in response to this 

document. To be considered during a 

pesticide’s registration review, the 

submitted data or information must 

meet the following requirements: 

• To ensure that EPA will consider 

data or information submitted, 

interested persons must submit the data 

or information during the comment 

period. The Agency may, at its 

discretion, consider data or information 

submitted at a later date. 

• The data or information submitted 

must be presented in a legible and 

useable form. For example, an English 

translation must accompany any 

material that is not in English and a 

written transcript must accompany any 

information submitted as an 

audiographic or videographic record. 

Written material may be submitted in 

paper or electronic form. 

• Submitters must clearly identify 

the source of any submitted data or 

information. 

• Submitters may request the 

Agency to reconsider data or 

information that the Agency rejected in 

a previous review. However, submitters 

must explain why they believe the 

Agency should reconsider the data or 

information in the pesticide’s 

registration review. 

As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the 

registration review docket for each 

pesticide case will remain publicly 

accessible through the duration of the 

registration review process; that is, until 

all actions required in the final decision 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
53232 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 

on the registration review case have 

been completed. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests, Urea sulfate. 

Dated: October 6, 2009. 

Peter Caulkins, 

Acting Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–24812 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 

a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8798–4] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability Of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

202–564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned 

to draft environmental impact 

statements (EISs) was published in FR 

dated July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34754). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20090083, ERP No. D–AFS– 

L65570–00, Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest, Motorized Vehicle 

Use, To Enact the Travel Management 

Rule, Implementation, Douglas, 

Klamath, Jackson, Curry, Coos and 

Josephine Counties, OR and Del Norte 

and Siskiyou Counties, CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the 

adequacy of information available to 

analyze the risk of exposure to naturally 

occurring asbestos. EPA also raised 

concerns related to provisions for 

dispersed recreation and 

implementation and adaptive 

management planning. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090124, ERP No. D–NOA– 

B91030–00, Amendment 16 to the 

Northwest Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan, Propose to Adopt, 

Approval and Implementation 

Measures to Continue Formal 

Rebuilding Program for Overfishing 

and to End Overfishing on those Stock 

where it’s Occurring, Gulf of Maine. 

Summary: EPA had no objections and 

offered minor comments on the DEIS. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20090223, ERP No. D–AFS– 

K65373–NV, Jarbidge Ranger District 

Rangeland Management Project, 

Proposed Reauthorizing Grazing on 21 

Existing Grazing Allotments, 

Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest, 

Elko County, NV. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the 

achievability of annual use indicators 

under the proposed action, and 

requested additional information on 

implementation and permittee 

compliance. EPA recommended more 

specific action be taken to protect 

stream banks and prevent noxious weed 

spread. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090250, ERP No. D–IBR– 

K39119–NV, Walker River Basin 

Acquisition Program, To Provide 

Water to Walker Lake, an at Risk 

Natural Desert Terminal Lake, 

Funding, Walker River Basin, NV. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the longterm feasibility of the water Acquisition 

Program given constrained water 

supplies and climate change; 

compliance with Total Maximum Daily 

Load requirements; and disclosure of 

mitigation measures. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090265, ERP No. D–AFS– 

L65576–ID, Clearwater National 

Forest Travel Planning Project, 

Proposes to Manage Motorized and 

Mechanized Travel within the 

1,827.380-Acre, Clearwater National 

Forest, Idaho, Clearwater, Latah and 

Shoshone Counties, ID. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about potential 

impacts to water quality, fisheries, 

riparian habitat and soils. EPA 

recommends the incorporation of 

additional water quality emphasis 

elements. Rating EC2. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20090304, ERP No. F–AFS– 

K65354–00, Inyo National Forest 

Motorized Travel Management 

Project, Implementation, Inyo, Mono, 

Fresno, Madera and Tulare Counties, 

CA and Mineral and Esmeralda 

Counties, NV. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about the scope 

of the travel management planning 

process and potential impacts from the 

designation of associated routes to water 

resources. 

EIS No. 20090305, ERP No. F–NOA– 

K39122–CA, ADOPTION— 

PROGRAMMATIC—South Bay Salt 

Pond Restoration Project, Restored 

Tidal Marsh, Managed Ponds, Flood 

Control Measures and Public Access 

Features, Don Edward San Francisco 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 

Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo 

Counties, CA. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

adoption of the FEIS. 

EIS No. 20090311, ERP No. F–USN– 

L11040–WA, Naval Base Kitsap— 

Bangor, Construct and Operate a 

Swimmer Interdiction Security 

System (SISS), Silverdale Kitsap 

County, WA. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

EIS No. 20090316, ERP No. F–FAA– 

A12046–00, PROGRAMMATIC— 

Streamlining the Processing of 

Experimental Permit Applications, 

Issuing Experimental Permits for the 

Launch and Reentry of Useable 

Suborbital Rockets. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

EIS No. 20090319, ERP No. F–USA– 

L11042–AK, U.S. Army Alaska 

(USARAK) Project, Proposes the 

Stationing and Training of Increased 

Aviation Assts, Fort Wainwright, 

Fairbank, AK. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed project. 

EIS No. 20090327, ERP No. F–STB– 

L59004–AK, Northern Rail Extension 

Project, Construct and Operate a Rail 

Line between North Pole and Delta 

Junction, AK. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about impacts 

to water quality and aquatic resources. 

EIS No. 20090053, ERP No. FS–COE– 

E32070–MS, Gulfport Harbor 

Navigation Channel Project, To 

Evaluate Proposed Construction of 

Authorized Improvements to the 

Gulfport Harbor, Harrison County, 

MS. 

Summary: While many of EPA’s 

concerns were resolved, EPA continues 

to have environmental concerns about 

impacts to biological resources. EPA 

also requested the MPRSA Section 103 

Evaluation and Sediment Testing Report 

to ensure that the disposal material 

meets the Ocean Dumping Criteria. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Ken Mittelholtz 

Deputy Director, NEPA Compliance Division, 

Office of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–24923 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES